Not so crabbit now!

Personally I think that patriotism needs to be reined in because it
leads to a lot of ugly side-effects, so I'm not too keen on anything
that focuses or amplifies that.- Eldo

I dont think it is patriotism in the sense Americans think of it as. I am a Scot. I hope for Scottish independence- thats patriotism I suppose, even nationalism.
But I want to retain the monarchy as Head of State- the monarchy is not patriotism in the same sense. Its simply by far the most effective means for having a Head of State, as the alternative is far worse.

yep, i don't want a president :S also.. i don't think an american (or a norwegian for that matter) should talk down on patrionism and nationalism, where's the nation-proudness

The idea of keeping the same Queen as the land you try to free yourself from is a bit odd to me. (But also very sweet.)

Maybe because having our own king (again) after the union with Sweden was so important to people. Carl/Haakon and Maud made a real effort into getting to know their new kingdom. He even asked for the people to vote yes or no to him being king before he accepted.

The royal family, who managed to escape abroad after refusing to accept the Nazi as rulers, also became a mighty symbol for freedom during the German occupation.

Well in the particulaly case of Scotland its technicaly our Monarchy- as James the V of Scotland was James the First of a United Kingdom of Great Britain.
The Scottish Royal line became the British Royal Line. So there is a lot of history going back to MacAlpine the first King of Scotland (800AD).
So its not so odd we would wish to retain that history.
But mainly its because the alternative- a political Head of State is such a self evidently bad idea.
The very idea that Cameron and Brown, Blair, Mayor and Thatcher would have been our alternative Heads of State without a monarchy pretty much puts the case to rest for me.

In times of great trouble and war the British looked to the King for a solid base amidst the shifting sands around them. The king and Queen didnt run away and hide in some safe part of the world, they stayed put with the bombs dropping around them, like the British people did. Their bravery galvanized morale, and stuck two fingers up at the Nazis, they were a symbolic message to our enemies. Thats why myths like King Arthur are so vivid and alive, there is something deep and ancestral about them.

I completely agree Mrs Figg- they offer something at a national level, particualrly during dark days, that a political Head of State cannot offer as Politicians are to one degree or another always culpable in what is going on, whereas a Monarch is not.
The Monarch is not representive of the establishment, it is the establshment representing the people, and that is easiest and best to relate to when the Establishment at its core is just a family- thats relatable in a way a politician never will be.

And symbolism, such as the Royals toughing it out in London for the duration of the war and Blitz alongside their people, should never be underestmimated as a powerful force. We might not have endured the war without it.

now, where did all the americans go

I'd been leaving this one alone, but OK, since you asked.....

I think constitutional monarchies seem to work wonderfully in smaller countries with not too much diversity in their population. I think they're pretty cool really, and I'd love to have a casual conversation with a monarch someday. Maybe the Emperor of Japan.

But they break down over larger areas and more diverse populations like the British Empire. As Americans we rather resented being told we were to be exploited by Divine Right, as did India and several other ex-colonies. Some of the bitterness still persists {{{though I think many American's are secretly still a bit jealous.}}}

But I do find the breading rules for royal families pretty barbaric.
It's really a lot more like you would bread a race horse.

Does anyone have a guess when we might see a mixed-race monarch of a European country?

I think things are gradually changing though, I think there is a new law that if Kate has a girl she can inherit the crown, before it was the first born male even if he had an older sister. Also kate is a commoner, thats also a first.

Yeah they changed the rules regards succession, the first born now is next in line regardless of gender.
I am not sure still what would happen if say the heir married a Muslim- as the Monarch is also head of the Church of England.
But hey one of the things about not having a written constitution is we can adapt the rules as the situation arises with relative ease.

Yeah, so easy that you only need to get all 16 Commonwealth realms (which are each independent nations) to agree if you want to guarantee that they keep the same head of state. Also, none of the realms has actually changed the law yet, they've just announced their intention to. The UK version of the law is about to be passed, though.

that doesn't sound very easy

Also, some of the Commonwealth realms have written constitutions.

The other countries with the Queen as head of state can choose if they wish to keep the Monarchy or not, its not enforced on anyone except the British.
The law regarding sucession will be adopted here, regardless of other countries-consensus is not necessary or required.

Yeah I know that that bro, but the leaders of all 16 realms are trying to coordinate the change because they want to keep the laws consistent with each other.

Yeah and a good thing too for a single alliance to share the same rules- but just pointing out there is no need to get any consensus to alter the laws of succession.
And my gut feeling is most if not all those countries will keep the Monarch and accept the new head regardless of gender.
Be a bit tricky, after Elizabeth has demonstrated acoss a lifetime of success as Head of the Commonwealth Countires, to turn round and say no to the next one on the basis of them being female.

David H wrote:But I do find the breading rules for royal families pretty barbaric.
It's really a lot more like you would bread a race horse.

Does anyone have a guess when we might see a mixed-race monarch of a European country?

well it is more modern now, you don't have to be royal to marry a royal and a woman can inherit the throne. i think quite soon actually. If it happened in Norway i don't think people would be that upset. I wonder what will happen when the first gay king/queen/monark appears

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Yeah and a good thing too for a single alliance to share the same rules- but just pointing out there is no need to get any consensus to alter the laws of succession.
And my gut feeling is most if not all those countries will keep the Monarch and accept the new head regardless of gender.
Be a bit tricky, after Elizabeth has demonstrated acoss a lifetime of success as Head of the Commonwealth Countires, to turn round and say no to the next one on the basis of them being female.

you know... i think they'll skip one of them and go straight for william.

David H wrote:I'd been leaving this one alone, but OK, since you asked.....

I think constitutional monarchies seem to work wonderfully in smaller countries with not too much diversity in their population. I think they're pretty cool really, and I'd love to have a casual conversation with a monarch someday. Maybe the Emperor of Japan.

But they break down over larger areas and more diverse populations like the British Empire. As Americans we rather resented being told we were to be exploited by Divine Right, as did India and several other ex-colonies. Some of the bitterness still persists {{{though I think many American's are secretly still a bit jealous.}}}

But I do find the breading rules for royal families pretty barbaric.
It's really a lot more like you would bread a race horse.

Does anyone have a guess when we might see a mixed-race monarch of a European country?

Depends who the current royal kids fall in love with. I am bit surprised you still think royals can only marry their cousins.
But since race is important for some reason: Here's prince Nikolai, 7th in line to the throne of Denmark.


Oldest son of prince Joachim and former princess Alexandra (British dad, Chineese mother), now divorced.

Other than that, as far as I can remember, all white folks. But you never know.

Amarië wrote:


Depends who the current royal kids fall in love with. I am bit surprised you still think royals can only marry their cousins.
But since race is important for some reason: Here's prince Nikolai, 7th in line to the throne of Denmark.

A cute kid!
Look, I confess I'm looking in from the outside so my views may be biased, but there still seems to be a lot of talk in the British press about who is dating whom and what constitutes a "proper match". That's a term I'm familiar with from arranged marriages and livestock breading, and it always makes me uneasy when I hear it. Not that it's any of my business, but still....

The reason I asked about race was that I've heard the question raised by members of some of the ethnic communities in the UK. At least some of them seem to see the Queen and her heirs as symbols of the dominance of the white race, much as many of the ethnic communities in the United States have felt about our past presidents here.

Obama's election, and even more his re-election, has gone a long way toward softening some of those perceived racial barriers. I suspect it will be equally empowering to other ethnic communities if Prince Nikolai ever takes the throne ( though not wishing anything unfortunate to the other 6 ahead of him, you understand!)

Being royal is a horrible job, not too unlike what it is like for Obama and his family. It does take a special type of strength to keep up with the program. We've become more interested in capability rather than breeding. I hope!

Mette-Marit has done a good job in proving she can be a fine crown princess and future queen despite her um colourful past and family. I am sure there are many who aren't too thrilled, but if the option is to see Ari Behn as king.... heh... hehe. Oh dear...

Amarië wrote:Being royal is a horrible job, not too unlike what it is like for Obama and his family. It does take a special type of strength to keep up with the program.

Mmmm...worse I believe because anybody who ends up in the White House has had to make a choice and worked hard to be there.

Royalty is often thrust on the unwilling.

But maybe that's it's greatest strength. Personal ambition is not such a factor in the equation.

I've never seen the word Queen used so often without my name behind it!
I always thought Hawaii had a good government, before it was annexed and the Queen was stripped if her title. They had a monarch, but they got to choose who the next one would be. To me, that seems like the best of both worlds.

There's my 2 cents! You may continue on with your long, informed posts!

Mette-Marit has done a good job in proving she can be a fine crown princess and future queen despite her um colourful past and family. I am sure there are many who aren't too thrilled, but if the option is to see Ari Behn as king.... heh... hehe. Oh dear...

- Amarië

trur xD though i must say the crown-family is a bit too posh for my taste. i like them being more people-y like Sonja and Harald.

oh, and can i just point out. the reason i think why some (not pointing any fingers) royal families are a bit behind on the "you-can-marry-non-posh/royal/well-educated/etc.etc-poeple" policy is because they all go to the same schools...

Royalty is often thrust on the unwilling.

- David

well, if they don't want to they can abdicate. also, princess Märtha has gone the complete opposite direction and yeah.. she believes in angels.