Louis; hand me that guillotine!

Hello everyone.

My name is HoreTore. I come from a land far up to the north, a place called Norway. During the 23 years I have lived here, I have always thought that my country is a place where no man is worth more than another; where we are all bound by the same laws and duties. Some recent events, however, have proved me wrong in this. Very wrong.

It all started when DN ran a story about how the King has a hidden fortune he won't report to anyone. A fortune that is, of course, invested in stocks, only poor people keep money in the bank these days. How is this problematic, you say? Well, we norwegians are big on openness of our financial dealings; everyone is required to report their wealth to the authorities. Now, the King is exempted from paying taxes, but he should of course be open about his financial state. In fact he is with most, it's just the part that is invested he's keeping quiet about. But what's the big deal? Well you see, our King is little more than a glorified poster boy nowadays. His "job" is to basically walk around and promote Norwegian businesses. Of course he gets requests from more businesses than he can get around to, so he will have to choose some of them to work with. But when our King has businesses interests of his own, how can we trust him not to favour the companies he himself has shares in? Why should we believe that he isn't using his position as tax-paid head of state to fill his own coffers?

A second story came a few weeks after that, about the crown prince and princess. A few years back, they bought a summer place in Risør, on the south coast of Norway. Nothing special about that, lots of others have done the same. But the inbreds did something nobody else can; they fenced off their property, took the public beach as their own private one and denied the public access to our own country. You see, we norwegians are very fond of walking around in nature. More specifically, we like to walk near water. There are a zillion routes you can walk in this country, at least 99% either lead to water, is by the ocean or takes you around a water. So, to enable us all to both be able to own a cabin near the water and walk around said water, we have declared a beach zone(100m from the sea) as public land; illegal to build in and open to all. But when your family tree consists of lots of cousin marriages, you are above the law. And their minions fell over themselves in trying to please their overlords. The losers? Everyone else, who can no longer walk on the land.

And I hear Sarah Ferguson is making even british politicians blush over her corruption....

No, it's time to cut the crap and cut off some heads. The only good King, is a dead King!

there is no need for a guillotine....over here we just shot our last inbred ruler.....much easier IMO.

Quote:

---

The only good King, is a dead King!

---

Is there any way to de-elect them, or MUST you kill them? Murdering them seems so... so un-Scandnavian.

Oh, now don't be such a barbarian, HoreTore. We don't cut off heads anymore.


Use this on your king and crownprince instead....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...and in a few decades, the problem has solved itself.

https://img412.imageshack.us/img412/...uillotinee.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Is there any way to de-elect them, or MUST you kill them? Murdering them seems so... so un-Scandnavian.

---

Well, it depends on definition.

You are arguably killing the title of "King" not the current holder themself. They just become a normal rich person, as they have all government/political power cut from them, and their wages via-taxes.

The best time to get rid of a monarch though, is with their death. Thus, you can wait till old-age gets them, then declare yourself a republic after they are gone. At least the Monarch would have gone with happy memories, if they were any good (like Elizabeth the Second).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The only good King, is a dead King!

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Is there any way to de-elect them, or MUST you kill them? Murdering them seems so... so un-Scandnavian.

---

A King is an instution, it is not a person. Harald V is irrelevant, really. If he abdicates, he is no longer King, and as such there's no longer any reason to whack him. Should he decide not to abdicate, then he will of course go the way of Saddam....

Hah, Louis! If only that would've solved it.... Unfortunately, their women aren't very well known for being faithful, so that won't help..... Does any royal really know who their father is...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Is there any way to de-elect them, or MUST you kill them? Murdering them seems so... so un-Scandnavian.

---

It may have been a while, but Norwegians did have a fair rep for using the old axe at one point....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The only good King, is a dead King!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

I agree.

---

---

Monarchs, and indeed nobility, are people too.


Are you the same Andres that threw a hissyfit over people applauding the death of Afghani insurgents? :deal2:


[/irritating pest]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Monarchs, and indeed nobility, are people too.

---

I beg to differ!!

I see them more like dogs. And I have no problem with putting down an old dog....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Glbh...eature=related

Less messy solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Monarchs, and indeed nobility, are people too.


Are you the same Andres that made a hissyfit over people applauding the death of Afghani insurgents? :deal2:


[/irritating pest]

---

Where those the heads of a state because they achieved lots of magnificent and marvelous things, like: 1) managing to flop out of the right womb with more than just a part of their body; 2) ehm, eh, huh, stuff? and things? :creep:

Off with those royal heads!

How about changing the inheritance laws so his children gain neither his title nor his wealth. Thus no need to kill him....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

How about changing the inheritance laws so his children gain neither his title nor his wealth. Thus no need to kill him....

---

That's no fun. A big public spectacle would make people feel like they actually accomplished something.

I fully agree HoreTore, this whole scenario is disgusting.

I mean, why on earth is a monarch competing in the market-place? How improper, as if our fine blue-blooded aristocrats should be working for a living like some common peasant. How can we expect them to carry an air of nobility when they have to earn a living like some rags to riches factory owner?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I fully agree HoreTore, this whole scenario is disgusting.

I mean, why on earth is a monarch competing in the market-place? How improper, as if our fine blue-blooded aristocrats should be working for a living like some common peasant. How can we expect them to carry an air of nobility when they have to earn a living like some rags to riches factory owner?

---

I fully support him making a living for himself instead of mooching off my taxes.

I would prefer him not to do it by exploiting his status as Head of State though, just as I'd like it if the minister for oil and energy wasn't a chairman for Shell, for example....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I fully support him making a living for himself instead of mooching off my taxes.

I would prefer him not to do it by exploiting his status as Head of State though, just as I'd like it if the minister for oil and energy wasn't a chairman for Shell, for example....

---

The only good Republican is a dead Republican!

Wait, that sounds a bit intollerant and anti-Hummanist, hmmmm.....

Seriously though, Royal families are cheap, much cheaper than any other head of state.

On the issue of stocks though, they should be declared after a six month clearing period to allow His Majesty's broker to tidy things up and prevent embarressment.

On the issue of the shore: In Britain the first hundred yards or so are owned by the Queen, and thus can only be closed by her or her government. I assume a similar constitutional situation exists in Norway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The only good Republican is a dead Republican!

Wait, that sounds a bit intollerant and anti-Hummanist, hmmmm.....

---

Yes, while a "King" is an institution and not a person, and as such using the term "dead king" doesn't refer to an actual dead human, a republican can only be a human being. As such, I am talking about ending an institution, while you're talking about murdering people.

Intollerant and anti-humanist indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Seriously though, Royal families are cheap, much cheaper than any other head of state.

---

What on earth are you on about? Our royal family's social security check is 28 million €. Our prime minister earns around 150k €. Our president earns a little less than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

On the issue of stocks though, they should be declared after a six month clearing period to allow His Majesty's broker to tidy things up and prevent embarressment.

---

Your honest opinion is that they should get a 6-month waiting period to cover up corruption....? Seriously...? No wonder labour have been selling titles for years, with voters like you....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

On the issue of the shore: In Britain the first hundred yards or so are owned by the Queen, and thus can only be closed by her or her government. I assume a similar constitutional situation exists in Norway.

---

Nope. The first hundred metres are public land, meaning it belongs to me and my fellow citizens, not some inbred who can barely speak. They cannot be closed by anyone, except by special excemption by the city council. And as loyal underlings are always eager to please their masters, the city council fell over themselves to give them the excemption. They didn't even bother to make up an excuse as to why they broke our law and handed off our collective property, they just stated how happy they were to accommodate the royals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Nope. The first hundred metres are public land, meaning it belongs to me and my fellow citizens, not some inbred who can barely speak. They cannot be closed by anyone, except by special excemption by the city council. And as loyal underlings are always eager to please their masters, the city council fell over themselves to give them the excemption. They didn't even bother to make up an excuse as to why they broke our law and handed off our collective property, they just stated how happy they were to accommodate the royals.

---

Wait, so they didn't actually break the law? :laugh4:

Oh, and :laugh4: at Andres wanting to kill people for closing off beaches but scolding people for admiring a long range shot that killed a Taliban fighter.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Wait, so they didn't actually break the law? :laugh4:

---

What "they" are doing is irrelevant. The royal family is a system of government, and that system of government allowed the law to be broken to accomodate them.

When you're in a position to pass laws yourself, it becomes impossible for you to break the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, while a "King" is an institution and not a person, and as such using the term "dead king" doesn't refer to an actual dead human, a republican can only be a human being. As such, I am talking about ending an institution, while you're talking about murdering people.

Intollerant and anti-humanist indeed.

---

Rubbish, you asked for Madame Guillotine. By your arguement I might simple mean "re-educating" a Republicn so that he can be Reborn as a good Monarchist.

We all know about your opinions regarding royalty, nobility and anyone with large tracts od land.

Quote:

---

What on earth are you on about? Our royal family's social security check is 28 million €. Our prime minister earns around 150k €. Our president earns a little less than that.

---

You don't have a president, at least not a Head of State one like in America. How much do you suppose it costs to maintain the US president? The private jet, the custom bullet-prrof office chair, the clothes, the Navy Stewards?

Quote:

---

Your honest opinion is that they should get a 6-month waiting period to cover up corruption....? Seriously...? No wonder labour have been selling titles for years, with voters like you....

---

Yes, because I am a political realist and the discovery that the Norwegian Head of State's broker has been short-selling government bonds would be embarressing for your country. Like it or not you are currently a monarchy and discrediting your King is not in your short or medium-term interests.

Nope. The first hundred metres are public land, meaning it belongs to me and my fellow citizens, not some inbred who can barely speak. They cannot be closed by anyone, except by special excemption by the city council. And as loyal underlings are always eager to please their masters, the city council fell over themselves to give them the excemption. They didn't even bother to make up an excuse as to why they broke our law and handed off our collective property, they just stated how happy they were to accommodate the royals.[/QUOTE]

So the City Council (duly elected?) passed a law to make it legal to close the beach, which you deem illegal.

Democracy in action, that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What on earth are you on about? Our royal family's social security check is 28 million €. Our prime minister earns around 150k €. Our president earns a little less than that.

---

In the UK, they like to compare the wage we would give them to the President of the United States. It is one of those "Pro-Monarch" arguments which in reality, make no sense at all as it would never be more expensive than the current monarch and her family with its numerous heirs and hangers-on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, while a "King" is an institution and not a person, and as such using the term "dead king" doesn't refer to an actual dead human, a republican can only be a human being. As such, I am talking about ending an institution, while you're talking about murdering people.

---

Nice try, I suppose next you're going to explain to us how you end an institution using a Guillotine without harming any humans...
And after that you could explain how exactly you meant the following comment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I beg to differ!!

I see them more like dogs. And I have no problem with putting down an old dog....

---

You know, every time people say insurgents or terrorists should be put down like dogs, you have a problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Rubbish, you asked for Madame Guillotine. By your arguement I might simple mean "re-educating" a Republicn so that he can be Reborn as a good Monarchist.

We all know about your opinions regarding royalty, nobility and anyone with large tracts od land.

---

Yes, if the King does not want to abdicate, the guillotine will have to do it for him. It is my firm belief that every dictator should be shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You don't have a president, at least not a Head of State one like in America. How much do you suppose it costs to maintain the US president? The private jet, the custom bullet-prrof office chair, the clothes, the Navy Stewards?

---

As Beskar has pointed out, this argument is rubbish. Why on earth do we have to have a president like the US, why can't we have one like Germany does? Germany's president is paid, as far as I know, about the same as other german politicians. Could you please explain just why that option isn't possible for us...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yes, because I am a political realist and the discovery that the Norwegian Head of State's broker has been short-selling government bonds would be embarressing for your country. Like it or not you are currently a monarchy and discrediting your King is not in your short or medium-term interests.

---

It was pretty damn embarrasing for Britain when you found out that Labour had been selling titles too. Should that scandal have been kept in the closet too...?

It is our national interest to ensure that those entrusted with power and prestige on behalf of our population uses it for the purpose it is intended, not to enrich themselves. High profile corruption cases will scare others from doing so. So in fact, it is very much in our interest to have our king cast down as a corrupt imbecile; it will prove once and for to everyone that nobody is above the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So the City Council (duly elected?) passed a law to make it legal to close the beach, which you deem illegal.

Democracy in action, that.

---

They did not pass a law, they made an excemption. And an excemption made based on connections and face-value is what we usually term camaraderie and corruption. If a politician had done something like that he'd have to clear his desk by the end of the day, never to return to politics again. Åslaug Haga had to withdraw as both leader of the centre party and as Minister of Local Government and Regional Development after a couple of minor building code violations and a few thousand NOK in unpaid taxes(that she didn't know she had to pay). They would've teared her a new one if she had used her political connections to build a summer retreat near the beach. And rightly so!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Nice try, I suppose next you're going to explain to us how you end an institution using a Guillotine without harming any humans...
And after that you could explain how exactly you meant the following comment:

You know, every time people say insurgents or terrorists should be put down like dogs, you have a problem with it.

---

I had absolutely no problem with hanging Saddam, nor would I object to whacking OBL, Karzai or Mullah Omar. Any and every dictator should be shot. Those who put themselves above the law should not be protected by the law.

Still an abdicated throne would be good idea. Perhaps repeated ingestion of your local delicatessen various rotten-fish-contraptions as part of official duty might be a good incentive to make them see Norwegian sense. While we are at it: what would it cost to get our resident idiots to have some of that, too?

You'll never get rid of them anymore, horeTore.


The problem with monarchs is that so many people get under the spell of their power. Wealth and power are magnets, they attract. By supporting the monarchy, a bit of its glamour and magnificence shines on the supporter. Like moths hovering around a lamp. Regardless of whether it concerns people in actual power, who lose their republican values the second they get their chance to get close to a monarch, or the masses. Supporting the monarchy makes the lower and middle class supporter believe he is really one class higher than he actually is.

They complain about the politician earning 100k, but willingly grant the monarch his millions. And his beaches. and all other priviliges. All the royal has got to do in return is to marry, to have babies, and to die, so as to fill the tabloids for the reader to fawn over.



Still, why people would willingly be subjects of a monarch will always remain beyond me.

I suppose you people are simply not ready yet for the status of free and equal citizen, the sole master of his own destiny. :knight:



Que veut cette horde d'esclaves, de traîtres, de rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves, ces fers dès longtemps préparés?
Français, pour nous, ah! Quel outrage, quels transports il doit exciter!
C'est nous qu'on ose méditer, de rendre à l'antique esclavage!

Aux armes, citoyens! Formez vos bataillons! Marchons, marchons!! :knight: :france:
(O arme, Bordèu!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

As Beskar has pointed out, this argument is rubbish. Why on earth do we have to have a president like the US, why can't we have one like Germany does? Germany's president is paid, as far as I know, about the same as other german politicians. Could you please explain just why that option isn't possible for us...?

---

A President would be basically identical to the Prime-Minister. As such, any comparisons to the USA are completely bogus, especially when the British Prime-minister conducts majority of functions a president would do. In-fact, you could simply remove the Monarch and just keep the current system, and simply have some sort of constitutional court which allows the government to be formed after election. This would effectively be significantly cheaper than having a president at all.

"Pro-monarchists" like to dismiss this, because their position has no real logic or merit, and merely "lets keep it, because we always done it".
(I really hate this argument. It just shows the stupidity of anyone who says it. Something good would simply speak for itself without this ever being raised.)

Quote:

---

It is our national interest to ensure that those entrusted with power and prestige on behalf of our population uses it for the purpose it is intended, not to enrich themselves. High profile corruption cases will scare others from doing so. So in fact, it is very much in our interest to have our king cast down as a corrupt imbecile; it will prove once and for to everyone that nobody is above the law.

---

Agreed. This goes for MP's too, fiddling the expenses. They should have been barred from re-election in any significant cases and others being dishonourably discharged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, if the King does not want to abdicate, the guillotine will have to do it for him. It is my firm belief that every dictator should be shot.

---

Yes I know, so enough with the mock outrage please. You want to kill monarchs, I compared that to killing Republicans. Really, all this pent up hatred isn't healthy. Just pension them off somewhere.

Quote:

---

As Beskar has pointed out, this argument is rubbish. Why on earth do we have to have a president like the US, why can't we have one like Germany does? Germany's president is paid, as far as I know, about the same as other german politicians. Could you please explain just why that option isn't possible for us...?

---

Can you remember the name of Germany's president? Your King is high visibility for (relavely) low cost, you can't get that level of visability internationally for as low a cost with a president.

Quote:

---

It was pretty damn embarrasing for Britain when you found out that Labour had been selling titles too. Should that scandal have been kept in the closet too...?

---

Yes, but it's no longer relevent, because it only reflected badly on Blair, not the Queen, and now the issue is gone like so much smoke. Royal scandals stick around for years, monetory ones for decades. Mark my words, Sarah Ferguson will never recover from her recent blunder.

Quote:

---

It is our national interest to ensure that those entrusted with power and prestige on behalf of our population uses it for the purpose it is intended, not to enrich themselves. High profile corruption cases will scare others from doing so. So in fact, it is very much in our interest to have our king cast down as a corrupt imbecile; it will prove once and for to everyone that nobody is above the law.

---

Except...he's your King and I very much expect that your State is almost as vested in him as our is in our Queen. The scandal would (probably) be of little actual political import (unlike the cash-for honours one which involved not just money but power) and would hang around like a bad smell.

Quote:

---

They did not pass a law, they made an excemption. And an excemption made based on connections and face-value is what we usually term camaraderie and corruption. If a politician had done something like that he'd have to clear his desk by the end of the day, never to return to politics again. Åslaug Haga had to withdraw as both leader of the centre party and as Minister of Local Government and Regional Development after a couple of minor building code violations and a few thousand NOK in unpaid taxes(that she didn't know she had to pay). They would've teared her a new one if she had used her political connections to build a summer retreat near the beach. And rightly so!

---

Well, ultimately it is the responsibility of the King to disipline his heir, or disinherit him. Still, if the King is as universally loathed as you suggest he probably doesn't feel much responsibility toward his subjects.



I had absolutely no problem with hanging Saddam, nor would I object to whacking OBL, Karzai or Mullah Omar. Any and every dictator should be shot. Those who put themselves above the law should not be protected by the law.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Wait, so they didn't actually break the law? :laugh4:

Oh, and :laugh4: at Andres wanting to kill people for closing off beaches but scolding people for admiring a long range shot that killed a Taliban fighter.

CR

---

:inquisitive:

:laugh4: at you for not being able to make the distinction between when I'm serious and when I'm not. Of course, I don't want to behead our royals, but the institution needs to disappear.

But if thinking that I truly want to decapacitate all royal families is what makes you happy, then carry on :shrug:

Quote:

---

Yes, because I am a political realist and the discovery that the Norwegian Head of State's broker has been short-selling government bonds would be embarressing for your country. Like it or not you are currently a monarchy and discrediting your King is not in your short or medium-term interests.

---

This is golden. I've never met someone who thinks it's acceptable to cover up royal scandals, instead of expecting kings and crown princes to...you know, behave themselves.

It seems only fair that if a person gets to represent an entire nation, being paid for it generously and without having any sort of mandate from the voters, that person ought to refrain rom doing anything that would embarass the nation. Let alone anything that would be dubious from a legal perspective or even illegal. But that's to much to ask apparently :juggle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

This is golden. I've never met someone who thinks it's acceptable to cover up royal scandals, instead of expecting kings and crown princes to...you know, behave themselves.

It seems only fair that if a person gets to represent an entire nation, being paid for it generously and without having any sort of mandate from the voters, that person ought to refrain rom doing anything that would embarass the nation. Let alone anything that would be dubious from a legal perspective or even illegal. But that's to much to ask apparently :juggle:

---

He is from the old-school World War 2 mindset of "Keep mum!" "Talk costs lives!", etc. There is no problem unless it is known. In short: Ignorance is Bliss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yes I know, so enough with the mock outrage please. You want to kill monarchs, I compared that to killing Republicans. Really, all this pent up hatred isn't healthy. Just pension them off somewhere.

---

So.... You honestly believe that if the norwegian government was to declare a republic, and the King decided that he didn't want it and enforced a kingdom, then we shouldn't use force to remove his undemocratic arse? Laughable. If he decides not to hand in his crown he is to be considered a dictator, and yes, I firmly believe that every dictator deserves to die. Sorry if that offends, but I honestly don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Can you remember the name of Germany's president? Your King is high visibility for (relavely) low cost, you can't get that level of visability internationally for as low a cost with a president.

---

Yes, it is . But yes, Germany's president doesn't have a high status. Their PM, Angela Merkel, on the hand most certainly does. Is there a single european who haven't heard of Merkel or Schröder? Probably yes, but I very much doubt those people can name the king of norway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yes, but it's no longer relevent, because it only reflected badly on Blair, not the Queen, and now the issue is gone like so much smoke. Royal scandals stick around for years, monetory ones for decades. Mark my words, Sarah Ferguson will never recover from her recent blunder.

---

Nonsense; that scandal made us look at you brits as even more corrupt than before, and that impression has stayed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Except...he's your King and I very much expect that your State is almost as vested in him as our is in our Queen. The scandal would (probably) be of little actual political import (unlike the cash-for honours one which involved not just money but power) and would hang around like a bad smell.

---

Yes yes, I know that you british don't care about your leaders being corrupt. We Norwegians do, however. Ministers resign here because of corruption allegations of a few thousand NOK. The only reason it wouldn't be a massive political scandal would be because of people like you who are blinded by everything with blue blood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, ultimately it is the responsibility of the King to disipline his heir, or disinherit him. Still, if the King is as universally loathed as you suggest he probably doesn't feel much responsibility toward his subjects.

---

When did I suggest he was universally loathed? I loath the bastard. But unfortunately, the monarchy has the support of a majority of the population, which is why they're falling over each other to please and appease them in every way, to the detriment of everyone else.

And Kralizec: :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So.... You honestly believe that if the norwegian government was to declare a republic, and the King decided that he didn't want it and enforced a kingdom, then we shouldn't use force to remove his undemocratic arse? Laughable. If he decides not to hand in his crown he is to be considered a dictator, and yes, I firmly believe that every dictator deserves to die. Sorry if that offends, but I honestly don't care.

---

I'm a Humanist, I don't believe anyone ever "deserves" to die. In any case, a despotic King can be removed without the necessity of murdering him.

Oh, and I never siad he shouldn't be removed at all, did I?

Quote:

---

Yes, it is . But yes, Germany's president doesn't have a high status. Their PM, Angela Merkel, on the hand most certainly does. Is there a single european who haven't heard of Merkel or Schröder? Probably yes, but I very much doubt those people can name the king of norway.

---

That's the brilliant thing about Monarchs, they don't need names. If I met your King tomorrow I'd be able to tell who he was from his dress, and I'd know to call him "Your Majesty" then "Your Highness".

that sort of universal recognition isn't cheap.

Quote:

---

Nonsense; that scandal made us look at you brits as even more corrupt than before, and that impression has stayed.

---

If you say so, but Norway has always been (mostly) less corrupt than Britain, and in any case about 100% of the blame goes to Blair, as he was the only person capable of facilitating the scandal. If you want to hold that against us, that's your own affair. The approbrian will fade, but people do not foget corrupt monarchs so easily because they hang around.

Quote:

---

Yes yes, I know that you british don't care about your leaders being corrupt. We Norwegians do, however. Ministers resign here because of corruption allegations of a few thousand NOK. The only reason it wouldn't be a massive political scandal would be because of people like you who are blinded by everything with blue blood.

---

Actually, we get extremely upset. The fact that the Labour Ministers had a habit of clinging to the door frames of their offices is another matter entirely, it is not the British way, which was recently exemplified by David Laws. When I said the scandal would be of little political import I meant it because (as you so often point out) your King has little practical power, and therefore even if he was taking massive bribes it would be a question of abuse of influence, not abuse of power.

The two are very different.

Quote:

---

When did I suggest he was universally loathed? I loath the bastard. But unfortunately, the monarchy has the support of a majority of the population, which is why they're falling over each other to please and appease them in every way, to the detriment of everyone else.

And Kralizec: :2thumbsup:

---

So.... maybe he's not so bad? actually just an out of date old duffer? Useful for wheeling out at State ceremonies and preventing Ministers from feeling too important?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

He is from the old-school World War 2 mindset of "Keep mum!" "Talk costs lives!", etc. There is no problem unless it is known. In short: Ignorance is Bliss.

---

Which is political reality. From a political point of view, if your allies believe you are honourable then you are honourable; if you are capable of acting dishnourably and maintaining the facade that is to your benefit and their detriment.

Domestically this translates slightly differently. For example, the fact that David Laws is Gay is irrelevant to his doing his job, but if it might harm him politically because of prejudice then it behoves the papers to keep it quiet. On the other hand, if he is abusing his expenses and this reflects upon his ability to do his job then the papers have a responsibility to report this. This becomes more complex when you have to balance his expenses abuses against his competancy to do his job and reassure the markets; if he is deemed more important to the political and financial health of the Nation than his expenses are deemed damaging to the public purse then you might judge that covering the story up is "in the national interest".

If, in five years time, it all comes out and brings down the government that doesn't matter if covering it up at the time prevented us from going back into recession.

This is of course a question which completely ignores morality.

If you were to ask me the question from a moral stand point I would give you pretty much the opposite answer.

“They complain about the politician earning 100k, but willingly grant the monarch his millions”
They complain about the ones who “abuse” the system, the benefit fraud who get 80 Pounds a week and got a “free” flat of house but refuse to tax the owner of a more than 2,000,000 house or to limit the bankers bonuses…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hello everyone.

My name is HoreTore. I come from a land far up to the north, a place called Norway. During the 23 years I have lived here, I have always thought that my country is a place where no man is worth more than another; where we are all bound by the same laws and duties. Some recent events, however, have proved me wrong in this. Very wrong.

It all started when DN ran a story about how the King has a hidden fortune he won't report to anyone. A fortune that is, of course, invested in stocks, only poor people keep money in the bank these days. How is this problematic, you say? Well, we norwegians are big on openness of our financial dealings; everyone is required to report their wealth to the authorities. Now, the King is exempted from paying taxes, but he should of course be open about his financial state. In fact he is with most, it's just the part that is invested he's keeping quiet about. But what's the big deal? Well you see, our King is little more than a glorified poster boy nowadays. His "job" is to basically walk around and promote Norwegian businesses. Of course he gets requests from more businesses than he can get around to, so he will have to choose some of them to work with. But when our King has businesses interests of his own, how can we trust him not to favour the companies he himself has shares in? Why should we believe that he isn't using his position as tax-paid head of state to fill his own coffers?

A second story came a few weeks after that, about the crown prince and princess. A few years back, they bought a summer place in Risør, on the south coast of Norway. Nothing special about that, lots of others have done the same. But the inbreds did something nobody else can; they fenced off their property, took the public beach as their own private one and denied the public access to our own country. You see, we norwegians are very fond of walking around in nature. More specifically, we like to walk near water. There are a zillion routes you can walk in this country, at least 99% either lead to water, is by the ocean or takes you around a water. So, to enable us all to both be able to own a cabin near the water and walk around said water, we have declared a beach zone(100m from the sea) as public land; illegal to build in and open to all. But when your family tree consists of lots of cousin marriages, you are above the law. And their minions fell over themselves in trying to please their overlords. The losers? Everyone else, who can no longer walk on the land.

And I hear Sarah Ferguson is making even british politicians blush over her corruption....

No, it's time to cut the crap and cut off some heads. The only good King, is a dead King!

---

wow, you have a Royal Family that serves no useful function and fails to pay tax, sucks to be you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If you were to ask me the question from a moral stand point I would give you pretty much the opposite answer.

---

I have to do this, as I have to admit, it is the greatest single comment I have ever read. Especially if you remember that whole thing where it could have been implied I have no morals as an argument against me. :tongue: This comment makes it epic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I have to do this, as I have to admit, it is the greatest single comment I have ever read. Especially if you remember that whole thing where it could have been implied I have no morals as an argument against me. :tongue: This comment makes it epic.

---

So I'm not allowed to consider a question from multiple view points now?

OK, Beskar, I'm going to be explicit about this, though I expect you won't like it much.

I believe you have morals, just like everyone else. I believe this because I believe morality is a manifestion of Divine Will in opperation, and whether or not you believe in God he believes in you. However, I dislike your politics because I think they allow you to, philosophically speaking, set morality aside in the name of utility or "the Greater Good", and so we are absolutely clear I mean "you" in the rhetorical sense not you personally.

I have no idea how your morals operate when you imply that the EU should ignore the will of the People in order to federalise.

Quote:

---

So I'm not allowed to consider a question from multiple view points now?

---

Yes you can, but you should also allow me the right to be amused that your view contradicts your own morality. Aka, your view is morally wrong in your own eyes.

I often adopted various positions in an argument, I could even do a Christian Sermon if it was required of me. I could also adopt some one of your own ideological viewpoint, then criticise your view by your own ideological standard. However, there is a clear difference between "This is the view I am adopting" and "This is my view". What you have been saying is in your own words, your own "personal" view, you then comment "my own view betrays my morality".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I have no idea how your morals operate when you imply that the EU should ignore the will of the People in order to federalise.

---

Actually, you could argue that they actually were not doing that. Since we live in a representive democracy, the elected officials which represent us, are making the decisions in regards to allowing us to be federalised into the EU. Therefore, they have a political representive mandate to do this. (They don't actually need a referendum, under British law). Therefore, arguably the will of the people is not being ignored as the will of the people was to have those representatives.

HOWEVER, those who are not elected, therefore cannot make the decisions in order for us to be federalised. Only elected representives can.

So ultimately, there is not a grand illegal conspiracy going on. The comment you are referring to was when you made a comment by the Daily Mail (trash newspaper) saying about this grand conspiracy and I jokingly said "I wish it was". (As some one who sees a [democratic] United Europe as a progressive stepping stone, it was aimed at your appreciating the amusings of it, since I was basically saying "There is no conspiracy". )

Then what made the situation worse, is that Furunculus took a comment out of context from over a year ago, where I basically said the population are dumbed down by the likes of Daily Mail/Foxnews/etc, and there should be active promotion of the facts and figures and we should educate the population in critical thinking and reasoning tools, in order for them to fully function as they should in a democracy. Furunculus then said I tried to imply that we should simply ignore the population and do what we want, opposed to what I was actually saying, if that they are being manipulated and we should break them from these shackles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Yes you can, but you should also allow me the right to be amused that your view contradicts your own morality. Aka, your view is morally wrong in your own eyes.

I often adopted various positions in an argument, I could even do a Christian Sermon if it was required of me. I could also adopt some one of your own ideological viewpoint, then criticise your view by your own ideological standard. However, there is a clear difference between "This is the view I am adopting" and "This is my view". What you have been saying is in your own words, your own "personal" view, you then comment "my own view betrays my morality".

---

well, political expediency is different to morality; I was taking the point to the Machiavelian extreme also. My "personal" view is the moral one, but my "professional" (for lack of a better word) one is the political-utilitarian one. If you were to ask me what I would actually do my answer would be that I would try to ballance the "absolute" moral choice against it's potential harm. So, to take poor Daivd Laws as an example, there are a number of choices you can make of which are morally "clean", so you try to pick the least dirty one.

The important distinction between me and a true Utilitarian is that I apply my moral standard in every instance, and then act against it in some cases (in practice I avoid situation where I might compromise myself morally); so I would acknowledge that I had compromised myself and it would weigh upon my concience. the pure Utilitarian should have no such moral compunctions. The traditional Utopian Atheist, which is the orientation I assigned you, is a Trotskyist and therefore a pure Utilitarian devoted to the betterment of the Proletariat.

You will recall I invited you to dissagree with me, and I was hoping you would. I wasn't actually expecting a slanging match (though in retrospect I should have, and it's my fault for not being more eloquent).

Quote:

---

Actually, you could argue that they actually were not doing that. Since we live in a representive democracy, the elected officials which represent us, are making the decisions in regards to allowing us to be federalised into the EU. Therefore, they have a political representive mandate to do this. (They don't actually need a referendum, under British law). Therefore, arguably the will of the people is not being ignored as the will of the people was to have those representatives.

HOWEVER, those who are not elected, therefore cannot make the decisions in order for us to be federalised. Only elected representives can.

---

Howbeit this is wildly off topic, but I ascribe to the philosophy that a politicians does not have the right to give away the powers entrusted to him (entrusted is the key word here). Incidentally, the same is true of a monarch, so that a King or Queen should not voluntarilly bring their nation into a state of servitude, even at the expense of their own lives.

Quote:

---

So ultimately, there is not a grand illegal conspiracy going on. The comment you are referring to was when you made a comment by the Daily Mail (trash newspaper) saying about this grand conspiracy and I jokingly said "I wish it was". (As some one who sees a [democratic] United Europe as a progressive stepping stone, it was aimed at your appreciating the amusings of it, since I was basically saying "There is no conspiracy". )

Then what made the situation worse, is that Furunculus took a comment out of context from over a year ago, where I basically said the population are dumbed down by the likes of Daily Mail/Foxnews/etc, and there should be active promotion of the facts and figures and we should educate the population in critical thinking and reasoning tools, in order for them to fully function as they should in a democracy. Furunculus then said I tried to imply that we should simply ignore the population and do what we want, opposed to what I was actually saying, if that they are being manipulated and we should break them from these shackles.

---

I take the point, and I do recognise that is what you meant, however it did not come across well.

Shall we talk this unpleasentness up to a series of unfortunate missunderstandings now?

I am loath to admit it Beskar, but as Left-Wing Atheists/Ignostics go (I believe I have right there) I find you rather congenial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I take the point, and I do recognise that is what you meant, however it did not come across well.

---

That is my error. Unfortunate one I often make, even though I don't intend it.

Quote:

---

Shall we talk this unpleasentness up to a series of unfortunate missunderstandings now?

I am loath to admit it Beskar, but as Left-Wing Atheists/Ignostics go (I believe I have right there) I find you rather congenial.

---

I will agree to that. I was just amused at how your presented your point, and your reply was fully reasonable and I believe the term is "good recovery". I don't have any hard-feelings towards you, if anything, I remember you more for being another one to bring up the "french-tribe acrossing to America first" theory (I heard about that on either history or discovery channel years ago), than anything you would deem as negative. :bow:

To be honest, none of that sounds particularly awful Hore. It seems one would have to be predisposed toward outrage to get upset over the royals keeping their financial dealings private and building a fence that they petitioned for and were granted. I mean, how big was the area of beach they partitioned off? You're acting as if no one can ever hike again in Norway. The entire western border of your nation is coastline. If that is the extent of their privilege and power, it doesn't seem like a big deal.

Hmm. Correct me if I am wrong:

Hore Tore is a republican, thus by definition opposed against the concept of a monarch ruling over him
Hore Tore finds examples that prove this monarch seems to be literally above the law in some ways.
Hore Tore is not amused and feels justified in his republican beliefs.

Or in other words: it's not about how much the monarch and his dealings are morally repulsive; it is about the principle.

Instead of whining about it on a games forum, just run some longships up on the beach and sort it out the old fashioned way. Sheesh. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

That is my error. Unfortunate one I often make, even though I don't intend it.

---

We all have our little issues over which we are overly expressive, (certainly do) and most of us here in the Backroom should make greater allowence for each other.

Quote:

---

I will agree to that. I was just amused at how your presented your point, and your reply was fully reasonable and I believe the term is "good recovery". I don't have any hard-feelings towards you, if anything, I remember you more for being another one to bring up the "french-tribe acrossing to America first" theory (I heard about that on either history or discovery channel years ago), than anything you would deem as negative. :bow:

---

I have a ruthless political streak, I'm fully aware it conflicts with my morality, theology and way of living. It is however useful for examining situations like this.

I'm sure this is where the Americans would "hug it out", but, being English, we shouldn't do that. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

To be honest, none of that sounds particularly awful Hore. It seems one would have to be predisposed toward outrage to get upset over the royals keeping their financial dealings private and building a fence that they petitioned for and were granted. I mean, how big was the area of beach they partitioned off? You're acting as if no one can ever hike again in Norway. The entire western border of your nation is coastline. If that is the extent of their privilege and power, it doesn't seem like a big deal.

---

If one of our politicians had done something similar, he would've been booted from his office instantly.

We don't take kindly to corruption here.

It seems that the real point is being missed.

The substantive problem with European monarchies is that they are so increasingly middle class. I mean, this fellow is engaging in trade! No wonder he has lost the dignity of his office.

Trying to lay corruption at the feet of monarchy alone rather disregards the alternatives; Berlusconi's republic, for starters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It seems that the real point is being missed.

The substantive problem with European monarchies is that they are so increasingly middle class. I mean, this fellow is engaging in trade! No wonder he has lost the dignity of his office.

Trying to lay corruption at the feet of monarchy alone rather disregards the alternatives; Berlusconi's republic, for starters.

---

I take it you have never engaged in, ahem, "trade"?

I do agree though, Republics like Italy and Greece make monarchies extremely attractive. On the other hand, Germnay, France and Ireland seems to manage moderately well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It seems that the real point is being missed.

The substantive problem with European monarchies is that they are so increasingly middle class. I mean, this fellow is engaging in trade! No wonder he has lost the dignity of his office.

Trying to lay corruption at the feet of monarchy alone rather disregards the alternatives; Berlusconi's republic, for starters.

---

So the solution, in your opinion, is to give the already well-off monarchs in Europe even more entitlements and to kindly ask them in return to stop embarassing their people?

I don't really see the point of bringing Berlusconi into the discussion. Him being a corrupt bastard has absolutely nothing to do with Napolitano being a president rather than a constitutional monarch. Besides, a national embarrassment such as Berlusconi can be voted out of office, wich has happened twice already. Horst Kohler, former president of Germany, just resigned over a much lighter matter than the stuff HoreTore has mentioned about his royals. The only way of dealing with national embarrasments like the king of Norway is to sweep it under the carpet, watch him more closely and hope he doesn't do anything stupid in the near future.

The real point isn't being missed at all. The deeper point is (I think) that, considering the priviliged and largely untouchable postion of kings and their offspring, it's reasonable to expect exemplary behaviour from them. But measured against human nature this is an unrealistic standard, wich is why monarchies are undesirable and most positions in favour of them (besides calculated realpolitik) are intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The substantive problem with European monarchies is that they are so increasingly middle class. I mean, this fellow is engaging in trade! No wonder he has lost the dignity of his office.

---

Aye!

And not just trade. More akin to the dealings of former celebrities who just got out of rehab, desperate to cash in on their fame because they have got no other useful talent whatsoever.

Like Fergie, who recently sold a sleazy tabloid reporter access to prince Andrew for 500.000 pounds.


If some harlot pulls this sort of stunt with a famous football players she once ******, she's called all sorts of names. The princess has got nothing to worry about - monarchists will reason away anything that diminishes the fairy tale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I take it you have never engaged in, ahem, "trade".

---

I'm not royal. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

So the solution, in your opinion, is to give the already well-off monarchs in Europe even more entitlements and to kindly ask them in return to stop embarassing their people?

---

I wasn't advocating a solution. You have allocated me a position on this that I do not hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I don't really see the point of bringing Berlusconi into the discussion. Him being a corrupt bastard has absolutely nothing to do with Napolitano being a president rather than a constitutional monarch. Besides, a national embarrassment such as Berlusconi can be voted out of office, wich has happened twice already. Horst Kohler, former president of Germany, just resigned over a much lighter matter than the stuff HoreTore has mentioned about his royals. The only way of dealing with national embarrasments like the king of Norway is to sweep it under the carpet, watch him more closely and hope he doesn't do anything stupid in the near future.

---

It appeared that there was a causal link between monarchy and corruption being put forward. I was merely suggesting that republics can be just as corrupt. Berlusconi is notoriously difficult to get rid of, even by democratic standards - which rather suggests he has some other appeal to the people of Italy - perhaps a swagger, a different standard of behaviour to the commonality? The intellectual dishonesty is rather more evident in refusing to recognise that almost all western systems are veined through with patronage and corruption - more usually via corporate oligarchy than monarchy.

I do not seek to defend monarchy as an ideal, and certainly not for Norway which I know little about. I note only that I have land and business interests in a monarchy and two republics - one notionally a modern western state, the other only recently emerged from communism. The monarchy is the only nation where I do not have to bribe politicians and officials to get things done. (Though Louis would quite rightly argue, I have different levers of power to pull in that state).

EDIT: To follow through Louis' concurrent post, Sarah Ferguson is an ideal example of my case: Marrying the lower classes to try and look "like real people" and be inclusive has been an unmitigated disaster. There's a reason for the inbreeding; one gets breeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

To follow through Louis' concurrent post, Sarah Ferguson is an ideal example of my case: Marrying the lower classes to try and look "like real people" and be inclusive has been an unmitigated disaster. There's a reason for the inbreeding; one gets breeding.

---

Nah. The first estate needs a constant input of talent from trade, just to remain economically functioning, or even housetrained. :tongue3:

Unmixed aristocratic bloodlines lead to all sorts of deformities:

Quote:

---

Scientists have examined the family tree of the last of the Spanish Habsburgs, King Charles II, who died in 1700 at the age of 39, and discovered that, as a result of repeated marriages between close relatives, he was almost as inbred as the offspring of an incestuous relationship between a brother and sister or father and daughter.

The study found that nine out of 11 marriages over the 200 years were between first cousins or uncles and nieces, producing a small gene pool that made rare recessive genetic illnesses more prevalent.

Only half of the babies born to the dynasty during the period studied lived to see their first birthday, compared with about 80 per cent of children in Spanish villages at the time.

The study, published this week in the journal Public Library of Science One, indicated that Charles II suffered from two separate rare genetic conditions, which were almost certainly the result of his ancestors' marriage patterns and which effectively assured that the dynasty died out with him.

Nicknamed El Hechizado ("the hexed") because of his deformities, Charles II was not only inflicted with an extreme version of the Hapsburg chin, as immortalised in portraits by Titian and Velazquez, but his tongue was said to be so big for his mouth that he had difficulty speaking and drooled.

Historical accounts record that he also suffered from an oversized head, intestinal upsets, convulsions and, according to his first wife, premature ejaculation and his second wife, impotence.

"He was unable to speak until the age of four, and could not walk until the age of eight. He was short, weak and quite lean and thin," said Gonzalo Alvarez, of the University of Santiago de Compostela, who led the study.

"He looked like an old person when he was 30 years old, suffering edemas [swellings] on his feet, legs, abdomen and face. During the last years of his life he could barely stand up and suffered from hallucinations and convulsive episodes," he said.

---

The drooling imbecile quasimodos that Habsburg breeding produced were the demise of the largest Empire the world had ever seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

The real point isn't being missed at all. The deeper point is (I think) that, considering the priviliged and largely untouchable postion of kings and their offspring, it's reasonable to expect exemplary behaviour from them. But measured against human nature this is an unrealistic standard, wich is why monarchies are undesirable and most positions in favour of them (besides calculated realpolitik) are intellectually dishonest.

---

I rather tend to agree. However, respect and affection beget good behaviour, so you have a Catch 22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Aye!

And not just trade. More akin to the dealings of former celebrities who just got out of rehab, desperate to cash in on their fame because they have got no other useful talent whatsoever.

Like Fergie, who recently sold a sleazy tabloid reporter access to prince Andrew for 500.000 pounds.


If some harlot pulls this sort of stunt with a famous football players she once ******, she's called all sorts of names. The princess has got nothing to worry about - monarchists will reason away anything that diminishes the fairy tale.

---

I'm sure Banquo is quite correct that Sarah Ferguson is extremely common, as aristocrats go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I'm not royal. :wink:

---

No, I believe your family is somewhat older than the current Royal House, mind you that's not saying much as I'm reasonably sure my own family was littering church records with their names and (relatively small) donations before the crowning of George I.

so the real question is how we should improve our Royals, which might be a darn sight easier if they conducted their personal lives with a little more care. Or at least ensured the silence of reporters.

Actually, I have a question, I heard the rumour that Charles had to marry Diana Spencer because he was extremely short of options. I don't suppose you might be able to shed any light on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I wasn't advocating a solution. You have allocated me a position on this that I do not hold.



It appeared that there was a causal link between monarchy and corruption being put forward. I was merely suggesting that republics can be just as corrupt. Berlusconi is notoriously difficult to get rid of, even by democratic standards - which rather suggests he has some other appeal to the people of Italy - perhaps a swagger, a different standard of behaviour to the commonality? The intellectual dishonesty is rather more evident in refusing to recognise that almost all western systems are veined through with patronage and corruption - more usually via corporate oligarchy than monarchy.

I do not seek to defend monarchy as an ideal, and certainly not for Norway which I know little about. I note only that I have land and business interests in a monarchy and two republics - one notionally a modern western state, the other only recently emerged from communism. The monarchy is the only nation where I do not have to bribe politicians and officials to get things done. (Though Louis would quite rightly argue, I have different levers of power to pull in that state).

---

I apologize for misrepresenting your position.

Of course having a republican state is no garantue against corruption, and presidents aren't necessarily better at what they do then a constitutional monarch.
But a citizen is fully justified if he expects better and more modest behaviour from a king than he would from a president, for reasons I've already mentioned. If someone claims by right of birth to be my head of state and won't have that postition taken from him under any circumstances, it's only a fair trade-off if that person doesn't do anything that would embarrass his position (and by extension, me) for the rest of his life. I think there's plenty of evidence that kings and princes can't, or at any rate won't, live up to these expectations.

I realise that turning a monarchy into a republic won't drastically improve much of anything. I'd like to see the Dutch monarchy be abolished, but it's not one of my highest priorities. It's a matter of principle though, I definitely want to see it come down at some point in my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It seems that the real point is being missed.

The substantive problem with European monarchies is that they are so increasingly middle class. I mean, this fellow is engaging in trade! No wonder he has lost the dignity of his office.

Trying to lay corruption at the feet of monarchy alone rather disregards the alternatives; Berlusconi's republic, for starters.

---

Yes, and the monarchsts disregards the bad apples in their basket, so who cares?

We have little to no corruption here. That's because of our society, it's not because of his royal inbredness. If we were to ditch him, there's no way we're going to turn into Berlusconiland, there's absolutely no logic behind making such a claim.

The only thing we will ever lose if we were to behead the slow talker, is a posterboy. That's his only function, the only thing he adds to this nation. There's no need to replace him with a president at all. We already have a president, might as well continue with him. Swapping governments can easily be handled by the supreme court, they're even competent at what they do.

Cut his head off, and we can finally say that "yes, in Norway, all men are created equal, and the law is the same for everyone". That principle alone is more than enough to rid our nation of this pest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I take it you have never engaged in, ahem, "trade"?

I do agree though, Republics like Italy and Greece make monarchies extremely attractive. On the other hand, Germnay, France and Ireland seems to manage moderately well.

---

Hah! "Moderately well"? What on earth are you talking about? There's no difference between how France, Germany, the UK, the US and the nordic countries are doing, we're doing just as well, with the single exception that republican USA have been beating the rest of the world for a solid 50 years. Greece and Italy may be republics, but Belgium and Thailand are most certainly monarchies. And so was Japan during WW2, and their monarchy was what enabled their bloodshed in the pacific theatre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I apologize for misrepresenting your position.

Of course having a republican state is no garantue against corruption, and presidents aren't necessarily better at what they do then a constitutional monarch.
But a citizen is fully justified if he expects better and more modest behaviour from a king than he would from a president, for reasons I've already mentioned. If someone claims by right of birth to be my head of state and won't have that postition taken from him under any circumstances, it's only a fair trade-off if that person doesn't do anything that would embarrass his position (and by extension, me) for the rest of his life. I think there's plenty of evidence that kings and princes can't, or at any rate won't, live up to these expectations.

I realise that turning a monarchy into a republic won't drastically improve much of anything. I'd like to see the Dutch monarchy be abolished, but it's not one of my highest priorities. It's a matter of principle though, I definitely want to see it come down at some point in my life.

---

I entirely agree with your statement that there is a higher expectation for monarchies. Indeed, once constitutional monarchy was invented, the monarch and heir were very much about showing society what was acceptable - beyond meritocratic aspiration (largely based on greed and accumulation) on the higher plane of manners and style. Thus my rather fatuous jibe about "trade" - a king should be above (and seen to be above) mere grubbing around with the merchants. You are also right to note that sovereigns have rarely managed to exemplify this standard.

As a youth, I used to be quite republican in outlook. Having experienced first hand the workings of the British monarchy since my father's death, I must say that there are some very compelling reasons to maintain the system in that country, at least. Perhaps because Her Majesty is one of those rare exemplars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Actually, I have a question, I heard the rumour that Charles had to marry Diana Spencer because he was extremely short of options. I don't suppose you might be able to shed any light on that?

---

The decision to marry the Prince of Wales to Lady Diana Spencer was ill-thought for a number of reasons. Options were indeed lacking: the best candidate by far was Princess Marie-Astrid of Luxembourg, who unfortunately fell foul of the Act of Settlement.

Does Norway posses no parliament? Can the King not be overruled by a vote? Can you not send a petition to the government reminding them that the beaches are sacrosanct under the law? We too see such corruption in the Senate and the House of Representatives, yay, even in the Presidency in the United States. That is what our November elections are for-to vote the old crooks out and the new crooks in. Much less sanguine than a guillotine, although less decisive I'm sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Does Norway posses no parliament? Can the King not be overruled by a vote? Can you not send a petition to the government reminding them that the beaches are sacrosanct under the law? We too see such corruption in the Senate and the House of Representatives, yay, even in the Presidency in the United States. That is what our November elections are for-to vote the old crooks out and the new crooks in. Much less sanguine than a guillotine, although less decisive I'm sure.

---

Surprisingly not.

Once a nation beheads its king, it is typical for it to descend into a tyranny and then go back to a king again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Surprisingly not.

Once a nation beheads its king, it is typical for it to descend into a tyranny and then go back to a king again.

---

Like the French. It took getting thrashed by the Germans for them to get tired of having a monarch. Since we've never been thrashed by the Germans, unlike the French, we still have a monarch. Well, that isn't always true. The Prussians played their part in crushing the French in 1815, then we reinstated the French monarchy. French changes in governmental style are often prompted by one foreign power or another beating them in war and occupying their capital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Like the French. It took getting thrashed by the Germans for them to get tired of having a monarch. Since we've never been thrashed by the Germans, unlike the French, we still have a monarch. Well, that isn't always true. The Prussians played their part in crushing the French in 1815, then we reinstated the French monarchy. French changes in governmental style are often prompted by one foreign power or another beating them in war and occupying their capital.

---

While I know it's more of a poke than a serious comment, that's blatantly wrong.
1789 => From Absolute to Constitutionnal Monarchy, by ourselves.
1792 => From Constitutionnal Monarchy to Republic, by ourselves.
1799 => From Republic to Military Dictatorship, by ourselves.
1804 => From Dictatorship to Empire, by ourselves.
1814/1815 => From Empire to Absolute Monarchy, imposed by foreign powers.
1830 => From Absolute to Constitutionnal Monarchy, by ourselves.
1848 => From Constitutionnal Monarchy to Republic, by ourselves.
1852 => From Republic to Empire
1871 => From Empire to Republic. The government change is imposed by Prussia, but they mostly want to get rid of Napoléon III and don't care about what we get next. So struggle between Monarchists, Conservatives Republicans, Radical Republicans and Socialo-anarchists (Paris Commune). The Monarchists screw up, despite being a majority, and we end up with a conservative republic in the hands of landlords and bankers.
1940 => From Republic to dictatorial, nazi-lapdog Vichy, imposed by the IIIrd Reich
1944 => From Vichy to Republic
1958 => From Republic to Republic (wtf?)

May have forgotten one or two there, aswell as all the coup attempts, or missed expectations (republicans led the 1830 Revolution but put another king in power).
In fact, it can be argued that there was more governmental changes because we kicked other people's ass than because we've got ours kicked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Surprisingly not.

Once a nation beheads its king, it is typical for it to descend into a tyranny and then go back to a king again.

---

True, but often the last King institutes a Republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

While I know it's more of a poke than a serious comment, that's blatantly wrong.
1789 => From Absolute to Constitutionnal Monarchy, by ourselves.
1792 => From Constitutionnal Monarchy to Republic, by ourselves.
1799 => From Republic to Military Dictatorship, by ourselves.
1804 => From Dictatorship to Empire, by ourselves.
1814/1815 => From Empire to Absolute Monarchy, imposed by foreign powers.
1830 => From Absolute to Constitutionnal Monarchy, by ourselves.
1848 => From Constitutionnal Monarchy to Republic, by ourselves.
1852 => From Republic to Empire
1871 => From Empire to Republic. The government change is imposed by Prussia, but they mostly want to get rid of Napoléon III and don't care about what we get next. So struggle between Monarchists, Conservatives Republicans, Radical Republicans and Socialo-anarchists (Paris Commune). The Monarchists screw up, despite being a majority, and we end up with a conservative republic in the hands of landlords and bankers.
1940 => From Republic to dictatorial, nazi-lapdog Vichy, imposed by the IIIrd Reich
1944 => From Vichy to Republic
1958 => From Republic to Republic (wtf?)

May have forgotten one or two there, aswell as all the coup attempts, or missed expectations (republicans led the 1830 Revolution but put another king in power).
In fact, it can be argued that there was more governmental changes because we kicked other people's ass than because we've got ours kicked.

---

I think the point being made was that France changes its Constitution when it is threatened, i.e. the Fifth Republic resulted from WWII, rather than it being a case of change always being imposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Instead of whining about it on a games forum, just run some longships up on the beach and sort it out the old fashioned way. Sheesh. ~;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Does Norway posses no parliament? Can the King not be overruled by a vote? Can you not send a petition to the government reminding them that the beaches are sacrosanct under the law? We too see such corruption in the Senate and the House of Representatives, yay, even in the Presidency in the United States. That is what our November elections are for-to vote the old crooks out and the new crooks in. Much less sanguine than a guillotine, although less decisive I'm sure.

---

I suspect the beaches are guarded by huscarls, and norse war clerics partrol the shore with their maces.... :clown:

you need more viking raiders to create some republics... and remember, the huscarls had high attack, insane defense, and AP, so pumping out armoured sergeants won't help, it's time to fought them with ol sword staff militia...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Surprisingly not.

Once a nation beheads its king, it is typical for it to descend into a tyranny and then go back to a king again.

---

Yes, we all know modern Russia is a constitutional monarchy.

EDIT: And just what is the difference between having a king and a tyranny...? A tyranny usually whacks people they don't like for whatever reason, if any. Every king in history with the power to do so have killed the people they don't like for whatever reason, if any....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, we all know modern Russia is a constitutional monarchy.

EDIT: And just what is the difference between having a king and a tyranny...? A tyranny usually whacks people they don't like for whatever reason, if any. Every king in history with the power to do so have killed the people they don't like for whatever reason, if any....

---

A Tyrrany is constitutionally illegal, and maintaind primarily through violence. A King rules through the force of law and tradition, as well as repriscosity.

Russia is currently in the "Tyranny" faze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

A Tyrrany is constitutionally illegal, and maintaind primarily through violence. A King rules through the force of law and tradition, as well as repriscosity.

Russia is currently in the "Tyranny" faze.

---

Just how is Medvedevs rule unconstitutional...?

And I dare say that most kings with actual power have been ruling as they have seen fit, rewarding and killing as they please.

EDIT: Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics -- against his own people as well as others".

I can think of a lot of Kings who would fit that description...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BQ

Once a nation beheads its king, it is typical for it to descend into a tyranny and then go back to a king again.

---

Ah, but when republics are overthrown by single-rulers emerging from within, standard procedure is to have a lot of people killed, after which servitude ensues or freedom is restored.

Most bloody of all are monarchs replacing other monarchs -the more common way for a monarch to lose position, or head, or both. Which is still a mere triviality compared to what the population suffers in this sort of transition of power.

None of this, however, is called tyranny or terror, but is strangely accepted as normal, as either collateral damage to internal power-struggle or foreign war.


Compared to all of this, the handful of people that have ever lost their heads in transitions to republics are negligable.

A monarchy - a position with intrinsic power and wealth - is a source of instability. It is a coveted position, but limited to one. Naturally, power struggle ensues, as is shown by Europe's long, bloody history. A history of strife and warfare which has only come to an end owing to the triumph of French republican and democratic values throughout the continent.

~~-~~ Liberté ~-~ Egalité ~-~ Fraternité ~~-~~

This peacefulness came about in three ways:

After the French Revolution a scared alliance between the high nobility and the monarchs was forged. Both ever since 1789 living in mortal fear for their lives and position, internal aristocratic peace was made. A monarch did not need to fear his mighty lords any longer, the populations at last spared from bloody wars of replacement or succession.

A sacred, or scared, alliance between monarchs was forged. The common way for a monarch was to lose his head to a foreign monarch. Since the Restauration, monarchs have covered one another. Sadly, this has strenghtened their position, but happily, it has protected populations from dynastic wars.

Thirdly, democracies are far less likely to wage war externally. The monarch seeks to enlarge his holdings. The democracy knows no gain from enlargement, for it means merely an enlargment of more equals, not a larger base to draw plunder and position from.

~~+~~ Liberté ~+~ Egalité ~+~ Fraternité ~+~

It was not the French democracy that started the wars. It were the foreign monarchies who send their slave hordes to fight liberty. The free peoples willing to fight for liberty or die, the slave hordes commanded by the Prussian autocrats, Austrian Habsburgs, Russian despots, paid for by the British lords, suffered defeat after defeat after defeat, until indeed, all free men of arms were dead and there was none left to fight.


Still this was not the end!
The genie of liberty was out of the bottle. France could never again be returned to servitude. Generation after generation would either be free or would die fighting on the barricades.

Abroad, their countries having been set ablaze, their tyrants humiliated, the populace inspired by the unspeakable glory of the free French, most of the foreign slave peoples the past two centuries discovered that they too longed for freedom, the march of democracy, liberty and equality continued, as it does to this day. :knight:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBTVB-Ybdt8



HoreTore, Andres, Kralizec - fight the tyranny! Demand what is yours: to be adressed as a citizen, not as a subject.
The lowest French peasant is the subject of none. The most talented Norwegian must suffer the humiliation of a jetset family of Paris Hiltons adressing him as his superiors. Adressing his children their inferiors.

Do not suffer this! Fight it. End it. Take what is yours! Aux armes, citoyens européens! :knight:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Just how is Medvedevs rule unconstitutional...?

---

He's a puppet, Putin rules, everyone knows this. Putin is a Tyrant.

Quote:

---

And I dare say that most kings with actual power have been ruling as they have seen fit, rewarding and killing as they please.

EDIT: Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics -- against his own people as well as others".

I can think of a lot of Kings who would fit that description...

---

well, obviously a King who rules against law is a tyrant, I would have thought that was obvious. However, Plato was making an ideaological point... the crucial distinction between King and Tyrant is their attitude to the Law.

Remember I said the Law was Sacred and sacrosanct?

There is something else: in public discourse cause and result regarding the stability of monarchies are usually reversed.

A monarchy does not create stability. Rather, the remaining monarchies owe their continued existence to their stable states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I think the point being made was that France changes its Constitution when it is threatened, i.e. the Fifth Republic resulted from WWII, rather than it being a case of change always being imposed.

---

Not to nitpick, but the Vème, the current Republic, was instated owing to the instability of the short-lived post-war IVème Republic, and another lost war, Algeria.

The point remains unaffected by that. As to that: how would it be otherwise? One does not change a Republic on a whim, it takes extraordinary circumstances: revolution, external or internal threat or the like.

This King fellow has got it pretty good. Where do I apply?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

This King fellow has got it pretty good. Where do I apply?

---

Anywhere were there is an eligable princess.

Once you manage to have sex with her, the masses will worship you, throw money at you and grant you your every wish. Their children will angrily claim to bemused outsiders that it is an ancient tradition in their country to worship the House of Texas.


Failing to find a European princess, you could try the Pacific and impress the natives by claiming to be the returned God of their mythology. They will worship you too. Although the weather will be nicer, the perks for Pacific gods are not as great as those of Euro monarchs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Anywhere were there is an eligable princess.

---

Learn how to spell you uncouth harlot!

Quote:

---

Once you manage to have sex with her, the masses will worship you, throw money at you and grant you your every wish. Their children will angrily claim to bemused outsiders that it is an ancient tradition in their country to worship the House of Texas.


Failing to find a European princess, you could try the Pacific and impress the natives by claiming to be the returned God of their mythology. They will worship you too. Although the weather will be nicer, the perks for Pacific gods are not as great as those of Euro monarchs.

---

I've always had a thing for the English and the Sweedish Princesses.

How do I go about shagging one of these royals?

Louis explains how you become king.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Ah, but when republics are overthrown by single-rulers emerging from within, standard procedure is to have a lot of people killed, after which servitude ensues or freedom is restored.

Most bloody of all are monarchs replacing other monarchs -the more common way for a monarch to lose position, or head, or both. Which is still a mere triviality compared to what the population suffers in this sort of transition of power.

None of this, however, is called tyranny or terror, but is strangely accepted as normal, as either collateral damage to internal power-struggle or foreign war.


Compared to all of this, the handful of people that have ever lost their heads in transitions to republics are negligable.

A monarchy - a position with intrinsic power and wealth - is a source of instability. It is a coveted position, but limited to one. Naturally, power struggle ensues, as is shown by Europe's long, bloody history. A history of strife and warfare which has only come to an end owing to the triumph of French republican and democratic values throughout the continent.

~~-~~ Liberté ~-~ Egalité ~-~ Fraternité ~~-~~

This peacefulness came about in three ways:

After the French Revolution a scared alliance between the high nobility and the monarchs was forged. Both ever since 1789 living in mortal fear for their lives and position, internal aristocratic peace was made. A monarch did not need to fear his mighty lords any longer, the populations at last spared from bloody wars of replacement or succession.

A sacred, or scared, alliance between monarchs was forged. The common way for a monarch was to lose his head to a foreign monarch. Since the Restauration, monarchs have covered one another. Sadly, this has strenghtened their position, but happily, it has protected populations from dynastic wars.

Thirdly, democracies are far less likely to wage war externally. The monarch seeks to enlarge his holdings. The democracy knows no gain from enlargement, for it means merely an enlargment of more equals, not a larger base to draw plunder and position from.

~~+~~ Liberté ~+~ Egalité ~+~ Fraternité ~+~

It was not the French democracy that started the wars. It were the foreign monarchies who send their slave hordes to fight liberty. The free peoples willing to fight for liberty or die, the slave hordes commanded by the Prussian autocrats, Austrian Habsburgs, Russian despots, paid for by the British lords, suffered defeat after defeat after defeat, until indeed, all free men of arms were dead and there was none left to fight.


Still this was not the end!
The genie of liberty was out of the bottle. France could never again be returned to servitude. Generation after generation would either be free or would die fighting on the barricades.

Abroad, their countries having been set ablaze, their tyrants humiliated, the populace inspired by the unspeakable glory of the free French, most of the foreign slave peoples the past two centuries discovered that they too longed for freedom, the march of democracy, liberty and equality continued, as it does to this day. :knight:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBTVB-Ybdt8



HoreTore, Andres, Kralizec - fight the tyranny! Demand what is yours: to be adressed as a citizen, not as a subject.
The lowest French peasant is the subject of none. The most talented Norwegian must suffer the humiliation of a jetset family of Paris Hiltons adressing him as his superiors. Adressing his children their inferiors.

Do not suffer this! Fight it. End it. Take what is yours! Aux armes, citoyens européens! :knight:

---

Oh nonsense, the French Terror was about 100% worse than the overthrow of any monarch by another monarch, because it involved killing all the nobility and priests, rather than just the dodgiest ones.

Also nonsense that democracies are less violent or expansive, I refer you to ancient Athens, or modern Israel.

Third nonsense, France used conscript armies who died in droves, his Britanic Majesty used volunteers.

Monarchies are stable so long as the monarch is not insane, because the politicians vy with eaqch other, not against the King.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Louis explains how you become king.

---

By Divine Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Oh nonsense, the French Terror was about 100% worse than the overthrow of any monarch by another monarch, because it involved killing all the nobility and priests, rather than just the dodgiest ones.

---

Actually, the Terror barely scratched the aristocracy in comparative terms. It was much more about killing other revolutionaries and assorted undesirable peasant types. Far more of the idealists who started the whole thing off lost their heads than nobles. Rather typical of bloody revolutions, where the real enemy is the fellow who is like oneself, but not quite so pure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

By Divine Right?

---

No, by some farcical aquatic ceremony involving a bint lobbing a scimitar in one's general direction. Hmm, perhaps that is Divine Right, in a nutshell. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Actually, the Terror barely scratched the aristocracy in comparative terms. It was much more about killing other revolutionaries and assorted undesirable peasant types. Far more of the idealists who started the whole thing off lost their heads than nobles. Rather typical of bloody revolutions, where the real enemy is the fellow who is like oneself, but not quite so pure.

---

I stand corrected, but I submit that the aristocracy suffred more (and more unfairly) than during a mere dynastic squablle. Russia was even worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Not to nitpick, but the Vème, the current Republic, was instated owing to the instability of the short-lived post-war IVème Republic, and another lost war, Algeria.

The point remains unaffected by that. As to that: how would it be otherwise? One does not change a Republic on a whim, it takes extraordinary circumstances: revolution, external or internal threat or the like.

---

How significant was the attempted Legion coup in French history as taught?

Quote:

---

Third nonsense, France used conscript armies who died in droves, his Britanic Majesty used volunteers.

---

Hmmm. Did you wear rose tinted glasses when studying British history? Heard of press gangs for the Royal Navy?

Quote:

---

Monarchies are stable so long as the monarch is not insane, because the politicians vy with eaqch other, not against the King.

---

Only in a constitutional Monarchy -or one with no overly focussed centre of power, as was the case with the French government before 1789.

Edit:

And what is there to stop other members of the aristocracy (or foreign Kings) vying with their "equal", the King?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Hmmm. Did you wear rose tinted glasses when studying British history? Heard of press gangs for the Royal Navy?

---

Strictly illegal practice, and far less prevelant that you would think anyway.

The French used conscript sailors and soldiers.