Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Monarchs provide stability and have a long precedent. I wish monarchs exerted more control about what goes on in their countries like stopping the foreign migrant invasion that is destroying their lands. Most kings or queens are the leaders of the military. They can exert control if they want to.
Yes, because that worked out so well for Charles I and Louis XIV among a few other royals.
Any monarch today that even *thought* of taking control of the military directly and using it against their own subjects/citizens would see the thing not end well for them.
Again one reason why the British monarchy along with what is left of the European thrones have survived is that the powers of the sovereign are exercised via the crown. In case you didn't know the two are not the same. This works out well for the monarch because they are not held personally liable for the actions of their government. Yes, taxes are raised in Elizabeth I's name, but she is virtually powerless to prevent and or change them; you want to "hang" someone look to your elected minister.
The British parliament seems to be squeezing out the extended family.
It is starting to look like the official royal duties will be held only by the top 5 royals in the line.
Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (b. 1948), eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b. 1982), elder son of Charles, Prince of Wales
Prince George of Cambridge (b. 2013), son of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (b. 2015), daughter of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
Prince Henry of Wales (b. 1984), younger son of Charles, Prince of Wales
....
The Prince Andrew, The Duke of York (b. 1960), second son of Queen Elizabeth II
Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988), elder daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York
Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990), younger daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York
The Prince Edward, The Earl of Wessex (b. 1964), youngest son of Queen Elizabeth II
James, Viscount Severn (b. 2007), son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex
Lady Louise Windsor (b. 2003), daughter of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex
The Princess Anne, The Princess Royal (b. 1950), daughter of Queen Elizabeth II
Peter Phillips (b. 1977), son of Anne, Princess Royal
Savannah Phillips (b. 2010), elder daughter of Peter Phillips
Isla Phillips (b. 2012), younger daughter of Peter Phillips
Zara Phillips (b. 1981), daughter of Anne, Princess Royal
Mia Tindall (b. 2014), daughter of Zara Phillips
Living British Princes
Philip 1921
Richard Alexander Walter George 1944
Edward George Nicholas Paul Patrick 1935
Michael George Charles Franklin 1942
Charles Philip Arthur George 1948
Andrew Albert Christian Edward 1960
Edward Antony Richard Louis 1964
William Arthur Philip Louis 1982
Henry Charles Albert David 1984
George Alexander Louis 2013
Living British Princesses (not counting women who hold courtesy title by marriage)
Alexandra Helen Elizabeth Olga Christabel 1936
Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise 1950
Beatrice Elizabeth Mary 1988
Eugenie Victoria Helena 1990
Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary 2003
Charlotte Elizabeth Diana 2015
Sometime in the 1990's IIRC there was an agreement between HM and the government to begin scaling back the official Royal Family. That is those members of the Windsor clan entitled to funds from the Civil List and or other provisions out of rate payer funds.
In some instances The Queen would take on the funding those members of RF cut off out of her own purse. Others would have to go it best way they knew how.
Problem for the British and any other remaining RF is the traditional method of shoring up their finances (marrying a wealthy heiress) is largely off the table and has been for almost one hundred years if not longer.
The last relatively *loaded* bride to marry into the Windsor family was Lady Diana Spencer. The Middleton's have *some* money but don't know how it compares to the Spencer family. Everyone else who has married into any RF in Britain or Europe has been middle class to somewhat wealthy. A far cry from when princesses arrived with boat loads of money, assets and properties.
To be fair the British RF has a long history of marrying royal but poor princes and princesses. Usually from minor German families they brought proper bloodlines but little else more than they stood up in. Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg-Gotha, Prince Phillip of Greece, Princess May of Teck among others were virtually penniless when they married into the British RF.
They can't. The roles of the monarchs are strictly defined in the countries' constitutions.
It's funny and naive how some people genuinely think that the monarchs would have legislative power in democratic countries if they just "want to have".
They can't. The roles of the monarchs are strictly defined in the countries' constitutions.
It's funny and naive how some people genuinely think that the monarchs would have legislative power in democratic countries if they just "want to have".
The countries constitutions exist with the consent of the Monarchs. I am not talking about legislative power I am talking about control of the military.
People speak as if democracy is somehow superior to monarchy. Democracy is just one group, the majority, forcing its will on another group, the minority. Often the acts of democracy are in complete violations of a persons right to body and property. Democracies are just lynch mobs.
The countries constitutions exist with the consent of the Monarchs. I am not talking about legislative power I am talking about control of the military.
No, you are incorrect.
Great Britain for instance specifically states the monarch reins, rules or whatever you want via "grace of God" and the "will of the people". That will is expressed via Parliament. That body among other powers decides who sits on the throne, no consent of the monarch required. Indeed as have repeatedly stated by the terms of GBs "unwritten" constitution the monarch *MUST* assent to any bill duly passed by Parliament. Elizabeth II would be legally bound to sign her own death warrant if such thing ever passed through both Houses.
That Parliament at times allowed this or that monarch to interfere (Queen Victoria is a famous example) in recent memory is neither here nor there. In fact things were tightened up considerably since. Again one points to gay marriage being made legal in GB. Once the bill got through Parliament it was a done deal. HM could not legally refuse to grant her assent regardless of how she personally felt about the matter. In contrast Queen Victoria famously refused to grant her assent to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 until references were removed to lesbianism. HM did not believe females capable of such vice and stuck in her heels like the spoilt child she was. In due course references were changed and Royal Assent was finally granted. That behavior simply would not fly today.
Every single remaining European monarchy has either been deposed then restored and or otherwise brought to heel by their government (people). If the fate of Charles I and Louis XVI taught the royal families of Europe anything it was that ignoring the will of the people is a dangerous thing. In case that message did not sink in there was the wholesale clearing of decks during and after WWI. That the last Czar of all the Russias was murdered along with his family sent a powerful message that hit home.
France might very well have morphed into a constitutional monarchy with the Bourbons on the throne yet if that family had learned a thing or two from the Revolution. But they didn't and squandered nearly every chance had at restoration.
Some of you go on as if the remaining monarchs of Europe want greater powers than they have and or to exercise whatever reserve or otherwise they do. Nothing seems further from the truth. Not one single European monarch aside from Albert II of Monaco wants to be bothered in more intimate running of their countries. Again history has taught them nothing good comes of it in the long run, so why bother? Far better for a government to be voted out of office and a having to get used to a new one versus having an angry mob storming the palace gates intent on bodily harm.
Will say it again in for those too dense to realize; the fact power is exercised elsewhere regardless of what or who holds it *protects* the monarchy. Rate payers can quibble about the costs of having the Windsors, but you cannot blame HM or anyone of the Royals for the mess that is GB. That blame lies with their elected representatives.
What? The monarchs in Europe are figureheads, they don't have any political or legislative power. For example the king of Sweden has as much juridicial power as I have. And President Obama holds 1000 times more personal power than all the monarchs in Europe combined.
But prime ministers in parliamentary democracies have a great deal more power than a US President, as they (their parties and partners in power) represent both the executive and legislative branches.
The monarchy in Denmark causes no political fractures in Denmark and has wide support in the general population.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
