monarchies

Interesting question.

Sweden. They've imported 10% of their entire pre-mass-migration population within the last ten years. And those are just the official records, which are famously faulty owing to the government's recent policy of refusal to publicise any statistics to do with migration. There is a very high birthrate among all recent migrants to Europe, so we can presume that to be the case in Sweden as well. Within 50 years, perhaps sooner, Sweden will be unrecognisable.

The "new Swedes" are not going to put up with something as "old Swedish" as the RF for much longer.

Spain-- it already has a constitutional crisis. Immigrants don't mean the end of a monarchy, stop being retarded.

Dark horse candidates - Australia, Canada, and other ... what are they called? Countries with the Queen as Head of State, though not the UK.

Finland doesn't have a monarchy, you stupid cunt.

Swedish and Danish royalty are barely even royals. On the one hand, that makes them easier to dispose of. On the other hand, there barely seems to be a point.

Besides Britain, the Netherlands, Spain and Monaco, the other monarchies are so obscure; would it really make a difference? I didn't even know Denmark still had a monarch.

I never hear about ANY of them apart from the Brits. I wouldn't know them if they stood up in my soup.

Madame Zilensky and the King of Finland

By Carson McCullers

'One day, when I was standing in front of a patisserie, the King of Finland came by in a sled.' 'Madame Zilensky !' Mr. Brook cried. 'There is no King of Finland.'

Was there ever a king of Finland?

Surely you know Prince Albert of Monaco, R8.

Finland was under the thumb of other countries (Sweden and Russia) for so long they never had their own monarchy; they had to share someone else's.

Norway, too, for a few centuries was under Danish rule and submit to Denmark's monarch until a century or so ago, when they got their own (from the Danish royal family, of course).

I can't believe I'm on DL when I see declarations of ignorance about European royal families. Most DLers seem to know when the Queen Consort of the Netherlands took her last dump.

Are emperors considered monarchs? Japan has one. I think Nepal does as well.

[Quote] they never had their own monarchy; they had to share someone else's.

I love this r12 Are you from a country that has a history of monarchies?

I think only The Queen can truly lay claim to actual "Monarchy" as she is the only Anointed Sovereign left. The rest are not anointed, and so are just Royal Sovereigns.

And, obviously, Monaco is only a Principality.

No, R15, but I'm from Rhode Island, which did have to share a monarch with England for about a century and a half.

Good one, R18.

Yes, excellent response, R18.

I hope none of them go away.

Don't vote me into oblivion, Dataloungers!

[quote]I love this [R12] Are you from a country that has a history of monarchies?

He's American, so...yes.

Bring me Prince Carl Philip of Sweden. Don't let him go.

I believe - don't quote me - but if some Danish pleb runs into a member of the Danish Royal family, there's no etiquette in the address.

[quote]And, obviously, Monaco is only a Principality.

They have more money than a lot of the more obscure European royals.

So does Elton John.

Can't we bring back some of the "Byzantine" ones? You know, Russia, Ethiopia, Bulgaria, etc.

I had no idea that Elton John had aristocratic ancestors.

[quote]Can't we bring back some of the "Byzantine" ones? You know, Russia, Ethiopia, Bulgaria, etc.

Only if they promise to dress like Prince Felix.

Japan is the only empire remaining today.

r26, bloodline is all that matters in terms of Royalty. Money helps them survive and thrive, but blood stands above all other considerations.

“Start?”

Seriously?

Actually, Finland elected a king after World War I — Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse. He was married to Princess Margaret of Prussia, the younger sister of the Kaiser and a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. They never reigned and the Parliament abolished the monarchy in December 1918, two months after Frederick’s election.

R12 if you were from a country with a feudal history, you'd realize monarchies rule over you. They were often oppressive and despotic. I suppose you could share them once real power is taken away from them and they are reduced to pretty postcards for a country.

R23 Americans are fascinated with monarchies but don't really have a feudal past beyond being a colony established by a country with a monarch. Most monarchies go back a thousand years, some more, as the political and social structure of a feudal society. US history is a blip in the world history timeline. Pre US America was tribal, not feudal.

[quote]R26, bloodline is all that matters in terms of Royalty. Money helps them survive and thrive, but blood stands above all other considerations.

You mean inbreeding that caused hemophilia to be common among the royal families of Europe in the 19th century.

Nothing impressive about a royal with illustrious ancestors who has to live a very ordinary life because of a lack of money.

But I don’t want to be there for Vivian’s beheading.

[Quote] Can't we bring back some of the "Byzantine" ones? You know, Russia, Ethiopia, Bulgaria, etc.

Thousands of monarchy lines still exist though not very visible if their respective national constitutions do not provide a place for them. But social recognition, marriages between Royal houses, Royal rituals and patronage go on, though under much reduced circumstances.

Meh. Inbreeding goes on every day right now in, for example, Pakistan.

First cousins who are each children of first cousins marry all the time among the poor and middle classes in Muslim countries. It's a tradition sanctioned by the Koran and thought to keep the family land and assets together.

At least Royal families aren't STILL doing it after having discovered there was proof it caused health problems.

The Swedish Social Democrats have an official policy of abolishing the monarchy, have since the 70s. They've never tried because the public still support it, despite its left wing tendency.

I think Spain is the one on the shakiest ground.

[quote] Americans are fascinated with monarchies but don't really have a feudal past

Ever heard of "fee simple absolute in possession"? Feudal, past and present.

[Quote] Nothing impressive about a royal with illustrious ancestors who has to live a very ordinary life because of a lack of money.

The most impressive are those who use their social station to do social good and play a modern role. Those ones are able to combine the social graces that can only come from breeding with history and heritage to create royal commoners in a modern world.

That may seem a lot to you r41 in your short history.

[quote]The most impressive are those who use their social station to do social good and play a modern role. Those ones are able to combine the social graces that can only come from breeding with history and heritage to create royal commoners in a modern world.

Uh huh. Doing a lot for important social causes has nothing to do with royalty. People from very ordinary backgrounds who happened to strike it rich do it all the time. You seem to have a terribly romantic view of royalty. I'm sure when royals had real power, there were plenty who were greedy, brutal and treacherous.

I might add r41, and stop me if you've heard this, when Kissinger asked Premier Zhou Enlai what he thought of the French Revolution, he replied, "It is too early to tell." Zhou was from an ancient Mandarin family and a modern communist, whose leader Mao was a peasant, from a line ruled by their feudal lords.

Didn't King Farouk say that, "In the end there will only be five kings left: England, clubs, spades, diamonds and hearts."

"fee simple absolute in possession" comes from 1066 and lives on in the US today.

Remnants of tribalism and feudalism live on in many ways in many societies. That's history for you. 1066 is a short time in 5000 year old societies and monarchies of Persia, China and India.

[Quote] I'm sure when royals had real power, there were plenty who were greedy, brutal and treacherous.

Actually that's my point. They were oppressive and despotic for the most part as I said before. That is why Monarchies were replaced by democracy, even in societies that did not go through Enlightenment themselves.

The enlightened sensible monarchs today are few and far between. When they are, they are not vulgar like the Mcmansion oligarchs of today.

^Followed by the Domesday Book from which there could be no appeal.

R35's answer to me (R12) seems to misunderstand the verb "share" and their answer to R23 bizarrely conflates "monarchy" and "feudalism." The US and other countries in the Americas colonized by European monarchies in the 16th and 17th centuries may not have directly experienced much of feudalism (which was on its way out in Europe then), but they certainly did for several centuries know what it was like to be ruled by the representatives of a distant, often unresponsive, usually oppressive monarch for two to three centuries. For the Canadians, Jamaicans, etc. it lasted longer (not so much the oppression, though I could be wrong).

The "monarchies of Persia, China and India" are mainly fictions; those societies may have collective memories going back centuries and even millennia, based on archives and common literatures, but the ruling houses and centers of government were changing frequently, and the forms of rule constantly adapting to new circumstances, however much each new ruler may have strategically represented himself as the legitimate heir to all precursors. Same is true of ancient Egypt, for example, where the image of millennia-long continuity is a cultural fiction.

Why are people here so obsessed with monarchies going away? You sound like a bunch of Bolsheviks.

The Sultan (which is a way cooler title than king or emporer), is a homosexual, a flaming one at that.

R54 Oman (see above)

Even the country name Oh man!

The answer is THAILAND

The King and Queen...of America

The most corrupt of all corrupt absolute monarchies? The Vatican.

[quote]Remnants of tribalism and feudalism live on in many ways in many societies

Remnants? Quite the contrary! Tribalism/feudalism are the foundation of the social structure, culture and national identity from Africa to Southeast Asia, where brutal one-man rule (king/emir/sultan/garden-variety despot) is not only the norm, it is the preference. For the vast majority of the world, independence/independent thought are frightening and cultural anathema.

[Quote] their answer to [R23] bizarrely conflates "monarchy" and "feudalism

R51 Monarchies are the political system of feudal societies.

R4 it's called the Commonwealth. Many people think Queen Elizabeth is only the Queen of England, but she is Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia and many other countries in the Commonwealth. It is unlikely the Commonwealth will lose the monarchy

R53 did you think the monarchies of Persia, China and India are single unchanging institutions over 5000 years? Several monarchies make up a dynasty. They have had many dynasties, many or them spanning several centuries.

R53 did you think the monarchies of Persia, China and India are single unchanging institutions over 5000 years? Several monarchies make up a dynasty. They have had many dynasties, many or them spanning several centuries.

Remnants? Quite the contrary! Tribalism/feudalism are the foundation of the social structure, culture and national identity from Africa to Southeast Asia, where brutal one-man rule (king/emir/sultan/garden-varie - ty despot) is not only the norm, it is the preference.

You've answered your own question. Yes, remnants, even though countries have changed to constitutional democracies, theocracies and communist societies. But preference? I don't know about that. If they preferred feudalism they would not substituted monarchies with these other forms of governance.

Saudi Arabia

[quote]If they preferred feudalism they would not substituted monarchies with these other forms of governance.

Any "substitution" was at the instigation of the ruling despot, and done solely to consolidate and strengthen his power and control. To then call this "remnant" is woeful ignorance of the social structures in countries of much of the world.

I want the the Greek royal family on the throne once again led by Crown Prince Pavlos and Crown Princess Marie-Chantal.

The Netherlands. The whole country is going to be underwater in the next two decades.

[Quote] Any "substitution" was at the instigation of the ruling despot, and done solely to consolidate and strengthen his power and control.

R66 I don't know where you get your "history" from. The Shah was overthrown - directly related to the rise of Reagan if you follow politics. The Chinese emperor too - watch Bertolucci's The Last Emperor if you're not much into reading. Good film. Indian kingdoms were strongarmed into democratic India, the largest one with an armed invasion. You might have heard of the recent problems in Kashmir if you read the papers.

r6/r7: the Danish monarchy is one of the oldest in the world, dating from the 10th century (older than the UK's). I don't see that country ridding itself of it. The Danish royals are extremely lowkey and chill.

^^ meant to say, the Danish royals are very lowkey and chill, but still extremely royal.

[quote]Monarchies are the political system of feudal societies.

No, monarchies *were* the "political system" of such feudal societies as flourished in western Europe for a few centuries in the later Middle Ages (the region and period of feudalism proper), but they've also been the "political system" of many another type of society outside of that time and place. Ancient Egypt wasn't feudal, the Roman empire, etc., and modern European monarchies haven't presided over feudal societies for several hundred years.

Belgium...the country itself may fall apart. As for the monarchy, recent scandals involving an illegitimate daughter of the former king and corruption charges against the younger brother of the current king have chipped away at the institution's trove of respect.

I would say they need to get rid of the nobility and aristocracy, not just the monarchs. England is the absolute worst at this. Could you imagine living in a society where, just up until a few years ago, people were put in senior place of government and voted on all issues of the day solely because your forefather did something remarkable 400-500 years ago?

I don't understand why the UK still puts up with them still and their bullshit. I don't know of any other country (and I could just be ignorant), where the nobility is so alive and well. Monarchs? Yes, but not all of the lesser titled noblemen.

R72 of course feudalism doesn't exist today in Europe as an economic political system duh but a range of values and practices from that system remain in many countries across the world. The very existence of monarchies, constitutional or not, is itself a holdover from feudalism.

[quote]The very existence of monarchies, constitutional or not, is itself a holdover from feudalism.

Again: monarchy does not necessarily go with feudalism. Monarchy has often existed, and continues to exist, without a history of feudalism. Feudalism is a very specific historical and cultural phenomenon; monarchy is more general and widespread. Even in western Europe, which is what you're talking about, monarchy—including those to which current monarchies trace their roots and legitimacy—predates feudalism, however much they were later codependent on it for a few centuries. For example, the English monarchy dates back to kingdoms of the pre-feudal period, and the Carolingians succeeded the pre-feudal Merovingians.

[quote] The most impressive are those who use their social station to do social good and play a modern role. Those ones are able to combine the social graces that can only come from breeding

Mary!

[Quote] Again: monarchy does not necessarily go with feudalism. Monarchy has often existed, and continues to exist, without a history of feudalism.

Where * eyeroll *? Examples please.

Get rid of monarchies and we still have things Kylie Jenner? Priorities, OP

Omg I got a Mary! It's only me second, and no snark, hee hee thanks * deep curtsy, with fluttering fan *

[quote] Where * eyeroll *? Examples please.

Why don't you read the rest of my post, and the one at R72? Or just google? Ancient Egypt had a monarchy and wasn't feudal, ancient Persia, ancient Macedonia, ancient Rome; the pre-feudal periods of England, Scotland, France, Germany, etc. were ruled by monarchies. Feudalism is a western European phenomenon that developed around the 800s and lasted until around the 1400s, with some analogues in other times and places. It's not an inevitable concomitant of monarchy, which has a much longer and wider history.

I have no idea how anyone got the idea that feudalism always accompanies monarchy unless they've watched too many historical dramas about the Middle Ages and think that's all there is.

Oy r81 I hope you're not in any teaching profession. Of course those were all feudal - kings, lords, land tenants, indentured labor, slaves - with variations here and there, natch. You should read some Marx the economic historian.

Btw you aren't M from Avenue B by any chance. It was when he went blathering on like you that I'd flip him over at this point and fuck him hard.

The King of Pop had no natural heirs. So that.

R74: All European nations have aristocrats running around, some even let you use your title. It just doesn't entitle you to anything. The UK is the last country in the world to use the House of Lords, a Chamber of Peers. You get rid of that and you won't hear about the titled nobility anymore.

R14: Yes, Emperor, King, Grand Duke, Prince Regent etc. are all monarchies. Nepal abolished theirs in like 2008 after the the previous Kings son assassinated half of the Royal Family at a dinner party.

Well, R82, it so happens that I do teach college students, and if you were to define feudalism in such completely general, almost universal (in most of history), terms as "kings, lords, land tenants, indentured labor, slaves" on a paper for one of my classes I'd send you to some basic sources and have you rewrite it. Feudalism is a much more specific historical term. However "Marx the economic historian" may have used it (can you cite passages where he uses it of systems apart from those immediately preceding European capitalism?), social and political historians use it of a period of European history from about the Carolingian period to about the 15th century, with its strongest consolidation in the middle part of that period.

No, I'm not M from Avenue B, but to judge from the above, you haven't read this post far enough to learn that.

You're too Eurocentric r85. Who do you teach your community college students rule those feudal societies around the world. Or are you thinking of tribal chiefs who call themselves kings? There was one driving a cab in Manhattan. Truth.

*facepalm*

[quote]I had no idea that Elton John had aristocratic ancestors.

He doesn't, but he is a queen.

Nobody cares about monarchies of any country except England.

R72, I think feudalism existed in much of Europe into the 19th century.

Tsar Nicholas II freed 20 million serfs in 1862. Poland was feudal later than Western Europe, too.

The movie “Pele the conqueror” depicts a feudal existence in Denmark in the 19th century. It is startling when the farmer hires a new live-in worker, and confiscates his papers/passport when he does.

R1, 19th century Japan was a feudal Society. I don’t know how long it was feudal.

And now in the US we have a futile society.

R92 - I think we're left with Family Feud - which used to be where some handsy British lord used to come in, manhandle and tongue-kiss common men's wives and daughters, and the commoners would jump around like jesters and guess answers to questions for a trinket of money to be split 5 ways.

Actually...hmmm...

Spain is the most probable, in my opinion, to abolish the monarchy in the near future. The monarchy's popularity is dicey to say the least. King Felipe has stabilized things but I think it's one scandal or constitutional crisis away from being chucked out.

Sweden is a possibility, but much lower degree of risk than Spain. There is a ambivalence about the monarchy and the current King is not very popular. However, Crown Princess Victoria is beloved probably the most popular figure in the country. I think most Swedes want her to become Queen.

The Prince Andrew / Jeffrey Epstein scandal will sink the British monarchy.

Politically healthy countries find a way to keep monarchies and uses for them.

R85 * spank *

R95 Andrew is done 100% no doubt about that. I think he will be pushed into the wilderness. It's already known that as soon as Charles becomes King Andrew, Edward and Anne are effectively out of royal jobs. Regardless, as long as the Queen is still alive, the monarchy ain't going anywhere.

[quote]I would say they need to get rid of the nobility and aristocracy, not just the monarchs.

My Sheridan would be appalled

R94 Yes. Victoria is hugely popular in Sweden. Although the King claims he's going to reign until he dies, there are some growing whispers that he will abdicate within the next 10 years.

OP you should have specified no Americans should post here. They are clueless and post nonsense. Wait, what are you, you aren't gasp one too OP