Happy Birthday your majesty Queen Elizabeth the second.

[Vergennes]

A story that needs telling on here my friend. It would be good to see you write something on it. I think we could have a collective thread on the royal families of Europe.
It is indeed very sad that nothing remains of King Louis's line.

Sadly,If you compare from 1914 to today,only a handful list of European countries still have a Royal family,but are constitutional monarchies were the monarchs have almost no say in the country's affairs.

Republic and Monarchies in Europe. 1914 -- > today.

**

With the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nutt I'll share a few thoughts.The French Revolution,altough a noble endeavour in its ppearance was a anti Christian movement with numerous recorded massacres against pro royalty and Catholic peasants.Robespierre was nothing short of Lenin.

Read about what happened in Vendée...

@flamer84 Also read about the "13 Vendémiaire"...
In the insurection against the Royalists,there was someone that some years later became Emperor.... you guessed it.

 

[flamer84]

Sadly,If you compare from 1914 to today,only a handful list of European countries still have a Royal family,but are constitutional monarchies were the monarchs have almost no say in the country's affairs.

Republic and Monarchies in Europe. 1914 -- > today.

**



Read about what happened in Vendée...

Yes,I know about it.The revolution wasn't exactly the noble effort it we know about it today but with all history,the winners get to write it.But,as with the Romanin "revolution" of 1989,when you kill the leaders and their supporters in a mock trial,you leave unanswered questions.....altough to a few....but they matter....and they question this "absolute" truth...

 

[Freyja]

Ah good. They'll all be too drunk celebrating this old Taffer to notice our invasion flee... I mean goodwill flotilla.

 

[Steve781]

Yes,I know about it.The revolution wasn't exactly the noble effort it we know about it today but with all history,the winners get to write it.But,as with the Romanin "revolution" of 1989,when you kill the leaders and their supporters in a mock trial,you leave unanswered questions.....altough to a few....but they matter....and they question this "absolute" truth...

Isn't Romania's last king still alive? Is there a large movement to restore him?

 

[Freyja]

Sadly,If you compare from 1914 to today,only a handful list of European countries still have a Royal family,but are constitutional monarchies were the monarchs have almost no say in the country's affairs.

Republic and Monarchies in Europe. 1914 -- > today.

Our and Denmark's royal families are quite interlinked as a result of our shared history - Our first leader following our independence from Sweden was a Dane.

No Sweden allowed!!!!

Prince Hakkon's a righteous dude.

 

[Bilad al-Haramayn]

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.

Thank you my friend. I just wonder if the French royal family was still around how much more closer our countries would have been. Sadly they fell into disarray and the rest is history.

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.

PS: Thank you UK for giving me religious freedom. I don't have to watch my back every time I pray in my mosque, can't say the same if I was in Pakistan.

Happy Birthday Ma'am.



I tend to avoid going to London, too crowed for my liking.

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.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Not all kings and queens were likable characters in History

Stories of Dungeons and excessive tax collection etc and countless wars made Monarch system quite a slow means to run a country

 

[ito]

They are not a burden, on the contrary, they bring in three times than what the taxpayer puts in. That's excluding the PR the family drum for the UK around the world.

Some figures below.

Brand Finance’s calculations show that tourism revenue connected to the monarchy and its heritage has been valued at £535 million for 2015.

the total value of the monarchy to the UK’s economy is an estimated £1.155 billion for 2015, according to their research.

Campaign group Republic, which calls for the abolition of the monarchy, claims that it’s own research shows the monarchy costs the UK £334 million a year,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ribution-to-the-british-economy-10491277.html



Thanks for the post comrade.

The amount of tourism they bring pays for it. Last time I went past Buckingham palace, all the Indians and Chinese tourists were going crazy and taking pictures outside Buckingham palace.

That is debatable. Very few people visit UK because of Queen. This is just a flawed reason that proponents of monarchy put forward. Moreover, I don't believe in a system where people get privileges just because of their birth. Everyone has to work hard for the position they have.

Anyway, I am not a UK citizen, so it doesn't bother me.

 

[flamer84]

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.

We take pride in them because we judge them on their actions not ethnicity.First of all,the 4 Kings of Romania were baptised in the Orthodox Church to become rulers.Secondly,let's see their actions: under King Carol the First Romania gained it's full independence and territories allowing the country access to the sea.Under King Ferdinand Romania became Greater Romania,more than doubling in size after it entered WW1 against Germany.The German Hohenzollern's disowned the Romanian branch for this but it didn't matter to them.You see,altough German by blood they were Romanian by soul and acted for the benefit of Romania,even against Germany.

King Ferdinand the 1st of Romania.

Though a member of a cadet branch of Germany's ruling Hohenzollern imperial family, Ferdinand presided over his country's entry into World War I on the side of the Triple Entente powers against the Central Powers on 27 August 1916. Thus he gained the nickname the Loyal, respecting his oath when sworn in before the Romanian Parliament in 1914:'I will reign as a good Romanian'.
As a consequence of this "betrayal" toward his German roots, Kaiser Wilhelm II had Ferdinand's name erased from the HohenzollernHouse register.
The outcome of Romania's war effort was the union of Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania with the Kingdom of Romania in 1918. Ferdinand became the ruler of a greatly enlarged Romanian state in 1918–1920 following the Entente's victory over the Central Powers, a war between the Kingdom of Romania and the Hungarian Soviet Republic, and the civil war in Russia, and was crowned King of Romania in a spectacular ceremony on 15 October 1922 at the historic princely seat of Alba Iulia, in Transylvania.

Today's President of Romania is a German ethnic and a Protestant in a country where 86% of the people are Orthodox.

Isn't Romania's last king still alive? Is there a large movement to restore him?

Many Romanians are monarchists but little is done about restoring him because the elites don't want to loose their grip on the country.Even him seems content that he was given some castles and properties back and enjoys the ceremonial role the Royal family has in the country.

 

[UKBengali]

They are not a burden, on the contrary, they bring in three times than what the taxpayer puts in. That's excluding the PR the family drum for the UK around the world.

Some figures below.

Brand Finance’s calculations show that tourism revenue connected to the monarchy and its heritage has been valued at £535 million for 2015.

the total value of the monarchy to the UK’s economy is an estimated £1.155 billion for 2015, according to their research.

Campaign group Republic, which calls for the abolition of the monarchy, claims that it’s own research shows the monarchy costs the UK £334 million a year,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ribution-to-the-british-economy-10491277.html



Thanks for the post comrade.

This is an incorrect argument put forward by Royalists.

Tourists do not come to capture a glimpse of the Royals but more the landmarks like the Palaces. Compare with
France where Tourists flock to the former Royal Palaces but there is no Royals left alive to see.

The most powerful countries in the world like US and China make do without a Royal family. The idea of someone being born of some special blood is anyhow against the principle of equality, and the sooner this outdated institution is abolished in the UK the better.

 

[Steve781]

This is an incorrect argument put forward by Royalists.

Tourists do not come to capture a glimpse of the Royals but more the landmarks like the Palaces. Compare with
France where Tourists flock to the former Royal Palaces but there is no Royals left alive to see.

The most powerful countries in the world like US and China make do without a Royal family. The idea of someone being born of some special blood is anyhow against the principle of equality, and the sooner this outdated institution is abolished in the UK the better.

I would rather have somebody born for the job in charge than a useless president who owes his position to donations from billionaire businessmen.

 

[Audio]

My mom has a huge fetish on British royalty. Was to London a few times, to Scotland two times...she's crazy lol!

 

[Bilad al-Haramayn]

We take pride in them because we judge them on their actions not ethnicity.First of all,the 4 Kings of Romania were baptised in the Orthodox Church to become rulers.Secondly,let's see their actions: under King Carol the First Romania gained it's full independence and territories allowing the country access to the sea.Under King Ferdinand Romania became Greater Romania,more than doubling in size after it entered WW1 against Germany.The German Hohenzollern's disowned the Romanian branch for this but it didn't matter to them.You see,altough German by blood they were Romanian by soul and acted for the benefit of Romania,even against Germany.

King Ferdinand the 1st of Romania.

Though a member of a cadet branch of Germany's ruling Hohenzollern imperial family, Ferdinand presided over his country's entry into World War I on the side of the Triple Entente powers against the Central Powers on 27 August 1916. Thus he gained the nickname the Loyal, respecting his oath when sworn in before the Romanian Parliament in 1914:'I will reign as a good Romanian'.
As a consequence of this "betrayal" toward his German roots, Kaiser Wilhelm II had Ferdinand's name erased from the HohenzollernHouse register.
The outcome of Romania's war effort was the union of Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania with the Kingdom of Romania in 1918. Ferdinand became the ruler of a greatly enlarged Romanian state in 1918–1920 following the Entente's victory over the Central Powers, a war between the Kingdom of Romania and the Hungarian Soviet Republic, and the civil war in Russia, and was crowned King of Romania in a spectacular ceremony on 15 October 1922 at the historic princely seat of Alba Iulia, in Transylvania.

Today's President of Romania is a German ethnic and a Protestant in a country where 86% of the people are Orthodox.




Many Romanians are monarchists but little is done about restoring him because the elites don't want to loose their grip on the country.Even him seems content that he was given some castles and properties back and enjoys the ceremonial role the Royal family has in the country.

It's completely normal for monarchs of non-native origin to "assimilate". The same thing happened with the "Greek" royal family. The last king of Greece (Constantine II) great-great-grandfather was Christian IX of Denmark who again hails from a German family. He and his family has zero Greek ancestry to this day. If that was not the case they would not survive in their role as monarchs in a new state.

Anyway would it not have made much more sense for Romania to have "adopted" an indigenous Romanian royal family or noble family and crowned them as kings of Romania rather than foreigners with no ties to Romania whatsoever? Serbia, Montenegro etc. (nearby states) had their own local dynasties.

Lastly do you dismiss all of my other legitimate points in the post that I wrote? It seems that nobody has thought about such issues at all which surprises me.

 

[Jaanbaz]

My mom has a huge fetish on British royalty. Was to London a few times, to Scotland two times...she's crazy lol!

Does she dress like the Queen on special occasions?

 

[Audio]

Does she dress like the Queen on special occasions?

Rofl, not that crazy, thankfully!

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I am a monarchist as well due to familial reasons

Right. Do we take it that your a scion of the House of Saud? If so when next time in UK do let me know. I will be more than happy to guide you around. Please make sure you bring your American Express Premier Gold Card.

their traditions have mostly died out

Yes but that is consistant with their societies, They are in sync with their cultures.

To begin with they have no political power

That is plus point. I would rather have policy decided by people's representatives who we can vote out. The Royals are there to reperesent the state and bring consistency to the system. As far as I am concerned it works fine in UK. So why fix something that ain't broke?