An American Queen of Sweden?

[Claeyt]

What the princess uses her money for, i don't care. It's her right to do whatever she wishes with it. It might be taxpayers money or then it's not. Probably is, but it doesn't have to be. It's her private life. It doesn't concern me.

You just argued the exact opposite of this earlier where you said what the princess does represents the Swedes and what she does does affect them. It absolutely concerns the Swedes if they're paying for whatever private life she's able to maintain as an incredibly rich ward of the state. I can't even imagine someone getting paid a living allowance by the state while living in another country permanently without actually working for the state..

[Spazzmaticus]

Obama is hardly unquestioned.

I didn't mean to suggest that he was unquestioned. I know a lot of people are displeased with him. I just feel that his position entails more than just public service. I don't get the same feeling of historical purpose from Gordon Brown, Jean-Marc Ayrault or Erna Solberg.

[Syndarn]

Alright. Let's recap abit so i understand you better.

You are arguing that. (correct me if i am wrong)

1. The royal family get's too much "allowance" even if they are living abroad.
2. It's bad reputation for Sweden if a Swedish princess owns a high-end apartment in New York(or any other city/country), other than Sweden itself. More so if it's bought with Taxpayer money.
3. Monarchy sucks and is outdated and out of style.

Add more if there is any. Then i shall take a moment to try to answer you all at once to the best of my ability.

[MagicManICT]

What claeyt fails to mention is that the President of the US* and many of the Senators and Congressmen live in high end apartments and houses in Washington, DC. If I've done the math correctly, they don't get any more money than any of the royalty does in the various countries that still have them. That housing costs way more than any of them could afford on their government "tax payer" salaries. Why can they afford these things? Secondary incomes!! I'm not sure how much of that lobbying money makes it into their pockets instead of the campaign funds, they almost all have investments, businesses, and family money that they get income from while they are busy serving the people of the US. Why can't this be true of Nobility as well?

To note, Political rule may be a local term, but it is not one that I'm familiar with. All governments are ruled by politics. Do you perhaps mean Monarchy? Constitutional Monarchy (think that's the term I've seen jorb use)? Republic? Democracy?

And yes, Claeyt is right if he would say a full Monarchy is outdated. I'm not aware of any left in the world. However, Royalty and Nobility can still play a part in modern governance of countries along side of democratic ideals. However, Claeyt, if you think that there isn't some longing for that sort of tradition in the US, you're sadly mistaken. There's way to much consumption of the news on the British royal family here for it to be an idle curiosity.

*I will note that the President's house is owned by the government on a land allowance from Virginia and Delaware, but it is, with all of it's upgrades and such, a billion dollar piece of property (if not worth that much physically, it is in the work it produces).

[Spazzmaticus]

And yes, Claeyt is right if he would say a full Monarchy is outdated. I'm not aware of any left in the world. However, Royalty and Nobility can still play a part in modern governance of countries along side of democratic ideals. However, Claeyt, if you think that there isn't some longing for that sort of tradition in the US, you're sadly mistaken. There's way to much consumption of the news on the British royal family here for it to be an idle curiosity.

I can't but agree. Traditional and cultural values don't go away if you dismantle the institutions that represents it. It just relocates itself to another outlet, either other foreign nobility or some domestic organization that gains significant political power from it. I personally think that redirecting such influence to an entity without actual political authority serves to make a democracy more efficient and less corrupt.

[Claeyt]

I didn't mean to suggest that he was unquestioned. I know a lot of people are displeased with him. I just feel that his position entails more than just public service. I don't get the same feeling of historical purpose from Gordon Brown, Jean-Marc Ayrault or Erna Solberg.

The president does have more executive power than a head of Parliament but he has much less legislative power. Very few countries have this type of president that controls almost all functions and mechanics of government but has almost no say in funding it or writing the laws that rule it. It's Unique to the U.S.

What claeyt fails to mention is that the President of the US* and many of the Senators and Congressmen live in high end apartments and houses in Washington, DC. If I've done the math correctly, they don't get any more money than any of the royalty does in the various countries that still have them. That housing costs way more than any of them could afford on their government "tax payer" salaries. Why can they afford these things? Secondary incomes!! I'm not sure how much of that lobbying money makes it into their pockets instead of the campaign funds, they almost all have investments, businesses, and family money that they get income from while they are busy serving the people of the US. Why can't this be true of Nobility as well?

All Democracies pay their representatives. That's so not only the rich can represent us. Even then our reps are pretty wealthy. Every Democracy I know of also allows a living allowance to their elected officials for the same reason. The U.S. is actually pretty low when it comes to that. There are plenty of Congressmen that actually share apartments to save on rent. The White house is of course unique but it's not 'owned' by the President. The Castles of royals are actually owned by them in perpetuity which is in their constitutions.

We have very, very strict rules for money raised for elections and if anybody 'pocketed' some campaign funds they could go to prison for it. Most of Western Europe has similar laws but don't see the effects of it as much because of their short election seasons. This can't be true of nobility as well because the nobility has no official requirements on it. Congress and most Parliaments in the world are actually compelled to attend. We actually had an interesting case here in Wisconsin where our state senate was protesting an act by the governor and was being searched for by the state police to be arrested and forcibly made to attend. Nobility and monarchy is never required to attend anything if they refuse and It doesn't have to vote or even participate if it doesn't want to. It's for purely ceremonial entertainment value.

And yes, Claeyt is right if he would say a full Monarchy is outdated. I'm not aware of any left in the world. However, Royalty and Nobility can still play a part in modern governance of countries along side of democratic ideals. However, Claeyt, if you think that there isn't some longing for that sort of tradition in the US, you're sadly mistaken. There's way to much consumption of the news on the British royal family here for it to be an idle curiosity.

Of course full Monarchy exists in the world. Saudia Arabia, Oman, the Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar are all full monarchies. Jordan, Morroco, Thailand have weak elected parliaments. A lot of African countries have monarchies with various powers. Monaco and some of the Pacific Island countries have direct executive appointment control by the monarchy and of course we have all the other anachronism monarchies of Western Europe, Japan and Sweden that have various "powers". Are you noticing a trend here. The less monarchy the more democracy or maybe it would be better to say that the less cronyism and nepotism the more democracy and freedom.

There are also many, many monarchies within countries that maintain control of certain functions and buildings inside of countries. India, South Africa, Some other African, SE Asian and European Countries have these and even the U.S. has local heridetary control of some church properties (Utah) and local governments and buildings (Native states and Hawaii). Isreal also has some hereditary controls and ownership of certain landmarks and such by various Orthodox leaders and their families.

*I will note that the President's house is owned by the government on a land allowance from Virginia and Delaware, but it is, with all of it's upgrades and such, a billion dollar piece of property (if not worth that much physically, it is in the work it produces).

It's a Billion dollar piece of property that switches inhabitants every 4 to 8 years generally. The President is actually required to live there by law now. The Secret Service by act of Congress (this happened after Kennedy) has the final say on where the President can live and work at all times. The President can actually be forcibly held in a place if the Secret Service says so.

[RuneNL]

Claeyt, you can think what you want but the fact is that countries with royals enjoy them being there because they are closely tied to tradition and history.

Like with archeology we treasure all layers of soil because they are all history to us.
In America its mostly recent history and native finds don't always get the same treatment.

History and tradition. I am sure you would have a better understanding if you where raised in the setting.


I agree with what most people said here. Don't know what you try to achieve Claeyt.
If its just for discussion sake I am not going to bother since it has been explained to you multiple times.

[Champie]

...countries with royals enjoy them being there because they are closely tied to tradition and history.

...History and tradition

Would anyone like to give some examples of the frequently suggested "history and traditions" that are "enjoyed" by "countries with royals?"

[RuneNL]

...countries with royals enjoy them being there because they are closely tied to tradition and history.

...History and tradition

Would anyone like to give some examples of the frequently suggested "history and traditions" that are "enjoyed" by "countries with royals?"

They do teach a lot in school. Don't know where you from and what selection of history you got fed in school...

Simeple examples: Castles, forts etc. Strugles, wars, redividing of countries... dude?

[Champie]

dude?

Sweet!