Historical filth- The case against hereditary monarcy

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The prospect that should their offspring prove to be offensive and money-grabbing little tosspots they could be voted out in short order. Next question?

[Saint Marcus]

They don't have any power? How bad can they make things?

You're reasoning does not make sense whatsoever. Yes, everyone knows absolutist monarchies suck, and everyone knows Britain sucks, but the constitutional monarchy does function very well in a number of countries, like Holland and Sweden.

The only argument you have against them is that you have a personal aversion of monarchies. Did you have a traumatic experience when you were little that somehow involved the British royal family?

[germanos]

The monarchy in Holland does not work one bit.
AWAY with THEM

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
They don't have any power? How bad can they make things?

You're reasoning does not make sense whatsoever. Yes, everyone knows absolutist monarchies suck, and everyone knows Britain sucks, but the constitutional monarchy does function very well in a number of countries, like Holland and Sweden.

The only argument you have against them is that you have a personal aversion of monarchies. Did you have a traumatic experience when you were little that somehow involved the British royal family?

Let's examine your own reasoning, SM. The only justification you're offering for the Dutch monarchy is that at the moment they're reasonably well-behaved, they are less expensive than something obscenely expensive and have no actual power. Are you familiar with the expression "to damn with faint praise"?

To introduce a possibility- would you continue to be happy with monarchies if your next King/Queen starts raping children? Would you happily respect their hereditary right to be your monarch?

My reasoning is that hereditary monarchies are unsatisfactory because they offer no democratic involvement and have no mechanism for removing bad monarchs who refuse to abdicate, short of revolution.

You aren't actually disputing that. You're saying that Dutch and Swedish monarchs are well-behaved. If you think my reasoning sucks, why are you not challenging it?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Interesting. Queen Beatrice's husband used to be in the Hitler Youth. I wonder if that might have cost her a few theoretical votes, if the Dutch electorate had any say in the matter.

Ooooh! What's this? "Prince Bernhard" and "bribery scandal"?

[germanos]

I will support my rejection of the Constitutional Monarchy with some 'case stusies' regarding the Dutch Monarchy. Apart from the fact that the Netherlands has a longer history of being a Republic then a Monarchy (respectively from the insurrection to Spanish Monarchs from 1568 to 1804, and Monarchs from 1804 untill now) thus heridetary rule can be disputed just by that.

I need only point out three cases in the post-WW II period, where it is clear IMO that the Monarchs DO have power, and this leads to big trouble.

In 1948 the grandmother of the current Dutch Queen abdicated. This was to a large degree triggered by the fact that she had been pressing for a less restricted role in politics than the constitution granted her. During her exile in London during the second worldwar, she had grown quite fond of her power, and the fact she had been able to rule without the influence of an elected Parliament and Cabinet. The newly reinstated Parliament were (offcorse) opposed to to a truly Reigning Queen, and the Queen was not prepared to take the old 'Powerless' position.

Her daughter became at some point during her Reign under the influence of a woman who was a sort of paragnost (or something like that). The Queen, who had given birth to a blind daughter previuosly, put a lot of trust in this women, and this led to several conflicts in the domestic area with her husband (also quite influential in the political Arena) and the Government. The Queen was heavily involved in several political disputes, and made governing quite a difficult task. Offcourse the whole heridatary aspect here made it very difficult to get rid of her.

This year the Crownprince got married. This has lead to great disputes in the government, since he fell in love with a girl who's father had been an important burocrate in the Argentinian Junta of Videla. So the whole circus of political (in)signifacance of this fact started, accompanied by the occasional 'faux pas' of the crownprince who saw his beautifull bride wretched from his hands by all this political bickering. In the end, the government dicide we had to get a safeguard from the Royal Family allowing in some way a dictatorial sentiment in their midst, and offcourse Holland was the great supporter of Human Rights Worldwide blablabla, and the best way to show the Dutch conceirn for human Rights was found in DISALLOWING THE FATHER TO ATTEND THE WEDDING! Pfew,what a marvelous feat!

So much for the Dutch Monarchy having no influence in Dutch Politics!
I would like to point out to Saint Markus that at the moment FOUR members of the Royal Family have the constitutional right to attend meetings of the 'Raad van State', the most influential non-elected body to advise the Government,and in the end the highest constitutional Court in the Netherlands. It has to be said they have no voting rights, but they have the right to speak in this body, so they have definately influence. By constitution the Royals that have rights to attend the deliberations of this Body are: the King, his or her spouse, the Crownprince and his or her spouse.

I say: get rid of them, if they are that great, they should get themselfes elected in Parliament, and who knows,they might end up being Prime-minister.

edit: Ron Jeremy: You don't have to look to the spouses our Royals choose, they are perfectly capable of ****ing up themselves

[moomin]

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
My reasoning is that hereditary monarchies are unsatisfactory because they offer no democratic involvement and have no mechanism for removing bad monarchs who refuse to abdicate, short of revolution.

Your reasoning is faulty, because you obviously haven't taken the time to look beyond the UK situation. In Sweden, for instance, if we wanna lose the king all we need is one election and a majority in the parliament voting for it before and after said election. It needen't even be a qualified majority.

The fact that our parliament has been dominated by the Social Democrats - who have a change to republic officially stated as a goal in their party program - for the best part of 80 years without that happening should give a hit to just how popular such a move would be.

But should crown princess Victoria start to molest children after ascending to the throne, we'll probably give her a kick. Unless political correctness has managed to include pedophiles among the oppressed sexual minorities by then, of course.

So you really need a revolution not to end up with a tampoon for head of state? Perhaps you need one then. But get off other European cases.

[chequita guevara]

Feelthy monarchist.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper

Your reasoning is faulty, because you obviously haven't taken the time to look beyond the UK situation. In Sweden, for instance, if we wanna lose the king all we need is one election and a majority in the parliament voting for it before and after said election. It needen't even be a qualified majority.

Moomin, dear heart, much as I'd love to look up the minutiae of minor nations I prefer to look at those capable at providing some degree of entertainment and from what I've seen of the Swedish monarchy of recent years I'd recommend it only to people who get dangerously over-stimulated by a cup of milky tea.

Besides, you're again calling my reasoning on hereditary monarchy faulty, but aren't challenging it. The Swedish situation may be an exception, but exceptions to to indicate the existance of rules, or at least overriding trends. Seeing as the Swedish monarchy was basically gifted to someone on a "you'll do" basis in recent years (by dynastic standards), to say nothing of the democratic safeguards, most traditional monarchies wouldn't recognise Sweden as being one.

[Stefu]

I think Swedish parliament is just not throwing the King out because they, as a bunch of glasses-wearing weenies, just can't bring themselves to bring down Kaarle XVI Kustaa, the biggest cheese of Swedish glasses-wearing weeniedom.