Happy Birthday your majesty Queen Elizabeth the second.

[waz]

I am a monarchist as well due to familial reasons and because a functional monarchy has many advantages compared to a republic.

However the "problem" with most if not all European monarchies is that their traditions have mostly died out. To begin with they have no political power excluding tiny princely states such as Monaco and Liechtenstein. Thus they have lost a lot of their historical legitimacy. For instance in the past only men could inherit the throne based on primogeniture and Salic law. Just as ordinary surnames are inherited from the father. Only when the male line died out a woman from the same dynasty could become queen.

Nowadays royals in Europe (the few that remain) have eliminated male preference and thus allowed women to inherit the throne. This means that the current Crown Prince of Denmark for instance according to Salic law, tradition and custom, does not belong to a royal dynasty paternally. Titles, whether royal or noble, have always been handed over from father to son historically. In the Arab world he would not be considered a prince let alone a crown prince. Under Salic Law in Europe (when it was once in place) he could not even lay claim to a royal title let alone a noble one to begin with as his father is a French commoner with no royal or noble title from birth.

It's the exact same story with the Dutch royal house, Swedish (which is only 200 years old and was founded by a French commoner - hence the youngest generation of the Swedish Royal family can only trace their ancestry 10 or so generations back) and numerous others.

Let alone the fact that the royals of Denmark, Norway (they are both from the same family) are not of Danish or Norwegian origin but German. Same story with the Romanian monarchy which was only founded in 1881. That year an German (surprise) prince was installed and made a King of Romania. The last king of Romania has no sons hence the ones who are supposed to inherit his claim to the throne and their descendants will not even belong to his dynasty. They have 0% of Romanian ancestry in them as well.

Let alone the constant marriages with commoners. The son of William hardly has any royal ancestry. Less than 25% as Queen Elizabeth's mother was a non-royal. His son or daughter (who will inherit the throne) will even have less. So what's the point then of treating him as a royal?

Let alone the fact that his lineage is non-English just like Queen Elizabeth's and all the kings and queens from the House of Windsor (not their real name, they changed it due to anti-German sentiment in the UK some 100 years ago - their original name is Saxe-Gotha-Coburg which is a branch of the German Wettin dynasty) and the House of Hannover dynasty. If you take a look at their lineage almost all of it is 100% German. So how can natives take such a pride in foreign rulers and dynasties? It must be the institution that they take pride in because everything else makes no sense. In the Arab world it would be unthinkable to adopt non-Arab rulers.



There are plenty of Capetian male descendants out there. The line of Louis XVI died out but other lines survived. There was even a restoration (Bourbon Restoration) between 1815-1830 after Napoleon was exiled to Saint Helena. In fact the current King of Spain (he will likely become the last one of his line as he has no sons) and Grand Duke of Luxembourg belong to the House of Bourbon.

Anyway I see monarchies, in the European context at least, as something outdated and their entire foundation is extremely contradictory to the values and political systems of modern-day Europe.



You and everyone else in the UK owe your religious freedom to the constitution and parliament. Not the Queen who is the head of the Anglican Church and who herself has no religious freedom. Catholics to this day are banned from the line of succession to the British throne.

Now you know this at least.

Good post, but do remember the Saxons came from Germany and with settlement and acculturation, the line of George the First had a reasonable claim on the crown. The Queen is ruling the subjects with whom she shares heritage and genetics.
Take a look.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well in Pakistan , children's books etc and other books are filled with stories of Kings and Queens and prince and princesses

So children when they grow up they automatically assume Monarchs are some special folks with Mythical powers.

Well I was also quite found of Monarchs for some time but later as I grew old history review showed the dark path Monarchy has played in various conflicts. The documented evidence of Torture chambers and cruel punishment etc really sheds light on how the Monarchs maintained order in their domains.

Various Monarchs , only married with in their own blood etc and all sort of other heretic traditions, noble blood or blood of elite was always a topic in past.

The stories of alliances , and backstabbing can make an epic tale

The middle ages in Europe perhaps is the best historical evidence of Monarchs and various power struggles with in families and kings and queens

These days I just find strange that Monarchs normally don't do any job like most of people yet they enjoy a very Rich life style with perpetual income etc so not really a big fan of any queen or kings in general

It is an interesting life style . unique display of "Higher class" etc dinners and parties etc fancy dances , Opera and fancy dancy stuff but its not practical

If Queen was passing by on Main street 2, and I had football match on TV I would still watch the football match

May be 100-200 or 500-600 years ago Kings and Queens mattered but these days they are mere symbolic entities just for mere children's books so children can remain fascinated in the world from past that no longer exists

 

[waz]

@waz: I am naturalised UK citizen.

You are aware that the Queen is above the law and technically cannot even be prosecuted for murder?

Ah I see, I've felt that naturalised folks, post 1980 don't have much a connection with the family. My forefathers all fought in the British Indian army, hence why I am a royalist.

As for the rest, The key thing here is the position that the Queen legally holds; she is above the police, the army, parliament, the courts, everything is answerable to her; the Prince of Wales is effectively above the law too, and parliament has to ask her permission to pass laws which effect him or his lands. In fact, each of those technically exist simply to do her bidding. This especially makes sense when you think about what each of those are; parliament and the privy council at their basic form are simply the monarch's advisers; a judge in a court is a representative of the Queen herself, because she cannot reside over every case; the army fight for the monarch; the police is a group given the Queen's authority to enforce the law - all of these roles are answerable to her alone. In principle therefore, no, the monarch cannot be tried for any crime, she is above the law. The most recent example of the kind of power she yields came in January this year when the dead body of Alisa Dmitrijeva was found at Sandringham, and the police had to request the Queen's permission to conduct an investigation on her private land.

In practice however something would be done about it; whether she would be forced to abdicate and then tried, or whether it would be enough to propel the UK to become a full republic is questionable. The monarch has been responsible for murdering and maiming people for centuries and got away with it, but society has changed enough to not stand for it now. The fact that the concept of arresting or charging the monarch for a crime is a contradiction did not stop John Bradshaw sentencing Charles I, or the French from arresting Louis XVI. The monarch has absolute control, until everyone simply chooses to ignore it.


By the way the Princess Royal has a criminal conviction under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Fined £500 at Slough Magistrates in 2002.

 

[Bilad al-Haramayn]

Good post, but do remember the Saxons came from Germany and with settlement and acculturation, the line of George the First had a reasonable claim on the crown. The Queen is ruling the subjects with whom she shares heritage and genetics.
Take a look.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry

That's correct but you have to remember that most Brits are indigenous people of a Celtic stock. The "Germanic" input is nowhere near as big as previously thought. DNA studies have confirmed this in the past few years repeatedly. Moreover the Normans who invaded in 1066 were not French either but mostly Scandinavians (Danes in particular) who adopted French culture after settling (raiding more precisely, lol) Normandy.

Anyway every royalty, nobility and millions upon millions of European commoners are interrelated. We all are at the end of the day. In fact there is a great possibility that millions upon millions of ordinary Europeans are related to Prophet Muhammad (saws). Of course not his main line. Likewise I have read studies that show that millions upon millions of Arabs are related to Charlemagne due to intermarriages long ago. After all we are neighbors and have intermarried long before Islamic times.

Read this below, it might interest you:

http://www.nicholaswhyte.info/muhammad.htm

My point was merely that the more the royal families in Europe reform (loss of traditions, intermarriages with commoners, royal lines dying out) the more their "exalted" position in society loses legitimacy IMO. I then after concluding this, like other observers before me, asked the rhetorical question about whether their current role in 2-3 generations will command the same legitimacy and if there will be any point of keeping something that has lost its past "glory" and traditions "alive" so to speak? Why keep something that is barely royal anymore in other words?

To begin with a monarchial system and the privileged position of European monarchs today, is very contradictory to the modern-day European values and democracy.

However I am glad that you took your time to read my post and you are right about George I of Great Britain.

 

[UKBengali]

Ah I see, I've felt that naturalised folks, post 1980 don't have much a connection with the family. My forefathers all fought in the British Indian army, hence why I am a royalist.

As for the rest, The key thing here is the position that the Queen legally holds; she is above the police, the army, parliament, the courts, everything is answerable to her; the Prince of Wales is effectively above the law too, and parliament has to ask her permission to pass laws which effect him or his lands. In fact, each of those technically exist simply to do her bidding. This especially makes sense when you think about what each of those are; parliament and the privy council at their basic form are simply the monarch's advisers; a judge in a court is a representative of the Queen herself, because she cannot reside over every case; the army fight for the monarch; the police is a group given the Queen's authority to enforce the law - all of these roles are answerable to her alone. In principle therefore, no, the monarch cannot be tried for any crime, she is above the law. The most recent example of the kind of power she yields came in January this year when the dead body of Alisa Dmitrijeva was found at Sandringham, and the police had to request the Queen's permission to conduct an investigation on her private land.

In practice however something would be done about it; whether she would be forced to abdicate and then tried, or whether it would be enough to propel the UK to become a full republic is questionable. The monarch has been responsible for murdering and maiming people for centuries and got away with it, but society has changed enough to not stand for it now. The fact that the concept of arresting or charging the monarch for a crime is a contradiction did not stop John Bradshaw sentencing Charles I, or the French from arresting Louis XVI. The monarch has absolute control, until everyone simply chooses to ignore it.


By the way the Princess Royal has a criminal conviction under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Fined £500 at Slough Magistrates in 2002.

Yes you are correct that if the Queen felt that she could commit murder and get away with it then she would very quickly find out that she was incorrect!

 

[Bilad al-Haramayn]

Speaking about royalty, what was the reason for Pakistan never adopting a monarchy? From what I am aware of what is today Pakistan, before 1947, had indigenous rulers albeit they were subjects of the British Empire.

Given the young age of Pakistan as a country (1947) and the ethnic diversity of its people and many languages, would it then not have made sense to appoint a constitutional monarch who would serve as a unifying figure?

@waz has there ever been such a push by Pakistani intellectuals within Pakistan or abroad? Or was the notion considered contrary to the values upon which Pakistan was founded (Islamic Republic)? It's quite interesting to see the anti-monarchy sentiment of many Muslims considering the fact that almost every single Muslim Caliphate, dynasty (wherever it was) was ruled by an Islamic monarch. One could argue that a Caliph was merely a religious and spiritual monarch much like how (not comparing them with each other) the Japanese Emperor is considered a religious figure in the Shinto religion by Japanese - hence the historical respect for the Imperial family of Japan.

Lastly, not to provoke or anything, but I don't really understand how Pakistanis can respect the British monarchy given history. The story might be different from those based in the UK for obvious reasons though.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

That's correct but you have to remember that most Brits are indigenous people of a Celtic stock. The "Germanic" input is nowhere near as big as previously thought. DNA studies have confirmed this in the past few years repeatedly. Moreover the Normans who invaded in 1066 were not French either but mostly Scandinavians (Danes in particular) who adopted French culture after settling (raiding more precisely, lol) Normandy.

Anyway every royalty, nobility and millions upon millions of European commoners are interrelated. We all are at the end of the day. In fact there is a great possibility that millions upon millions of ordinary Europeans are related to Prophet Muhammad (saws). Of course not his main line. Likewise I have read studies that show that millions upon millions of Arabs are related to Charlemagne due to intermarriages long ago. After all we are neighbors and have intermarried long before Islamic times.

Read this below, it might interest you:

http://www.nicholaswhyte.info/muhammad.htm

My point was merely that the more the royal families in Europe reform (loss of traditions, intermarriages with commoners, royal lines dying out) the more their "exalted" position in society loses legitimacy IMO. I then after concluding this, like other observers before me, asked the rhetorical question about whether their current role in 2-3 generations will command the same legitimacy and if there will be any point of keeping something that has lost its past "glory" and traditions "alive" so to speak? Why keep something that is barely royal anymore in other words?

To begin with a monarchial system and the privileged position of European monarchs today, is very contradictory to the modern-day European values and democracy.

However I am glad that you took your time to read my post and you are right about George I of Great Britain.

Interesting point about intermarriages and other nice stuff however folks with half blood line were kicked out of Europe in 1400 , it seems in most Europeans land Muslims were some what refereed as Moors or something like that

Muslims / Jews were generally kicked out forced back to Northern Africa

I think 500,000 folks - 6 Million people may have been kicked out over night shipped into ships
properties confiscated and the ones that remained were forced or sold into slavery

Treaty of Granada (1491)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Granada_(1491)

Alhambra Decree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree

Expulsion of the Moriscos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos

Becasue these events happened in past I would not be surprised in future conflicts the Muslim citizens in Europe or other lands might be forced out

We occasionally hear about discussions in Parliaments that folks could be stripped of citizenship etc such and such , and this kind of thinking is common in Europe because they had done these acts in past

That is why there is a dislike of Syrian Refugees coming to Europe

Obviously Society today has moved ahead etc UK etc are modern societies mixed culture but Terrorism in general can disrupt the harmony on society , there are alot of right wing mind folks in Europe that always say kick every one out (mindset) etc

 

[Bilad al-Haramayn]

Interesting point about intermarriages and other nice stuff however folks with half blood line were kicked out of Europe in 1400 , it seems in most Europeans land Muslims were some what refereed as Moors or something like that

Muslims / Jews were generally kicked out forced back to Northern Africa

Treaty of Granada (1491)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Granada_(1491)

Alhambra Decree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree

Expulsion of the Moriscos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos

Numerous common Spanish and Portuguese (even Italian ones to a smaller degree) surnames have an Arabic origin. There are still Spanish families (now Catholics or Atheists) who know that their forefathers were of Moorish origin. Moors were Arabs, Berbers (who are related to Arabs to begin with), local converts and a small minority of Sub-Saharan African converts. You have to remember that the Moors ruled most of Spain and Portugal for 800 years. They had an immense impact on Spanish and Portuguese society from the vocabulary (up to 25% of all Spanish words are of Arabic origin), to the city names, cuisine, architecture, music, ancestry etc. All this DESPITE the Spanish expulsion of Muslims and Jews, the conversion of thousands of mosque into churches, their active policy of "deleting" everything from the Muslim period etc. Later the brutal inquisition. So you can imagine the enormous influence of Moorish culture in Al-Andalus.

Yes, Moriscos are found all across the Arab world to this day. We even have them in KSA. Often the surname gives such a relation away. Most are found in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia though.

 

[waz]

That's correct but you have to remember that most Brits are indigenous people of a Celtic stock. The "Germanic" input is nowhere near as big as previously thought. DNA studies have confirmed this in the past few years repeatedly. Moreover the Normans who invaded in 1066 were not French either but mostly Scandinavians (Danes in particular) who adopted French culture after settling (raiding more precisely, lol) Normandy.

Anyway every royalty, nobility and millions upon millions of European commoners are interrelated. We all are at the end of the day. In fact there is a great possibility that millions upon millions of ordinary Europeans are related to Prophet Muhammad (saws). Of course not his main line. Likewise I have read studies that show that millions upon millions of Arabs are related to Charlemagne due to intermarriages long ago. After all we are neighbors and have intermarried long before Islamic times.

Read this below, it might interest you:

http://www.nicholaswhyte.info/muhammad.htm

My point was merely that the more the royal families in Europe reform (loss of traditions, intermarriages with commoners, royal lines dying out) the more their "exalted" position in society loses legitimacy IMO. I then after concluding this, like other observers before me, asked the rhetorical question about whether their current role in 2-3 generations will command the same legitimacy and if there will be any point of keeping something that has lost its past "glory" and traditions "alive" so to speak? Why keep something that is barely royal anymore in other words?

To begin with a monarchial system and the privileged position of European monarchs today, is very contradictory to the modern-day European values and democracy.

However I am glad that you took your time to read my post and you are right about George I of Great Britain.

Good post, although studies like the one I put up point to 30-40%, some state more, it's significant enough as evidence to be used to quash the notion that she is a foreign queen.

Speaking about royalty, what was the reason for Pakistan never adopting a monarchy? From what I am aware of what is today Pakistan, before 1947, had indigenous rulers albeit they were subjects of the British Empire.

Given the young age of Pakistan as a country (1947) and the ethnic diversity of its people and many languages, would it then not have made sense to appoint a constitutional monarch who would serve as a unifying figure?

@waz has there ever been such a push by Pakistani intellectuals within Pakistan or abroad? Or was the notion considered contrary to the values upon which Pakistan was founded (Islamic Republic)? It's quite interesting to see the anti-monarchy sentiment of many Muslims considering the fact that almost every single Muslim Caliphate, dynasty (wherever it was) was ruled by an Islamic monarch. One could argue that a Caliph was merely a religious and spiritual monarch much like how (not comparing them with each other) the Japanese Emperor is considered a religious figure in the Shinto religion by Japanese - hence the historical respect for the Imperial family of Japan.

Lastly, not to provoke or anything, but I don't really understand how Pakistanis can respect the British monarchy given history. The story might be different from those based in the UK for obvious reasons though.

The royals that would have been were the Mughals. Their end came after the Indian mutiny, after-which the regions that comprised the British ruled empire became fractured, but the British managed to keep a lid on things. These feelings surfaced once the partition happened. To put it plainly once the momentum had been crushed for a return to the old days, it was just forgotten in the turmoil of the years that followed.

 

[Bilad al-Haramayn]

Good post, although studies like the one I put up point to 30-40%, some state more, it's significant enough as evidence to be used to quash the notion that she is a foreign queen.



The royals that would have been were the Mughals. Their end came after the Indian mutiny, after-which the regions that comprised the British ruled empire became fractured, but the British managed to keep a lid on things. These feelings surfaced once the partition happened. To put it plainly once the momentum had been crushed for a return to the old days, it was just forgotten in the turmoil of the years that followed.

Most of the British gene poll remains mostly indigenous (Celtic). Moreover Saxons were just 1 out of many Germanic speaking peoples. Back then the different Germanic peoples did not share the same DNA just like modern-day Germanic speaking countries do not. Moreover the Saxon invasion of the UK took place long ago and I highly doubt that Queen Elizabeth's and her recent mostly German forefathers, had any significant ancestral ties to those Saxons who left to settle in the UK. Even if that was the case it would be quite a vague relation since it is so long ago. There is no doubt that most of her recent ancestry is purely German and there is hardly any English ancestry, excluding her mother who was a commoner.

Are you sure that the Mughals were the only dynasty that ruled modern-day Pakistan prior to British colonization? I am quite sure that I recall hearing about an Maharaja of Kashmir for instance and it would surprise me a lot if other ethnic groups of modern-day Pakistan did not have their own traditional rulers even when Pakistan was under British rule?

 

[livingdead]

@waz: I am naturalised UK citizen.

You are aware that the Queen is above the law and technically cannot even be prosecuted for murder?

how did you feel about swearing to be loyal to the queen and her family members... or was it long time ago

 

[UKBengali]

how did you feel about swearing to be loyal to the queen and her family members... or was it long time ago

Never had to do that.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Never had to do that.

Just make sure to remember shake her hand if you know what I mean citizenship can be stripped like in SWISS

Queen you shake hand

 

[livingdead]

Most of the British gene poll remains mostly indigenous (Celtic). Moreover Saxons were just 1 out of many Germanic speaking peoples. Back then the different Germanic peoples did not share the same DNA just like modern-day Germanic speaking countries do not. Moreover the Saxon invasion of the UK took place long ago and I highly doubt that Queen Elizabeth's and her recent mostly German forefathers, had any significant ancestral ties to those Saxons who left to settle in the UK. Even if that was the case it would be quite a vague relation since it is so long ago. There is no doubt that most of her recent ancestry is purely German and there is hardly any English ancestry, excluding her mother who was a commoner.

Are you sure that the Mughals were the only dynasty that ruled modern-day Pakistan prior to British colonization? I am quite sure that I recall hearing about an Maharaja of Kashmir for instance and it would surprise me a lot if other ethnic groups of modern-day Pakistan did not have their own traditional rulers even when Pakistan was under British rule?

mughals were not ruling area known as pakistan when british started colonization.
Since Indian subcontinent fought for independence from rulers and most of our leaders in that fight were either democrats or left wing politician, I dont think they would have been happy to bring back royals.
There is another practical problem, India had 300 or so kings when british left, pakistan probably less but not one king for whole country. Which one you will choose as monarch?
There is some lingering positive feeling towards monarchs among certain section of Indian society even now, many royals are in politics too and find it easy to get elected(I think) but as a country we became republic in 1950 and there is no looking back.

The idea of monarch is even less palatable to younger generation.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Speaking about royalty, what was the reason for Pakistan never adopting a monarchy? From what I am aware of what is today Pakistan, before 1947, had indigenous rulers albeit they were subjects of the British Empire.

Given the young age of Pakistan as a country (1947) and the ethnic diversity of its people and many languages, would it then not have made sense to appoint a constitutional monarch who would serve as a unifying figure?

@waz has there ever been such a push by Pakistani intellectuals within Pakistan or abroad? Or was the notion considered contrary to the values upon which Pakistan was founded (Islamic Republic)? It's quite interesting to see the anti-monarchy sentiment of many Muslims considering the fact that almost every single Muslim Caliphate, dynasty (wherever it was) was ruled by an Islamic monarch. One could argue that a Caliph was merely a religious and spiritual monarch much like how (not comparing them with each other) the Japanese Emperor is considered a religious figure in the Shinto religion by Japanese - hence the historical respect for the Imperial family of Japan.

Lastly, not to provoke or anything, but I don't really understand how Pakistanis can respect the British monarchy given history. The story might be different from those based in the UK for obvious reasons though.

Nice question , well the reason why Pakistan did not become Monarch state was simple , we won our independence by means of political struggle

It was by means of political disorder, demonstrations and request for independent state by means of political disobedience

The people who made it happen were highly educated folks.

The British Empire went thru 2 world wars , they needed man power and the only way they could do that by agreeing with people of Sub continent to give them independence in return for man power

The Caliph , I view him as a "Democratically elected person" not a monarch , becasue tradition was that Muslim leaders of the society selected the most reputable person

They system later became controversial as the rule of who may select the caliph was not well defined so some groups voted for one person and others voted for other group, Lack of proper system acceptable to all population is what we lacked during that time and thus 2 sects were created due to differences

Most people who came to power after the assassination of Hussein were controversial entities in one way or other.

I think in end when UK gave independence to Pakistan , the citizens of Pakistan were grateful and wanted to wish well to UK going forward and we have good diplomatic ties with UK and many Pakistanis live in UK as joint citizens etc

While today many may not follow what is happening with British Monarchy however Princess Diana won heart of many Pakistanis with her Humanitarian work in past

After her controversial death I don't quite follow the Monarchy that much