NationStates Jolt Archive

Happy Birthday your Royal Highness.

For those who do not like the Royals, I would like to let them know that, strange as it may sound, the most socially advanced (in my opinion) countries in the world are kingdoms: let's start by those under our Queen: Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and then, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland and we may also add Japan.

We can also say that Spain has changed a lot since it has a King.

And for my Brits, I've got great news for those who demand a republic - there's a great big one, just south of Dover, called France. You don't even need a passport. Bon voyage, and good riddance to "Le Whinger Anglais". And while you there; enjoy paying far more than 66p a year for the presidency and his entourage that you so much admire.

Charlie? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM)

Or perhaps...Charlie! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPONTneuaF4)

Saudi Arabia is a kingdom.

Germany is a republic.

Spain is a kingdom.

Botswana is a republic.

Gee, could it be that historical processes, rather than "do we or do we not have a royal family for tabloids to explore and for people to sustain", are the most important criteria?

Gee, could it be that historical processes, rather than "do we or do we not have a royal family for tabloids to explore and for people to sustain", are the most important criteria?

Nah, it has to be the royal family...

Charlie? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM)

Or perhaps...Charlie! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPONTneuaF4)

No, no, no. Charlie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8cqZdBpLr8&feature=related).

Bollocks to the jug-eared wingnut, let's hope he is never king.

Saudi Arabia is a kingdom.

Germany is a republic.

Spain is a kingdom.

Botswana is a republic.

Gee, could it be that historical processes, rather than "do we or do we not have a royal family for tabloids to explore and for people to sustain", are the most important criteria? That is not an issue. Many republicans seem to believe that getting rid of the monarchy will turn Britain into a magical land of social progressiveness and civic responsibility (yeah, right). When some of the most socially responsible nations are kingdoms, see what I mean.

Bollocks to the jug-eared wingnut, let's hope he is never king

I am glad ignorant people like you are in a minority. If you think that Prince Charles is "on the dole" or "sponging off the state" then I suggest that you do some research. He has contributed more to this country then you have. He also runs his own business and started the Princes trust which many have benefited from..etc etc. What have you done?

Japan, socially advanced? There are a lot of weird laws and weirder social conventions you might not know about over there...I learned the other week that surrogacy and egg donation is actually illegal (http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2008/s2385350.htm) over there, for example.

You do know, don't you, that in these monarchies, the "power" of the throne is pretty much limited to smiling and waving to everyone, occasionally opening parliament and, when prodded, calling for a new government. The actual work is done by "gasp, choke" Parliament.

Constitutional monarchy pretty much means the king/queen is a figurehead and the rest of the family is there largely for entertainment purposes. I have to say, in the past decade or so, the English Royal Family has been pretty entertaining.

"But that was until last week when I suddenly realised that everything the Queen thinks about her son is justified - that he's weak, arrogant, temperamental and given to grandness. The 21st Century Prince Charles is just one big PR con. The fact is, that the monarchy hasn't changed one jot and neither has this preening, silly man who says he "needs" 85 staff (annual wage bill pounds 2.5million) to look after him - four valets, two butlers, four chefs, nine gardeners, five chauffeurs, footmen etc. Even the Queen has remarked that his retinue is "grotesque".

In fact, we learn that so useless is Charles that one of his valets actually squeezes toothpaste on to his toothbrush every morning, while another has the degrading task of having to hold the bottle if Charles is ever required to give a urine sample. (Poor sod probably wipes the royal backside as well.)

I mean what sort of human being makes another man hold a bottle while he pees into it?

Charles is a man who for years has yearned for the responsibility of being King, yet at 54 he is still incapable, or just too damn lazy, to even dress himself. He throws his clothes on the floor every night, which means the man who wakes him up has to pick them up. He has someone to run his bath and fill it with scented oils, someone who lays out specially-folded towels so when he gets out of the bath he can just sit on them and wrap them round himself. Even his socks are folded in a certain way so he can slip them on without straining the royal muscles.

Everything he wears is laid out for him, and as he changes clothes up to five times a day it means that as many as five pounds 2,000 suits can be strewn on the floor at any one time.

He has footmen who spend a whole hour polishing one pair of his pounds 1,800-a-pair shoes.

On top of that, he has screaming tantrums if someone puts the wrong cloth on the table for dinner and he has hissy fits if a piece of furniture is moved to a position he doesn't like. He'd also rather fire off bollocking memos to staff about a few pieces of gravel on the front step rather than just kicking them off himself."

Guess what? The monarchies in those "socially advanced" nations you listed are figureheads. Yes, they make marches in public, but they have about as much political power as the dog Obama's getting for his children.

Now, as for REAL monarchies (those where the royalty actually have power), you places like Botswana and Saudi Arabia -- yes, those nations nobody sensible wants to visit!

Guess what? The monarchies in those "socially advanced" nations you listed are figureheads. Yes, they make marches in public, but they have about as much political power as the dog Obama's getting for his children. Even suggesting I didn’t know that is an insult to my intelligence at the highest level. However, they have more power than I think you realise. If they really wanted to use some of there powers, for the good of the country, who is to stop them? In my hypothetical situation here the party in power has done something ludicrous like set up concentration camps for the Welsh.
The Monarch also stops the PM from getting above himself; he is not Head of State, he cannot get above himself as there is always a higher power above him. You could get the same sort of thing with a president, but you could just end up with an elected yes man who would not use there powers in a situation as described as above.

Happy Birthday to Prince Charles, one of the ugliest royal Europe has had the misfortune of seeing. May he grow a pustule on the tip of his penis and turn 80 with zombie Camilla Parker-Bowels!!

I'm amazed he's still alive. The women royals live forever, but the men always die young. That's probably because they have to live with the women. :D

*ducks a swipe from wifey*

Happy Birthday to Prince Charles, one of the ugliest royal Europe has had the misfortune of seeing. May he grow a pustule on the tip of his penis and turn 80 with zombie Camilla Parker-Bowels!! What about all the good he has done? Or do you just hate him becasue he "killed Diana".

What about all the good he has done? Or do you just hate him becasue he "killed Diana".

What has he done?

What about all the good he has done? Or do you just hate him becasue he "killed Diana".

He's done good? Really? Wow...

What has he done?

The Prince's Trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince%27s_Trust)

Nah, it has to be the royal family...
And they are SUCH role models for us all.....

Meh... Happy birthday princy. :p

The Prince's Trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince%27s_Trust)

Hmm. Interesting.

Guess what? The monarchies in those "socially advanced" nations you listed are figureheads. Yes, they make marches in public, but they have about as much political power as the dog Obama's getting for his children.


And that is an ideal situation to have, the decision making leader of the country should not also wield the power of being the head of state itself.

In 1649 we chopped off a Kings head because He wanted to "rule" by absolutism,for the good of the Country sic.In 1684 we forced another King to abdicate(James the second)because He wanted to take the the Country back to Rome,for the good of the Country.William of Orange presided over the Glencoe Massacre and outlawed a nation's customs,for the good of the Country.I thank any God who wants to take credit for the acts that ensure no "King"will ever have the power to "rule" for the good off the Country.Btw I am British and in closing-Viva Libertie Viva Fraternitie Viva Egalitie,if you don't like it you can kiss my _ _ _.

Didn't he break up with Princess Diana for a prostitute?

Didn't he break up with Princess Diana for a prostitute?

Bah, Diana was putting it about anyway.

She's the reason the chap 3rd in line to the throne is illegitimate.

http://njmg.typepad.com/ervolino/images/2008/03/02/prince_harry_james_hewitt_20050413.jpg

Didn't he break up with Princess Diana for a prostitute?

A horse faced prostitute at that.

Bollocks to the jug-eared wingnut, let's hope he is never king.

:tongue: :D :fluffle:

*raises a bollock*

I think Australia should keep the monarchy after all. I mean, you're the suckers who have to pay for it, and it's one of the few remaining targets for such enjoyable derision.

snip

your a cadet so I will let you off for not knowing that royalty have the habit of sending troops to the glass tower for absolutely no reason (didn't salute me whilst I was out of uniform? thats a week in prison for you peasant *slaps*)

we also have the crappest national anthem in North West Europe

enjoy paying far more than 66p a year for the presidency and his entourage that you so much admire.

the catch is of course you don't pay tax so your input is moot however I think you will find that number is bunk by a long shot and the royalty tax is largely a regional thing (because fuck you seaside folk :p)

What about all the good he has done? Or do you just hate him becasue he "killed Diana".

he called a good friend of mine a whore when she was 14.

Happy Birthday your Royal Highness.

For those who do not like the Royals, I would like to let them know that, strange as it may sound, the most socially advanced (in my opinion) countries in the world are kingdoms: let's start by those under our Queen: Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and then, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland and we may also add Japan.

We can also say that Spain has changed a lot since it has a King.

And for my Brits, I've got great news for those who demand a republic - there's a great big one, just south of Dover, called France. You don't even need a passport. Bon voyage, and good riddance to "Le Whinger Anglais". And while you there; enjoy paying far more than 66p a year for the presidency and his entourage that you so much admire.


Since you are intent on making this a pissing contest, I would like to point out that the United States of America, a Republic, eats monarchies for breakfast.




he called a good friend of mine a whore when she was 14.

Was he right?

Happy Birthday your Royal Highness.

For those who do not like the Royals, I would like to let them know that, strange as it may sound, the most socially advanced (in my opinion) countries in the world are kingdoms: let's start by those under our Queen: Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and then, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland and we may also add Japan.

We can also say that Spain has changed a lot since it has a King.

And for my Brits, I've got great news for those who demand a republic - there's a great big one, just south of Dover, called France. You don't even need a passport. Bon voyage, and good riddance to "Le Whinger Anglais". And while you there; enjoy paying far more than 66p a year for the presidency and his entourage that you so much admire.

The UK is a constitutional Monarchy... one in which the royal family has no real power. Face it, they are glorified mascots.

Anyhow, HBD to Charles anyway, I'm sure his will be a good time.

Since you are intent on making this a pissing contest, I would like to point out that the United States of America, a Republic, eats monarchies for breakfast.

do you not like your whitehouse?

Was he right?

yes.

For those who do not like the Royals, I would like to let them know that, strange as it may sound, the most socially advanced (in my opinion) countries in the world are kingdoms: let's start by those under our Queen: Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and then, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland and we may also add Japan.

No, you may not add Japan. Not until Japan's human rights and social records are much, much better...

And for my Brits, I've got great news for those who demand a republic - there's a great big one, just south of Dover, called France. You don't even need a passport. Bon voyage, and good riddance to "Le Whinger Anglais". And while you there; enjoy paying far more than 66p a year for the presidency and his entourage that you so much admire.

Or maybe they can do what we did in the US - kick the buggers out. They've done it before... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Charles_I)

Japan, socially advanced? There are a lot of weird laws and weirder social conventions you might not know about over there...I learned the other week that surrogacy and egg donation is actually illegal (http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2008/s2385350.htm) over there, for example.

Indeed. I expect the OPer doesn't know much about Japanese society.

do you not like your whitehouse?


Huh?

On top of that, he has screaming tantrums if someone puts the wrong cloth on the table for dinner and he has hissy fits if a piece of furniture is moved to a position he doesn't like. He'd also rather fire off bollocking memos to staff about a few pieces of gravel on the front step rather than just kicking them off himself."

I would have a hissy fit to if someone moved around some of my furniture. Put really do you have sme proof of the duties of the men that I snipped out?

Happy Birthday to Prince Charles, one of the ugliest royal Europe has had the misfortune of seeing. May he grow a pustule on the tip of his penis and turn 80 with zombie Camilla Parker-Bowels!!

There is no denying he did produce some attractive children though.

Or maybe they can do what we did in the US - kick the buggers out. They've done it before... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Charles_I).

Yeah and look how that turned out for them. And just to be 'cool' look how when the US did it turned out for the world.

I would have a hissy fit to if someone moved around some of my furniture. Put really do you have sme proof of the duties of the men that I snipped out?



There is no denying he did produce some attractive children though.



Yeah and look how that turned out for them. And just to be 'cool' look how when the US did it turned out for the world.

Are you drunk too?

Saudi Arabia is a kingdom.

Germany is a republic.

Spain is a kingdom.

Botswana is a republic.


Also Finnland is a republic. And it doens't look exactly backwards when compared with, I don't know, Spain? UK?

Are you drunk too? Where you drunk when you decided that the American revolution actually made anything better from the average American.

The UK is a constitutional Monarchy... one in which the royal family has no real power. Face it, they are glorified mascots. If you had bothered to read the rest of the thread you would’ve seen my response to that.

Since you are intent on making this a pissing contest, I would like to point out that the United States of America, a Republic, eats monarchies for breakfast Does it? I can think of one you had any effect on, the last German Kaiser. The British Monarchy, which is the one I think you are referring to, only got stronger after the revolution.

In 1649 we chopped off a Kings head because He wanted to "rule" by absolutism,for the good of the Country sic.In 1684 we forced another King to abdicate(James the second)because He wanted to take the the Country back to Rome,for the good of the Country.William of Orange presided over the Glencoe Massacre and outlawed a nation's customs,for the good of the Country.I thank any God who wants to take credit for the acts that ensure no "King"will ever have the power to "rule" for the good off the Country.Btw I am British and in closing-Viva Libertie Viva Fraternitie Viva Egalitie,if you don't like it you can kiss my _ _ _. While the king counteracts parliament, parliament also counteracts the king. Those first examples were parliament doing its job, the Glencoe Massacre was the king doing his. Removing some treacherous rebels who would rather have king James than William of Orange, just the sort of king you put down in your first two examples.

the catch is of course you don't pay tax so your input is moot however I think you will find that number is bunk by a long shot and the royalty tax is largely a regional thing (because fuck you seaside folk
Well whatever it is, surely it does not amount to the £211 million the govt receives from the crown estate, which was given to parliament by George III's in return for a civil list payment and the income retained from the Duchy of Lancaster. The civil list is £11,200,000 currently, but could do with being more; £11,200,000 doesn’t go all that far these day's.

Where you drunk when you decided that the American revolution actually made anything better from the average American.

don't you like having a right to vote?

Removing some treacherous rebels who would rather have king James than William of Orange, just the sort of king you put down in your first two examples.

I wonder what would happen if that was done in todays age...

Well whatever it is, surely it does not amount to the £211 million the govt receives from the crown estate, which was given to parliament by George III's in return for a civil list payment and the income retained from the Duchy of Lancaster. The civil list is £11,200,000 currently, but could do with being more; £11,200,000 doesn’t go all that far these day's.

yes I'm sure if I owned a large share of the historical sites in Britain I would also be returning a profit

in case you missed it France also makes a huge profit on its historical sites (especially Bastille day:wink:) but I guess that doesn't matter because clearly the Queen does crack on the side or something...

don't you like having a right to vote? The right to vote was the least of worries for somone in the late 18th century. Truth is, they began a war against taxation but they ended up with higher taxes than before. They began a war for freedom and democracy, yet they did not rid there country of the slave trade untill 1865.

I wonder what would happen if that was done in todays age... It probably wouldnt, whats your point.

yes I'm sure if I owned a large share of the historical sites in Britain I would also be returning a profit

in case you missed it France also makes a huge profit on its historical sites (especially Bastille day) but I guess that doesn't matter because clearly the Queen does crack on the side or something... Money is not from historical sites, its from the Crown Estate, which is a business past down through the family.

Are you drunk too?

What sentence would you be referring to here?

What sentence would you be referring to here?

It was more the poor grammer. I was drunk when I said it.

Does it? I can think of one you had any effect on, the last German Kaiser. The British Monarchy, which is the one I think you are referring to, only got stronger after the revolution.


Doesnt change the fact that we beat you...

Spain is a kingdom.

Spain, Heiko-kun, is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. The country is divided in provinces, not in kingdoms anymore (although one of the correct ways of referring to the country is the Kingdom of Spain) so, I wouldn't call the country a kingdom on account of us Spaniards not referring to it as one anymore.:wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain

It was more the poor grammer. I was drunk when I said it.

Ah, well nothing I can do about that. Do you understand what I was saying in each sentence?

Oh and I believe it is spelled grammar. :wink:

Doesnt change the fact that we beat you... you and 12 other countries, mainly france, beat us.

Happy Birthday your Royal Highness.
.....


Or 'Fuck ye, chuck'.


The Monarch also stops the PM from getting above himself; he is not Head of State, he cannot get above himself as there is always a higher power above him. .

Absolutely. Just look how it checked Bliar.

Happy Birthday to Prince Charles, one of the ugliest royal Europe has had the misfortune of seeing. May he grow a pustule on the tip of his penis and turn 80 with zombie Camilla Parker-Bowels!!


A good point Madam. If a nation has to have a monarchy, they can at least have the decency to be attractive. The continent seems to know how to do it (exile the ugly genes to some offshore island being how they managed it...).

Psssst...
<.<
>.>
Ehmmmm... no one noticed yet that Japan is officially an empire???

Psssst...
<.<
>.>
Ehmmmm... no one noticed yet that Japan is officially an empire???
Er... no. Japan is no longer officially an empire. It IS however the last country to have an emperor. Just without an empire. :D

Er... no. Japan is no longer officially an empire. It IS however the last country to have an emperor. Just without an empire. :D

You mean like a King without a Kingdom? :tongue:

Er... no. Japan is no longer officially an empire. It IS however the last country to have an emperor. Just without an empire. :D

But it most certainly is not a kingdom, no more than Luxembourg or Monaco are.

Oh, and about the social progressiveness of kingdoms: try Swaziland. :( :D

But it most certainly is not a kingdom, no more than Luxembourg or Monaco are.
Oh, indeed. Indeed.

Oh, and about the social progressiveness of kingdoms: try Swaziland. :( :D

I suppose the same could be said for many countries that don't have kings and the way they are fairing.

Happy Birthday Charlie

This was my first thought.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb282/Swedishfarmgirl13/Happy%20Birthday/birthday.jpg

Be careful of impugning Charlie, those ears can smother you breathless! ;)

Happy Birthday to Prince Charles, one of the ugliest royal Europe has had the misfortune of seeing. May he grow a pustule on the tip of his penis and turn 80 with zombie Camilla Parker-Bowels!!
:eek: My God, such... imagery. :p

Be careful of impugning Charlie, those ears can smother you breathless! ;)


:eek: My God, such... imagery. :p

It inspires to write a gothic thriller.:D

Your country motto is in Gaelic or in any of the British Isles dialects? If so, may I ask what does it mean?

It inspires to write a gothic thriller.Yeah. Charlie smothers victims with his ears and Camilla sucks out the victim's bowels. :eek2:

Your country motto is in Gaelic or in any of the British Isles dialects? If so, may I ask what does it mean?
Invented language of mine, something that pretends to be Celt... Pseudo-Gaelic. It's unrelated to any of the Celtic languages (Breton, Irish, Welsh, Manx, Scottish...), I just constructed it so it somewhat looks like one (for RP purposes). :D

Literally, it means, "For God, for people, for nature, and for country."

Invented language of mine, something that pretends to be Celt... Pseudo-Gaelic. It's unrelated to any of the Celtic languages (Breton, Irish, Welsh, Manx, Scottish...), I just constructed it so it somewhat looks like one (for RP purposes). :D

Literally, it means, "For God, for people, for nature, and for country."

Ahh, I'm in the presence of a linguist like JRR Tokien.:wink:

That is not an issue. Many republicans seem to believe that getting rid of the monarchy will turn Britain into a magical land of social progressiveness and civic responsibility (yeah, right). When some of the most socially responsible nations are kingdoms, see what I mean.

as a republican (that's with a small 'r'), that's not what i feel about the removal of the monarchy at all. its actually quite the inverse of that: the monarchy are a symbol of antidemocratic, unmeritocratic, and outdated society. i don't think things will magically get better for getting rid of them, but simply that i can't stand having a symbol of so many of the things i dislike about this country as part of our sociopolitical system.

At the very slight risk of a thread hijack...


Now, as for REAL monarchies (those where the royalty actually have power), you places like Botswana and Saudi Arabia -- yes, those nations nobody sensible wants to visit!

Why dump on poor l'il Botswana?

First of all, as a post on the first page of this thread points out, it's a republic, not a kingdom. The only hereditary monarchies left in Africa are Lesotho (fully constitutional), Morocco (mostly absolute, but with a reforming young monarch increasing the veneer of constitutionality) and Swaziland (absolute, and not a good role model, unless you enjoy taking a new virgin bride every year and driving around in your Rolls while a third of your fellow citizens struggle with HIV).

Furthermore, Botswana has probably been the single most stable nation in sub-Saharan Africa over the last 40 years. It's practically the only African country to have become independent in the 1960s to have maintained a fully-functioning multi-party democracy since independence, and often manages a GNP annual growth rate of up to 7%.

Alright, so its treatment of its indigenous bushmen population leaves more than a little to be desired, that economic growth rate largely depends on De Beers' diamond mines, the same party usually wins elections (and most of the presidents have been related to each other) and it has one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world (though it at least trails Swaziland there), but I'd hardly lump it with Saudi Arabia among places you wouldn't want to visit.

It in fact has a thriving tourist industry, especially around the Okavango delta.


Last minute edit for vague topicality...

Europe has had two kingdoms without a king during the 20th century.

Between the World Wars, Hungary was a constitutional monarchy ruled by regent Admiral Horthy, but which went so far as to refuse to allow Charles Hapsburg - last of the Austro-Hungarian emperors, and putative King of Hungary - entry into the country. The monarchy was officially abolished with the end of WWII and the Communist takeover. But for a few years, Hungary was a kingdom without a king ruled by an admiral without a navy (Hungary was landlocked after 1919).

After the Spanish Civil War and WWII, Franco declared that Spain was a monarchy, but left the throne vacant with himself as de facto regent until his death. He refused to allow Juan, Count of Barcelona and father of current king Juan Carlos, to succeed as King of Spain, believing the younger Juan Carlos was more malleable. Fortunately (and I think that's a relatively uncontroversial thing to say), Juan Carlos turned out to be made of rather better stuff.

And for my Brits, I've got great news for those who demand a republic - there's a great big one, just south of Dover, called France. You don't even need a passport. Bon voyage, and good riddance to "Le Whinger Anglais". And while you there; enjoy paying far more than 66p a year for the presidency and his entourage that you so much admire.

The monarchy sucks. I want it out of *my* country.

A good point Madam. If a nation has to have a monarchy, they can at least have the decency to be attractive. The continent seems to know how to do it (exile the ugly genes to some offshore island being how they managed it...).

That's something that always makes me wonder. Why is it that royals tend to be so ugly looking? Could it be the inbreeding and intermarriage?

Point in case, Spain's royal family:
http://www.hispagenda.com/articulos/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/juan-carlos.jpg
Juan Carlos I of Bourbon- Ugly MOFO!

http://www.conciencia-animal.cl/paginas/temas/fotos/foto%20Reina%20Sofia%2002.jpg
Sofía, Queen of Spain- ugly woman!

http://absolutmarbella.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/absolutmarbelladuquesadealba.jpg
The Duchess of Alba- ZOMBIE!!!

That's something that always makes me wonder. Why is it that royals tend to be so ugly looking? Could it be the inbreeding and intermarriage?

That could be a good point but really you can't base all Royals on what the Prince of Wales looks like. As I said he did produce some attractive children, and if you see old footage of HM she did look rather beautiful, and in that Army uniform during the war, grrrr.

Charles probably got it from his father's side, and that is Greek.

Charles probably got it from his father's side, and that is Greek.

Greek-born, and Greek Orthodox by birth, but largely Danish and German by descent.

The Serb and Montenegran monarchies were the only native ruling dynasties in the post-Ottoman Balkans (unless you count King Zog of Albania).

That could be a good point but really you can't base all Royals on what the Prince of Wales looks like. As I said he did produce some attractive children, and if you see old footage of HM she did look rather beautiful, and in that Army uniform during the war, grrrr.

Charles probably got it from his father's side, and that is Greek.

Take a look at Spain's royal house. With the exception of the Prince and Princess of Asturias, the rest look like zombies. The Duchess of Alba being the worst of all.:eek:

Greek-born, and Greek Orthodox by birth, but largely Danish and German by descent.

The Serb and Montenegran monarchies were the only native ruling dynasties in the post-Ottoman Balkans (unless you count King Zog of Albania).

Ah that's right I forget he is apart of that family and is Prince of Greek and Denmark. Hard to keep track sometimes.

No offence meant by the Greek remark Arch, some of the most attractive women I know have Greek ancestry.

Take a look at Spain's royal house. With the exception of the Prince and Princess of Asturias, the rest look like zombies. The Duchess of Alba being the worst of all.:eek:

Perhaps I should but you have so many Spanish Royals I wouldn't know where to start.

So are you saying the most beautiful people of Spain comes from Asturia? :wink:

Perhaps I should but you have so many Spanish Royals I wouldn't know where to start.

Well, start with the King and the Queen.:p

So are you saying the most beautiful people of Spain comes from Asturia? :wink:

Of course.:wink:

No offence meant by the Greek remark Arch, some of the most attractive women I know have Greek ancestry.

None taken.

We're Russian Orthodox. You can say what you like about the Greeks ;)

Well, start with the King and the Queen.:p

Yeah sorry I missed those pics you posted. I would agree with you and as for the Duchess of Alba, WTF is with that hairstyle/

Of course.:wink:

I knew it.

None taken.

We're Russian Orthodox. You can say what you like about the Greeks ;)

lol, I see, I see.

Yeah sorry I missed those pics you posted. I would agree with you and as for the Duchess of Alba, WTF is with that hairstyle/

That woman is horrible. And her hairstayle hasn't change in 25 years, I reckon. She's like the living dead and fucking rich. Plus, while she's in a wheelchair, she has a boyfriend who's younger by her by a lot.

That woman is horrible. And her hairstayle hasn't change in 25 years, I reckon. She's like the living dead and fucking rich. Plus, while she's in a wheelchair, she has a boyfriend who's younger by her by a lot.

Can we say he is in it for the money? But no I don't mind women who may have frizzy hair but that is over the top.

Do you think she might have birds nesting in there?

Can we say he is in it for the money? But no I don't mind women who may have frizzy hair but that is over the top.

Do you think she might have birds nesting in there?

He is in for the money. When you see her in this:
http://blogs.20minutos.es/myfiles/martacibelina/duquesa.jpg
you're definitely in for the moolah.

As for her hair, I don't even want to begin to imagine what may be nesting in that 'do of hers. *shivers*:eek:

http://absolutmarbella.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/absolutmarbelladuquesadealba.jpg
The Duchess of Alba- ZOMBIE!!!
OMG! All of the roaches and rats within a 1-km vicinity were repelled by just a picture! EXCELLENT! :D

I remember seeing a picture of Alfonso XIII of Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_XIII_of_Spain). He was fugly since childhood, sorry.

More examples:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Dronning_Margerethe_5_sep_2004_.jpg/250px-Dronning_Margerethe_5_sep_2004_.jpg
Margrethe II of Denmark

To be fair, her son (Crown Prince Frederik) looks OK, and her grandchildren are cute.
http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/db/images/img_1062thumb.jpghttp://www.kronprinsparret.dk/db/images/img_0986thumb.jpg
Prince Christian of Denmark

He is in for the money. When you see her in this:
http://blogs.20minutos.es/myfiles/martacibelina/duquesa.jpg
you're definitely in for the moolah.

As for her hair, I don't even want to begin to imagine what may be nesting in that 'do of hers. *shivers*:eek:

It took me five minutes for my temporay blindness to cease for me be able to type it again.

Yuck eww.

Just a friendly warning Nanatsu if you put something like that on here again without warning I am placing you on ignore.








lol, No I could never do that to you :) But I don't want to see that again. Please drop the img tabs from the pic.

To be fair, her son (Crown Prince Frederik) looks OK, and her grandchildren are cute.
http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/db/images/img_1062thumb.jpghttp://www.kronprinsparret.dk/db/images/img_0986thumb.jpg
Prince Christian of Denmark


It's the Australian in them. *nods*

It took me five minutes for my temporay blindness to cease for me be able to type it again.

Yuck eww.

Just a friendly warning Nanatsu if you put something like that on here again without warning I am placing you on ignore.








lol, No I could never do that to you :) But I don't want to see that again. Please drop the img tabs from the pic.

I'm terribly sorry, Blou-kun. I was trying to illustrate my claim. :D

OMG! All of the roaches and rats within a 1-km vicinity were repelled by just a picture! EXCELLENT! :D

I remember seeing a picture of Alfonso XIII of Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_XIII_of_Spain). He was fugly since childhood, sorry.

Well, royals in Spain are fugly unless they come from Asturias. Point in case, doña Leonor, daughter of the Prince and Princess of Asturias.
http://www.lanacion.es/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/infanta-leonor.jpg

Well, royals in Spain are fugly unless they come from Asturias. Point in case, doña Leonor, daughter of the Prince and Princess of Asturias.
http://www.lanacion.es/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/infanta-leonor.jpg

Aww how cute.

Just keep her away from her relative the Duchess of Alba.

And that's quite all right Nanatsu, I understand what you were doing.

Well, royals in Spain are fugly unless they come from Asturias. Point in case, doña Leonor, daughter of the Prince and Princess of Asturias.
*Snip*

I know there's one Princess from Asturias who is very hot... :)

I know there's one Princess from Asturias who is very hot... :)

Could it be some sort of Princess that enjoys wearing cat ears?

*vanishes*:eek2:

Well, royals in Spain are fugly unless they come from Asturias. Point in case, doña Leonor, daughter of the Prince and Princess of Asturias.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "Prince of Asturias" just a title being held by the heir to the throne? So they're... not really Asturian...

And oh, she can make a good bride to Christian. Or at least playmates. :)

*vanishes*:eek2:

I kid, I kid. Don't be like that Neko-Chan. :D

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "Prince of Asturias" just a title being held by the heir to the throne? So they're... not really Asturian...

And oh, she can make a good bride to Christian. Or at least playmates. :)

No, the future heir to the title of Prince of Asturias or Princess needs to be born in Oviedo, Asturias.

Yes, she can make an excellent bride/playmate to Christian.:tongue:

No, the future heir to the title of Prince of Asturias or Princess needs to be born in Oviedo, Asturias.
Oh. Woe to the kid who gets born in Madrid.

:D

Absolutely. Just look how it checked Bliar. I guess your referring to the war, which had commons backing at the time and would have made sense if the intelligence was correct. With hindsight we now know it was not. Royalty is perfectly capable of taking the reigns in an emergency, look at the King of Belgium.

And since people seem to be referring to worst in Monarchy, what about the worst in republicanism. How about we compare Robert Mugabe and King Gyanendra of Nepal. Both did some pretty dodgy things, but at least the King of Nepal was peaceful and accepting during the dissolution of the monarchy in 2008. Look what happened when they tried to get rid of Mugabe


What everybody is saying about the ugliness of the royal's raises an interesting point. That people put looks above the insight a Monarchy can bring to a country.

Oh. Woe to the kid who gets born in Madrid.

:D

Oh hush. You know as well as I do that many are, indeed, born in Madrid. :p

I don't think you want to use Mugabe as an example of what goes wrong in a democracy. Mugabe is what's wrong with dictatorships.

I don't think you want to use Mugabe as an example of what goes wrong in a democracy. Mugabe is what's wrong with dictatorships. He was elected in, and nobody was there to stop him so he just went up and up by whatever means necessary and becasue a dictater. Perhaps intervention from a popular Constituional Monarch could have stopped him.

He was elected in, and nobody was there to stop him so he just went up and up by whatever means necessary and becasue a dictater. Perhaps intervention from a popular Constituional Monarch could have stopped him.
He could have just overthrown that Monarch and had them killed you know.

He was elected in, and nobody was there to stop him so he just went up and up by whatever means necessary and becasue a dictater. Perhaps intervention from a popular Constituional Monarch could have stopped him.

And perhaps magic monkeys from space could have turned him into jelly beans with fairy dust and rainbows!

Or he could have done what most dictators do in the face of opposition. Have them killed.

Or he could have done what most dictators do in the face of opposition. Have them killed.

That seems to be the plausible and correct course of action.

Well, you're a bit early, my birthday isn't until christmas day, but I'll still accept any presents and cards that NSG has to send. :p

He was elected in, and nobody was there to stop him so he just went up and up by whatever means necessary and becasue a dictater. Perhaps intervention from a popular Constituional Monarch could have stopped him.
Because our monarchy was so popular with Mugabe until Rhodesia became a republic?

Because our monarchy was so popular with Mugabe until Rhodesia became a republic? But at least the country was a functioning state. But that had nothing to do with the monarchy; it was with the stable government a Monarchy can help to create.

He could have just overthrown that Monarch and had them killed you know. I said perhaps, not certainly. But a stable, popular, Monarch can have an effect.

I said perhaps, not certainly. But a stable, popular, Monarch can have an effect.

So can tissue-paper. Namely, a decorative effect. Both are as easy to go through.

I said perhaps, not certainly. But a stable, popular, Monarch can have an effect.

of course a popular person can have an effect. It's called demagoguery. It's a fairly no brainer that a person in power (even an illusionary, ceremonial one) can help push society in one direction or another.

Sometimes that effect is positive. Sometimes that effect leads to the poor dear having her head chopped off. The good thing about democracy, as opposed to monarchy, is while a good leader can have the results of the former, a bad leader can be removed without all the messiness of the later.

Sometimes that effect is positive. Sometimes that effect leads to the poor dear having her head chopped off. The good thing about democracy, as opposed to monarchy, is while a good leader can have the results of the former, a bad leader can be removed without all the messiness of the later.

Where's the fun in that? Public executions are an important social event!

Where's the fun in that? Public executions are an important social event!

They were an important social event in the Middle Ages.

They were an important social event in the Middle Ages.

Still are. Why else would we be fanatics about American Football, Lacrosse, and other equally bloody sports?

Still are. Why else would we be fanatics about American Football, Lacrosse, and other equally bloody sports?

Those are bloody sports, not public executions. No one's bound to lose his/her head. Of course, it all depends about which head one is trying to protect or endangering.

Those are bloody sports, not public executions. No one's bound to lose his/her head. Of course, it all depends about which head one is trying to protect or endangering.

Point.

Fine... Then what about the concession speech? A bloodless version of the public execution if I've ever seen one.

Point.

Fine... Then what about the concession speech? A bloodless version of the public execution if I've ever seen one.

That's a slow death, indeed. I conceed. :p

of course a popular person can have an effect. It's called demagoguery. It's a fairly no brainer that a person in power (even an illusionary, ceremonial one) can help push society in one direction or another.

Sometimes that effect is positive. Sometimes that effect leads to the poor dear having her head chopped off. The good thing about democracy, as opposed to monarchy, is while a good leader can have the results of the former, a bad leader can be removed without all the messiness of the later. True, but not what I was getting at. What I'm saying is that a Constitutional Monarch has no say in day to day running of government; however they do still have extensive legitimate power. If the Monarch was to use this power to interfere with trivial things, it would cause outrage and quite rightly so. However, the combination of a popular monarch and a extremely unpopular government doing very dodgy things, gives the Monarch cause to use there power and remove or reform that government. And because the Monarch is popular, and the government is not, in theory the Monarch would not face reprisals in removing (or reforming) that government and setting up another, while organizing elections and what not. Somebody has to be there in such as situation, and who better than somebody who would lose there honour, title, country if they did the wrong thing. Someone who, over the years get a hell of a lot more experience than a President voted in for a mere 5 years, and who is far less likely to be politically biased than a president who had to win an election to get the position in the first place.

You know, I'm actually all in favour of constitutional monarchy, but the argument that the legitimacy of a constitutional monarch from a ruling house with a long-established history somehow serve as a check on a particularly determined dictator can be countered with five words:

Victor Emmanuel III - Benito Mussolini.

The House of Savoy's centuries-old legitimacy worked really well there, didn't it...

It's the Australian in them. *nods*

Tasmanian, isn't she?

So why don't the kiddies have two heads?

You think royal family trees are in-bred.... Tasmanian family trees have no branches.

Great Britain

Not a country.

Victor Emmanuel III - Benito Mussolini.
That King had too much power, and it should've been up to the current PM to stop Mussolini. However he did have some legitimate reasons for not steeping in to halt Mussolini, civil war and German invasion being the mains one's I think.

And in the end, he did remove the dictator only for him to be reinstated by the Germans. He also began private negotiations with the allies although declaring public support for the axis, for fear of German invasion once again.

But at least the country was a functioning state. But that had nothing to do with the monarchy; it was with the stable government a Monarchy can help to create.
Like Thailand.

Like Thailand.

Or Nepal!

Oh... wait... That didn't work so well...

True, but not what I was getting at. What I'm saying is that a Constitutional Monarch has no say in day to day running of government; however they do still have extensive legitimate power. If the Monarch was to use this power to interfere with trivial things, it would cause outrage and quite rightly so. However, the combination of a popular monarch and a extremely unpopular government doing very dodgy things, gives the Monarch cause to use there power and remove or reform that government. And because the Monarch is popular, and the government is not, in theory the Monarch would not face reprisals in removing (or reforming) that government and setting up another, while organizing elections and what not. Somebody has to be there in such as situation, and who better than somebody who would lose there honour, title, country if they did the wrong thing. Someone who, over the years get a hell of a lot more experience than a President voted in for a mere 5 years, and who is far less likely to be politically biased than a president who had to win an election to get the position in the first place.
LESS politically biased? Uh... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

No, the future heir to the title of Prince of Asturias or Princess needs to be born in Oviedo, Asturias.

Wait is this true? So when ever the Queen or the Princess of Asturia is about to have a child they should ensure that they are in Oviedo?

Yes, she can make an excellent bride/playmate to Christian.:tongue:

What we are already discussing who he is going to marry? What about Lady Louise.

Tasmanian, isn't she?

So why don't the kiddies have two heads?

You think royal family trees are in-bred.... Tasmanian family trees have no branches.

Yeah, well that's right.

On the night of the wedding between Mary and Crown Prince Fredrick, they were about to consummate the marriage when Prince Fredrick confessed to Princess Mary that he was still a virgin. She ran to the phone and called up her dad and said "Dad, he is still a virgin what do I do?" Her father replied "Come home Mary if he isn't good enough for his family then he isn't good enough for us"

:D

Actually interesting to see that so many people are against having a head of state as the Monarchy. One thing it does do is provides further checks and balances to they system ensuring that the government doesn't get carried away with power. Of course if we wanted to talk about those countries that don't have a monarchy, we could go to Russia, various South American countries even the USA isn't a model you really want to look at, due to a large amounts of corruption, the government doing what it pleases almost.

Wait is this true? So when ever the Queen or the Princess of Asturia is about to have a child they should ensure that they are in Oviedo?

They need to, but it doesn't happen anymore. Doña Leonor, the daughter of the Prince of Asturias, was born in Madrid. I think the requirement is more symbolic nowadays than anything else.

What we are already discussing who he is going to marry? What about Lady Louise.

Meh, I'm sure that little girl is already being bethrode. Maybe to little Christian as it is, or to some big European magnate.:p

That King had too much power, and it should've been up to the current PM to stop Mussolini. However he did have some legitimate reasons for not steeping in to halt Mussolini, civil war and German invasion being the mains one's I think.

And in the end, he did remove the dictator only for him to be reinstated by the Germans. He also began private negotiations with the allies although declaring public support for the axis, for fear of German invasion once again.


Wrong. Wrong on so many counts.

First of all, Mussolini's March on Rome took place in 1922 - 11 years before Hitler came to power in Germany. 'German invasion' can safely be discarded as a reason for VE III's failure to intervene with the fascist rise to power.

The 'threat of civil war' excuse has been totally discredited. Your argument that VE III had 'too much power' but that it was nonetheless the Italian PM's job to stop Mussolini is self-contradictory. The Prime Minister did attempt to stop the march. From the Wiki entry on VE III (emphasis added):

In 1922, Mussolini led a force of his Fascist supporters on a March on Rome. Prime Minister Luigi Facta and his cabinet drafted a decree of martial law. But Victor Emmanuel refused to sign it. The King suggested that his Royal Army (Regio Esercito) could not have defended the city against the Fascist march. However, testimony from the military leaders and surviving military records challenge his claim.

Fascist violence had been growing in intensity throughout the summer and autumn of 1922, climaxing with the rumours of a possible coup. Victor Emmanuel had all the means at his disposal to sweep Mussolini and his rag-tag Blackshirt army to one side. General Pietro Badoglio told the King that military would be able to rout the rebels, who numbered no more than 10,000 men, without any difficulty. Thereupon, Victor Emmanuel could have ordered Facta to protect Rome and could have supported a decree proclaiming martial law.

The troops were totally loyal to the King. Even Cesare Maria De Vecchi, commander of the Blackshirts, and one of the organisers of the March on Rome, told Mussolini that he would not act against the wishes of the monarch. It was at this point that the Fascist leader considered leaving Italy altogether. But then, in the minute before midnight, he received a telegram from the King inviting him to Rome. By midday on 30 October, he had been appointed Prime Minister, at the age of 39, with no previous experience of office, and with only 35 Fascist deputies in the Chamber.

The King failed to move against the Mussolini regime's abuses of power (including, as early as 1924, the assassination of Giacomo Matteotti and other opposition MPs). Though the King claimed in his memoirs that it was the fear of a civil war that motivated his actions, it would seem that he received some 'alternative' advice, possibly from Antonio Salandra, an ultra conservative politician and former Prime Minister, and General Armando Diaz, that it would be better to do a deal with Mussolini. There were also pro-Fascist elements in his immediate family, including Margherita of Savoy, his mother.

Whatever the circumstances, Victor Emmanuel showed weakness in a position of strength, with dire future consequences for Italy and for the monarchy itself. What is not in doubt is that Fascism offered political stability and opposition to left-wing radicalism. This appealed to many people in Italy at the time, and certainly to the King. In many ways, the events from 1922 to 1943 demonstrated that the monarchy and the moneyed class, for different reasons, felt Mussolini and his regime offered an option that, after years of political chaos, was more appealing than what they perceived as the alternative: socialism and anarchism. Both the spectre of the Russian Revolution and the tragedies of World War I played large roles in these political decisions.

Your claim that VE III 'removed the dictator' is misleading and overemphasis his role. He did so only after Mussolini's own previously-moribund Grand Council of Facism voted to return the king's full constitutional powers to the monarch, in effect overthrowing Mussolini from within the regime - though the King did then personally summon Mussolini to tell him he'd been dismissed as Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, the King and Marshal Badoglio botched the internal coup by announcing the armistice with the allies without ordering loyalist forces to defend Rome, forcing the withdrawal of the Allied 'Italian Co-Belligerent Forces' to Brindisi.


The sad irony is that until the 1920s, VE III had been a model of constitutional monarchy; though he was forced to intervene directly in Italian politics about 10 times between his accession and Mussolini's rise, this was only due to the chronic instability of the Italian parliamentary system (something which continued into the post-war period). In his first 20 years on the throne, the king otherwise followed his father Umberto I's advice "Remember: to be a king, all you need to know is how to sign your name, read a newspaper, and mount a horse" and stayed out of day to day politics.

This meant he commanded considerable respect both through his restraint and historical legitimacy; it was only when he refused to follow the advice of his prime minister and army commanders - in effect refusing to use (or perhaps misusing) his residual constitutional power and the legitimacy of his position to defend Italian democracy against facism - that the fascists came to power. This proves that a constitutional monarch endowed with historical legitimacy can't by himself stand as a bulwark against dictatorship if he lacks the will to defend democracy against that dictator.

Mussolini then manipulated the powerless monarch to bolster the legitimacy of his own regime, which fatally undermined both support for the monarchy and opposition to facism.

In a way, this paradoxically supports your general argument in this thread. Had VE III acted like a constitutional monarch and signed the martial law document and allowed the army on the streets - as he'd been advised - Mussolini's rise to power would have been halted, or at least slowed. It was only the King's decision to, that one time, intervene inappropriately in the political process that allowed Mussolini to come to power.

Your fatal mistake at the core of how you address this specific case is to try and simultaneously that the king had too much power, but that it was his Prime Ministers fault for not trying harder - and then attempting to argue that it was somehow justifiable to allow facists to take control anyway.

Bizarre. Do at least attempt a logically consistent argument.

Actually interesting to see that so many people are against having a head of state as the Monarchy. One thing it does do is provides further checks and balances to they system ensuring that the government doesn't get carried away with power. Of course if we wanted to talk about those countries that don't have a monarchy, we could go to Russia, various South American countries even the USA isn't a model you really want to look at, due to a large amounts of corruption, the government doing what it pleases almost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.png
I don't see a correlation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.png
I don't see a correlation.

I see a rough correlation between standard of living and corruption though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.png
I don't see a correlation.

I do see countries with the English Monarch having less corruption than most of the rest of the world. But then I suppose it dosen't support much the other way either. So really the Monarch dosen't affect how good or bad the country is. And we can pull out examples from both those who have a Monarch and those that don't to both prove the point of which is better.