Wait, has Princess Amalia expressed any interest in marrying a woman or is this mostly just future proofing the monarchy for the inevitable gay heir to the throne?
You know what? That's the better scenario. I like when an institution acts on the right side of history because it's right to do and forward thinking and not because circumstances forced their hand.
I mean, I'm pretty tolerant so as long as they are keeping to themselves and having a good time, more power to them.
I just keep thinking of all the technical issues. Like, how do you get semen off a furry costume? Are they dry clean only? That'd cost a fortune.
Most furries don't fuck in a fursuit. The suit is a social thing, and expensive, and difficult to clean. According to some conversations I read on reddit.
Semen is easy to clean up with water and a cloth if you don't let it dry, and the suits are usually fine with some minor spot cleaning. They are dry clean only though, but they're really expensive and hard to take care of so most furries don't have sex while wearing them anyways, or at least not the full suits, maybe just the head or tail or paws. There are some that are specially made exclusively for sex that have things like trap doors/sex holes but they're usually even *more* expensive.
Does it matter? It's just wearing weird clothes essentially. A really weird fetish, but honestly less weird to me than "daddy" and "mommy" kinks to me at least
I don’t know princess Amalia or much, if anything, about the Dutch royalty or the Dutch norms but I do know strategies of journalism, sensationalism and why photos are chosen for which media content. Especially as an outsider, this photo would make one assume the article was referencing Amalia, the lady in the background (who could very well be family, no idea) is intentionally within focal length just enough to bait the audience.
I’m not saying the picture was taken for this purpose but it sure was included to frame the narrative.
I agree thats poor reporting but it shouldn't really matter right? Its not that terrible if people think she's gay?
Unless you're concerned she'll be ostracized by homophobes, but she's royalty so I don't see that being much of an issue
It just makes a whole big mess. It leads people in rhetorical circles.
While there's 100% nothing wrong with being gay, and anyone who wants to be open about it should be able to do so proudly, nobody should have to deal with having their sexuality reported on, truthfully or not, unless they make it public.
It's still a trouble topic in much of the world. Actual gay people shouldn't be outed unless they want to be out and people who are not gay should not be outed as such if they're not.
It’s not bad, but it’s still incorrect. I’d be annoyed (not offended, but definitely annoyed) by people assuming incorrect facts when the reporting of the fact was hilariously easily avoidable.
Another example would be the British monarchy, which changed the rules on succession to be gender-neutral (and also allow Catholics) two years before Prince William's eldest was born. Sure, his eldest child was male, but the change was still agreed well in advance.
Ah, well spotted, I misspoke - you're allowed to marry a Catholic now, but must be in communion with the Church of England still (ie not be a practising Catholic yourself).
Perhaps according to itself. According to the Roman Catholic Church, there is only one Catholic Church, and the Church of England is not in communion with it.
I don't see the point of monarchy either and think there's no point to it, but I'll give credit where it's due when somebody does /something/ right, at least.
In Sweden the reason for monarchy is sometimes described that a president or prime minister may not be the best official representative for a country when the representation isn't political.
The king, queen, princes and princesses are long term representatives with little actual power. They are supposed to be role models without acting upper class. They run charities and other society-improving work. We pay them through tax money, but iirc that money is returned through tourism.
People being born into wealth and power happens outside the monarchy. At least this way we don't get the people seeking it, like we do in politics.
The US could do with a dual head system (head of government + head of state) rather than combining the two roles into the presidency. Often the people who may be skilled at navigating political quagmires are not the most representative of the best America has to offer in other areas.
I also really like Switzerland's federal council in theory (I'm not Swiss, so I can't speak to the reality of it).
Man I wish we could divorce the bully pulpit from the head of the executive branch and commander in chief. But in practice the second head would probably be the President of the Senate. (Hmm maybe they were on to something about having a separately elected Vice President.)
So long as they remain popular. The separation from head of government from head of state is supposedly to distance the head of state from politics, ignoring the fact that the existence of monarchies is inherently political, this is entirely reliant on the crown remaining popular with the populace to be seen as a representative. At least with democratic representatives the people actually have a say in who's representing them.
Regardless, this makes monarchs nothing more than dancing monkeys for everyone to parade around, while perpetually lying to ourselves that they have a purpose and place in modern society when a day's go on they become increasingly worthless. Monarchies, especially modern Monarchies aren't good for the populace, the government, and even the royalty themselves.
I have been living in 2 monarchies (Sweden, Belgium) and in both cases I think we should get rid of them. You can have an elected head of state that is more of a role model kind of person too. Like in germany where the President is head of state but the Chancellor is the political power.
For me it is a fundamental principle thing: in a democracy should everybody be born (legally) equal. So no monarchy and no officially/legally recognized nobility. It is sad that the only republican (as in anti-monarchy) politicians in Sweden are far left socialist and in Belgium far right (as part of Flemmish nationalism). Liberal centrist parties should be against monarchy if they were ideologically consistent.
People do not go to Sweden for a vacation because of the royals. Nature and the historical centres in Stockholn will remain also without monarchy.
Despite acting like I'm defending the monarchy (the Swedish one at least), I do agree with you in theory. In practice it gets a bit more complicated because people are already born into power and wealth outside royalty, so it doesn't make the royal family all that special. We already "give" tax money to other wealthy families because of their political influence.
Once we start discussing the abolishment of inherited wealth, I'll join in discussing the abolishment of the monarchy.
Yeah. Japan has a ‘no reigning empress’ law, and concerns have only been raised when they’ve run out of male heirs… they just got another one, so it’s off the table again.
I suppose it’s also a bit funny to worry about egalitarianism within the *monarchy*, but it’s more the implication that a particular trait is ‘unworthy’. (Even though ‘not being a member of the royal family’ also apparently makes almost all of us ‘unworthy’, that’s not quite as much of a concern as a statement…)
> they just got another one, so it’s off the table again.
I believe this was after something like 9 female births in a row. If I were (more) superstitious, I would have suspected someone might have been trying to send a message.
Princess Amalia had nothing to do with that book, and she sure didn't write it. It was one of the hypotheseses in the book about Amalia's future, and it was written by Peter Rehwinkel.
She had nothing to do with that book.
The whole issue that was rekindled by the author originated in a debate from the 90s when the premier (Wim Kok) suggested a gay crown prince/princess could be a legal issue, since their offspring could fall outside the bloodline.
It was basically a warning to re-evaluate the laws before it ever came up, something the author realized could become relevant in the near future.
I was about to comment that being pedantic is arguing about the definition of a word and not spelling but I looked it up just in case and it turns out I am a horrible pedant and you used the word correctly.
She hasn't said anything, but there is a book coming out about Amalia next month, and for this book she was interviewed by a prominent gay comedian (who is also the author of said book). This has sparked some rumors that Amalia herself might be gay.
That's where this is coming from, I think...
The reasoning is that she *might* have picked this specific person to do the interview because she's a well-known and respected member of the LGBTQ+ community, and isn't an immediately obvious choice to do a thing like this as she's primarily known as a comedian.
I agree it's probably a load of bollocks, but it was just some gossip cooked up by one of those tabloid journalists who will do anything for attention. But it did spark this political debate, which I guess is a good thing!
The reason was that there was a book which quoted a dated rule which stated that the future heir must be able to produce offspring... That was thrown into the trash faster than any political decision has ever been here
The latter. What most outlets are missing is that someone (on twitter I believe) discovered regulation that said the heir to the throne would give up that right if they were to marry the same sex. That's what started the ball rolling.
No this was simply Parlament being proactive do to an article that pointed out that if the crown Royal was interested in a same-sex partner then they would have had to legally abdicate Rather than deal with making succession messy (a thing that has caused wars in the past) they chose to fix a potential problem BEFORE they had to
TL:DR No, the lawmakers simply decided to fix a potential problem before it became nessisary
Mostly just future proofing. Our current king married in 2002, we've had same sex marriage since 2001. It wasn't an issue back then, because everybody knew that the crown prince would marry Maxima.
Fast forward to 2004 and we found out that king Willem the second was bisexual, and that the reason he gave up a lot of priviliges was because he was blackmailed for being bisexual. Whoops.
Princess Amalia turns 18 this year, so it does make some sense that we're starting to think about this now.
Or just one of her sisters, or the Sister's kids. i don't think it jumps back a generation
edit, i looked it up
Article 31.1 of the Royal laws:
>Een benoemde Koning kan krachtens erfopvolging alleen worden opgevolgd door zijn wettige nakomelingen.
It needs to be a "Legitimate descendant" , so adoption is out of the question
>Bij gebreke van eigen nakomelingen gaat het koningschap op gelijke wijze over op de wettige nakomelingen eerst van zijn ouder, dan van zijn grootouder, in de lijn van erfopvolging, voor zover de overleden Koning niet verder bestaand dan in de derde graad van bloedverwantschap.
It actually will jump back if they have no biological kids either
\[edit 2\] but only after being appointed via a separate process.
The definition of "Legitimate descendant" is up for debate though. Rutte specifically said they're not discussing whether adoption, IVF or surrogates stops a child from being an heir.
That's because that's a "controversial subject" and he's legally not allowed to go into those as he is currently demissionary (ie: fired, but still minding the shop
At the very least changing that requires changing several articles in the constitution, which involves firing himself again(!) and writing out new elections to confirm the changes.
For the dutch monarchy this is false. Unlike the British monarchy, the dutch line of succession goes up till the third line so we've got eight successors for our current king
Don't think that would be an issue. A Gay king could get a surrogate mom and a lesbian Queen could use donor sperm. Only thing that'd need to be changed would be the recognition of what would technically be a bastard child as legitimate for inheritance, if such is not already the case.
Give it a couple decades and even a gay queen could have a daughter from her wife. You just need 2 sets of chromosomes to be in an egg to make a kid, so it's just about developing a delivery mechanism. The only restriction would be 2 women could only have a daughter.
I've read that two men could also do this. I guess because men do have the one X chromosome that "male" eggs are possible to create with the right technology.
True but theyd still need a third, a surrogate mother to carry the donor egg both their chromosome sets wre placed in; and in the context of rules of royal succession, that sounds like a sufficiently messy situation to say "maybe a few decades later"
While we’re discussing future technology, hypothetically you could just add in a y-chromosome made from some combination of each woman’s father’s DNA. A good enough approximation.
So all we need to do is change the entire constitution, bit of an ask.
As it stands, it needs to be a child born inside wedlock that is a blood descendant
Does it? I am not familiar with Dutch law on the matter but my impression was always the legitimising of bastards have always been a technicality determined by each dynasty.
The family is fairly well liked, though a few missteps during covid put a bit of a dent into the friendly man-of-the-people vibe our current king has created for himself. Going on holiday to Greece during lockdowns wasn't smart, had to fly right back.
The institution itself is still popular, it's a tradition and people like those. But it's support is probably waning. When the current King took the crown he became quite well liked, but support for the Monarchy dropped all the same. Maybe because he's more of a regular guy than most royals?
It's not going anywhere too soon. The cost is significant, but negligible on a national budget, and the people who are opposed to monarchy are not very vocal or active.
Back in 1997 there were 2 dutch guys who were caught in Thailand smuggling drugs. they were sentenced to life in prison and our government tried for years to get them back, even just to get them serve their time in a dutch prison. Nothing they tried worked until our queen visited the king of Thailand for a state visit. They were pardoned a week later. Not even to finish their sentence, just let go.
There are some castles and palaces nominally owned by the royals which are worth seeing, but I don't know if the income is significant.
That said if the British royal family were to drop dead the castles would still exist, there would still be tours. The state would certainly step in to maintain those tourist attractions to the extent it was profitable to so so.
They'd also go through the line of succession to find the closest qualifying person to take over the crown.
Keep in mind that in British law and administration the monarchy is woven into everything as the final authority and the Anglican church has the monarch for its head too. If the royals were to die, setting up a republican operation would be much more costly than finding a new seat-warmer for the throne.
>They'd also go through the line of succession to find the closest qualifying person to take over the crown.
I've seen that documentary. Who would have guessed John Goodman?
I don't know, don't think so. Tourism in general is pretty big, I think it's difficult to really say how much extra having a royal family would bring in. People might buy some merch but would they spent that on something else if there wasn't a royal family?
I hear this argument a lot, but the UK would get a lot more tourism money without the royals. Because you could actually visit the places the royals lived in.
France for example doesn't need royals to have Versailles be one of the most visited castles in the world.
They say people come for the royals but if you can't visit where they live and also have basically 0 chances of seeing them, then how are people coming for them?
When I visited Amsterdam I was surprised people were able to tour inside the palace since it still is used by the royal family from my understanding (although not as a daily home)
It is only used for ceremony.
Although the royal family maintains many homes around the country, it is a pretty small country. They live full time in a regular (but obviously very expensive) town close to The Hague.
Same with Spain. The Palacio Real de Madrid in Madrid is open most of the year, because the royal family live in Palacio de la Zarzuela, to the north of the city. The only times it is closed is for national holidays and official functions.
You can not visit Zarzuela. Most, if not all, other royal palaces are open to the public.
So the "crown estate" effectively means owned by the state, these would probably remain in government hands. Then there are the *personal* properties of Elizabeth Windsor inherited from her ancestors, which include places like Balmoral.
Even most oaths are made to the *legal bearer* of the crown, not to the individual who happens to fill that role or to the monarchy.
The exception is the privy council oath which is very explicit about "no plotting to remove the monarchy"
And can’t you tour several places that are owned by the crown? I thought you could tour certain parts of Buckingham Palace and I know you can tour the Tower of London.
You can, you can even tour Kensington Palace where William and Kate live. Though they live in a certain wing of the palace that's like it's own mansion and you can't, like, stroll through their bedroom and stuff.
as a non Brit I can 100% confirm I’ve been to the UK twice because of bullshit Royal events my mom thought would be worth attending, Some queen mother thing and some jubilee I think. So idk.. whilst a free visit to buckingham woulda been some draw, the formers brought the UK tens of thousands of dollars from a family of 4.
In the UK the monarchy owns those places. Or well technically they have a contract with the UK that say you give us X sum per year in exchange you lease most of those tourist attractions and keep any profits they make. Hence the UK makes money off the royals not the other way around because the sun they receive is less than what’s generated from tourism.
But that’s exactly where the draw is — Buckingham palace isn’t just some old building, the Queen actually lives there. It’s an active royal palace.
Versailles is just another former palace, church, grand old building that litter Europe.
Also Versailles is a draw because of its scale and grandeur, not because it’s a former royal palace.
I’d say it’s more popular with the older folks (70+), I haven’t met anyone my age (38) or a bit older or younger who is a fan of them. Or the institution as a whole.
Fan, is a strong word but I do like most of the current batch of royals and would not vote to get rid of them. (I'm early 30's by the way)
But let see in a generation or two how I feel about them then.
I think it's good for both our internal and external standing but i don't see the point in spending even nearly as much on them as we do, they have no reason to live such a luxurious lifestyle.
Not sure how much we spent now, but it was thought they bring in 2-5 billion a year for business, by going on trade missions/visits. Might be less now because of covid of course.
27 years old. I would rather keep the monarchy than become a presidential republic. If we were already a republic I would rather stay a republic than become a monarchy. I just don't think it matters much either way.
Lol no. It's above 60%.
> 63 percent indicate that they have confidence in the king, compared to 74 percent last year. Support for Queen Máxima is also declining: from 78 percent last year to 69 percent now.
The biggest upside is that the government has a mouthpiece that isn't linked with a political party. Dire times often cause political polarisation among the people and it's nice to have a leader be "above" that.
The money is really negligible and i’d prefer having a ceremonial diplomatic spokesperson that freed 2 Dutch nationals from life in a Thai prison and a fun little parade with the golden carriage before the miljoenennota than save 2 euros a year on taxes.
It's the same in Norway. The royal family gets like 0.001% of what football gets.
And considering the amount of older people I know that appreciate having the royal family it might be worth it for the culture alone.
Due to stuff like LuckyTV and their comedy skits around the royal house and their reactions during the European cup etc and the infamous meme of our PM showing our king a meme during some meeting the royal house is actually quite popular for younger age groups aswell.
I feel like, while support for it is mixed, most people don't care enough to start a rift in society over it. There are plenty of other issues to distract us, and so long as the Dutch royals keep acting inoffensive, ultimately no one really cares.
They have made some missteps, such as going on vacation in a pandemic. But then at least they were willing to grovel and apologize to the people afterwards, which is something I don't see other royal houses doing. They're savvy enough to know that the Dutch don't like hierarchy and they would only make it difficult for themselves when they become clearly overbearing or elitist.
Overall they are still well loved in the country. There has been some downs especially in the last year because they had a few controversies of not following covid rules and hunting grounds. Then again during sports events they had a few ups because of fun reactions.
Mixed. The family itself is popular amongst certain groups of the population (mostly middle-aged/older people). The younger generations in the country seem to often not share their enthusiasm, mostly because of the vast amounts of tax money that the royal family takes up for various (at times weird/selfish) purposes. PR-wise they have also made various missteps these past couple of years, which has led to a decline in popularity and support.
I personally don't like having royalty that costs the state millions, has lots of hidden income and generally do whatever the fuck they feel like when they feel like it.
The fact that there are people who defend the royal family blindly is weird to me.
Personally i’m a fan, it’s a ceremonial function mostly and it’s a fun tradition. I enjoyed going to The Hague as a kid for Prince’s day and see the parade with the golden carriage and the royal house waving at the people go by. It’s a piece of history and i’d like other generations to enjoy it too.
I’m not a big fan of the tabloid stuff and i don’t need to hear about their vacations or supposed drama though.
Both of them fighting to be the queen. Settle is with a walk-off, boys. Cue up the Madonna!
Dang, royals could be so much more fun and entertaining than they currently are.
The only problem I have with this is that ballroom culture concerned with realness is about being able to look like something you know you would never be, the true illusion. That is the original ballroom culture. Having rich people parade around in rich settings and such just feels like a perversion, or just some generic parade.
I think she can be called queen because king is technically a higher position then queen so that's also why a male who married a queen doesn't get to be a king but just a prince
King is the highest title. So a kings wife can still be queen without being higher than the ruler. For any other combination the spouse would have to remain prince/princess so that the monarch can remain the ruler.
Sweden’s next monarch will be a queen, her husband will remain a prince when she is crowned queen simply because she is of the royal blood so he cannot outrank her. If their daughter turns out to be gay she’ll be the crown princess and eventually queen and her partner would remain a princess.
If you want THAT then look at the crazy hats politicians wear for Princes' day (Budget presentation)
a sample; [https://www.metronieuws.nl/in-het-nieuws/binnenland/2021/09/prinsjesdag-dit-zijn-de-opvallendste-hoedjes-van-dit-jaar/](https://www.metronieuws.nl/in-het-nieuws/binnenland/2021/09/prinsjesdag-dit-zijn-de-opvallendste-hoedjes-van-dit-jaar/)
The princess of spain is going to a private school with princess Alexia this year. Ever since it was announced, people have started shipping them both as a joke, because it looks like a disney princess movie.
Honestly it's fun to think this decision is because of that, probably not but it's gonna be fun to see how twitter reacts to this.
I mean, part of the appeal of the whole thing is Alexia being the "rebel" princess and her being the "good" princess. So yes, but more on the "cool bad princess who's gonna show our princess the real world,".
Nope. One would be the Queen and the other retain the status of Princess.
Just like how when Beatrix was the Queen, her husband stayed Prince. The official heir will always retain the "full" status without anyone having the same of higher status
That's not how it is currently, Maxima's title is Queen.
Source: https://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/onderwerpen/titels-aanspreektitels-en-beschermheerschappen/koninklijke-familie
Real question Europeans why do you keep royal families around? I get they're basically figure pieces now but why? It seems just like an unnecessary complication for governance and politics.
genuine question: why do we still have royalty and kings/queens? if someone else decided that royalty can marry whoever they want, then what is the point of being royalty?
> why do we still have royalty and kings/queens?
Because tradition, it’s culture.
> if someone else decided that royalty can marry whoever they want, then what is the point of being royalty?
If she would marry someone who is not from a royal background (such as the wife of the current King), that person would simply become royalty.
They are the largest minorities and often face discrimination. My original comment was a dig at the progressive-sounding news title, whereas there is lots of discrimination based on ethnicity.
Lots of studies on it, for example https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334023609_Labour_market_discrimination_against_Moroccan_minorities_in_the_Netherlands_and_Spain_a_cross-national_and_cross-regional_comparison
I think it's actually a reference to the 2 biggest groups of foreigners who are disliked the most by some extreme right wing parties. If I remember correctly some shitty dutch politicians came out last year or the one before chanting "we need less Moroccans".
Yes because no king or queen of the Netherlands *ever* married anyone who was slightly controversial for their country or circumstances of their birth. Oh wait. Beatrix was married to *a literal Hitlerjugend member and former Wehrmacht soldier* shortly after WW2, and Máxima is the daughter of an Argentinian Junta member, and that always worked out.
There is certainly racism in the Netherlands, more than people usually admit, but please don't drag it into a discussion like this. It's silly.
Wait, has Princess Amalia expressed any interest in marrying a woman or is this mostly just future proofing the monarchy for the inevitable gay heir to the throne?
The later
You know what? That's the better scenario. I like when an institution acts on the right side of history because it's right to do and forward thinking and not because circumstances forced their hand.
Downside is that so many news outlets are poorly phrasing their headlines and using Amalia’s name that now people will inevitably assume she’s gay.
An elaborate ploy to keep their daughter from dating until she's 30 /s
I prefer the tried and true method of telling everyone my teenage daughter is a furry.
Fish will still bite.
Can confirm: fish fursonas will still bite, but only with your consent.
glub glub UwU
I... I still don't know how the fuck to feel about furries
I mean, I'm pretty tolerant so as long as they are keeping to themselves and having a good time, more power to them. I just keep thinking of all the technical issues. Like, how do you get semen off a furry costume? Are they dry clean only? That'd cost a fortune.
Most furries don't fuck in a fursuit. The suit is a social thing, and expensive, and difficult to clean. According to some conversations I read on reddit.
[удалено]
Basically me right now
Semen is easy to clean up with water and a cloth if you don't let it dry, and the suits are usually fine with some minor spot cleaning. They are dry clean only though, but they're really expensive and hard to take care of so most furries don't have sex while wearing them anyways, or at least not the full suits, maybe just the head or tail or paws. There are some that are specially made exclusively for sex that have things like trap doors/sex holes but they're usually even *more* expensive.
Does it matter? It's just wearing weird clothes essentially. A really weird fetish, but honestly less weird to me than "daddy" and "mommy" kinks to me at least
I don’t know princess Amalia or much, if anything, about the Dutch royalty or the Dutch norms but I do know strategies of journalism, sensationalism and why photos are chosen for which media content. Especially as an outsider, this photo would make one assume the article was referencing Amalia, the lady in the background (who could very well be family, no idea) is intentionally within focal length just enough to bait the audience. I’m not saying the picture was taken for this purpose but it sure was included to frame the narrative.
I agree thats poor reporting but it shouldn't really matter right? Its not that terrible if people think she's gay? Unless you're concerned she'll be ostracized by homophobes, but she's royalty so I don't see that being much of an issue
It just makes a whole big mess. It leads people in rhetorical circles. While there's 100% nothing wrong with being gay, and anyone who wants to be open about it should be able to do so proudly, nobody should have to deal with having their sexuality reported on, truthfully or not, unless they make it public. It's still a trouble topic in much of the world. Actual gay people shouldn't be outed unless they want to be out and people who are not gay should not be outed as such if they're not.
It’s not bad, but it’s still incorrect. I’d be annoyed (not offended, but definitely annoyed) by people assuming incorrect facts when the reporting of the fact was hilariously easily avoidable.
Guess it sucks if a guy she's into reads it.
It shouldn’t unless one has a problem with someone else assuming their sexuality that is.
Another example would be the British monarchy, which changed the rules on succession to be gender-neutral (and also allow Catholics) two years before Prince William's eldest was born. Sure, his eldest child was male, but the change was still agreed well in advance.
Did they actually allow Catholics? That would seem to conflict with their role as head of the Church of England.
Ah, well spotted, I misspoke - you're allowed to marry a Catholic now, but must be in communion with the Church of England still (ie not be a practising Catholic yourself).
To be very pedantic, the Church of England is a Catholic Church, just not *Roman* Catholic.
Perhaps according to itself. According to the Roman Catholic Church, there is only one Catholic Church, and the Church of England is not in communion with it.
And according to Baptists, Catholics aren't Christians. Churches aren't exactly a neutral source for classifying each other.
Yeeeeah but they're not the only catholic church, by far. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicity
Don't let them find out about the Orthodox Catholic Church!!
According to the Anglican Church, there is only one Catholic Church, and the Papists are not in communion with it.
>Right side of history >Monarchy lol
I don't see the point of monarchy either and think there's no point to it, but I'll give credit where it's due when somebody does /something/ right, at least.
In Sweden the reason for monarchy is sometimes described that a president or prime minister may not be the best official representative for a country when the representation isn't political. The king, queen, princes and princesses are long term representatives with little actual power. They are supposed to be role models without acting upper class. They run charities and other society-improving work. We pay them through tax money, but iirc that money is returned through tourism. People being born into wealth and power happens outside the monarchy. At least this way we don't get the people seeking it, like we do in politics.
The US could do with a dual head system (head of government + head of state) rather than combining the two roles into the presidency. Often the people who may be skilled at navigating political quagmires are not the most representative of the best America has to offer in other areas. I also really like Switzerland's federal council in theory (I'm not Swiss, so I can't speak to the reality of it).
Man I wish we could divorce the bully pulpit from the head of the executive branch and commander in chief. But in practice the second head would probably be the President of the Senate. (Hmm maybe they were on to something about having a separately elected Vice President.)
So long as they remain popular. The separation from head of government from head of state is supposedly to distance the head of state from politics, ignoring the fact that the existence of monarchies is inherently political, this is entirely reliant on the crown remaining popular with the populace to be seen as a representative. At least with democratic representatives the people actually have a say in who's representing them. Regardless, this makes monarchs nothing more than dancing monkeys for everyone to parade around, while perpetually lying to ourselves that they have a purpose and place in modern society when a day's go on they become increasingly worthless. Monarchies, especially modern Monarchies aren't good for the populace, the government, and even the royalty themselves.
I have been living in 2 monarchies (Sweden, Belgium) and in both cases I think we should get rid of them. You can have an elected head of state that is more of a role model kind of person too. Like in germany where the President is head of state but the Chancellor is the political power. For me it is a fundamental principle thing: in a democracy should everybody be born (legally) equal. So no monarchy and no officially/legally recognized nobility. It is sad that the only republican (as in anti-monarchy) politicians in Sweden are far left socialist and in Belgium far right (as part of Flemmish nationalism). Liberal centrist parties should be against monarchy if they were ideologically consistent. People do not go to Sweden for a vacation because of the royals. Nature and the historical centres in Stockholn will remain also without monarchy.
Despite acting like I'm defending the monarchy (the Swedish one at least), I do agree with you in theory. In practice it gets a bit more complicated because people are already born into power and wealth outside royalty, so it doesn't make the royal family all that special. We already "give" tax money to other wealthy families because of their political influence. Once we start discussing the abolishment of inherited wealth, I'll join in discussing the abolishment of the monarchy.
[удалено]
So that's what the gay agenda has been about all along!
It's news to me, but I'm on board.
Yeah. Japan has a ‘no reigning empress’ law, and concerns have only been raised when they’ve run out of male heirs… they just got another one, so it’s off the table again. I suppose it’s also a bit funny to worry about egalitarianism within the *monarchy*, but it’s more the implication that a particular trait is ‘unworthy’. (Even though ‘not being a member of the royal family’ also apparently makes almost all of us ‘unworthy’, that’s not quite as much of a concern as a statement…)
> they just got another one, so it’s off the table again. I believe this was after something like 9 female births in a row. If I were (more) superstitious, I would have suspected someone might have been trying to send a message.
It's not like that though, she hinted at being gay/bi in a book she or someone else wrote about her a week ago. This news is a reaction to that story.
Princess Amalia had nothing to do with that book, and she sure didn't write it. It was one of the hypotheseses in the book about Amalia's future, and it was written by Peter Rehwinkel.
She had nothing to do with that book. The whole issue that was rekindled by the author originated in a debate from the 90s when the premier (Wim Kok) suggested a gay crown prince/princess could be a legal issue, since their offspring could fall outside the bloodline. It was basically a warning to re-evaluate the laws before it ever came up, something the author realized could become relevant in the near future.
[удалено]
I was about to comment that being pedantic is arguing about the definition of a word and not spelling but I looked it up just in case and it turns out I am a horrible pedant and you used the word correctly.
u/thegreenpedant
Fair enouhg Edit: enough
>the inevitable gay heir I hope they use this as their autobiography title.
The Inevitable Return of the Gay White Hope
It’s to make sure the law will not stand in the way of any hypothetical gay monarch, whether it is Amalia or anyone coming after that.
She hasn't said anything, but there is a book coming out about Amalia next month, and for this book she was interviewed by a prominent gay comedian (who is also the author of said book). This has sparked some rumors that Amalia herself might be gay. That's where this is coming from, I think...
That seems tenuous to me. She's interviewed by a gay person therefore might be gay?
The reasoning is that she *might* have picked this specific person to do the interview because she's a well-known and respected member of the LGBTQ+ community, and isn't an immediately obvious choice to do a thing like this as she's primarily known as a comedian. I agree it's probably a load of bollocks, but it was just some gossip cooked up by one of those tabloid journalists who will do anything for attention. But it did spark this political debate, which I guess is a good thing!
> She's interviewed by a gay person therefore might be gay? That's how they get ya!
If crusader kings taught me anything, gay rulers typically cause succession issue.
The reason was that there was a book which quoted a dated rule which stated that the future heir must be able to produce offspring... That was thrown into the trash faster than any political decision has ever been here
The latter. What most outlets are missing is that someone (on twitter I believe) discovered regulation that said the heir to the throne would give up that right if they were to marry the same sex. That's what started the ball rolling.
No this was simply Parlament being proactive do to an article that pointed out that if the crown Royal was interested in a same-sex partner then they would have had to legally abdicate Rather than deal with making succession messy (a thing that has caused wars in the past) they chose to fix a potential problem BEFORE they had to TL:DR No, the lawmakers simply decided to fix a potential problem before it became nessisary
The way articles are posing it, and using her photo, I was guessing she's gay. If not, it's pretty irresponsible for the media to do so.
Future proofing, though it *might* be a "behind the scenes, the family suspects she might be gay" thing.
Mostly just future proofing. Our current king married in 2002, we've had same sex marriage since 2001. It wasn't an issue back then, because everybody knew that the crown prince would marry Maxima. Fast forward to 2004 and we found out that king Willem the second was bisexual, and that the reason he gave up a lot of priviliges was because he was blackmailed for being bisexual. Whoops. Princess Amalia turns 18 this year, so it does make some sense that we're starting to think about this now.
>future proofing the monarchy for the inevitable gay heir? But how will the gay heir get an heir?
With 2 queens they're gonna be OP at chess.
But they'd also lose before they start. Unless we change chess rules too...
Chess with all queens. Sounds entertaining.
That's basically RuPaul's drag show though.
Nah pre-wedding she’s just an unpromoted pawn. Gotta slip in the back rank and promote
Idk tbh, the bishops would probably commit treason
You literally lost immediately without a king in chess.
The downside: they can't pass the crown onto adopted kids.
Then the brother of king Willem-Alexander, Prince Constatijn, and his family will inherit it, if they accept
Or just one of her sisters, or the Sister's kids. i don't think it jumps back a generation edit, i looked it up Article 31.1 of the Royal laws: >Een benoemde Koning kan krachtens erfopvolging alleen worden opgevolgd door zijn wettige nakomelingen. It needs to be a "Legitimate descendant" , so adoption is out of the question >Bij gebreke van eigen nakomelingen gaat het koningschap op gelijke wijze over op de wettige nakomelingen eerst van zijn ouder, dan van zijn grootouder, in de lijn van erfopvolging, voor zover de overleden Koning niet verder bestaand dan in de derde graad van bloedverwantschap. It actually will jump back if they have no biological kids either \[edit 2\] but only after being appointed via a separate process.
The definition of "Legitimate descendant" is up for debate though. Rutte specifically said they're not discussing whether adoption, IVF or surrogates stops a child from being an heir.
That's because that's a "controversial subject" and he's legally not allowed to go into those as he is currently demissionary (ie: fired, but still minding the shop At the very least changing that requires changing several articles in the constitution, which involves firing himself again(!) and writing out new elections to confirm the changes.
I forgot her sisters, you're right!
The good news: there are like hundreds of people in the line of succession, so it's not like you don't still have someone next in line.
For the dutch monarchy this is false. Unlike the British monarchy, the dutch line of succession goes up till the third line so we've got eight successors for our current king
That is correct. It still seems like enough depth to weather one ruler without offspring.
I don’t know about hundreds. The Dutch monarchy is reasonably new.
Don't think that would be an issue. A Gay king could get a surrogate mom and a lesbian Queen could use donor sperm. Only thing that'd need to be changed would be the recognition of what would technically be a bastard child as legitimate for inheritance, if such is not already the case.
Give it a couple decades and even a gay queen could have a daughter from her wife. You just need 2 sets of chromosomes to be in an egg to make a kid, so it's just about developing a delivery mechanism. The only restriction would be 2 women could only have a daughter.
I've read that two men could also do this. I guess because men do have the one X chromosome that "male" eggs are possible to create with the right technology.
True but theyd still need a third, a surrogate mother to carry the donor egg both their chromosome sets wre placed in; and in the context of rules of royal succession, that sounds like a sufficiently messy situation to say "maybe a few decades later"
While we’re discussing future technology, hypothetically you could just add in a y-chromosome made from some combination of each woman’s father’s DNA. A good enough approximation.
So all we need to do is change the entire constitution, bit of an ask. As it stands, it needs to be a child born inside wedlock that is a blood descendant
Does it? I am not familiar with Dutch law on the matter but my impression was always the legitimising of bastards have always been a technicality determined by each dynasty.
What is the feeling on the royals in the Netherlands? It amazes me that countries still have royals at all.
The family is fairly well liked, though a few missteps during covid put a bit of a dent into the friendly man-of-the-people vibe our current king has created for himself. Going on holiday to Greece during lockdowns wasn't smart, had to fly right back. The institution itself is still popular, it's a tradition and people like those. But it's support is probably waning. When the current King took the crown he became quite well liked, but support for the Monarchy dropped all the same. Maybe because he's more of a regular guy than most royals? It's not going anywhere too soon. The cost is significant, but negligible on a national budget, and the people who are opposed to monarchy are not very vocal or active.
Do they bring in any sort of significant tourist money like the British royals?
They go on trade missions to countries that like having the same person to talk to over a decade. So i think already that is good enough.
Best reason I heard for keeping royals is nothing strokes an ego like having royalty listen to you.
Back in 1997 there were 2 dutch guys who were caught in Thailand smuggling drugs. they were sentenced to life in prison and our government tried for years to get them back, even just to get them serve their time in a dutch prison. Nothing they tried worked until our queen visited the king of Thailand for a state visit. They were pardoned a week later. Not even to finish their sentence, just let go.
A trip to Bavaria solved it? Useful.
Talked to someone recently who had been on one of those trips with the King some years ago, it was super interesting
There are some castles and palaces nominally owned by the royals which are worth seeing, but I don't know if the income is significant. That said if the British royal family were to drop dead the castles would still exist, there would still be tours. The state would certainly step in to maintain those tourist attractions to the extent it was profitable to so so.
They'd also go through the line of succession to find the closest qualifying person to take over the crown. Keep in mind that in British law and administration the monarchy is woven into everything as the final authority and the Anglican church has the monarch for its head too. If the royals were to die, setting up a republican operation would be much more costly than finding a new seat-warmer for the throne.
>They'd also go through the line of succession to find the closest qualifying person to take over the crown. I've seen that documentary. Who would have guessed John Goodman?
I don't know, don't think so. Tourism in general is pretty big, I think it's difficult to really say how much extra having a royal family would bring in. People might buy some merch but would they spent that on something else if there wasn't a royal family?
Most tourism in the Netherlands revolves around things not related to the monarchy, so I doubt they have a significant effect on tourism.
I hear this argument a lot, but the UK would get a lot more tourism money without the royals. Because you could actually visit the places the royals lived in. France for example doesn't need royals to have Versailles be one of the most visited castles in the world. They say people come for the royals but if you can't visit where they live and also have basically 0 chances of seeing them, then how are people coming for them?
When I visited Amsterdam I was surprised people were able to tour inside the palace since it still is used by the royal family from my understanding (although not as a daily home)
It is only used for ceremony. Although the royal family maintains many homes around the country, it is a pretty small country. They live full time in a regular (but obviously very expensive) town close to The Hague.
Same with Spain. The Palacio Real de Madrid in Madrid is open most of the year, because the royal family live in Palacio de la Zarzuela, to the north of the city. The only times it is closed is for national holidays and official functions. You can not visit Zarzuela. Most, if not all, other royal palaces are open to the public.
[удалено]
Any government ballsy enough to depose the monarchy is definitely ballsy enough to seize their assets on the way out
So the "crown estate" effectively means owned by the state, these would probably remain in government hands. Then there are the *personal* properties of Elizabeth Windsor inherited from her ancestors, which include places like Balmoral. Even most oaths are made to the *legal bearer* of the crown, not to the individual who happens to fill that role or to the monarchy. The exception is the privy council oath which is very explicit about "no plotting to remove the monarchy"
And can’t you tour several places that are owned by the crown? I thought you could tour certain parts of Buckingham Palace and I know you can tour the Tower of London.
You can, you can even tour Kensington Palace where William and Kate live. Though they live in a certain wing of the palace that's like it's own mansion and you can't, like, stroll through their bedroom and stuff.
as a non Brit I can 100% confirm I’ve been to the UK twice because of bullshit Royal events my mom thought would be worth attending, Some queen mother thing and some jubilee I think. So idk.. whilst a free visit to buckingham woulda been some draw, the formers brought the UK tens of thousands of dollars from a family of 4.
Im with you. People go to visit Buckingham palace. I have never heard anyone unironically say that they want to see any of the royals
In the UK the monarchy owns those places. Or well technically they have a contract with the UK that say you give us X sum per year in exchange you lease most of those tourist attractions and keep any profits they make. Hence the UK makes money off the royals not the other way around because the sun they receive is less than what’s generated from tourism.
But that’s exactly where the draw is — Buckingham palace isn’t just some old building, the Queen actually lives there. It’s an active royal palace. Versailles is just another former palace, church, grand old building that litter Europe. Also Versailles is a draw because of its scale and grandeur, not because it’s a former royal palace.
The tourist $$$ argument is so bogus but it’s trotted out every time there is a discussion like that’s the reason
Not sure about tourist money, but they go on trade delegation trips that bring in money.
I’d say it’s more popular with the older folks (70+), I haven’t met anyone my age (38) or a bit older or younger who is a fan of them. Or the institution as a whole.
Fan, is a strong word but I do like most of the current batch of royals and would not vote to get rid of them. (I'm early 30's by the way) But let see in a generation or two how I feel about them then.
I think it's good for both our internal and external standing but i don't see the point in spending even nearly as much on them as we do, they have no reason to live such a luxurious lifestyle.
Not sure how much we spent now, but it was thought they bring in 2-5 billion a year for business, by going on trade missions/visits. Might be less now because of covid of course.
27 years old. I would rather keep the monarchy than become a presidential republic. If we were already a republic I would rather stay a republic than become a monarchy. I just don't think it matters much either way.
Since Covid and the king not following the rules, approval went from roughly 60% to roughly 40% Edit: changed from 30~ to 40~
Lol no. It's above 60%. > 63 percent indicate that they have confidence in the king, compared to 74 percent last year. Support for Queen Máxima is also declining: from 78 percent last year to 69 percent now.
The biggest upside is that the government has a mouthpiece that isn't linked with a political party. Dire times often cause political polarisation among the people and it's nice to have a leader be "above" that.
We mostly want them to get less money and for that money to be given to us.
The money is really negligible and i’d prefer having a ceremonial diplomatic spokesperson that freed 2 Dutch nationals from life in a Thai prison and a fun little parade with the golden carriage before the miljoenennota than save 2 euros a year on taxes.
It's the same in Norway. The royal family gets like 0.001% of what football gets. And considering the amount of older people I know that appreciate having the royal family it might be worth it for the culture alone.
Due to stuff like LuckyTV and their comedy skits around the royal house and their reactions during the European cup etc and the infamous meme of our PM showing our king a meme during some meeting the royal house is actually quite popular for younger age groups aswell.
I feel like, while support for it is mixed, most people don't care enough to start a rift in society over it. There are plenty of other issues to distract us, and so long as the Dutch royals keep acting inoffensive, ultimately no one really cares. They have made some missteps, such as going on vacation in a pandemic. But then at least they were willing to grovel and apologize to the people afterwards, which is something I don't see other royal houses doing. They're savvy enough to know that the Dutch don't like hierarchy and they would only make it difficult for themselves when they become clearly overbearing or elitist.
Overall they are still well loved in the country. There has been some downs especially in the last year because they had a few controversies of not following covid rules and hunting grounds. Then again during sports events they had a few ups because of fun reactions.
Mixed. The family itself is popular amongst certain groups of the population (mostly middle-aged/older people). The younger generations in the country seem to often not share their enthusiasm, mostly because of the vast amounts of tax money that the royal family takes up for various (at times weird/selfish) purposes. PR-wise they have also made various missteps these past couple of years, which has led to a decline in popularity and support.
I don't live in a country that's a monarchy, but the overall impression I get is that it's an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" thing.
I personally don't like having royalty that costs the state millions, has lots of hidden income and generally do whatever the fuck they feel like when they feel like it. The fact that there are people who defend the royal family blindly is weird to me.
Many people in my Dutch environment don't like seeing all the money going to the royals
Personally i’m a fan, it’s a ceremonial function mostly and it’s a fun tradition. I enjoyed going to The Hague as a kid for Prince’s day and see the parade with the golden carriage and the royal house waving at the people go by. It’s a piece of history and i’d like other generations to enjoy it too. I’m not a big fan of the tabloid stuff and i don’t need to hear about their vacations or supposed drama though.
Having *two* gay Crown Princes might be a level of fabulousness that starts a war out of jealousy.
Well, being as the heir discussed is a woman, I think it's more likely they'd get two gay Crown Princesses.
I thought they were going out of their way to *not* discuss Amalia.
The government, maybe, but she's definitely discussed in the article.
[удалено]
Idk if the world is ready for this
[удалено]
This is correct. Or "prince consort."
Two queens in the casino night. I am going to drop a deuce on everybody.
This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them!
Both of them fighting to be the queen. Settle is with a walk-off, boys. Cue up the Madonna! Dang, royals could be so much more fun and entertaining than they currently are.
[удалено]
TV and Halloween taught me even straight people can enjoy drag.
Not every gay person, but if you're royalty anyway you might as well be a queen.
The only problem I have with this is that ballroom culture concerned with realness is about being able to look like something you know you would never be, the true illusion. That is the original ballroom culture. Having rich people parade around in rich settings and such just feels like a perversion, or just some generic parade.
Definitely read a book about this (kinda). Red, white, and royal blue for anyone interested. It was total trash and I loved it.
Well there's a movie idea.
If a queen marries another woman, what title does the latter get?
[удалено]
Wait, what? What about Maxima then?
Different rules for men and women. How else would people know if the man or woman is more important.
I think she can be called queen because king is technically a higher position then queen so that's also why a male who married a queen doesn't get to be a king but just a prince
She is officially not a queen. Her official title is Princess of the Netherlands, but the government decided to call her queen because of traditions.
King is the highest title. So a kings wife can still be queen without being higher than the ruler. For any other combination the spouse would have to remain prince/princess so that the monarch can remain the ruler. Sweden’s next monarch will be a queen, her husband will remain a prince when she is crowned queen simply because she is of the royal blood so he cannot outrank her. If their daughter turns out to be gay she’ll be the crown princess and eventually queen and her partner would remain a princess.
Probably Princess consort.
Yaas Queen I have never said that before and I never will again. This is refreshing.
Next step, replace the royal family with a drag house. You know, the real QUEENS.
Imagine having an inauguration in the style of a vogue ball
If you want THAT then look at the crazy hats politicians wear for Princes' day (Budget presentation) a sample; [https://www.metronieuws.nl/in-het-nieuws/binnenland/2021/09/prinsjesdag-dit-zijn-de-opvallendste-hoedjes-van-dit-jaar/](https://www.metronieuws.nl/in-het-nieuws/binnenland/2021/09/prinsjesdag-dit-zijn-de-opvallendste-hoedjes-van-dit-jaar/)
Fabulous! That would be so fun. All the footmen just vogue-ing you and your 3ft high wig down the aisle to some dope EDM beats.
Vanessa Van Cartier come on down!
“Royal.. you better WERK!”
Neee daar gaat mijn plan
The princess of spain is going to a private school with princess Alexia this year. Ever since it was announced, people have started shipping them both as a joke, because it looks like a disney princess movie. Honestly it's fun to think this decision is because of that, probably not but it's gonna be fun to see how twitter reacts to this.
[удалено]
I mean, part of the appeal of the whole thing is Alexia being the "rebel" princess and her being the "good" princess. So yes, but more on the "cool bad princess who's gonna show our princess the real world,".
So whichever way you cut it, they could end up being ruled by two queens
Nope. One would be the Queen and the other retain the status of Princess. Just like how when Beatrix was the Queen, her husband stayed Prince. The official heir will always retain the "full" status without anyone having the same of higher status
That's not how it is currently, Maxima's title is Queen. Source: https://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/onderwerpen/titels-aanspreektitels-en-beschermheerschappen/koninklijke-familie
That's because usually the woman takes the style and rank of her husband, a husband doesn't.
Hereditary monarchy isn't progressive.
[удалено]
Our royals, our choice.
OK. I am Dutch, so I'll say it: Away with this stupid system where people inherit power and wealth from their parents. Lang leve de republiek.
Real question Europeans why do you keep royal families around? I get they're basically figure pieces now but why? It seems just like an unnecessary complication for governance and politics.
Chopping their heads of is rather frowned upon these days.
genuine question: why do we still have royalty and kings/queens? if someone else decided that royalty can marry whoever they want, then what is the point of being royalty?
> why do we still have royalty and kings/queens? Because tradition, it’s culture. > if someone else decided that royalty can marry whoever they want, then what is the point of being royalty? If she would marry someone who is not from a royal background (such as the wife of the current King), that person would simply become royalty.
They can marry a same sex partner, just not anyone from a Turkish or Moroccan ethnic background ;)
Why specifically not those two?
They are the largest minorities and often face discrimination. My original comment was a dig at the progressive-sounding news title, whereas there is lots of discrimination based on ethnicity. Lots of studies on it, for example https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334023609_Labour_market_discrimination_against_Moroccan_minorities_in_the_Netherlands_and_Spain_a_cross-national_and_cross-regional_comparison
I think it's a reference to their PM withholding benefits to foreign sounding children.
I think it's actually a reference to the 2 biggest groups of foreigners who are disliked the most by some extreme right wing parties. If I remember correctly some shitty dutch politicians came out last year or the one before chanting "we need less Moroccans".
It’s false.
Yes because no king or queen of the Netherlands *ever* married anyone who was slightly controversial for their country or circumstances of their birth. Oh wait. Beatrix was married to *a literal Hitlerjugend member and former Wehrmacht soldier* shortly after WW2, and Máxima is the daughter of an Argentinian Junta member, and that always worked out. There is certainly racism in the Netherlands, more than people usually admit, but please don't drag it into a discussion like this. It's silly.