The House of Windsor and Continental European monarchies

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by Stapel

Though the title 'stadtholder' was inheritable, there was not by definition a stadtholder around.

Actually - that's because the office of stadtholder wasn't inheritable - they were appointed by the Estates-General. The idea that the office was inheritable only comes from the fact that the appointees were all Oranjes. The periods in which there were no stadtholders weren't because there weren't any Oranjes available, but because the States did not find it necessary or desirable to appoint one - hardly the mark of an inheritable position !
(I found out that the office did become inheritable later, in 1749 under pressure of the French (source ).

 

[Stapel]

Jack, you are right. But the simple fact the we didn't have stadtholders when there weren't Oranjes available, makes it, in fact, inheritable. Maybe not official, but still.

To all others:
Don't listen to Jack! He is a nasty republican and probably is on the list of the Dutch secret service, as he is a possible danger to our monarchy!
And that is a good thing!

 

[Christmann]

Dr. Dr. Doktor said, comparing Denmark to the USA:
However since laws are made as a result of coalition building and are often the result of compromises between the parties of the parliament, in order that the laws are not to be revoked after the next election, and the execution of the laws is only a matter of formality, this system seems to work quite well.

It seems to me this has to do with having a two-party-system vs a multi-party-system, rather than having a monarch or president as head of state. No?

 

[yaroslav]

I'm a Spaniard. The monarchy was restored here around 30 or 25 years ago, and I don't like it - but more for principles than anything else. I'd like to be a republic because I don't want the commander-in-chief of they army to be not elected.

Anyway, monarchy in Spain is wide-supported and, well, imho spanish monarchy can't be compared with the House of Windsor (an English name for German kings and queens ) , because the "continental" houses appears to be less scandal-prone that the lastest windsors...

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Christmann


It seems to me this has to do with having a two-party-system vs a multi-party-system, rather than having a monarch or president as head of state. No?

The important part is that an elected president in a democracy can usually veto the laws passed. Say party A is in the majority, and Party B in the minority and party B has the President on their side. What would be the motive of party B to seek a compromise if they know that the law can be vetoed? And what would be the motive of party A to seek to compromise since Party B will only compromise to what the president will not veto? Hence the system will enter the democratic inaction zone, where needed reforms are pushed into the future. And true reform will only take place when the crap hits the fan like in the thirties. But then all governance is hijacked by the executive.

On the other hand a system without a powerful executive will be more inclined to compromise. The problem therefore rests with too powerful an executive branch. Hitler was basicly wrong on the point that only a strong executive will make things happen, but then again he was very impatient.

The idea that the root of the problem is with the two party system is a fallacy. In the parliamentary systems in Europe the parties are equally divided into two blocks anyway, usully left and right, which often go into coalitions. The variation of political beliefs within say the Republican Party in the US are perhaps greater the they are within the rightwing coalitions in Europe. On the left it is a different story.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by Stapel
Jack, you are right. But the simple fact the we didn't have stadtholders when there weren't Oranjes available, makes it, in fact, inheritable. Maybe not official, but still.

While de facto inheritable, the office was also subject to democratic control as the stadtholders did have to bargain with the Estates-General to get appointed in the first place and after that, for money. A far cry from your depiction of the Dutch Republic as a monarchy by another name !

Originally posted by Stapel

To all others:
Don't listen to Jack! He is a nasty republican and probably is on the list of the Dutch secret service, as he is a possible danger to our monarchy!
And that is a good thing!

When the revolution comes, you'll be first up against the wall .

 

[Shadylookin]

The important part is that an elected president in a democracy can usually veto the laws passed.

the house decides what should be bills or not, then it gets passed to the president and then he gets the option to say yes or no to the bill he can sign it and it becomes law(assuming it doesn't go against the bill of rights/other amendments) he can not sign it and it will pass anyway, or he can veto it in which case it will go back to the house and if they get a 2/3 vote on the bill it passes. there are checks and balances to make sure no one gets too powerful.

as for the term republic being anything without a monarchy i disagree, it might have meant that but now it has taken on it's own meaning to be a system where representatives represent you in the government. like the DPRK is known as a dictatorship not a republic. The US isn't a democracy no matter how many times everyone of our polititians foolishly say it is

As for the head of state what are there duties. Mentioned earlier about one being leading the church, well government here isn't allowed to indorse religion or lack thereof.

 

[Paalikles]

Who is king Harold?
kind sir, I assume you are referring to my king, king Harald

Norway is one of those constitutional monarchies, where the king has no real power.
Would a republic be better? Perhaps
But what powers should the president, or whatever he or she shall be called, have? If money is the issue, I agree that having a royal family spend taxpayers' money is more expensive than having only a president spend taxpayers' money. To that extent, I say, sure why not.

On the part where one can discuss culture and tradition, I am of a different opinion. To the extent that the royal family can be considered part of a country's culture, I d say that is a good reason to keep them where they are.

Lately though, the first argument tend to outweigh the second.

 

[Hitro]

The main arguments for or against it are purely ideological. It comes down to the question if you are consequently in favour of equality for all citizens or of the supposedly natural superiority of some human beings over their subjects.

 

[willemvanoranje]

now that's a typical point someone against monarchy would make. I agree with you on the first part, it's ideological, but it has nothing to do with superiority. I believe everyone is equal, yet I like the constitutional monarchy we have here. Really, if you take away feelings, it doesn't matter if there's a royal house or not. The Dutch royals get about 7 million euros per year. If there were no royal house, every tax payer would have to pay about 70 cents less. On the other hand, the royal house is a great tradition. Our national colour wouldn't be orange, our national teams wouldn't be called 'oranje', and they have nice economic impact as well.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
our national teams wouldn't be called 'oranje'

Now that would be too bad...

The points you bring up are irrelevant. You acknowledged yourself that the core reasons for or against it are always ideological. So practical implications, like financial costs and benefits are not relevant here.

Believing, in an ideological sense, that everyone is equal but still excluding practically everyone (except for a gfew chosen ones) from the highest office of the country for no other reason than the randomness of birth is simply inconsequent.

 

[willemvanoranje]

no no, see, you do it again. You imply that because I like our royal house I do not think everyone is equal. These two things are things that can walk side by side. That's all.

 

[Hitro]

Obviously they can, that doesn't make it any less inconsequent.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Hitro
The main arguments for or against it are purely ideological. It comes down to the question if you are consequently in favour of equality for all citizens or of the supposedly natural superiority of some human beings over their subjects.

Yes the arguments are ideological. However ideology does matter. The main difference between a democracy and a monarchy is: either you want a society that is stable and just, but perhaps slow to adapt and 'innocent', or you want a society where everyone one is against everyone and where society moves at breakneck speed towards some unknown future. Is this this future better or worse? Personally I am happy that knowledge for the sake of knowledge, or new and increasingly impossible social subcultures, are put on hold for a more conservative society.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Originally posted by Paalikles
Who is king Harold?
kind sir, I assume you are referring to my king, king Harald

Yes, that is the king to whom I was referring. I was following the custom of referring to foreign monarchs in my own language while speaking in my own language, as speakers of Western languages have always done. It's the same custom that leads me to say 'Frederick William' instead of 'Friedrich Wilhelm', or to call Catherine the Great 'Catherine' instead of 'Yekaterina'.

The custom has never been fully consistent, though. All the Russian rulers named 'Ivan' get called 'Ivan' instead of 'John', and the current Spanish king is always called 'Juan Carlos' and never 'John Charles'. So I have no problem saying 'Harald'. It's all the same to me.

Just out of curiosity, what is Prince Charles called in the various nations of Europe? Does he get called things like 'Carlos' and 'Karl' and 'Karol', or does everybody today call him 'Charles'?

Norway is one of those constitutional monarchies, where the king has no real power.
Would a republic be better? Perhaps
But what powers should the president, or whatever he or she shall be called, have? If money is the issue, I agree that having a royal family spend taxpayers' money is more expensive than having only a president spend taxpayers' money. To that extent, I say, sure why not.

On the part where one can discuss culture and tradition, I am of a different opinion. To the extent that the royal family can be considered part of a country's culture, I d say that is a good reason to keep them where they are.

Lately though, the first argument tend to outweigh the second.

So, you support the monarchy, or not? You almost sound like you have no strong feelings one way or the other, and wouldn't object to Norway's remaining a monarchy or becoming a republic. What do the majority of Norwegians think about it?

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
On the other hand, the royal house is a great tradition. Our national colour wouldn't be orange

That's an interesting argument. Still, I don't see why you would need a monarch just to have a national color. I understand that it comes from the royal House of Orange, but surely orange is a 'Dutch' enough color by now that you could keep it even if the monarchy was abandoned someday. It might help if you put the orange stripe back on the national flag. When and why was it ever changed to red, anyway?


That raises an interesting question in my mind. How do modern French people feel about the fleur-de-lis? Is it a beloved symbol of France, a hated symbol of a despised monarchy, or is it just a meaningless image that nobody cares one way or the other about?