Debates
08 Sep 22
@shallow-blue saidBack when you rebelled from Spain the Netherlands was a Republic…how did you end up with a monarch again?
For being a figurehead. Doh.
@athousandyoung saidUh… that’s so abbreviated it’s basically wrong.
Back when you rebelled from Spain the Netherlands was a Republic…how did you end up with a monarch again?
7 provinces joined together for the 80 years war. And since they didn’t have a monarchy they called themselves a republic.
When Spain withdrew and the 30 year war ended with the Munster Peace, the 7 provinces gained independence from the Hoy Roman Empire and chose to have a “Stadhouder” as a national leader. That was not a king.
Hence the Dutch have Willem 1, 2 and 3 and then a new Willem 1… when they did choose a monarchy in the 19th century.
Anyhoo… it’s so bloody complicated, I’ll forgive your summary.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
09 Sep 22
@athousandyoung saidBack when you were still a Mexican, your pathetic flower-belly would have been slit by an Aztec obsidian knife, and nobody would have cared about you.
Back when you rebelled from Spain the Netherlands was a Republic…how did you end up with a monarch again?
Do not pretend to have an opinion about a more civilised country, little boy.
10 Sep 22
@kevcvs57 saidWhy all the fuss about power when you claim the royals have none and are merely figureheads? Once again, what do you need them for?
Public holidays, the upkeep of historically important buildings, tourism, soft power / soft diplomacy.
The question should be ‘do they do more harm than good’ they are obviously part and parcel of our class system but I think it would survive in their absence, they can be a non partisan figurehead and rallying point, but their biggest pro is the fact we have them instead of ...[text shortened]... ing to grab as much power and money as they can whilst in office. Royalty is a job for life anyway.
Don't get me wrong. I am hopeful King Charles will be a wise leader. He has already turned against climate change nonsense he used to support. Long live the king.
@metal-brain saidPersonally, I don’t see the need for a king or a president.
Why all the fuss about power when you claim the royals have none and are merely figureheads? Once again, what do you need them for?
Don't get me wrong. I am hopeful King Charles will be a wise leader. He has already turned against climate change nonsense he used to support. Long live the king.
A prime minister is enough (obviously chosen from the elected parliament).
The US system is slightly strange in that respect. You don’t have a law making & governing chamber and a seperate checks & balances chamber (well you do, but the roles switch on various subjects… although even that seems kind of vague to me), so it would be hard to chose a figure head.
But, from a European perspective, I don’t see why the House of Representatives doesn’t chose a prime representative to fulfill the leadership role.
And just keep the senate as the checks & balances chamber (it’s less representative of the people).
@shallow-blue saidMexicans sacrificed Tlaxcalans not their own people. Please get an education you snarky idiot. I mean I know your educational facilities are inferior to those of California but that's no excuse.
Back when you were still a Mexican, your pathetic flower-belly would have been slit by an Aztec obsidian knife, and nobody would have cared about you.
Do not pretend to have an opinion about a more civilised country, little boy.
10 Sep 22
@athousandyoung saidYou will realise that’s 100+ years after the 80 year war with Spain (which ended in in 1648). And it was actually the end of the republic of the 7 Dutch provinces.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavian_Revolution
But, as I already pointed out, it’s a rather confusing history.
But with characters with names like Rutger Jan Schimmelpenninck; Lord of Nyenhuis, Peckedam and Gellicum, it could only ever be complicated…
@shavixmir saidNot complicated. The answer is very simple. Napoleon ended the era of the Republic in the Netherlands.
You will realise that’s 100+ years after the 80 year war with Spain (which ended in in 1648). And it was actually the end of the republic of the 7 Dutch provinces.
But, as I already pointed out, it’s a rather confusing history.
But with characters with names like Rutger Jan Schimmelpenninck; Lord of Nyenhuis, Peckedam and Gellicum, it could only ever be complicated…
That's it.
10 Sep 22
@athousandyoung saidSort of, yes.
Not complicated. The answer is very simple. Napoleon ended the era of the Republic in the Netherlands.
That's it.
Although one could just as easily argue that it was the Prussians booting out the French which was the cause.
However, you started by saying the Dutch republic booted out the Spanish. And that’s what my point is about: that’s not quite true.
@shallow-blue saidGosh!
Back when you were still a Mexican, your pathetic flower-belly would have been slit by an Aztec obsidian knife, and nobody would have cared about you.
Do not pretend to have an opinion about a more civilised country, little boy.
Life must be tough on you lately.
@metal-brain saidNo he hasn’t turned against “climate change nonsense” but what you can express, in terms of opinion on something as political as climate change, when you are the Prince of Wales is very different to the apolitical stance you have to take as the Monarch.
Why all the fuss about power when you claim the royals have none and are merely figureheads? Once again, what do you need them for?
Don't get me wrong. I am hopeful King Charles will be a wise leader. He has already turned against climate change nonsense he used to support. Long live the king.
“ Why all the fuss about power when you claim the royals have none and are merely figureheads? Once again, what do you need them for?”
I don’t understand the question given my previous answer. We do not ‘need’ them anymore than YOU need a POTUS. My personal preference is for a largely ceremonial figurehead who doubles up as a rallying point and probably the best ambassador money can buy.
What I’m saying is if someone tries to disband the monarchy to replace it with a Donald Trump or Joe Biden I will smash that someone’s stupid brains out with a 7lb club hammer.
If we disband the Monarchy and the House of Lords and just go with the House of Commons backed by a constitution written in the 21st century I would be perfectly fine with it.
10 Sep 22
@kevcvs57 saidHear hear.
No he hasn’t turned against “climate change nonsense” but what you can express, in terms of opinion on something as political as climate change, when you are the Prince of Wales is very different to the apolitical stance you have to take as the Monarch.
“ Why all the fuss about power when you claim the royals have none and are merely figureheads? Once again, what do you n ...[text shortened]... e of Commons backed by a constitution written in the 21st century I would be perfectly fine with it.