MONARCHY

I am of two minds on the issue of the monarchy. It's tradition, it's sweet, and all the other happy horse **** that goes along with an institution that has continued over centuries.

On the other hand, the Brits have better places to spend their money. I think that the funds given to the Queen and her entourage could be used in a much more productive way.

Good grief...........If Liz simply sold the crown jewels on e-bay, she would have enough cash to keep the family living rather well for the next few centuries. And I think that Windsor castle could be converted into a lovely bed and breakfast.

Hehehehehehehe . . . she said happy horse **** . . .

If i'm not mistaken, those clowns are rich enough not to need any money from Parliament.

Exactly- If the royals were left to their own resources, England could have it all.............a monarchy that gives people something to gossip about in their supermarket rags, and money that the British could really use, especially considering the state of the worldwide economy.

Hmmm............ I wonder why Liz never thought of declining her "allowance" from the government. She damn well does not need it!

75% of the Swedes are pro monarchy.
The majority of the Danes are pro monarchy
The majority of the Norwegians are pro monarchy.

Of course the are reasons why we could get rid of the monarchy, but there just as many for keeping the royal families

The monarchies in the Scandinavian countries are democratic example for many other countries. So also the Netherlands and Belgium.
The royal families are above any kind of political bickering.
At least in Scandinavia they show a style and charm in behavior and language which often the politicians are missing.
Germany has a president who is not even elected by the prople and still has a symbolic and moral role which functions like a monarch, which seems to be the case with the presidents since the fall of the Nazis.

For many the historical traditions for having a monarchy is important.
For others it is that there is a continuation of a head of state in bad and good times.

Of course a royal family costs the country money. I don´t remember the numbers now, but a royal family costs less than your system with presidents and ex presidents over a longer period of time. As ex presidents and their family also need security.

On the other hand when you have a good royal head of state you have someone who has learned how to behave - not all politicians know that - often speak several languages, are good PR´s for your country, can express themselves in their own language better than some politicians.

For Americans who come from all over the world, having different backgrounds, but same language it is not same as living in a small country with a long history with the same background, same language, same religion, same history, same traditions.

I'm sure glad that the people of the United States don't have "the same background, same language, same religion . . . "--it's one of the strengths of the Republic that we have a great diversity to draw on. We do have the same history and traditions.

All i see you offering as a justification for monarchy is a ceremonial head of state, possessed (allegedly) of a certain suavity. Pretty damned expensive way to get a ribbon-cutting crew.

I am bemused to see you sticking up for the "House of Bernadotte," descended from a jumped-up French adventurer. But, you know, whatever floats yer boat, Bubba.

Actually, in most (if not all) parliamentary systems of government in countries without a monarchy, the position of President is largely ceremonial.

The German President is elected by the Federal Convention (which represents somehow the population, since it mainly consists of state and federal lawmakers).
In for instance cases of political instability, the German President has a lot more than a "symbolic and moral role".

like most entertainment (and really that's all they are these days) i can take or leave them, i do like the scandals i must admit, i much prefer to revel in peoples failures over their successes

I think it's useless (monarchy). I am all for abolishing it but wouldn't get on a soapbox about it myself.

First of all I did not say anything against America being a country of diversities.
I have in no way been critical about that.
But a large country like America is different to small countries like the Scandinavian and people do feel diffently.
Secondly I tried to explain what all three Scandinavian coutries feel about monarchy, so your smart ass remark about me sticking up for the House of Bernadotte was ridiculous.
Just because I tried to say how the Scandinavians pro monarchy feel does not mean that I said my opinion . I did not even say if I myself is a pro or contra monarchy did I? No reason to call me Bubba........but what else can be expected from you.

Don't get your panties in a twist--referring to you as Bubba is not an insult, apparently your command of English is not as good as i thought it was. The point about Bernadotte is that when he took the throne about 200 years ago, your claims about shared tradition and history went right out the window--essentially, your royal family was starting all over. Certainly your not going to claim that Bernadotte was anything more than a nominal Lutheran. So, as you can see, if you can get past your personal prejudices, my remark about Bernadotte was not "smart-ass," but very much to the point of your claims about shared tradition, religion and history. Did Bernadotte speak Swedish when he took the throne? If not, that invalidates your claim about language, too.

I'm making a point here, too. Just slightly less than 300 years ago, England got its king from Germany, and he didn't speak English, wasn't an Anglican and didn't have a shared historical tradition with his new subjects. He was, essentially, the best that could be scrounged up at the time. His son spoke English, after a fashion, because he had campaigned with Marlborough's army during the War of the Spanish succession--otherwise, he was as "un-English" as his father. It wasn't until the great-grandson of the first Hanoverian king took the throne as George III that there was a monarch in that line who spoke English as his native language, was educated in the Church of England, and had some shared historical tradition. Even then, Victoria was raised by a Hanoverian nanny, whom she kept by her side after she took the throne in 1837--and she was born more than a hundred years after the first Hanoverian took the throne. She was promptly married off to a German princeling.

So i made no assumptions about your personal attitude to monarchy--i am addressing the arguments you advanced for the value of monarchy, and why i find them of dubious value.

Because of its association with the southern part of the United States, bubba is also often used outside the South as a pejorative to mean a person of low economic status and limited education.
If that is not an insult I don´t know what.
If we foreigners are not as good as you in English you have to point it out and show your superiority. You have done that more than often. How many languages can you speak well enough to be into something like A2K?
As I was writing about the three Scandinavian countries and how they see the monarchy, I am not going to answer any of your questions about Bernadotte Carl IV Johan as I realize you want to use him as an example of our traditions were broken.
You find my arguments of dubius value. It is not my arguments.
I sat down and read a few articles in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian to see how different people in the three countries see the monarchy. Then I made some notes and put it together and out came a mixture of what different people think about that subject. So don´t blame me of the value - blame it on good highly educated journalists.
Don´t you as an American come here tell me as a Swede how we Swedes feel and think about our country, our traditions and our royal family. You might know many historical facts, but you sure don´t know anything about us a nation just as you probably know very little about us Scandinavians as peoples.
Don´t point out again that I as a Swede should not say anything about how Danes think. I have every right to say something about the Danes. I have lived and worked there, I also worked as a guide and I teach Danish.

You should have stopped with "i don't know." Essentially, you are asserting that it is reasonable to assume that anyone from the sotuhern part of the United States can be considered to be of low economic status and limited education. People who actually live here know better than that. You have chosen to be insulted on the basis of your ignorance and your bigotry. Don't try to blame that on me.

I read French and English well enough to carry on this conversation, and at one time i spoke Korean well enough to have carried on this conversation, although that was more than 30 years ago, so i doubt that i could now. But this is typical European snobbery--it is irrelevant to the argument here. I pointed out that your English is not as good as i thought it was because you wrongly assumed that the use of Bubba is an insult. That was clear, and that was the only point to which i referred. In her post #4429218, Mame replies to me as follows:



I didn't take that as an insult, nor have i any reason to assumed that it was intended to be. As i have already said, your ignorance and bigotry are showing.

Your allegedly highly educated journalists (that's not established) can easily be parroting the narrow view of their target audience--so that demonstrates nothing. I didn't challenge your figures about how many people in three countries support a monarchy, my challenge was to this statement which you made:



My remarks have been to show that your monarchs don't necessarily share any more of language, religion, "background," history and traditions than do Americans. Our nation, as a matter of fact, was founded many years before Bernadotte took the throne in your country, so it's a bit thick for you to come on with this typical snotty European meme of Americans being arriviste while the wise old Europeans have long traditions that we just can't understand. I suggest that you get off your high horse, your argument is feeble.

By the way, you're hallucinating. At no time did i offer any criticism of you for commenting on how Danes think. This is getting surreal. I must have really struck a nerve with this thread.

They don't belong to the Royal Family but the state, the same goes for the the castle.

Oh . . . so you came in here with a chip on your shoulder . . . that explains a lot.

So it seems one of the big pluses for a monarchy is that it brings in the
tourists. But you don't need hereditary nobility for that. Keep all the trappings and
get the showbiz folks to hire a suitable monarch and the rest of the peerage.
Wouldn't that be a big improvement? I mean, would you cast Prince Charles as
Prince Charles? Of course not.

It's really hard to price cultural heritage. You could argue that in the US, we should tear down all the memorials and public museums in Washington DC. It's not like they fund themselves. Board up Arlington cemetery while you are at it. We spend money on these things because they give us sense of nation and community and every country picks its own things to value. The British Monarchy is a cultural symbol known world-wide and it seems to me in a generally positive light. If the Brits feel that is part of their national identity, I'm ok with it.

Hehehehehehehehehehe . . .

(Who would you cast, Hugh Grant?)

This thread came out of the "engagement" thread about William. Ironically, in that thread, it was Americans rooting for the monarchy, and the Brits either said they were bored, or, in one case, angry about the waste of public funds.