|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Apr 28, 2007 4:48:01 GMT
'Wilhelm' not William, but otherwise, yes. Whatever the pretexts, his desire for an empire was a very large part of the reason for WW1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Apr 28, 2007 8:21:40 GMT
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? Well... We'd just cut down a cost, apart from not paying the king we'd change nothing. I don't know about that goodwill and exposure thing, but I know about the "privilieged" thing. So, you know where I'm standing at least  . Übereil |
|
.