›

A topic for forummembers whose countries are Constitutional Monarchies

Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
edited October 2017 in General Discussion Posts: 11,119
I thought it would be interesting to dig a little deeper in those nations who are both a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. I am also doing that to understand the differences between certain constitutional monarchies. And obviously, it's interesting to highlight some of the members of these national royal families.

A little story about my native country and its geographical territories:

--> 1588 until 1795: Republic of The (Seven) United Netherlands
(first ever 'confederate republic' on the planet, apart from San Marino:
----> Led by 'Stadtholders' -1588 until 1650, 1672 until 1702 & 1747 until 1795- of which Stadtholder William of Orange was also King of England. Usually members of the noble Orange-Nassau dynasty
----> Led by 'Grand Pensionary' -1650 until 1672 and 1702 until 1747- of which Grand Pensionaries Johan van Oldenbarnevelt and Johan de Witt were the most famous ones. Usually Republicans and staunchly 'anti-Orangist')

--> 1795 until 1801: The Batavian Republic (puppet state of The French Republic: led first by 'The Twelvefold Executive Presidium' -a shared presidency-)

--> 1801 until 1806: The Batavian Commonwealth (full puppet state of the French Republic/French Empire: led by the 'Executive Presidium', and then by 'Grand Pensionary' Rutger Jan Schimmelpenninck -basically a president-)

--> 1806 until 1810: Kingdom of Holland (puppet state of the French Empire: led by King Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, 3rd brother of Emperor Napoleon. Basically first and last King of Holland)

--> 1810 until 1813: The French Empire (de-facto meant The Netherlands ceased to exist and was annexed by The French Empire)

--> 1813 until 1815: Principality of The United Netherlands (the predecessor to the current Kingdom of The Netherlands: led by Prince William Frederick of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg)

--> 1815 until today: United Kingdom of The Netherlands (the successor to the Principality that was founded in 1813: led again by Prince William Frederick, but was promoted to King William I of Orange-Nassau, first King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg:
----> 1830 until today: South-Netherland revolts against King William I and North-Netherland in August 1830. The revolution starts and on November 4th 1830 independence is recognized and The Kingdom of Belgium is proclaimed
----> 1815 until 1890: Members of the House of Orange-Nassau are also Grand Duke of the state of Luxembourg)

--> Current King and Queen of The United Kingdom of The Netherlands, with their three kids:
ANP070717236-1.jpg

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,250
    Belgium is a kingdom and quite frankly I couldn't care less about that. ;-) It means nothing to me; in fact I wish the whole monarchy thing would be discarded as soon as possible. It's a ridiculous, obsolete and painfully outdated system.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Personally I love my Royal Family and all the history attached,so for me,i hope we never lose them.

    Especially with William & Kate stepping up hopefully,he would be a great king.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Belgium is a kingdom and quite frankly I couldn't care less about that. ;-) It means nothing to me; in fact I wish the whole monarchy thing would be discarded as soon as possible. It's a ridiculous, obsolete and painfully outdated system.

    If it doesn't mean anything for you, then why not letting the status-quo in Belgium remain :-)?

    On top of that, you do know that republics are also pretty old 'nation state constructs' as well. The planet's oldest republic was San Marino actually. Then the planet's 2nd oldest republic (1588) eventually was taken to the graveyard because of constant struggles between pro-monarchists and republicans :-).

    Not to mention the rotten presidential system that the USA has right now. A King (of The Netherlands or Belgium) suddenly costs a penny when compared to the zillions of Dollars being injected in US Presidential Campaigns.

    I personally think the combination of parliamentary systems combined with a ceremonial King, Emperor or Duke are in fact the most democratic, prosperous and free nations on the planet.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,250
    That may very well be true, Gustav. Some of those countries are indeed the most prosperous and free on the planet... currently. But, as with everything, times will change, and monarchies like ours will have to adapt as well, lest they lose their prosperity.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited October 2017 Posts: 11,119
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    That may very well be true, Gustav. Some of those countries are indeed the most prosperous and free on the planet... currently. But, as with everything, times will change, and monarchies like ours will have to adapt as well, lest they lose their prosperity.

    Could be. But right now it are the presidential democratic republics (that have a district system with a winner-takes-all-principle --> districtenstelsel), opposed to constitutional monarchies with parliamentary democratic systems (that have a system of proportional representation --> evenredige vertegenwoordiging), that show its major shortcomings in western democracies.

    The first ones are countries like The United States of Americaa, The United Kingdom and France. The latter ones are countries like Belgium, The Netherlands. And I think it becomes more obvious that, in an era of radical left-wing and right-wing populism, separatism, ultra-nationalism, economic protectionism, the first ones are showing much clearer rifts in the level of democracy and freedom.

    Some arguments I have backing that up:
    Gridlock (especially within two-party systems), risk of electing very unqualified people (Trump), no progress in legislation (due to gridlock), no long-term stable trust in politics, enlarged difficulty for new political parties to enter the political arena (which especially now should be the case), no 'forced succesful' cooperation, which is the case with coalition governments (negotiations are practically impossible), no enhanced financial control over the head of state (monarch/ceremonial president vs. president with full executive power --> Trump vs. King[/i]) and expensive out-of-control campaigns (established parties act more like money banks for candidates)

    Further advantages of constitutional monarchies with parliamentary democratic systems (that have a system of proportional representation):
    Wider benefits from proportional representation voting have been identified in societies using it as compared to those using first-past-the-post voting or winner-takes-all, including higher scores on the UN Human Development Index, a measure of health, education, and personal security, higher economic growth, less inequality, and better environmental protection.

    I see it here in The Netherlands. Geert Wilders' PVV for instance scored 20% of the vote. But in the most positive scenario perhaps 23% can be won during elections but that's about it. Add to that the fact that a new right-wing populist party, Thierry Baudet's Forum of Democracy, entered the congress, and you already see Geert Wilders being less verbal. He, and his party, realizes that his neo-nationalism and political incorrectness eventually does not work in The Netherlands. He furthermore realizes that he probably will never become PM as opposed to Trump becoming president.

    I also think the system we have in The Netherlands creates more stability. Rationalism and pragmatism eventually win over emotions. And especially the party platforms, the ideas to solve complex problems, in The Netherlands are more important than a person with charm and a certain.....'politically incorrect vocabulary'. Which you can not say from the USA for instance.

    To summarize everything: In the end the practical democratic effects of constitutional democracies in the end are slightly bigger than those in presidential republics. 7 countries in belows TOP 10 Democracy Index (The Economist) are constitutional monarchies.
    DemocracyIndex2012_52563a83740f4_w1500.png
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Anyone who considers themselves King or President ot Master over others should go barf at their mirror image.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,909
    President?
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited November 2017 Posts: 1,984
    I do support a Republic here in Australia but it's not the biggest concern. The Queen doesn't really do anything here anyway.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,250
    Apparently, diplomatic relations with foreign powers benefit greatly from the symbolical purposes a royal family can still serve. In that sense, yes, why don't we keep our monarchy intact? Many royals, however, have lost most if not all of their real ruling power, making them little more than expensive tabloid bait or a way to uphold the illusion of unity for a bunch of flag waving senior citizens who have nothing better to do during some parade than actually attend it.

    Forgive my cynical comments. Must have something to do with the situation in my own country. In 1990, Baudouin of Belgium refused to give his Royal Assent to a bill that wanted to liberalise abortion laws. His refusal was based on religious convictions by the way. Long story short, he had to sign or the bill wasn't accepted, but he couldn't refuse to sign either. Wow, great power for a king. So the members of the Belgian government at the time declared him "temporarily unable to reign", then signed the bill themselves, and then called Baudouin capable of reigning again. Two things go against common sense here:

    * you have power and yet you haven't, so if you refuse to formally use it, we'll remove your power and then restore it;
    * a king whose religious convictions stand in the way of performing his duties, should be declared insane; such a man is dangerous after all.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    There is a paragraph in our constitution that says the regent has to confess to the Christian faith. When parliament wanted to remove that paragraph, the king vetoed that decision. The only time he has ever used that power.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,250
    That is so wrong. I put my trust (slightly more) in leaders who base their actions on rational considerations, rather than on what their gut feeling tells them after a little you-and-me with a non-existent cosmic superman who demands that we stone women to death when they are raped.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Here in the UK, getting rid of the Royals is as likely as the USA getting rid of guns. Logic and reason pull in one direction. Emotion,deference and delusion pull in another.

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    patb wrote: »
    Here in the UK, getting rid of the Royals is as likely as the USA getting rid of guns. Logic and reason pull in one direction. Emotion,deference and delusion pull in another.

    It's not going to happen at all.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Agree both here and in the USA. Hell will freeze over........
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    d71092066da265d9de62972882bc6663.jpg
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,342
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Personally I love my Royal Family and all the history attached,so for me,i hope we never lose them.

    Especially with William & Kate stepping up hopefully,he would be a great king.

    This is my view also, to the letter.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Personally I love my Royal Family and all the history attached,so for me,i hope we never lose them.

    Especially with William & Kate stepping up hopefully,he would be a great king.

    This is my view also, to the letter.

    Good man Draggers !!

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    patb wrote: »
    Here in the UK, getting rid of the Royals is as likely as the USA getting rid of guns. Logic and reason pull in one direction. Emotion,deference and delusion pull in another.

    Regarding the Monarchy, the nay sayers will always shout the loudest in any debate. Yet when we have something like a Royal wedding millions of pro-Royals come out to celebrate.

    We are on balance (rightly or wrongly) proud of our Royalty. And countries that don't have this incredibly overblown, but compulsive pomp and ceremony do tend to look on with a degree of envy.

    It's in our DNA. And it's more logical to admire and love royalty and the benefits they bring to the Nation, than it is to admire some jumped up, super rich, self serving 20 year old footballer.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    I can admire the footballer for their talent and what they have done with it. You are not born having the right to play any sport at the very highest level. Obviously, the opposite is true with the Royals (although I am sure they use the same tactics when avoiding tax).

    And interesting to use the term "super rich" in a derogatory way when they are "loose change" compared to the wealth of the Royals.

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    Yes, I do admire anyone who makes the most of their talent. And anyone who grumbles about overpaid footballers I always reply the same way
    'You can earn the same money. All you have to do is learn to play football and become one of the best players on the planet. Off you go'.

    My point was that people fawn over rich celebrities, be they footballers, actors or whatever, and although I'm fine with anyone showing enough industry to make a few bucks, I despair at the way the media crawl up their backsides and put them all on a pedestal.

    As for Royals, yes they are born with privileges (which is now the same for people like the Beckham kids I suppose) so it's the way they use those privileges which is important. Harry is a figurehead for so many good causes. He uses that position for good. Charles, although a little ham-fisted at times always tried to do the same.

    Some actors like Angelina Jolie and Roger Moore before he died, did not take their status for granted and have used their wealth and status to do some good.

    Some footballers put plenty back into the community while others may visit a children's hospital for the odd photo opportunity.

    The Royal Family is an anomaly but they drag themselves into the 21st century a bit at a time and hopefully earn more for the country than they cost.

  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    " I despair at the way the media crawl up their backsides and put them all on a pedestal."

    like they do with the Royals? you wont find a bigger pedestal than the one the Royals are on. They are untouchable.

Sign In or Register to comment.