Louis; hand me that guillotine!

[HoreTore]

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....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

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....

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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?

Oh, and 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

[HoreTore]

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

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.

[Andres]

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

Oh, and 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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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?

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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...?

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.

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!

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.

[Beskar]

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.)

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

[Kralizec]

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

[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:

[Beskar]

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.

[Husar]

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:

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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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?