Isn't monarchy a type of slavery?

I watched the film "Amistad" recently and it got me to thinking about monarchy and how it may be a type of slavery.

Can we call being born into a job where you have no choice but to do the job as a child anything but slavery? The Queen of Spain was 11 years old when the Amistad incident happened, BTW.

At the time the Queen of Spain had the title "Her Catholic Majesty the Queen of Spain" which means that not only did she have no choice over her job, she didn't even have the right to choose her own religion. Her religion came with her job and she had no choice in any of it.

In analyzing all of this, I came to an understanding of what a "gilded cage" really is. Sure, 99% of the world would love to have that job but it's still slavery IMHO.

You can't quit being a queen. It's in your blood, literally. Even if you tried to quit, you would still be the queen legally speaking.

There is no way out of the position and therefore it's slavery IMHO.

a reply to: Profusion

I think you're right. Technically, one can abdicate their throne, which is how Queen Elizabeth became queen (when her brother abdicated); but I'm sure doing so has its downside too. "Gilded cage"... yes.... yes indeed.

What struck me about your OP though is that we can all create our own gilded cage so to speak. I know people who have been very successful in their careers, who have made themselves a slave to their job... their wealth... their position.... in various ways.

It's really quite sad to think about.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I think you're right. Technically, one can abdicate their throne, which is how Queen Elizabeth became queen (when her brother abdicated);

In fact her father's brother was the one who abdicated, giving way to her father.
Other abdications in history have included Christina of Sweden (who just got fed up with it) and the Emperor Charles V (who felt old and wanted to retire).

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Profusion

I think you're right. Technically, one can abdicate their throne, which is how Queen Elizabeth became queen (when her brother abdicated); but I'm sure doing so has its downside too. "Gilded cage"... yes.... yes indeed.

What struck me about your OP though is that we can all create our own gilded cage so to speak. I know people who have been very successful in their careers, who have made themselves a slave to their job... their wealth... their position.... in various ways.

It's really quite sad to think about.

I remember the look and comment of Prince Harry when asked by the BBC (during his Afgan tour) what did it feel like to be relegated to 4th in line after the birth of Prince George ......... "Good" ....... priceless, a totally down to earth and topper guy

CbG

a reply to: Profusion

You can't quit being a queen. It's in your blood, literally. Even if you tried to quit, you would still be the queen legally speaking.

There is no way out of the position and therefore it's slavery IMHO.

As someone mentioned, you can abdicate the throne. But lets be realistic for a second, the slaves back then were not the royals. My god. You cannot argue being born into a life of privilege is slavery. Yes they have to hold certain beliefs, and pander to certain things, thats how it worked.

In return they got to live in palaces and have absolute authority over their peers, regarded to near deity status. Money, power, everything, the world was their oyster and all that.

Plenty of people born into these families couldn't fit in, didnt like the lifestyle, whatever. They would fall out and someone would take their place.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: Profusion

You can't quit being a queen. It's in your blood, literally. Even if you tried to quit, you would still be the queen legally speaking.

There is no way out of the position and therefore it's slavery IMHO.

As someone mentioned, you can abdicate the throne. But lets be realistic for a second, the slaves back then were not the royals. My god. You cannot argue being born into a life of privilege is slavery. Yes they have to hold certain beliefs, and pander to certain things, thats how it worked.

In return they got to live in palaces and have absolute authority over their peers, regarded to near deity status. Money, power, everything, the world was their oyster and all that.

Plenty of people born into these families couldn't fit in, didnt like the lifestyle, whatever. They would fall out and someone would take their place.

Let's continue to examine the case of Isabella II:

Madrid in 1830, the eldest daughter of King Ferdinand VII of Spain, and of his fourth wife and niece, Maria Christina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. Queen Maria Christina became regent on 29 September 1833, when her three-year-old daughter Isabella was proclaimed sovereign on the death of the king.
en.wikipedia.org...

How is that not slavery? If you're going to claim that that isn't slavery then you explain to me how a child can consent to a contract.

I'm sure you're aware of the following:

Who Can Enter Into a Contract?
Having the "capacity to contract" means the person who signs a contract has the ability to understand what they are getting into. Typically, a person must be of the legal age of majority in the state the contract is entered into as well as mentally and physically able to read and understand the terms of the agreement. If an adult or business signs a contract with someone who is too young, the minor may be able to disaffirm, or walk away from, the contract with little to no legal consequences.
www.ehow.com...

What you're saying is that the above doesn't apply to monarchs. How? Why?

How is giving a child a job (which they have no legal or ethical right to accept as they can't legally or ethically contract to anything) not anything but forcing them into slavery?

We're not talking about paying somebody to mow your loan, we're talking about a 24/7 position of power. Under no circumstances could a child legally or ethically consent to that.

Yeah it must be terrible to be born into a family with wealth and connections like that , I think you're right they are slaves and we should do the decent thing and liberate them from their shackles , we should let them roam free amongst the peoples of the world.


Vive la republique.

You're discussing what the definition of the word 'slavery' is. Does it include taking orders or is it just being tied down to a contract. Words don't have definitions written in stone. They mean what you want them to mean. The person using the word gets to choose which shade of meaning they want. So to paraphrase your question: "Do I or somebody else using the word 'slavery' want to have it mean mandatory destitution or not". You can answer it yourself.

a reply to: boncho

Ask a princess who was married off to a man perhaps twice her age or as old as her father whom she had never seen in a land foreign to her in order to cement an alliance how wonderful her life was.

You are making the assumption that material things are what make one happy.

a reply to: StanFL

The word 'slave' has a very specific meaning. A slave is property. A slave is owned.

Nobody owns a royal. On the contrary, they (theoretically) own everything in the states they rule; the private property of others is held at the ruler's pleasure and may be expropriated if he or she sees fit. Hence taxation.

I agree that it must be dreadful to have no career choices in life, but that is hardly slavery.

By the way, child monarchs usually had regents to do their ruling for them (see Prince Joffrey in A Game of Thrones, or his real-life model, Henry III of England). Isabella II had two: first her mother, Maria Cristina of the Two Sicilies, then Baldomero Espartero, Prince of Vergara, who was quite a progressive fellow.

originally posted by: Astyanax
The word 'slave' has a very specific meaning. A slave is property. A slave is owned.

True, but people talk loosely about "wage slavery", which doesn't fit that definition either.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Wage slavery is only a metaphor for having to work long and hard for an inadequate living.

Consider indentured labour. The conditions of indenture are often indistinguishable from slavery; in many cases, especially in the past, it could amount to the employer's temporary ownership of the labourer. However, the distinction is still made; indentured labourers are not slaves, even though they may owe their souls to the company store (as the song has it).

I like words to retain their meanings. It is particularly important in this case, I think, because slavery is such an utterly abominable institution. Yes, many people find themselves trapped by circumstances — circumstances which may be exacerbated by unfair or exploitative laws, economic systems and customs — to the point where they feel they might as well be slaves. Yet there is a profound difference between such a condition and actual slavery.

'No man is free who needs air to breathe' is an old and perhaps apocryphal proverb, but it delineates a reality. Still, that does not make all men slaves.

In what way was it different to anybody else born then and there? Unlike the person born to a village blacksmith, the monarch had a chance to better themselves by waging war against thier neighbours and acquiring his possesions, and all with impunity (unless they lost).

originally posted by: Cinrad
In what way was it different to anybody else born then and there? Unlike the person born to a village blacksmith, the monarch had a chance to better themselves by waging war against thier neighbours and acquiring his possesions, and all with impunity (unless they lost).

FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM. William Wallace 1305 (Not Mel Gibson)



Funny isn't it, he was classed as a terrorist in his day, 710 years later we still label people with different views to mainstream as terrorists, who's right, who's wrong? In the case of America, you are always right, enough said its my age,i have lived it. How would you feel if you were infiltrated, i'm sure some form of defence would take form (terrorism not nationalism), the French Resistance were terrorists to the Nazi's in the 1940's, the list goes on and on. Perhaps James Corbyn is the modern day William Wallace, who knows, who cares! we live our lives day to day, YOU will not influence tomorrows world in 3015 one iota, you may be remembered if you are lucky, influence? leave it to the bankers and monarchy

He who writes history is ........................ insert answer

CbG

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

That's quite an edit, but are you on topic?

I think the OP was asking whether monarchy was slavery. It is; but not for the monarch.

In a sense the monarch is "owned" by the people.
But they can abdicate and walk away and maintain a life of privilege .

I wouldn't say slavery.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Good point. Actually, non-constitutional monarchs couldn't abdicate. What some did was delegate the job of ruling to a trusted counsellor.

Some rulers couldn't be bothered to rule. The Emperor Tiberius — who was not, incidentally, a monarch but an 'acclaimed' leader — spent the last eleven years in his villa at Capri, doing unspeakable things to little children.

Hi, no-monarch fans !

As the OP reasoned, the peoples in monarchy are a litlle bit slaves of their world.

____BUT, think about it. . . HOW did they get THAT rich ?? Wellll,
by being ##_parasites_## of the society !! They lived on the works/sweat
of ALL the small peoples around them !!

Very little of them worked for their money. It was all forcebly taken. . .

Right?

Blue skies.