Royal Baby in UK

[Sammy]

EDIT: Is this guy a lunatic, yes or no?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lew-rockwell/down-with-the-presidency/

No, he's not a lunatic, but he is on the extreme side.  For all of our history, there has been a constant national dialogue concerning the appropriate level of Government power and control.  At one extreme is the libertarian belief that Government should be as small and inconsequential as possible; progressives believe that Government needs to be involved in all significant facets of our lives.   Of course, most folks are in favor of some kind of mid-point on the spectrum.

[Todd]

Needless to say, I subscribe to the 2nd one. I'd rather be living under a powerless monarch than under a powerless US President.

They are not powerless, they have limited power.  For instance, Obama can order murder-by-drone in any number of countries at will.  Very few people have the power to do that.  He cannot, however, order a change to the menu of the Congressional Cafeteria.

[Florestan]

They are not powerless, they have limited power.

Yes, but an European monarch is much more limited than a US President... 

For instance, Obama can order murder-by-drone in any number of countries at will.  Very few people have the power to do that.  He cannot, however, order a change to the menu of the Congressional Cafeteria.

He he...   

[Florestan]

No, he's not a lunatic, but he is on the extreme side.  For all of our history, there has been a constant national dialogue concerning the appropriate level of Government power and control.  At one extreme is the libertarian belief that Government should be as small and inconsequential as possible; progressives believe that Government needs to be involved in all significant facets of our lives.   Of course, most folks are in favor of some kind of mid-point on the spectrum.

I'm aware of that much, for sure. I just ask: is a British, or Dutch, or Belgian, or Swedish or Spanish or [whatever European monarchy] citizen less free than a US or French or German or Italian citizen?

[MishaK]

You keep coming back for more punishment, Florestan?

Let's try to dissect this...

Upon reading your posts one would think that the President of the USA is only slightly less ceremonial and more powerful than the Queen of England...

False dilemma. There are more options other than just the two extremes of absolute power and purely ceremonial post. If you'd read the preceding posts in this thread more carefully, this should have been apparent to you.

But then again, I can't help asking: if this is so, then what was all the fuss about Obama's election? Putting aside his inauguration ceremony, which in terms of pomp and popular adulation far surpassed any similar royal ceremony in Europe (recently The Netherlands and Belgium witnessed a change of the monarch but I defy you to find any similarity with Obama's "presidential crowning"), from your comments two things can be inferred with certainty: (1) that Barack Obama was a shameless liar. Change we can believe in! Really? According to you, gentlemen, effecting any of the changes he campaigned for is well without the scope of his powers, so he knowingly promised to do things he knew only too well he could not do; (2) those who enthusiastically voted for him on account of those presumable changes were complete ignoramuses, because they didn't even know how the constitution of their own country operates and that their president is essentially powerless to effect any change except in what concerns foreign affairs, taxation and interstate commerce --- things that rule out completely any Obamacare plan...

Non sequitur. The pomp and circumstance with which a country celebrates or doesn't celebrate an inauguration has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual amount of power wielded by that office (in fact, in some cases you might argue there is some over-compensation going on). Obamacare has been upheld by the SupCt and the flipside of the taxation power is the power to spend that tax money. Sorry if that wasn't obvious from my earlier post. I didn't realize this needed elaboration. Not sure what other aspect of his campaign platform you seem to think was beyond the powers of the office. You may want to look up what interstate commerce and the tax and spend powers really refer to, historically and as elaborated by SupCt precedents. I never argued that the US president is powerless. Just that he doesn't have anywhere near the power of some of the quasi-absolutist heads of state in Latin America with which you previously grouped him together. Most nation states, democratic or otherwise, are not federal systems like the US, where the federal government has only limited power. You have to stop thinking in dichotomies of opposite extremes. The world doesn't work that way. All you accomplish by doing that is to turn what should be a civil conversation into a shouting match.

What you ignore, either unwillingly or on purpose, is that not every country is Germany and that what works wonders somewhere might spell disaster elsewhere. Spain's attempt of 1874-75 to implement a cantonal system like that which Switzerland knew peacefully for 600 years ended in a bloody failure: civil war(s) and revolution(s) taking place simultaneously; only the manu militari restoration of monarchy saved the country from complete disintegration. If you think that there is one, single, universal, political system suited for each and every country under the sun, suit yourself: the reality gives you a big lie.

This is an incoherent ramble. Firstly, I cited Germany as an example of a ceremonial post with similar ceremonial powers as a constitutional monarch to show that monarchy in and of itself has nothing to do with the desirable effect of having one more additional check on legilsative power, which was cited in support of the monarchy in the post I quoted. Why that should "spell disaster" elsewhere is beyond me and cannot be ascertained from your "argument". Other countries have ceremonial presidents too, not just Germany. I don't see, e.g., Ireland having a civil war because of that. What your discussion of cantonal systems has to with anything escapes me too. It's also not very coherent, as within your own argument you undermine yourself, as you suggest that the failure in Spain was not caused by the nature of the cantonal system itself but by its botched "impement[ation]". I don't know where you think I suggested even remotely that I believe in a one-size-fits-all solution for anything. Pretty much everything I've written in this thread has to the contrary been a (nearly futile) attempt to parse your overbroad grouping of people and phenomena into extremes and show nuance instead.

There are two ways of looking at the question:

There are many more ways of looking at things than just two.

I'm aware of that much, for sure. I just ask: is a British, or Dutch, or Belgian, or Swedish or Spanish or [whatever European monarchy] citizen less free than a US or French or German or Italian citizen?

The argument never was about freedom, but whether the waste of resources on a royal family makes any sense and has any place in a democratic society. A purely ceremonial position by nature doesn't really affect anyone's freedom, so the question is a bit of a red herring. The point is rather that the very limited utility of such a powerless position is in no proportion to the outlandish costs of maintaining the institution of constitutional monarchy.

[Florestan]

You keep coming back for more punishment, Florestan?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever.

The argument never was about freedom, but whether the waste of resources on a royal family makes any sense and has any place in a democratic society. A purely ceremonial position by nature doesn't really affect anyone's freedom, so the question is a bit of a red herring. The point is rather that the very limited utility of such a powerless position is in no proportion to the outlandish costs of maintaining the institution of constitutional monarchy.

You keep ranting about "waste of resources" as if it were your money, when actually not a single cent of yours goes to the royal British family. But I concede your caring about other people's money is deeply moving.

[The new erato]

You keep ranting about "waste of resources" as if it were your money, when actually not a single cent of yours goes to the royal British family. But I concede your caring about other people's money is deeply moving.

That argument cuts the other way too.....easy to be a fan if you don't pay. In which case only the British can discuss their monarchy. But it's not the money that is MY main objection to a monarchy; the French have no royal family but I still guess they spend their share on pomp and circumstance.

[Florestan]

That argument cuts the other way too.....easy to be a fan if you don't pay.

I assure you that I pay for the republic more than my grand-parents ever paid for the monarchy. 

In which case only the British can discuss their monarchy.

Exactly. It's no business of anyone else, just as Norway's monarchy or abolition thereof is the exclusive business of your people.

[The new erato]

Exactly. It's no business of anyone else, just as Norway's monarchy or abolition thereof is the exclusive business of your people.

Seems pretty extreme that nobody outside Britain can vent an opinion. Without the outside world having an opinion (resulting in pressure) on Eastern European communism, you would probably still be stuck with Ceausescu as his removal was dependent on the whole system crumbling...

[Florestan]

Seems pretty extreme that nobody outside Britain can vent an opinion.

I don't object to venting opinions, I object to the argument used: waste of resources. If the British people want to waste their resources that way, who are we to oppose them? That's all.

If I may ask: is there any significant republican party or popular feeling in Norway? Just curious.

Without the outside world having an opinion (resulting in pressure) on Eastern European communism, you would probably still be stuck with Ceausescu as his removal was dependent on the whole system crumbling...

We were stuck with Ceausescu until the very last days of Communism, as he was the last European Communist dictator to fall. If it were for the opinion of the outside world to remove him, we'd still have him (the outside world took a very negative opinion of Communism for 70 years; this "pressure" didn't hinder the Communists to fully enjoy their power and mock the outside world big time). His downfall was the work of several secret services, the Romanian one included.

[The new erato]

If I may ask: is there any significant republican party or popular feeling in Norway? Just curious.

The public is somewhat divided, but he monarchy has far from the public display and wealth of the British, and also far less of a history. I realize that every country need some pomp and circumstance whatever constitution, and I'm happy that in Norway it is within very reasonable limits.

[Florestan]

The public is somewhat divided, but he monarchy has far from the public display and wealth of the British, and also far less of a history. I realize that every country need some pomp and circumstance whatever constitution, and I'm happy that in Norway it is within very reasonable limits.

Thanks.

[MishaK]

That argument cuts the other way too.....easy to be a fan if you don't pay.

Bingo!

I assure you that I pay for the republic more than my grand-parents ever paid for the monarchy. 

Adjusted for inflation and net of public services received? I doubt that.

I don't object to venting opinions, I object to the argument used: waste of resources. If the British people want to waste their resources that way, who are we to oppose them? That's all.

We were stuck with Ceausescu until the very last days of Communism, as he was the last European Communist dictator to fall. If it were for the opinion of the outside world to remove him, we'd still have him (the outside world took a very negative opinion of Communism for 70 years; this "pressure" didn't hinder the Communists to fully enjoy their power and mock the outside world big time). His downfall was the work of several secret services, the Romanian one included.

These are some very weird arguments here. Firstly, with my "opinion" I in no way seek to tell the Brits or anyone what to do with their country. I take interest in different political systems out of scientific curiosoty as a former political scientist, if you will. That said, any country's population would be very silly to ignore the observations of outsiders, who with a bit of distance and perspective often have valuable insights that you can't see when you're to close to the problem. I can observe the waste of resources as much as I will, it is up to the Brits as to whether they want to act on that. That doesn't invalidate my view or make it irrelevant.

As to Ceaucescu, you know very well that his ascent and fall had nothing whatsoever to do with "opinion" of any kind, but with whether or not a nuclear Soviet Union was there to prop him up. Also, arguably Ramiz Alia of Albania was the last Communist dictator to fall, not Ceaucescu.

[Florestan]

As to Ceaucescu, you know very well that his ascent and fall had nothing whatsoever to do with "opinion" of any kind, but with whether or not a nuclear Soviet Union was there to prop him up. Also, arguably Ramiz Alia of Albania was the last Communist dictator to fall, not Ceaucescu.

You obviously know nothing about Ceaușescu, not even the proper spelling of his name.

Even since his ascension to power he was a pain in the ass for the Soviets.

He neutralized the influence of the pro-Soviet old guard oi the Party (a move already began by his predecessor Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej).

He ordered and supervised the creation of a specific anti-KGB division of the Romanian secret service, which operated with remarkable success in discovering and neutralizing KGB overt and closet agents.

He visited China and established close friendship and cooperation ties with that arch-enemy of the USSR within the Communist camp.

In what was arguably his finest hour, he refused to join the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia, Romania being the only Warsaw Pact country which did not take part in it (consequently Romania was the bête noire of the alliance for as long as it lasted) ; more, in a speech delivered to a huge crowd in Bucharest he denounced the invasion in no uncertain terms and extolled the right of each country to independence and sovereignty. All that after he traveled to Prague only a week before the invasion to declare his support for Dubček.

Internationally, due to a set of cleverly calculated moves (of the utmost importance being the recognition of, and establishing diplomatic ties with, Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany --- the first Communist country to do so, much to the ire of the Soviets), he was hailed by the Western world as a liberal reformer. He rubbed shoulders with Nixon (the first US president ever to visit a Communist country, Romania), Carter, de Gaulle (who awarded him the Legion of Honor), Giscard d'Estaing, Moshe Dayan and Hirohito, among others; Queen Elizabeth II took him for a ride in her royal carriage and made him Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath --- annulled after 1989); In his finest years, from Washington to London to Paris to Bonn he was widely regarded as a sincere and reliable partner, if not quite ally, of the West.

So the reality is exactly the opposite of what you believe it to be: far from propping him up, the Soviets would have been only too eager and happy to get rid of him, but their options in this respect were severely limited: a coup within the Party was inconceivable, since he was in absolute control of the top echelon, and he was shrewd enough not to give them any reason for a downright military invasion.

[vandermolen]

And now there is another Royal Baby due and this time of particular interest ( ) to our trans-Atlantic friends.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45861683

Don't say that I don't keep you informed of important developments.

[André]

My wife this morning: « I knew it !!! »
Me: « What? »
Wife: « Meghan is pregnant! »
Me: « How did you know ? »
Wife: « She wore a COAT at the wedding !! »
Me: « uhhh? »
Wife: « Don't you understand ? She was hiding it ! »
Me: « Why hide it and make it official a week later ? That's crazy. »
Wife: « No, that's royal protocol. She couldn't upstage Beatrice, you silly! ».

Secrets of women...

[vandermolen]

My wife this morning: « I knew it !!! »
Me: « What? »
Wife: « Meghan is pregnant! »
Me: « How did you know ? »
Wife: « She wore a COAT at the wedding !! »
Me: « uhhh? »
Wife: « Don't you understand ? She was hiding it ! »
Me: « Why hide it and make it official a week later ? That's crazy. »
Wife: « No, that's royal protocol. She couldn't upstage Beatrice, you silly! ».

Secrets of women...

Brilliant Andre!

[André]

100% true, I swear  . My wife was moved to check the pics of the wedding because the princess bears the same first name  .

[vandermolen]

100% true, I swear  . My wife was moved to check the pics of the wedding because the princess bears the same first name  .

Oh yes, of course. I was quite forgetting that and it is quite an unusual name these days, although it may become more popular now.