|
Post by peterh on Apr 22, 2007 3:54:51 GMT
Danish crown princess gave birth to a baby girl today. It's probably not a big deal so many but I still like having a monarchy. Mind you, our queen doesn't have any political power or such .. Here's an here. Oh yeah, and our crown prince is cool. He's a former frømand (elite troop - like seals I think) and is pretty down to earth
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 22, 2007 3:57:40 GMT
I thought you'd found us a new boardie, there! You tease! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Apr 23, 2007 12:59:36 GMT
Cool, finally the Danish Royalty managed to have a girl! Congrats! ;D
|
|
Mea Culpa
Chaosite
Paladine Extraordinaire
Posts: 505
|
Post by Mea Culpa on Apr 23, 2007 17:44:13 GMT
Danish crown princess gave birth to a baby girl today. It's probably not a big deal so many but I still like having a monarchy. Mind you, our queen doesn't have any political power or such .. Here's an here. Oh yeah, and our crown prince is cool. He's a former frømand (elite troop - like seals I think) and is pretty down to earth Hmm lets see, thus far we have 1 Danish Prince, 1 Australian Princess and 2 Half Australian Royal Kids = 1Danish + 2 Australians Moral of the story, the Australians will take over the world by propagation
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Apr 24, 2007 14:25:32 GMT
the Australians will take over the world by propagation
Well, not until you beat the Chinese rabbits - and you Aussies had problems with rabbits before...
|
|
Mea Culpa
Chaosite
Paladine Extraordinaire
Posts: 505
|
Post by Mea Culpa on Apr 24, 2007 16:22:51 GMT
the Australians will take over the world by propagation Well, not until you beat the Chinese rabbits - and you Aussies had problems with rabbits before... Still have .... but we found an answer to it ;D
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Apr 24, 2007 21:51:22 GMT
It's probably not a big deal so many but I still like having a monarchy. Please explain why.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 25, 2007 14:42:47 GMT
It's probably not a big deal so many but I still like having a monarchy. Please explain why. Because his king by his pure existing proves that we live in a fairy tale. Übereil
|
|
Mea Culpa
Chaosite
Paladine Extraordinaire
Posts: 505
|
Post by Mea Culpa on Apr 25, 2007 18:08:07 GMT
LOL that was a good one Ube
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 25, 2007 20:10:03 GMT
(I stole it from a famous Swedish book: Tales for children above 18 by Tage Danielsson. )
|
|
Mea Culpa
Chaosite
Paladine Extraordinaire
Posts: 505
|
Post by Mea Culpa on Apr 26, 2007 18:09:01 GMT
sheesh Ube, you really didn't have to tell me that .... I was just beginning to think you had a good sense of Humor ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 26, 2007 18:32:58 GMT
I do... I just never show it ;D. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Apr 26, 2007 22:21:57 GMT
It's probably not a big deal so many but I still like having a monarchy. Please explain why. Heh, this will take some time.. Denmark has a constitutional monarchy where our Queen (or King) is aknowledged as the head of state but only has symbolic political power. We have a fully democratic society and the monarchs role is a-political. As a kid I was given a great English poster with Denmark's monarcial heritage dating back to the early 900''ies with our first Recognised monarch - King Gorm the Old. The poster then listed all succeding Monarchs (including Harald Bluetooth who brought christianity to Denmark) all the way up to our current Monarch Queen Margrethe the second. To a child that was incredible exciting - I was even such a geek I memorised the whole poster and lineage in my head. I guess that was the beginning of my fascination with the Danish monarchy. My grandparents soon became aware of my interest and gave me a bronze statue of King Christian X riding his horse. King Christian X was the monarch during the WW2 when Germany had occupied Denmark. Every day he’d ride his horse through the streets of Copenhagen greeting the citizens and being occupied wasn’t going to change that. He always rode alone without bodyguards and refused to give in to threats against his person. By doing that he became a symbol of the quiet Danish opposition at the time. Now, in 1942 he managed to royally piss off Hitler who sent him a lenghtly birthday greeting and only received a cryptic “thank you” from the King. Legend tell it that this caused such a upset to Hitler’s pride that he instantly started hating Denmark and as history shows it’s actually quite correct. In 1943 Danish sabotage had reached an alarming level and our police force refused to make arrests and in some cases even collaborated. So it was ordered from up high (Himmler or Hitler) to disband the police and replace it with pro Germans. The upset the chief of police who suspected the King would be arrested and deported so he gathered 200 men and went to the castle to defend the King. A firefight ensued and a Danish policeman was killed. The King then asked the policemen to stop defending him to prevent meaningless deaths. The King would rather throw himself at the German’s mercy than risk his countrymen being killed. This has been verified by sources as has the rest of the stories I told here. Of course, history has later proven that there’s some suspicious cases as well and not everything’s clear cut but that’s besides the point. King Christian became a symbol and years later he became a heroic figure to me as well. Over the years our monarchy has developed into a more contemporary position. It’s moved closer to the public while still maintaining the distance that’s needed for royal persons. Our crown Prince Frederik is a perfect example of the adaption. He’s attended public schools, became ajægersoldat (Danish Elite military unit – those dispatched to Afghanistan) without special benefits and is now married to a girl from Australia who’s not out of a royal family. He’s just had his second child and I am sure both will also attend public education as well. I am not fanatically interested in the monarchy as some, but I am still fascinated by it and much prefer it to a president It still has a place in our society because it’s adapted to modern times. On a more practical note I also believe that it’s a greater benefit to a small country like Denmark to have a Queen as head of state. There’s still something romantic about a well working monarchy and I believe that it helps Denmark’s exposure around the world. It seems to have in Australia because he married the local girl from there. But I am sure either Brett or Scream Man knows that better than me.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 26, 2007 22:46:41 GMT
A monarch gives tradition and a sense of continuity. Also, no matter what vile wretch we elect, the head of state is still & always the Queen.
Personally, I think that is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 27, 2007 16:40:51 GMT
The Swedish king just drains taxmoney IMO. Sweden has been too marked by socialism (since the social democrats have run the country for about 75% of the 20'th century), so we just see the king as the symbol of "nobels", ie as someone who's been granted benefits for no reason, which in our mind is unjust. The problem is, none of our politicians have balls enought to do something about it...
Übereil
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Apr 27, 2007 21:00:02 GMT
The Swedish king just drains taxmoney IMO. Sweden has been too marked by socialism (since the social democrats have run the country for about 75% of the 20'th century), so we just see the king as the symbol of "nobels", ie as someone who's been granted benefits for no reason, which in our mind is unjust. The problem is, none of our politicians have balls enought to do something about it... Übereil We've had a social democrat government as well - and actually in the 70'ies we had a socialist government (which kinda ruined our economy) and the royal house still managed to survive. But Ube, thinking of taxmoney, will a president of Sweden bring in more goodwill, exposure and ultimately money than a Monarch will? Because from my POW I know the name of the swedish King but I have no idea what the hell the prime minister of Finland is called. In the end, do you think it wil be benificial for your economy to get rid of the king? Will the tax payers get more for their money with a president?
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Apr 27, 2007 21:41:20 GMT
The Belgian monarchy had quite a few numbers on their list of non royalty behavior. Our first king, Leopold I, our first king, just did what he could do to turn this little new state into a country. Leopold II, he made Congo a Belgian colony and had black slaves brought to Belgium. The rumours that he slept with several slave girls weren't all lies... Then we had Albert I, a good noble man, he fought in WW1 and his wife Elisabeth, served as a nurse in a hospital for wounded soldiers in De Panne. He died while climbing rocks in Marche-Les-Dames. His son, Leopold III became king. He was married to Astrid, who died later in a carcrash in Küssnacht in Switserland. During WW2 he got captured by the Germans after he capitulated to them. Since he acted in a non-appropriate way towards his own people, he ahd to give up his throne to his brother, prince Charles, who wasn't fit to become Regent of Belgium at all. My father in law was a cop and had a lot of "issues" with that former prince-regent Charles when he got a bit older. Lucky, when Prince Boudewijn was old enough he became king. allthough he never wanted to become a king, he did his best and became one of people's most loved kings. When he died, Belgium was in a deep grief. Never would we have such a good man again. Now his brother Albert II is our king, his oldest son Philip is crownprince. Eventhough Albert II is a very easy going king, he has a daughter with another woman, his son Philip is a bit on the stiff side. We hope that when he will be king, he has some good advisors next to him. For every prince and princess we pay taxes, and I'll tell you, we even pay prince Laurent's speeding tickets. No wonder the monarchy isn't that popular here with us. I'm not pro nor contra, it's always been there and for me it can stay. But their paycheck should be split in half, then they would still ahve enough.
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Apr 28, 2007 4:20:31 GMT
Weren't the royalty of Europe somehow responsible to some extent for world war I? Not to mention all the wars of the previous centuries.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 28, 2007 4:27:28 GMT
If the Kaiser counts as 'the royalty of Europe' I guess you might say so. Funnily enough, though, it doesn't seem to matter what kind of leadership any tribe of humans has had down the centuries, we always go to war with someone else sooner or later.
Sometimes the pretext is religious, other times its about resources or territory or just to stop the neighbours raiding your people - but the form of government does not matter, and never has.
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on Apr 28, 2007 4:45:17 GMT
Kaiser William II, emperor of Germany and king of Prussia 1859–1941, emperor of Germany and king of Prussia (1888–1918), son and successor of Frederick III and grandson of William I of Germany and of Queen Victoria of England.
|
|