Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Zuzara_The_DnD_Queen t1_iug7f9u wrote

Reply to comment by Alsupy in South Africa's new Zulu king officially recognised by government by HRJafael

….the Zulu tribe monarchy actively participates in parliament

They actually do advocate in parliament for their tribesman, unlike the British monarchy

Edit: awww wee baby that was arguing with me blocked me after responding to two more of my comments. Cute ☺️

98

Pale_Native t1_iuha1t1 wrote

This isn't really true though, the Zulu monarch has no political power or defined function outside of having asset influence over the government because the monarch inherits around 3 million hectares of land and around R60 million worth of budgeting. None of those assets are obligated to generate income for the country and there is no formal system garunteeing something akin to a sovereign grant / civil list. We learned about this in South African high school.

You mentioned the British monarchy but that's a bad example because it does actually have a moderational function under a constitutional monarchy and the Westminster System. The British monarchy is known to generate around £1-2bn for the country per year while only costing each civilian around £1-3 per year.

Edit: sorry I've just seen some of your other replies and you seem to be actively spreading misinformation.

Why did you say the role is not inherited? It is, it is only complicated (and there is a current divide about Misuzulu Zulu) because the Zulu king has multiple wives and many offspring. The role will pass to a familial descendant.

You also say that the Zulu king reigns for two five year terms, this is also false (the South African president serves for that period) the Zulu king doesn't have limits to his reign. The previous king reigned from 1968-2021

11

HerbalGamer t1_iuhhdly wrote

The thing about the royals bringing in money has been debunked though.

Lego land in Windsor brings in more tourists.

3

smcgregor93 t1_iuho802 wrote

the royal family don't bring in money, tourists are there to see buildings - that's it - you're aware people never actually "see" them, right? France for example, has no royals, yet they absolutely crush the UK in tourism to the same sites. why do you think that is?

they open parliament and stamp laws, or if they're in Scotland, freely exempt themselves from environmental laws and equality&diversity hiring laws - and that's honestly it - sometimes with a little bit of charity to keep the peasants happy

they do fuck all

1

Zuzara_The_DnD_Queen t1_iuht0fs wrote

Reading comprehension was not on your list of things to learn, huh?

I was talking about the political role the Zulu monarchy tend to get in parliament

The current Zulu royal in parliament is Mangosuthu Buthelezi

0

Pale_Native t1_iuhutz4 wrote

You can be as sassy as you want, but unless you want to re-word what you have written, the things you have written are objectively misinformation. My intention here is completely objective and the South African kingdoms (especially the modern renditions of them) have been well documented from many sources ranging from local records, university records even so far as international collections like Wikipedia. Again as I said (and I could use your sass about comprehension here), the monarch has influence due to the assets it inherits, not because it is formed under a system such as a constitutional monarchy. In fact, a formal monarchy system wouldn't be reasonable in South Africa due to the fact that currently 7 different monarchies are recognised. The Zulu kingdom currently holds the spoken majority of the population.

1

Zuzara_The_DnD_Queen t1_iuhv5gu wrote

What are you even going on about?

I’m not discussing whether or not they’re a constitutional monarchy, all I said was that there are member of Zulu royalty in parliament. Cause there are. And that they tend to get these kids of roles with ease because they are cultural leaders. Which they do and are.

1

Pale_Native t1_iuhxjk3 wrote

The point I'm trying to make is that you were being misleading. You mentioned the advocacy for their tribesman as a comparison to the British monarchy (hence formalised constitutional monarchy). The ~R60 million budget is given for maintainance of the Zulu royal institution, there is no formal obligation to the Zulu people. As is more a convention of South African politics as whole and not just the Zulu monarchy, there is corruption present and normal Zulu communities don't benefit from the political budget outside of perhaps cultural celebrations which evidently only the elite partake in in any case. I.e the obligation is removed because we don't have a formal monarchy system, the country is purely a presidential republic.

What you wrote about the advocacy, the inheritance and the terms were all misleading.

0

Zuzara_The_DnD_Queen t1_iuhxqly wrote

The terms? You mean the terms in parliament?

Was I wrong about how long a term in parliament is?

2

Pale_Native t1_iui0lsw wrote

Yes, assuming you were either talking about the king himself or his parliamentary representative (the traditional prime minister) neither have a term limit. The previous king served from 1948-2021 and the current traditional prime minister has held his position since 1954. The two five year terms that you mentioned in one of your other comments applies to our elected president.

1

demigodsgotdraft t1_iugcmtk wrote

An unelected leader having a say in government. Yes, so much better that.

−40

Zuzara_The_DnD_Queen t1_iugd6ii wrote

The position isn’t inherited.

As a cultural leader they easily gain the role but they still have to be elected into the ANC and the position

39

demigodsgotdraft t1_iugmadp wrote

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Misuzulu_Zulu

>Immediately after the death of King Misuzulu's father, historians and cultural experts predicted that King Misuzulu would be the one appointed to the throne, as he was the son of the late King and the late King's Great Wife, giving him increased status among the late King's other 28 children.[11] At the time, some senior members of the royal family called the debate over succession "premature".[7] At King Goodwill Zwelithini's funeral service, the late king's sister, Princess Thembi Ndlovu stated that the Royal Family did not yet know who the next king would be and that the individual would be "chosen by God".[12]

>On 29 April 2021, approximately 7 weeks after the death of King Goodwill Zwelithini, Queen Regent Mantfombi Dlamini herself died from an unspecified illness, without having publicly appointed the next Zulu monarch.[13] However, on 7 May 2021, at the public reading of the late Queen's will, it emerged that she had appointed King Misuzulu as the next king of the Zulu nation.[14] The announcement was met with protest from certain members of the royal family and King Misuzulu, present at the reading of the will, was escorted away to safety by the South African Police Service and a security detail from eSwatini.[14][15]

Yeah there's nothing about election there. Full of shit you guys are.

−19

Zuzara_The_DnD_Queen t1_iugmog5 wrote

Other people can run for the position, non-Zulu tribe royalty people

18

demigodsgotdraft t1_iuh480x wrote

Yeah, you're already wrong. Just admit you're wrong.

−6

Zuzara_The_DnD_Queen t1_iuht9py wrote

No thank you

0

Alsupy t1_iugdsdd wrote

And they stay in that position for how long? How very democratic. No graft going there.

−59

Zuzara_The_DnD_Queen t1_iugdx34 wrote

Two 5 year terms

48

Hairy-Owl-5567 t1_iuggoes wrote

I am lol'ing at this person who's clearly done zero research on the topic tripping over their dick with gotcha questions and being politely shut down with facts. Delightful. A+ internetting.

60

Zawn-_- t1_iuglbkk wrote

Same, this is great fun to read.

18

demigodsgotdraft t1_iugmhe1 wrote

Show me where there's an election here. All I see is a disputed will. Turns out you're the one full of shit that didn't do research.

−42

Zuzara_The_DnD_Queen t1_iuhtugw wrote

…why are you unable to differentiate between parliament and the Zulu monarchy.

You get that they’re two separate things, right?

2

APsWhoopinRoom t1_iugt2zu wrote

I absolutely love how you've clearly done no research on the situation whatsoever, yet you inexplicably hold a strong opinion on the matter. Why are you reaching so hard for something to be upset about?

25

Pale_Native t1_iuhb3ui wrote

But the user getting upvotes is actively spreading misinformation. We learn about this stuff in the South African high school syllabus and the things she is saying is nearly the opposite of reality.

5