Historical filth- The case against hereditary monarcy

[SnowFire]

St. Marcus, re: Prez vs. Monarch: You seem to be assuming the President is useless. Then why get one? The real comparison should then be between Monarch and "nothing," in which nothing's costs are clearly less.

mindseye: Don't miss out this time! I know everytime I see a Historical Filth, I copy it, paste it into notepad, save it onto my hard drive, add "by Peter Ingraham," send it off to an important magazine, and collect my check for fabulous amounts of money. You should all do the same!

[Saint Marcus]

The real comparison should then be between Monarch and "nothing," in which nothing's costs are clearly less.

It would even cost us money. The Queen and family pay taxes. And a quite substantial amount at that. The main cost the taxpayer has to pay up, are for upkeep of the palaces and the like. These magnificent buildings would have to be kept up regardless if we had a monarchy or not.

To the extent that a president with the whole exective power is "better" than a PM elected by paliament, the constitutional monarchies of Europe actually impose a very high cost.

Why on earth do you believe a president is better than a PM? Because the people can chose him directly? That also doesn't hold, since we are looking into the possibility of a directly elected PM (and idea I very much oppose btw). Other than that, a PM and president have the same powers, the same job. So please back up your claim by some arguments.

[Ecthy]

Saint Marcus, they would also pay taxes if they were mere mortals

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


It would even cost us money. The Queen and family pay taxes. And a quite substantial amount at that. The main cost the taxpayer has to pay up, are for upkeep of the palaces and the like. These magnificent buildings would have to be kept up regardless if we had a monarchy or not.



Why on earth do you believe a president is better than a PM? Because the people can chose him directly? That also doesn't hold, since we are looking into the possibility of a directly elected PM (and idea I very much oppose btw). Other than that, a PM and president have the same powers, the same job. So please back up your claim by some arguments.

Let's put it this way, are there any presidents where there are constitutional monarchs. I don't believe so. So monarchies do stand in the way of a strong, independently elected executive.

Whether this is a superior form of government is a separate debate. But it is clear that the post of PM evolved because there was a monarch. (Question for all, were the Frankish Mayors of the palace the first PM's.)

[notyoueither]

Go ahead. Top her. Then we'll just have to invade to restore them.

But seriously... What would you replace them with that would cost less? And interfere less with a system of government that appears to work well, from a distance that is.

Go ahead, elect someone. They might actually get to thinking 'you know, I've got the mandate of the people...'

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Who would I replace her with? I'd go for Oliver Postgate, personally. I think that gentle and slightly eccentric old gentleman would make a fabulous President. Or Tony Hart.

I'd also entirely fund the Presidential process from turning Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Balmoral, Sandringham and St James's Palace into hotels/theme parks.

In case anyone thinks there might be a shortfall, just sell off the Koh-i-noor and the Star of Africa and invest the proceeds. That should net a budget of about 50 million over 5-year terms.

The Presidential salary? I imagine that it wouldn't be required to match the Queen's present £10,000,000 per annum. In addition, dropping the Queen's exemption to death duties would also save millions.

Piece of piss. Next question?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Mindseye- as requested.


Historical filth- When Popes attack.

I've been having another rummage through the underwear drawer of history in search of the most entertaining filth, and this has lead to a lengthy trawl through the history of the papacy. What a shocker- if you thought the history of the kings of England was a convoluted and bloody one, you'll find that they were rank amateurs when compared to the popes.

"Death by natural causes" for popes in the first 350 years of the church was either being martyred by the Romans or starving to death in exile in Sardinia. For the next 1000 years, the most popular single cause of death was being strangled by your successor as pope. Among these unfortunates were good men and bad men, the wise and the ignorant, sinners and saints. To help seperate the wheat from the chaff I've decided to sling together a ranking of the worst popes of all time.

The selection criteria has been heavily biased away from political ineptitude and megalomania in favour of personal vileness. That's largely because most popes seem to have been pretty megalomaniacal and prone to starting wars and persecutions when there was nothing good on TV- had I focussed on these vices I'd have had to go for a top 100. Instead I've gone for the perverts, the corrupt, the murderous and the plain evil. I've also left out the scandals involving the first 600 years of the church (amusing though it is) simply because it's impossible to sort out the truth from the myth. So, specially tailored for your baser instincts, here are the ten worst popes of all time.

10- Sabinian (604-606).

Sabinian has a reputation for extreme for extreme meanness and avarice. Even in the most devout accounts there's very little said in his favour. This is probably due to his conduct during a severe winter famine in Rome when he refused to use the Papal granaries, preferring to let his people starve to death in the streets. Bless him.

9- Celestine III (1191-1198).

Not so much bad as utterly useless, Celestine was 85 when crowned as Pope, and already senile. He was utterly incapable of looking after himself, let alone the affairs of state and he allowed the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV to run riot, even going so far as to imprison the crusader king Richard I of England.

8- Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) (1492-1503)

One of the most infamous of popes, Alexander VI fathered bastards by the score and live a lifestyle more closely associated with the more decadent of Roman Emperors than popes. His papal bull of 1493 set the scene for the decimation of the native Americans by the Conquistadors. His offspring included Cesare (used by Macchiavelli as the model of "The Prince") and the infamous Lucretia who was never happier than when she was poisoning people or ****ging her brothers.

7- Stephen IV (896-897)

Kicked off his reign in a particularly entertaining way by having his immediate predecessor Boniface IV murdered. That might have been considered a tough act to follow, but he surpassed himself by exhuming the rotting corpse of Pope Formosus, dressing it in papal robes and trying it in a papal court for heresy- it was sentenced to have it's fingers cut off before being dumped in the Tiber. Eventually Stephen was imprisoned and, unsurpringly, murdered.

6- Urban II (1088-1099)

I said I was sticking to personal odiousness, but I had to make an exception for Urban II. His big contribution to history was to denounce those naughty Muslims as instruments of the devil and kick off the Crusades- the longest and most destructive war ever. It introduced the Christian notion of the "holy war" and set the seal on Christian/Islamic relations for the next 1000 years. What a bastard.

5- Innocent VIII (1484-1492)

Possibly the most inappropriately named pope ever, Innocent VIII was a particularly energetic persecutor of witchcraft. If you're looking for someone to blame for the "medieval holocaust" then he's a good place to start. He also unsuccessfully attempted to launch a crusade against the Turks, started several wars among Italian states, deposed King Ferdinand of Florence simply for running up a few debts, emptied to papal coffers then partially re-filled them by selling bishoprics. He is regarded as having the morals of a rabid dog with a raging horn, and (along with Alexander VI) he helped the cause of the Protestant movement immeasurably.

4- John XII (955-964)

Became Pope at the age of 18, probably due to the fact that his father was the dictator of Rome, and you could tell his heart was never in it. He probably spent far more time between the thighs of Rome's prostitutes than he spent on the papal throne. Despite plotting an armed rebellion against Emperor Otto, he was actually deposed for "dishonourable conduct". Restored shortly after, he is believed to have been the only Pope to have ****ged himself to death, dying mid-rut during a particularly energetic session with one of his mistresses at the age of just 27.

3- Boniface VII (974 and 984-985)

We're into the heavyweights now. Quite a few Popes murdered their predecessors, but only Boniface VII murdered two Popes (strangling Benedict VI and poisoning John IV). Naturally, one might expect that he might have ended up being murdered by his successor, but in a break from tradition he was in fact torn to pieces by an enraged Roman mob. Who could blame them?

2- Paul IV (1555-1559)

A real charmer here. It's a great injustice that by the 16th century Popes no longer to get their intestines pulled out and wound around a stick by ambitious rivals, because if ever a Pope deserved it, it was Paul IV. Utterly disastrous at politics and in handling the Protestant crisis, his reign saw the final secession of the English church from Rome. His anti-Spanish policies kicked off a major war, while his screaming anti-semitism resulted in his founding of the Rome ghetto and ordering that all Jews wear badges to identify themselves for more convenient persecution. Does he start to remind you of someone?

1- Benedict IX (1032-1044, 1045 & 1047-1048)

Oh boy. History has seen some disaster areas sitting in the papal throne, but this lad tops the lot. A teenager when crowned, his philosophy could be summed up as "If it moves- hump it. If it objects to the humping- kill it". Uniquely, he was Pope three times. His first papacy ended when the Roman population, incensed by his "violent and licentious conduct" rebelled and forced him into exile. Finding himself a bit strapped for cash, Benedict took the somewhat amazing step of selling the papacy to his grandfather, leaving Sylvester III as the only man ever to have bought himself the job of Pope. Twice restored, and twice more deposed by the public who had no intention of leaving a colossal pervert in the job, regardless of who's son he was. Benedict had the habit of excommunicating anyone who disagreed with him, or pissed him off in any way. Remarkably, after being booted out for the third and final time, he wasn't murdered but died of natural causes ten years later.

So that's my personal top ten. I could have missed a few, however. There's hundreds of them, after all.

[mindseye]

Delightful! Thank you!

[Saint Marcus]

Let's put it this way, are there any presidents where there are constitutional monarchs. I don't believe so. So monarchies do stand in the way of a strong, independently elected executive.

???

Let's recap.

A. The Dutch PM has the same powers as the American President.
B. As said, politicians are looking into the possibility of getting a directly elected PM (like the President is in the USA). If this is done, we have a "strong, independently elected executive" as well as a monarch.
C. A directly/independently elected executive isn't better than an indirectly elected executive, per se.

Why do you think that only directly elected officials can be any good? Why do you think a directly elected official is incompatible with a monarch?


So far none of the arguments against a constitutional monarchy like we have in Holland, holds any ground. Also, if 90% of the people support the monarchy, isn't it a sign of "true democracy" that the monarchy is preserved?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ah, good. So that 90% is determined by an election, is it?

Or is it by some sort of vox pop survey on people seen buying "Gosh! Isn't Queen Beatrix a lovely person!" T-shirts?

Now you're saying that none of the arguments against a Netherlands-style monarchy holds any ground (other than the lack of democratic involvement). Presumably that's on the grounds that they're cheap and relatively inoffensive?

Well so's an Ikea futon. Hey! It wins on both counts. Stick a crown on it and curtsey to it.

[Ecthy]

Are there any pictures of those deformed Habsburg guys?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Bear in mind that portraits are done to flatter the subject.

Don Carlos.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Carlos.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The Habsburg jaw was probably more pronounced in real life so in profile they probably resembled bulldozers. Even in the half-profiles above it's still clear that they fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

[Saint Marcus]

Ah, good. So that 90% is determined by an election, is it?

NIPO polls. Most respected and reliable poll takers in Holland.

Now you're saying that none of the arguments against a Netherlands-style monarchy holds any ground (other than the lack of democratic involvement). Presumably that's on the grounds that they're cheap and relatively inoffensive?

Yes they're cheap. They make their own money and pay taxes. They are also quite popular. Furthermore, they don't have any real power.

And lack of democratic involvement? Who cares? They have no power anyway. If you take away their titles, they'll still be just as rich, and so will their offspring. Worse even, if you take away their titles they get more power, not less. At the moment, the law prohibits certain actions done by the royal house, if the monarchy should end the Oranges may very well expend their influence dramaticly.

So please tell me, what will be the benefits for Holland to change it's style of a constitutional monarchy to a German style republic?