Ask a Dutchman!
- Thread starter Agent327
- Start date
mayor
Heart & Mind
Irish weather is worse than ours....
It's good drinking weather. Makes leaving the pub undesirable. And the rain helps barley grow.
To take this back on topic: What do the Dutch think of their monarchy? After all the monarchy was imposed after Napoleon's reign but you'd been a Republic since the time when you beat off the Spanish.
To take this back on topic: What do the Dutch think of their monarchy? After all the monarchy was imposed after Napoleon's reign but you'd been a Republic since the time when you beat off the Spanish.
mayor
Heart & Mind
I personally think we should abolish the monarchy, but that's me. Overall people think it is a nice tradition and all that....
And the 7 united provinces became a republic out of necessity. They asked around, including the Queen of England, but nobody wanted them/us
And the 7 united provinces became a republic out of necessity. They asked around, including the Queen of England, but nobody wanted them/us
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Not really. During the 18th century, the Netherlands became a "republic" with hereditary succession with the House of Orange as its hereditary rulers, more or less akin to Assad's Syria. In fact, almost like today's Syria, people organized to depose this de-facto monarchy and organized as the "Staatsgezinden" (those loyal to the Staten-generaal) or "Patriotten", while those loyal to the House of Orange were known as "prinsgezinden" (those loyal to the prince).
Eventually, with Republican French aid, the Staatsgezinden became the dominant faction in Dutch politics. However, when Napoleon rose to power, he forced the Netherlands to become monarchy ruled by the Bonaparte dynasty. When Napoleon was defeated, it was deceided that the new Dutch state would be Princedom ruled by the House of Orange, which later became a kingdom again, which is the Netherlands' current incarnation as a state.
anandus
Errorist
It's the same as in England.
A nice 'tradition', and a psychological anchor in tough times. A bit 'everyone's mother'-thing.
But to be honest, people don't think thát much about it. Once a year we have a monarchy-related holiday (queen's day) and once a year she has a sort of State of The Union, which hardly anyone listens to.
But to answer your question:
No, besides tradition and sentiment there isn't a real reason, although in theory in the constitution the monarch still has some power, but (of course) she doesn't use it.
Tradition and sentiment, that's all.
A nice 'tradition', and a psychological anchor in tough times. A bit 'everyone's mother'-thing.
But to be honest, people don't think thát much about it. Once a year we have a monarchy-related holiday (queen's day) and once a year she has a sort of State of The Union, which hardly anyone listens to.
But to answer your question:
No, besides tradition and sentiment there isn't a real reason, although in theory in the constitution the monarch still has some power, but (of course) she doesn't use it.
Tradition and sentiment, that's all.
I am quite satisfied with our monarchy. Having someone who is not overtly political as a head of state is a good thing, I think. There are presidential systems that achieve this (Germany seems pretty good in this respect), while there are also presidential systems that regularly seem to produce sub-optimal presidents (Italy, I'm looking at you), and monarchies that produce idiots (Belgium!). Our current Queen has been good, as have the previous couple (Juliana and Wilhelmina, don't know about earlier). I'm not sure what the future holds though.
anandus
Errorist
When he was a student he was known as 'Prins Pils' (Beer Prince)
That's an old comment, which she issued in public to his face after his gaffe during the official marrriage negotiations (he had publicly - i.e. in a newspaper - quoted a comment from his future father-in-law, who had been a member of cabinet during Argentina's most recent dicatorship. Since these marriage negotiations were a state affair, he shouldn't have made a comment in the first place. So yeah, that wasn't the smartest thing to do.) What Maxima literally said was: "You were a bit stupid." It was actually an excellent opportunity to introduce Maxima to the public, turning attention from the prince to the queen-to-be.
He hasn't been very stupid since. My guess would be that our prince got a little impatient with the ongoing negotiations at the time. (But his father was far worse PR-wise. The man was a bit of a scoundrel when it came to women.).
LOLWUT
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Nah, I was being hyperbolic (though the Netherlands being a hereditary dictatorship thing being definitely true though).
In other news today:
famous lawyer B. Moszkowicz was disbarred today, following a trial over alleged fraud/bribery against him. Our national blondie politician Mr Geert Wilders (who was defended by Moszkowicz in his own recent trial) was quick to assert that he fully supports the currently ex-lawyer. The trial by the state vs Moszkowicz was controversial for several reasons: foremost, because he is considered as Hollands's top lawyer, appearing on various TV shows and often interviewed, then also because the payments in cash demanded by Mr Moszkowicz were (or are) considered "normal" by certain of his colleagues. I'm not sure if that is saying anything in his favour though, as it raises the question why lawyers should ask for payment in cash from clients in the first place. As is shown in this trial, it is basically asking for trouble - if only from our diligent tax inspectors...
famous lawyer B. Moszkowicz was disbarred today, following a trial over alleged fraud/bribery against him. Our national blondie politician Mr Geert Wilders (who was defended by Moszkowicz in his own recent trial) was quick to assert that he fully supports the currently ex-lawyer. The trial by the state vs Moszkowicz was controversial for several reasons: foremost, because he is considered as Hollands's top lawyer, appearing on various TV shows and often interviewed, then also because the payments in cash demanded by Mr Moszkowicz were (or are) considered "normal" by certain of his colleagues. I'm not sure if that is saying anything in his favour though, as it raises the question why lawyers should ask for payment in cash from clients in the first place. As is shown in this trial, it is basically asking for trouble - if only from our diligent tax inspectors...
Maybe his wife has beaten some sense into him. Figuratively speaking of course.
He defended Geert Wilders why am I not very sorry about this?
Personally I thought it was just great PR for Maxima.
The trial vs Wilders shouldn't have happened in the first place: you may recall that the state prosecutor initially declined to prosecute, and his acquittal was to be expected. Mr Moszkowicz succesfully switched the focus to the judges handling the trial and his overall performance was excellent. He didn't become top lawyer for no reason - which obviously was why Wilders chose him for his defense lawyer.
mayor
Heart & Mind
Funny you would say that, I heard on the radio yesterday that he actually lost/loses (don't know the exact wording anymore) 80% of his cases
I guess Mr Moszkowicz was all image then... as in having the image of being a top lawyer but not really delivering...I have to correct myself here: contrary to what I stated earlier the trial vs Moszkowicz wasn't entaminated by the state, but by the "Order of Layers", the professional organization of lawyers, and was focused on his behaviour towards clients. As might be expected, Mr Moszkowicz announced today he will appeal the court's decision.
