stupid useless monarch's getting million's in donations

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
The only "power" most monarch have is that any new lew must be signed by them before the have effect.Theoreticly ,the could decide wich law comes through and wich won't.but ,as it happened once in Belgium ,if the king doesn't wanna sign he has to give up his trone. (Our monarch did that for one day ,he didn't want to sign the abortion law (he had no kids))

Country's that (as far as i know) still have monarch's:

Belgium
Holland
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
Norway
Luxemburg
Monaco
Marocco
Libanon
Lichtenstein
Syria

Correct (or add) if i'm wrong here.

Why do/does everybody always forget Denmark?????
 
Paraphrasing from Monty Python:

Peasant 1: Order eh, who does he think he is?

Arthur: I am your King! :king:

Peasant 1: Well, I didn't vote for you.

Arthur: You don't vote for Kings.

Peasant 1: Well, how did you become King then?

Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the busom of the water, signifiying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your King!

Peasant 2: Listen, strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme Executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Arthur: Be Quiet!!! :mad:

Peasant 2: You can't expect to wield Supreme Executive Power just because some watery tart through a sword at you.

Arthur: Shut up! :midfinger

Peasant 2: I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away.

Arthur: Shut up! Will you shut up! (starts wailing on the peasant)

Peasant 2: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

Arthur: Shut up!

Peasant 2: Now we see the violence inherent in the system. Help help, I am being repressed.

Arthur: Bloody Peasant!

Peasant 2: Oh, what a give away. Did you hear that, you hear that?

All from audio file, so expect mispellings ;)
 
If you think having a monarch is bad, well we have 9 of them in Msia. And every 4-5 yrs, these sultans took turns to become the King of Msia. One reason why Brunei didn't wanna join the Msian federation during our independence was cos the W Msian sultans wouldn't let the Brunei sultan became the first King. :rolleyes:
Once, in sec school (a long long time ago), my maths teacher drove his car ahead of this prince. Well, usually when the prince drives out, he's escorted by a bloody police procession who blar their sirens and clear the road so that prince can speed thru. The prince got his police guard to chase down my teacher and probably to beat him up. Fortunately, my school was named after the father of the sultan so the prince 'forgave' my teacher for his 'impertinence'. Bloody royalty.
 
Duck,
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) you forgot Australia, New Zealand and Canada - all still share a monarch with the UK.

In Australia we have been trying to get rid of the Monarchy, unfortunately the republican movement lost the last referendum on the issue because of a split (in the republican movement) on whether the president should be directly elected or appointed by another method.

If Kim Beazley and his Labor Party win the coming federal election (next Saturday) we will get the opportunity to again vote on becoming a republic - viva Republic! [where's a guillotine smilie when you need one]
 
"When I am King, you will be first against the wall" Radiohead
 
Now what was the name again of that prince in nepal that just exterminated his whole family a few month's ago.that was quite a "scandal".
And then you have all these pesky papperazi making such scandals a million dollar industry :rolleyes: .
And so the comman man is atleast 2 times a year bothered with "sensational news" about the newest love affair's between a seniel old prince and a 20 year old supermodel.
Also you have a lot of "royalty watcher's" ,damn those people have no live.
Hell monarchy in europe ,it's a media commedy.
 
Bah! You are but envious rable, peasants the lot of you! I shall not even cast off some of my cake for you to eat, you dirty little non-aristocracy
You shall rue your impertinence! Yes, one day I SHALL BE QUEEN!!!!!!!
:lol: :king:
One senses a lot of anti-monarchic feeling out there. Tsk, tsk tsk.
Well, put it this way, it looks a lot better from the other side:D

Here is a really good quote that the late Lindsay Anderson, director of that marvellous flick "if" got from a real British public school headmaster:

"I have some working class friends, to speak and laugh with but they never come and stay. I just don't think it would work. I'm definitely not class conscious. It simply never occurs to me. This business about class"
:)

As for "ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS!!", I think that unfortunately you are about 80 years too late, and in the wrong country. Maybe took the wrong turn at Krasnovodsk...:p

;) I guess, coming from the aristocracy, one deigns to think differently;)
 
My $.02 from an American who knows nothing about living with a monarch...

A constitutional monarchy does have one distinct advantage at least. The head of state and the head of government are vested in two different individuals.

Reagan was a crappy head of government, but a good head of state (for example). I always thought he looked like he wanted to start his speeches with "My loyal subjects..." rather than "My fellow Americans..."

If you have a Royal Family, you get to send *them* around to the state funerals, innaugurations, museum openings, etc... while the people you elect to run the country can do their job.

I also think that much-maligned British royals have played some part in actually assisting the country - - I believe Elizabeth II did a lot of work boosting morale during the bombing of London in WWII.

I suppose they are also useful as 'living museum peices' (I guess "caretakers of national heritage" or some-such is probably the more polite way to put it.)

Is this all worth the amount of money it costs?? Who knows..

Peace -
Ashoka
 
Well I prefer a monarchy based democracy which we have in Holland. Cause I don't wan't those stupid kind of elections in the US.

Look I am prettier than my competitor. I brush my teeth all day. I can say god bless america faster than him.


blablablablabla.

I prefer to have a person who has learned how to be a king or queen. After all nowadays they are only a symbol of the country.
 
Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders


Country's that (as far as i know) still have monarch's:

Belgium
Holland
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
Norway
Luxemburg
Monaco
Marocco
Libanon
Lichtenstein
Syria

Correct (or add) if i'm wrong here.

You are wrong about Portugal. Portugal is not a monarchy since 1910, and we didn't experience any attempt to restore it since then.
 
Originally posted by Strik
Well I prefer a monarchy based democracy which we have in Holland. Cause I don't wan't those stupid kind of elections in the US.

Look I am prettier than my competitor. I brush my teeth all day. I can say god bless america faster than him.


blablablablabla.

I prefer to have a person who has learned how to be a king or queen. After all nowadays they are only a symbol of the country.

Who needs democracy when you can have absolute despotism?
 
Originally posted by Ashoka
My $.02 from an American who knows nothing about living with a monarch...

A constitutional monarchy does have one distinct advantage at least. The head of state and the head of government are vested in two different individuals.

Reagan was a crappy head of government, but a good head of state (for example). I always thought he looked like he wanted to start his speeches with "My loyal subjects..." rather than "My fellow Americans..."

If you have a Royal Family, you get to send *them* around to the state funerals, innaugurations, museum openings, etc... while the people you elect to run the country can do their job.

I also think that much-maligned British royals have played some part in actually assisting the country - - I believe Elizabeth II did a lot of work boosting morale during the bombing of London in WWII.

I suppose they are also useful as 'living museum peices' (I guess "caretakers of national heritage" or some-such is probably the more polite way to put it.)

Is this all worth the amount of money it costs?? Who knows..

Peace -
Ashoka
In Singapore (a republic BTW), you have an elected President as the head of state and a Prime Minister (head of the biggest party in Parliament; currently held by the People's Action Party who just won 86 outta 88 seats [55 of which were walkovers!] on Nov 3 :crazyeyes ) as the head of govt. I don't see why that can't be done in other democratic monarchic countries.
 
Originally posted by Sayhueque
Monarchs in Europe are a cultural thing. They deserve to be there for show. Europe without monarchs isn't Europe any more!
Well, YOU aren't paying for it. That's the MAIN point that all of us ppl fr monarchic countries are complaining about. If they can maintain themselves financially w/o state support and don't interfere in norm govt workings and the lives of the ppl, they are very welcomed to maintain their monarchic status.
 
The UK queen is nothing more than a rubber stamp for parliament although combined with the house of lords it would slow down the inevitable if a madman like Hitler managed to get elected. Yeah it's unlikely but **** happens and it's best to be prepared/
 
I'm an American, so I know nothing about living in a country with a Monarch (although it seems like the Bush's are trying to set up a dynasty...but I'll wait an see if they try foisting Jeb onto the Republican card after Dubya is worn out [to Jeb's credit, he's a hell of a lot better of a speaker than his brother])

I dislike Monarchs not only because they cost tax money, but also because they are an impediment to change. All instutitutions that do not change signifigantly tend to hurt those they were intended to serve. The Roman Empire benefitted (at leat initially) from the Emperors (that is, of course, an opinon) but they later became a terrible impediment to the empire and contributed quite substantially to it's collapse. Having a traditional institution tends to remind and tie the people to much to the previous era and thus bogs down the neccassary revolution.
 
Originally posted by floppa21
Okay, I know I'm just a stupid arrogant American;), but seriously I don't understand. WHY is there still a Monarchy? I mean, this isn't the 15th century... Wouldn't something else be better? Obviously I don't know the pros and cons of this, but it seems a bit uh, outdated? Truthfully, I wouldn't have even known Sweden HAD a king... I never hear anything about Sweden except Modo and Forsberg and that's it. :confused:

Their is still a monarchy, because "most" people want that, although here in Holland. Because our royal family is the face of The Netherlands, ok they cost a lot but what will holland be without our royal family. They have nothing to say about govering our land, so they can't f@ck up (that is the job of our political parties). You can look at them as a advertisment of our country. What will Holland be without our ORANGE guys and girls, maby a lot richer but for everything their is a price.
Their are people here who wants to make a Republic of our country and IAM REALLY AGAINST THiS. Who is better to lead than a person who is trained from his birth, maby some people think this isnt fair we'll F@ck you !!!
 
Originally posted by Dexter
I totally agree with you guy's!! Monarch's are absolutely useless!!(..)

Well what would the old women then talk about?
We in Finland have a president who's power has reduced to zero.
Why? Because the Prime Minister's want power. So President hasn't any power.
In fact, her most important job is to keep strange dresses, and then the citizens say that
she's a bad president because she had a bad suit. After that they'll
start mumbling about the 'sex affairs' between Moneytary minister and a invididual
senate member (they have been drinking coffee on the same table! They must have sex affairs!)

No, I'm not (ponders the engrish word) talking bulsit.
Ask any finnish about 'President' and he/she starts talk how bad she is and WHY...

:( :o :mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom