Congratulations, Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary

[VetLegion]

By the thousands, for freedom. It's better than to kneel like a Dane.

[Asmodean]

Are you really that eager to demonstrate your ignorance?

Asmodean

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VetLegion
By the thousands, for freedom. It's better than to kneel like a Dane.

QFT.

If we had any Iraqi posters here, I'm sure none of them would ever post a thread about an Iraqi-citizen couple giving birth to a baby and fill it with 200 smilies (unless it's their own baby, I guess).

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Are you really that eager to demonstrate your ignorance?

Hey, you made a "look at me, I'm a serf" thread. I can make fun of you if I want

[Provost Harrison]

Is there anyone here who actually gives a flying f**k?

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Hey, you made a "look at me, I'm a serf" thread. I can make fun of you if I want

Okay...I'll take the bait

If you had any knowledge about the workings of a constitutional monarchy, which clearly you don't, you would know that serfdom, worshipping or any other form of submission doesn't really play any part in it. Unless you are purposely playing dumb, in which case I am talking to a wall here, and nothing I say or demonstrate in this thread will make any difference.

However....

In a constitutional monarchy, the royal family has about as much power as a......single mother of three on welfare. Exactly how little power they have is defined in the constitution...I'll use Denmark for the sake of argument here, but the example could as well be Belgium, The Netherlands or any other constituonal monarchy in Europe.

Now the constitution defines government as "The King". "Wait," I hear you say...."then they do have power." Nope...not an inch. Because the way "The King" is interpreted in a constitutional monarchy, is as the democratically elected government. This is true for all uses of the phrase "The King" in the danish constitution, except for those in Chapter 2. In article 8 of the danish constitution the role of the king is limited, as it is required for the king, under oath, to declare that he will always follow the constitution. Thus his power is equal to none, as the constitution is interpreted with the king being the democratically elected government.

It stands to reason, that were the king to abuse his "powers" (of which he has none) and try to actually govern Denmark, he would immediately be removed, and Denmark would probably revert to being a republic.

But then why have a royal family at all? Why have a monarchy. Well the idea started, I guess, as a way for the royal family to preserve their status. Denmark had a fairly peaceful transition from absolute monarchy to democracy, and this happened because the king at the time was willing to relinquish power to the parliament. I guess he figured, if I can't have it all, I can at least keep my social status.

Since then, the system has evolved, of course. Most danes today take great pride in our monarchy, seeing it as a link to more than a millenium of history, as Denmark is the oldest surviving monarchy in the world. The royal family serves as a great bonding agent between all layers of the danish society, and that is no small feat in and of itself. Nationalism plays a part in it too, of course. Denmark is a small country, and I guess we need something we can be proud of - something that makes us feel "more".

Now, having said that, I am actually pissed at you for playing dumb repeatedly, and making me waste time with this post. Especially since I expect you to continue playing dumb, and drawing forth even more ridiculous and stupid analogies with Iraq. Well go ahead. I don't care.

Asmodean

[Jon Miller]

I thought Britain was te oldest Monarchy?

Jon Miller

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Asmodean


Okay...I'll take the bait

If you had any knowledge about the workings of a constitutional monarchy, which clearly you don't, you would know that serfdom, worshipping or any other form of submission doesn't really play any part in it. Unless you are purposely playing dumb, in which case I am talking to a wall here, and nothing I say or demonstrate in this thread will make any difference.

However....

In a constitutional monarchy, the royal family has about as much power as a......single mother of three on welfare. Exactly how little power they have is defined in the constitution...I'll use Denmark for the sake of argument here, but the example could as well be Belgium, The Netherlands or any other constituonal monarchy in Europe.

Now the constitution defines government as "The King". "Wait," I hear you say...."then they do have power." Nope...not an inch. Because the way "The King" is interpreted in a constitutional monarchy, is as the democratically elected government. This is true for all uses of the phrase "The King" in the danish constitution, except for those in Chapter 2. In article 8 of the danish constitution the role of the king is limited, as it is required for the king, under oath, to declare that he will always follow the constitution. Thus his power is equal to none, as the constitution is interpreted with the king being the democratically elected government.

It stands to reason, that were the king to abuse his "powers" (of which he has none) and try to actually govern Denmark, he would immediately be removed, and Denmark would probably revert to being a republic.

But then why have a royal family at all? Why have a monarchy. Well the idea started, I guess, as a way for the royal family to preserve their status. Denmark had a fairly peaceful transition from absolute monarchy to democracy, and this happened because the king at the time was willing to relinquish power to the parliament. I guess he figured, if I can't have it all, I can at least keep my social status.

Since then, the system has evolved, of course. Most danes today take great pride in our monarchy, seeing it as a link to more than a millenium of history, as Denmark is the oldest surviving monarchy in the world. The royal family serves as a great bonding agent between all layers of the danish society, and that is no small feat in and of itself. Nationalism plays a part in it too, of course. Denmark is a small country, and I guess we need something we can be proud of - something that makes us feel "more".

Now, having said that, I am actually pissed at you for playing dumb repeatedly, and making me waste time with this post. Especially since I expect you to continue playing dumb, and drawing forth even more ridiculous and stupid analogies with Iraq. Well go ahead. I don't care.

Asmodean

10 points to VetLegion

[Ãskallin]

Danish monarch in the 15-18th century

Denmark today

[Heresson]

Prince Frederick is ugly and doesn't look princy. He should not spawn.

[Winston]

-> Royal Forum

So, tomorrow, 1 July, is the big day for the little princess with her christening ceremony taking place at Fredensborg Palace Church. And we'll finally get to know her name(s). General excitement all around. I'm so hoping her first name will be Ingrid, after the late Queen, but I realise that it's by no means a given thing. Although I'd be willing to bet that Ingrid will be one of her four names.

Margrethe, of course, will be included. And I also hope for Dagmar, another traditional queen's name.

My reluctant bid would be Ingrid Louise Dagmar Margrethe.

Hooray!

[Bkeela]

Most babies disgust me, but that infant is genuinely beautiful.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Asmodean

In a constitutional monarchy, the royal family has about as much power as a......single mother of three on welfare.

A single mother of three who receives lavish state funding, copious housing and transport concessions of palatial standards, outrageous tax breaks, huge inherited wealth shielded by dodgy "public" status, reverence from the press and gullible public, free security, and regular private audiences with the elected heads of government.

I can't speak for Denmark, but single mothers on welfare in Britain don't get treated that well.

It stands to reason, that were the king to abuse his "powers" (of which he has none) and try to actually govern Denmark, he would immediately be removed, and Denmark would probably revert to being a republic.

Oh, calamity.

Denmark is the oldest surviving monarchy in the world.

No. It's the oldest surviving monarchy in Denmark. Japan has you beaten by about a millennium.

[BeBMan]

The "Off with their heads!" thing would bring Denmark closer to Iraq though.

[Winston]

Lazarus and the Gimp, could you please confine your rambling postings to that gigantic ego trip you have going in the History Forum? You could even start 6-7 new threads on the historical aspects of monarchies, if you haven't already. Noone will laugh at you, I'm sure. At least not too loudly.