It always boggles my mind when I'm reminded that some European countries that otherwise seem to have a better-than-average grasp on reality still have royalty. Maybe it's just my cultural milieu,...
It always boggles my mind when I'm reminded that some European countries that otherwise seem to have a better-than-average grasp on reality still have royalty. Maybe it's just my cultural milieu, but that seems weirdly atavistic for a Nordic country in this day and age.
Quite the contrary! It's especially Nordic to realize that we're almost certainly always going to be better off with royalty than ex-politicians as presidents or heads of state. A king like Harald...
Exemplary
Quite the contrary! It's especially Nordic to realize that we're almost certainly always going to be better off with royalty than ex-politicians as presidents or heads of state.
A king like Harald V as spent his entire life in service for uniting everyone in a country in ways non-royalty could never accomplish.
By nature of being deeply invested in human values, deeply invested in politics, but never in party politics or policy the regent's role has a completely different reach and impact than otherwise.
You just don't get the same impact if a president were to say:
Norwegians are girls who love girls, boys who love boys, and girls and boys who love each other. Norwegians believe in God, Allah, the Universe, and Nothing.
and
"Norway is above all people. Norwegians are from the north, south, and from all other regions of the country. Norwegians have also immigrated from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Poland, Sweden, Somalia and Syria. My grandparents immigrated from Denmark and England 110 years ago"
When a king who is not meant to rock the boat says this society changes. There is no political discussion. You recognize that this is a description of the reality of a country you cannot deny. Culture changes and progresses.
Any ex-politician or other elected president will never have the same ability to unify, and in a world where respect and unity are threatened, that's extremely important to have in your head of state.
Today Norway had moments of unity no president can provide:
89 years of openness, of selfless service, of hard work were met by respect. Parents showed their young children the Harald's body as his casket drove through Oslo. Those young children will tell their grandchildren about those memories.
There are generational perspectives at play. Harald follows his father and his father's father. The new king, Haakon VIII, will pass the torch to his daughter.
The royal family gains their legitimacy not by birth, but through generations of actions in service of their people.
And then we know we can just kick them out and pick a different system if that'll serve us better. Our Nordic democracies work. Our constitutions change when the people want them to.
I'm decidedly opposed to monarchy on principle and I don't necessarily agree with everything you say in this post, but I think in Norway's case it's also vital to consider the historical context...
I'm decidedly opposed to monarchy on principle and I don't necessarily agree with everything you say in this post, but I think in Norway's case it's also vital to consider the historical context for why they're so on-board with their own monarchy. Norway spent so long being owned by either Sweden or Denmark, without a king of their own, that getting their own monarch represented a lot when it comes to their own national identity and right to self-determination. I think that context adds a lot and makes the picture more complicated than just "divine right of kings vs. democracy". I similarly think that a return to the monarchy of Hawaii would be wildly different than, say, the continuation of the British monarchy. Monarchs are always at least in part symbols, and what they're symbols of varies a lot with context.
Technically all of these monarchies border the North Sea, except for micronations and Spain, and all of the monarchies have pretty high standards of living. Now, maybe the reason they still have...
grasp on reality
Technically all of these monarchies border the North Sea, except for micronations and Spain, and all of the monarchies have pretty high standards of living. Now, maybe the reason they still have royalty is precisely because citizens aren't dissatisfied to the point that enough people have something to blame on the royals, but it still means that having a monarchy isn't necessarily impeding the country from functioning well. If it works for them...
Also, the degree to which the monarchs actually run things is generally very low. Some places with good quality of life want a mascot family, and that seems ok as long as those mascots don't...
Also, the degree to which the monarchs actually run things is generally very low. Some places with good quality of life want a mascot family, and that seems ok as long as those mascots don't suddenly try anything antidemocratic and it's not dragging down the country.
Their political power is mostly ceremonial and know if they overstep their heads will roll*. I'm not necessarily happy with my head of state being a king, but as long as they keep their heads down...
Their political power is mostly ceremonial and know if they overstep their heads will roll*. I'm not necessarily happy with my head of state being a king, but as long as they keep their heads down and function as a grossly overpaid diplomat I'm not going to actively work against it.
There is always that underbelly feeling of injustice when they casually own multiple estates, receive an eye watering stipend when they turn 18 just because of their name, have multiple vacation homes, and some parts of the family have a stranglehold on housing real estate and are basically slum lords.
In other words, I agree with you. It's an outdated practice that is inequality at its core. After criticizing royalty from the UK, Norway, the Netherlands, you name it, you will always have someone defend them and say they bring in more money than they cost... but so far nobody has been able to quantify this.
I do have a little sympathy for them. The lives of royalty is as far away from normal as can be. That's as far as my sympathy goes. Funnily enough, my wish for them to live a normal live goes hand in hand with abolishing the crown altogether.
The monarchy “only” costs the UK public ~200m/year. From tourism affects alone, estimates range from 400-600m/yr in benefits to the British economy.
Then the controversial one: if you count the crown estates or not. If you do, it’s not even remotely close - the crown estates brings in well over a billion a year for the UK government. Of course, some people argue that the crown estates includes properties that the crown won by war, but then again all property in the UK was at some point wrested from some other lord on the wrong side of a civil war. You could also say that if the UK formally deposed the monarchy they would seize the crown estates anyway. Who knows how a lawsuit over a centuries old agreement between king and parliament would go, though.
Even if you don’t include the crown estates, it’s still relatively profitable for the UK, and if you do, it’s absurdly profitable for the UK.
You see, I don't believe that tourism number. You cannot tell me that 4-600 million is solely because people visit Buckingham Palace orso. It just doesn't sit right with me. It feels like it's a...
You see, I don't believe that tourism number. You cannot tell me that 4-600 million is solely because people visit Buckingham Palace orso. It just doesn't sit right with me. It feels like it's a justification after the fact.
How does that calculation work for estates? Is it just appreciation for being valuable assets?
Not to be trite, but I did see this response coming. I called it out because I find it irrelevant. The inequality that is inherent to a crown and what it represents is the problem.
I mean, there’s a difference between “no one has quantified the impact” and “people have quantified the impact but I refuse to believe them”. If it makes things more believable, remember that 500m...
I mean, there’s a difference between “no one has quantified the impact” and “people have quantified the impact but I refuse to believe them”.
If it makes things more believable, remember that 500m is not a lot of money. The UK has 147 billion dollars a year of tourism-related GDP. The royal family is not a significant portion of the UK’s tourism.
Disney World generates $36 billion a year in revenue. One Disney castle in Floridian swamps is 76x the royal family.
How does that calculation work for estates? Is it just appreciation for being valuable assets?
All the normal ways one makes money from land: rent, fees, and market appreciation, yes.
Not to be trite, but I did see this response coming. I called it out because I find it irrelevant. The inequality that is inherent to a crown and what it represents is the problem.
To be clear, this isn't a "defense" of the UK royal family. My point is more that the idea that no one has quantified the economic impact of the British Royal Family to be an absurd statement that is patently false - every inch of their every aspect of their lives has been examined somewhere or another. They're the kardashians of the UK. It's free real estate for views.
I don't think that's much of a stretch when those reports universally call their valuations an estimate. They have no way of actually quantifying the value of tourism because of the crown. There...
I mean, there’s a difference between “no one has quantified the impact” and “people have quantified the impact but I refuse to believe them”.
I don't think that's much of a stretch when those reports universally call their valuations an estimate. They have no way of actually quantifying the value of tourism because of the crown. There is quantifying, and there's assuming.
The tourism effects are estimates but the crown estates is a hard number. Either way, 500m is a pretty small number that I, at least, find pretty easily believable. Dumber things have had greater...
I don't think that's much of a stretch when those reports universally call their valuations an estimate.
The tourism effects are estimates but the crown estates is a hard number. Either way, 500m is a pretty small number that I, at least, find pretty easily believable. Dumber things have had greater increases on tourism.
So yeah, like you said. Those estates would generate money if they were seized.
I think you misunderstood the situation; they are already seized, in all but name. The Crown Estates is a vast amount of land that the Crown use to own. In order to settle debts, the King of England made a deal with parliament: Parliament would pay the King's debts, and guarantee the royal family a living stipend. In return, Parliament would own and operate the Crown Estates, and take all revenue from the land.
So the only hypothetical benefit to formally seizing them is not having to pay the Crown $200m/year in living expenses. Which, again, is not a lot of money at these scales.
Thanks for clarifying, like I mentioned I'm not fully aware of how that's handled in the UK. To the point of me calling it out in my initial post, I quite frankly do not care whether it's 200...
I think you misunderstood the situation; they are already seized, in all but name.
Thanks for clarifying, like I mentioned I'm not fully aware of how that's handled in the UK.
To the point of me calling it out in my initial post, I quite frankly do not care whether it's 200 million, 200 billion, or even 2 quid. My argument isn't about the monetary value. It's that the only defense to criticism of the crown is to pull the "but it's not expensive" card when in reality the problem lies in the fact we're still ruled by the nobility based on birthright. There should not be anyone more equal than another, yet here we are.
That's not to say there isn't a time and place to quantify their benefit to society in an economic sense. In fact, probably a good thing that's kept in check. Especially because it's so difficult to quantify.
One of our princes was nicknamed the "pandjesprins" because he owned a significant portfolio of houses. Bought with his Royal salary, and likely his name as collateral, so he could create a real estate cash crop. I don't know what the economic value is of that particular arrangement with regards to our nation's budget, but it highlights again that he had this opportunity because he was more privileged than a regular citizen.
@Promonk called it atavistic, I call it business as usual for European royalty. Their privileged use of a noble name doesn't harken back to the days of yore. It never stopped.
I guess we can leave it at there, since I don’t really care about the legitimacy of the monarchy. Like I said earlier, this isn’t a defense of the British crown. My point was entirely that it’s...
To the point of me calling it out in my initial post, I quite frankly do not care whether it's 200 million, 200 billion, or even 2 quid.
I guess we can leave it at there, since I don’t really care about the legitimacy of the monarchy. Like I said earlier, this isn’t a defense of the British crown.
My point was entirely that it’s pretty absurd to say that no one has quantified the economic impacts of the crown, when very very many people have quantified the economic impacts.
It’s like saying no one has studied the Bible - regardless of whether or not Christianity as an institution is good or bad, that’s just fundamentally not true. Every word has been scrutinized to an absurd extent.
I was feeling a bit under the weather yesterday so reading back I sound needlessly hostile. Apologies if I came across that way. I'm happy to let the discussion lie where we seem to disagree, but...
I was feeling a bit under the weather yesterday so reading back I sound needlessly hostile. Apologies if I came across that way.
I'm happy to let the discussion lie where we seem to disagree, but I do think the anecdote of the pandjesprins underscores how we do not have the ability to properly assess what the costs are. His upward price pressure on rent in the capital, as well as opportunity cost for other investors unable to capitalize on a noble name in markets the crown operates in makes for a difficult assessment.
Additionally, like I said, the costs remain mostly a crystal ball assessment of what part of tourism may or may not be part of the recuperation of cost. Clearly the UK crown seems to have done away with their holdings in all but name, that seems to change the calculation and perhaps in favour of the people. I'd be happy to concede this point. After all, I'd want the crown to be beneficial to the people instead of the other way around.
That said, and this is rather key for the Dutch crown that may not apply to other royalty: they do not pay wealth or property taxes. With just their significant holdings of stock in Shell and ABN Amro they have untaxed billions.
Back in 2010 the Dutch Parliament introduced a bill that intended to give insight in the costs of the crown with the clear intention to create transparency. However, what subsequent research found is that the costs of the crown have been obfuscated since the 1970s by moving costs between ministerial departments, with the specific intention to avoid criticism on the crown. So we haven't known anything about the costs until as recent as 2010, and that number is skewed by purposefully ignoring costs pertaining to security, palace upkeep, state visits, and it most certainly does not include any lost tax revenue based on their personal wealth. A report made by the (admittedly heavily biased) premier republican organisation in the country speculates the costs of the Dutch crown are at least triple of the stated yearly budget implies.
I see the Brand report you shared earlier says they include upkeep and security but I can't open the full report. Seems that 404d a while ago. That said, they list the TV series "The Crown" as an income source. Bit tenuous if you ask me but hey at least their count is more thorough than here in the Netherlands.
The Bible may have been scrutinized to an absurd extent, the costs of the crown have not. We simply have no method of accurately calculating lost tax revenue since their private holdings are just that, private. Therefore any official calculation is moot.
Of course no-one can quantify unquantifiables, like the monetary or utilitarian value of the level of trust in a society that a good head of state can underpin. Or how much crime or hate,...
Of course no-one can quantify unquantifiables, like the monetary or utilitarian value of the level of trust in a society that a good head of state can underpin.
Or how much crime or hate, loneliness, pain etc. is prevented by a head of state helping people be better versions of themselves and better compatriots to each other.
I believe royalty can accomplish things as heads of state that elected alternates can't.
The Norwegian royal family literally gains political and business access a non-royal head of state wouldn't.
Harald V literally called this bringing on the "snob factor".
As royalty, he could open doors a country of roughly 5 million people wouldn't be able to open due to being a king rather than a president.
Political doors, access to huge international businesses, securing Norwegian companies market access or meetings they'd otherwise never get.
This snob factor has been especially effective in The Middle East and Asia due to the position of royalty in those cultures.
Historically, there have been turning points in the country's situation too.
During the Second world War, the Norwegian royal family literally got presidential access in the US and prime ministerial access in the UK due to royalty having personal relationships letting them physically stay, live and mingle within the highest echelons of government, decades before Norway found oil or could even be considered a developed country.
The inequality of royalty is deeply unfair to the royal family itself who do not get to choose to be public figures, whose lives are not their own.
I'm sure we'll never get the public compensation right, but being a Nordic royal is no bed of roses.
I deeply, deeply believe a good monarch can provide benefits no elected head of state can by virtue of how democracy works (see other comment in this thread).
Yes I'm aware, which is why I called them grossly overpaid diplomats in my other post. I'm not disputing they have a function. I'm irked by the fact it goes against our ideals of people being...
Yes I'm aware, which is why I called them grossly overpaid diplomats in my other post. I'm not disputing they have a function. I'm irked by the fact it goes against our ideals of people being equal. Ruling through birthright is anything but.
It always boggles my mind when I'm reminded that some European countries that otherwise seem to have a better-than-average grasp on reality still have royalty. Maybe it's just my cultural milieu, but that seems weirdly atavistic for a Nordic country in this day and age.
Quite the contrary! It's especially Nordic to realize that we're almost certainly always going to be better off with royalty than ex-politicians as presidents or heads of state.
A king like Harald V as spent his entire life in service for uniting everyone in a country in ways non-royalty could never accomplish.
By nature of being deeply invested in human values, deeply invested in politics, but never in party politics or policy the regent's role has a completely different reach and impact than otherwise.
You just don't get the same impact if a president were to say:
and
in the same speech in 2016.
When a king who is not meant to rock the boat says this society changes. There is no political discussion. You recognize that this is a description of the reality of a country you cannot deny. Culture changes and progresses.
Any ex-politician or other elected president will never have the same ability to unify, and in a world where respect and unity are threatened, that's extremely important to have in your head of state.
Today Norway had moments of unity no president can provide:
89 years of openness, of selfless service, of hard work were met by respect. Parents showed their young children the Harald's body as his casket drove through Oslo. Those young children will tell their grandchildren about those memories.
There are generational perspectives at play. Harald follows his father and his father's father. The new king, Haakon VIII, will pass the torch to his daughter.
The royal family gains their legitimacy not by birth, but through generations of actions in service of their people.
And then we know we can just kick them out and pick a different system if that'll serve us better. Our Nordic democracies work. Our constitutions change when the people want them to.
I'm decidedly opposed to monarchy on principle and I don't necessarily agree with everything you say in this post, but I think in Norway's case it's also vital to consider the historical context for why they're so on-board with their own monarchy. Norway spent so long being owned by either Sweden or Denmark, without a king of their own, that getting their own monarch represented a lot when it comes to their own national identity and right to self-determination. I think that context adds a lot and makes the picture more complicated than just "divine right of kings vs. democracy". I similarly think that a return to the monarchy of Hawaii would be wildly different than, say, the continuation of the British monarchy. Monarchs are always at least in part symbols, and what they're symbols of varies a lot with context.
Technically all of these monarchies border the North Sea, except for micronations and Spain, and all of the monarchies have pretty high standards of living. Now, maybe the reason they still have royalty is precisely because citizens aren't dissatisfied to the point that enough people have something to blame on the royals, but it still means that having a monarchy isn't necessarily impeding the country from functioning well. If it works for them...
Also, the degree to which the monarchs actually run things is generally very low. Some places with good quality of life want a mascot family, and that seems ok as long as those mascots don't suddenly try anything antidemocratic and it's not dragging down the country.
Technically Sweden and Luxembourg are neither on the North Sea nor microstates.
Their political power is mostly ceremonial and know if they overstep their heads will roll*. I'm not necessarily happy with my head of state being a king, but as long as they keep their heads down and function as a grossly overpaid diplomat I'm not going to actively work against it.
There is always that underbelly feeling of injustice when they casually own multiple estates, receive an eye watering stipend when they turn 18 just because of their name, have multiple vacation homes, and some parts of the family have a stranglehold on housing real estate and are basically slum lords.
In other words, I agree with you. It's an outdated practice that is inequality at its core. After criticizing royalty from the UK, Norway, the Netherlands, you name it, you will always have someone defend them and say they bring in more money than they cost... but so far nobody has been able to quantify this.
I do have a little sympathy for them. The lives of royalty is as far away from normal as can be. That's as far as my sympathy goes. Funnily enough, my wish for them to live a normal live goes hand in hand with abolishing the crown altogether.
*Probably figuratively
At least for the UK this is something that has been extensively estimated and quantified. This is a random one from Google https://brandfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/1/brand_finance_monarchy_press_release.pdf
The monarchy “only” costs the UK public ~200m/year. From tourism affects alone, estimates range from 400-600m/yr in benefits to the British economy.
Then the controversial one: if you count the crown estates or not. If you do, it’s not even remotely close - the crown estates brings in well over a billion a year for the UK government. Of course, some people argue that the crown estates includes properties that the crown won by war, but then again all property in the UK was at some point wrested from some other lord on the wrong side of a civil war. You could also say that if the UK formally deposed the monarchy they would seize the crown estates anyway. Who knows how a lawsuit over a centuries old agreement between king and parliament would go, though.
Even if you don’t include the crown estates, it’s still relatively profitable for the UK, and if you do, it’s absurdly profitable for the UK.
You see, I don't believe that tourism number. You cannot tell me that 4-600 million is solely because people visit Buckingham Palace orso. It just doesn't sit right with me. It feels like it's a justification after the fact.
How does that calculation work for estates? Is it just appreciation for being valuable assets?
Not to be trite, but I did see this response coming. I called it out because I find it irrelevant. The inequality that is inherent to a crown and what it represents is the problem.
I mean, there’s a difference between “no one has quantified the impact” and “people have quantified the impact but I refuse to believe them”.
If it makes things more believable, remember that 500m is not a lot of money. The UK has 147 billion dollars a year of tourism-related GDP. The royal family is not a significant portion of the UK’s tourism.
Disney World generates $36 billion a year in revenue. One Disney castle in Floridian swamps is 76x the royal family.
All the normal ways one makes money from land: rent, fees, and market appreciation, yes.
To be clear, this isn't a "defense" of the UK royal family. My point is more that the idea that no one has quantified the economic impact of the British Royal Family to be an absurd statement that is patently false - every inch of their every aspect of their lives has been examined somewhere or another. They're the kardashians of the UK. It's free real estate for views.
I don't think that's much of a stretch when those reports universally call their valuations an estimate. They have no way of actually quantifying the value of tourism because of the crown. There is quantifying, and there's assuming.
So yeah, like you said. Those estates would generate money if they were seized. I'm not entirely keen on how the UK royals use their estates but the Dutch family happily skirted corona rules to enjoy their private beach property in Greece.
If my constitution tells me everyone is equal except you know, the king and stuff, it all rings a bit hollow.
The tourism effects are estimates but the crown estates is a hard number. Either way, 500m is a pretty small number that I, at least, find pretty easily believable. Dumber things have had greater increases on tourism.
I think you misunderstood the situation; they are already seized, in all but name. The Crown Estates is a vast amount of land that the Crown use to own. In order to settle debts, the King of England made a deal with parliament: Parliament would pay the King's debts, and guarantee the royal family a living stipend. In return, Parliament would own and operate the Crown Estates, and take all revenue from the land.
So the only hypothetical benefit to formally seizing them is not having to pay the Crown $200m/year in living expenses. Which, again, is not a lot of money at these scales.
Thanks for clarifying, like I mentioned I'm not fully aware of how that's handled in the UK.
To the point of me calling it out in my initial post, I quite frankly do not care whether it's 200 million, 200 billion, or even 2 quid. My argument isn't about the monetary value. It's that the only defense to criticism of the crown is to pull the "but it's not expensive" card when in reality the problem lies in the fact we're still ruled by the nobility based on birthright. There should not be anyone more equal than another, yet here we are.
That's not to say there isn't a time and place to quantify their benefit to society in an economic sense. In fact, probably a good thing that's kept in check. Especially because it's so difficult to quantify.
One of our princes was nicknamed the "pandjesprins" because he owned a significant portfolio of houses. Bought with his Royal salary, and likely his name as collateral, so he could create a real estate cash crop. I don't know what the economic value is of that particular arrangement with regards to our nation's budget, but it highlights again that he had this opportunity because he was more privileged than a regular citizen.
@Promonk called it atavistic, I call it business as usual for European royalty. Their privileged use of a noble name doesn't harken back to the days of yore. It never stopped.
I guess we can leave it at there, since I don’t really care about the legitimacy of the monarchy. Like I said earlier, this isn’t a defense of the British crown.
My point was entirely that it’s pretty absurd to say that no one has quantified the economic impacts of the crown, when very very many people have quantified the economic impacts.
It’s like saying no one has studied the Bible - regardless of whether or not Christianity as an institution is good or bad, that’s just fundamentally not true. Every word has been scrutinized to an absurd extent.
I was feeling a bit under the weather yesterday so reading back I sound needlessly hostile. Apologies if I came across that way.
I'm happy to let the discussion lie where we seem to disagree, but I do think the anecdote of the pandjesprins underscores how we do not have the ability to properly assess what the costs are. His upward price pressure on rent in the capital, as well as opportunity cost for other investors unable to capitalize on a noble name in markets the crown operates in makes for a difficult assessment.
Additionally, like I said, the costs remain mostly a crystal ball assessment of what part of tourism may or may not be part of the recuperation of cost. Clearly the UK crown seems to have done away with their holdings in all but name, that seems to change the calculation and perhaps in favour of the people. I'd be happy to concede this point. After all, I'd want the crown to be beneficial to the people instead of the other way around.
That said, and this is rather key for the Dutch crown that may not apply to other royalty: they do not pay wealth or property taxes. With just their significant holdings of stock in Shell and ABN Amro they have untaxed billions.
Back in 2010 the Dutch Parliament introduced a bill that intended to give insight in the costs of the crown with the clear intention to create transparency. However, what subsequent research found is that the costs of the crown have been obfuscated since the 1970s by moving costs between ministerial departments, with the specific intention to avoid criticism on the crown. So we haven't known anything about the costs until as recent as 2010, and that number is skewed by purposefully ignoring costs pertaining to security, palace upkeep, state visits, and it most certainly does not include any lost tax revenue based on their personal wealth. A report made by the (admittedly heavily biased) premier republican organisation in the country speculates the costs of the Dutch crown are at least triple of the stated yearly budget implies.
I see the Brand report you shared earlier says they include upkeep and security but I can't open the full report. Seems that 404d a while ago. That said, they list the TV series "The Crown" as an income source. Bit tenuous if you ask me but hey at least their count is more thorough than here in the Netherlands.
The Bible may have been scrutinized to an absurd extent, the costs of the crown have not. We simply have no method of accurately calculating lost tax revenue since their private holdings are just that, private. Therefore any official calculation is moot.
Of course no-one can quantify unquantifiables, like the monetary or utilitarian value of the level of trust in a society that a good head of state can underpin.
Or how much crime or hate, loneliness, pain etc. is prevented by a head of state helping people be better versions of themselves and better compatriots to each other.
I believe royalty can accomplish things as heads of state that elected alternates can't.
The Norwegian royal family literally gains political and business access a non-royal head of state wouldn't.
Harald V literally called this bringing on the "snob factor".
As royalty, he could open doors a country of roughly 5 million people wouldn't be able to open due to being a king rather than a president.
Political doors, access to huge international businesses, securing Norwegian companies market access or meetings they'd otherwise never get.
This snob factor has been especially effective in The Middle East and Asia due to the position of royalty in those cultures.
Historically, there have been turning points in the country's situation too.
During the Second world War, the Norwegian royal family literally got presidential access in the US and prime ministerial access in the UK due to royalty having personal relationships letting them physically stay, live and mingle within the highest echelons of government, decades before Norway found oil or could even be considered a developed country.
The inequality of royalty is deeply unfair to the royal family itself who do not get to choose to be public figures, whose lives are not their own.
I'm sure we'll never get the public compensation right, but being a Nordic royal is no bed of roses.
I deeply, deeply believe a good monarch can provide benefits no elected head of state can by virtue of how democracy works (see other comment in this thread).
Yes I'm aware, which is why I called them grossly overpaid diplomats in my other post. I'm not disputing they have a function. I'm irked by the fact it goes against our ideals of people being equal. Ruling through birthright is anything but.