Louis; hand me that guillotine!

[Beskar]

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

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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:

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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Brenus]

“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…

[Furunculus]

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!

[Beskar]

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. This comment makes it epic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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. 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.

[Beskar]

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".

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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).

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.

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.

[Beskar]

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.

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.

[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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[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?

[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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.