Louis; hand me that guillotine!

[Kralizec]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

I'm not royal.

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

Unmixed aristocratic bloodlines lead to all sorts of deformities:

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

I'm not royal.

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?

[Pannonian]

No, I believe your family is somewhat older than the current Royal House

I doubt it, unless one of them isn't descended from the original primordial soup.

[Kralizec]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

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.