Louis; hand me that guillotine!

[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.