PDA

View Full Version : Should European monarchs be banished?


Parsley
Nov 22nd, 2006, 05:48 PM
Anti people say: It's against the idea of democracy that some people have priviledges by birth, they spend lots of tax money, it is against the European enlightment.

Pro people say: They give people a feeling of solidarity, they help to generate money from tourism.

Kart
Nov 22nd, 2006, 05:51 PM
I always thought that monarchs were the ones that 'banished' people.

Where are you going to banish them to anyway ?

-Ph51-
Nov 22nd, 2006, 05:53 PM
I always thought that monarchs were the ones that 'banished' people.

Where are you going to banish them to anyway ?

North Carolina ;)

mandy7
Nov 22nd, 2006, 05:54 PM
Nope, we have real royalty, others need to deal with it :p

Kart
Nov 22nd, 2006, 05:55 PM
North Carolina ;)

LOL.

Parsley
Nov 22nd, 2006, 05:55 PM
I always thought that monarchs were the ones that 'banished' people.

Where are you going to banish them to anyway ?

Ottoman sultans were banished from the country. Their descendants now live around Europe.

timafi
Nov 22nd, 2006, 05:56 PM
fuck no!

Parsley
Nov 22nd, 2006, 05:57 PM
They can be sent to one of their old colonies to do social service.

Lord Nelson
Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:00 PM
If British and Spanish monarchies collapse, the nations will break up. I see the Basques, Catalans, Scottish people saying that there won't be any reason for them not to seek independance. So that is a good enough reason not to abolish monarchies. If Yugoslavia was a monarchy it would still exist today.

pla
Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:02 PM
Oh yeah :lol: We can dream a bit here, it would be perfect to not have monarchies anymore but.. it's just a dream ;) :D

timafi
Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:06 PM
They can be sent to one of their old colonies to do social service.

is it because you don't have any Kaiser anymore than you are bitching?:tape: :rolleyes:

Kart
Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:08 PM
They can be sent to one of their old colonies to do social service.

Isn't that against the 'european enlightenment' ?

Parsley
Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:18 PM
Isn't that against the 'european enlightenment' ?

No. They can go and teach poor children etc for the things done in the past.

Martian Willow
Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:27 PM
The main reason the British won't get rid of the monarchy is they would have to replace them with yet more elected career politicians. The Windsors are a relatively harmless amusement by comparison. :)

Helen Lawson
Nov 22nd, 2006, 06:55 PM
I think they should have actually more power. I want a Queen Elizabeth II who has the power to imprison people indefintely, pass crazy laws at her whim, declare war on France and invade Calais, have people beheaded, and/or drawn and quartered. I mean, you read anything from Tudor history, and it's totally engaging, and it's even true!!! What do you have now, sex tapes at worst, who cares.

Apoleb
Nov 22nd, 2006, 09:12 PM
I think they should have actually more power. I want a Queen Elizabeth II who has the power to imprison people indefintely, pass crazy laws at her whim, declare war on France and invade Calais, have people beheaded, and/or drawn and quartered. I mean, you read anything from Tudor history, and it's totally engaging, and it's even true!!! What do you have now, sex tapes at worst, who cares.


:haha:

Wiggly
Nov 22nd, 2006, 09:35 PM
No. It's hot. It's look so fun to be a King.:)

Gerri
Nov 22nd, 2006, 10:50 PM
The main reason the British won't get rid of the monarchy is they would have to replace them with yet more elected career politicians. The Windsors are a relatively harmless amusement by comparison. :)

Exactly. Who wants President Blair? :scared: Anyway the Queen's fabulous :worship:

Sam L
Nov 23rd, 2006, 12:02 AM
Hell no.

thalle
Nov 25th, 2006, 09:58 AM
No no!
Denmark got two weird animals from Australia when the prince and princess gave birth... and now she's pregnant again, so more weird presents to the Danes.
Free presents are nice:cool:
Besides, they may have priveledges, but they are also kinda embassadors of the country, and the danish royalte never make scandals:)

DutchieGirl
Nov 25th, 2006, 10:24 AM
No no!
Denmark got two weird animals from Australia when the prince and princess gave birth... and now she's pregnant again, so more weird presents to the Danes.
Free presents are nice:cool:
Besides, they may have priveledges, but they are also kinda embassadors of the country, and the danish royalte never make scandals:)

Hey! You got a :cool: tram from Melbourne too! :p

DutchieGirl
Nov 25th, 2006, 10:25 AM
Oh, and to answer the question: No, I don't think so.

!<blocparty>!
Nov 25th, 2006, 11:25 AM
No. It's important to keep hold of some things no matter how old fashioned they are. :cool:

TF Chipmunk
Nov 25th, 2006, 06:22 PM
I think it's good that they don't have absolute power anymore, but I wouldn't go so far as to destroy the whole institution of a monarchy. I think they add to the legacy of Europe, and that's what makes Europe special (among other things), in a way.

Steffica Greles
Nov 25th, 2006, 06:30 PM
If British and Spanish monarchies collapse, the nations will break up. I see the Basques, Catalans, Scottish people saying that there won't be any reason for them not to seek independance. So that is a good enough reason not to abolish monarchies. If Yugoslavia was a monarchy it would still exist today.

Two things:

Firstly, the Scots already are starting to prefer the idea of independence if you've seen recent polls. Increasingly, English people would be glad to see the break-up of the UK as well. We have our taxes stolen from us and British democracy is weighted against the English (86% of the population) in favour of the Scots. It has nothing to do with the monarchy. Secondly, turn this on its head: if the Scottish achieved independence, to whom would the monarchy belong? Because, they are not a specifically English institution. They are a fusion of the English and Scottish monarchies in the 17th century. They have homes in Scotland, Charles wears a kilt sometimes, etc.

Lord Nelson
Nov 25th, 2006, 06:56 PM
Two things:

Firstly, the Scots already are starting to prefer the idea of independence if you've seen recent polls. Increasingly, English people would be glad to see the break-up of the UK as well. We have our taxes stolen from us and British democracy is weighted against the English (86% of the population) in favour of the Scots. It has nothing to do with the monarchy. Secondly, turn this on its head: if the Scottish achieved independence, to whom would the monarchy belong? Because, they are not a specifically English institution. They are a fusion of the English and Scottish monarchies in the 17th century. They have homes in Scotland, Charles wears a kilt sometimes, etc.

Your last sentences shows why monarchy in Britain was a good thing. The Scottish and English monarchies merged together after Queen Elizabeth I had the Scottish King James as her heir and this resulted in Britain being formed.

I doubt that Sotland will get its independance at least not in the near future. A poll at the end of the day is just that a poll. It is not very reliable since only a certain segment of the population is polled. If Most Scots wanted independance they would use more peruasive means as Northern Ireland. If the english wanted Scotland to break away then they would do what Czech republic did wich was to boot e slovaks out in 1993. So I believe that most Scots, English and Welsh people are happy with the union.

Monarchies have helped unify countries. Germany in 19th Century was broken up into various independant states. But Bismark and his Kaiser boss helped with the merging of those states. In other cultures we see that the Saudi monarchy helped 3 states unify with each other. The UAE also is the result of 7 states merging with each other although each state really has quasi independance such as Dubai.

So one can see that monarchies are not totally useless. Countries like Norway though don't need them since the people are mostly homogenous. But Belgium, Spain, UK need them. In other cultures like Arab states and Thailand, monarchies have seen to be a stable force. I am not necessarily pro monarchy but I can see its benefits.

Steffica Greles
Nov 25th, 2006, 07:41 PM
Your last sentences shows why monarchy in Britain was a good thing. The Scottish and English monarchies merged together after Queen Elizabeth I had the Scottish King James as her heir and this resulted in Britain being formed.

I majored in History, so I don't need the lesson :) But I'm not against monarchies per se, although as I grow older I am finding such increasingly difficult to reconcile with my political beliefs in the wider picture. I'm also in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of England. Why should that be the religion of my country? Thus, as the monarch is the Head of the Church of England, I find it even more difficult to defend my position as a monarchist. However, I do think that there are arguments for the monarchy. I don't want to go into all that.

Now then, the monarchy is a good thing, you say. The monarchy is a good thing if the people want it. If the people do not want it to remain, then it is not sustainable. If the people of England, Scotland and Wales wish to be united, and the monarchy is one of the institutions forming the bond, then that is democratic and I am happy with that. However, if the English and Scottish people do not want their ties to continue, which is an incipient feeling at the moment, then the fact that the monarchy is one of the bolts, if you like, holding the UK together should not take precedence. What is most important is that the will of the people is heard. The monarchy will then be left in a crisis and that is up to the institution itself, along with the people, to resolve. But it must not stand in the way of democracy.

As it is, the monarchy will not survive anyway. It will implode rather than be "banished" by the people. For how much longer are children of monarchs going to want to be told how to live their lives, who to marry, and to take on such a responsibility. It is just not sustainable in a meritocracy.



I doubt that Sotland will get its independance at least not in the near future. A poll at the end of the day is just that a poll. It is not very reliable since only a certain segment of the population is polled. If Most Scots wanted independance they would use more peruasive means as Northern Ireland. If the english wanted Scotland to break away then they would do what Czech republic did wich was to boot e slovaks out in 1993. So I believe that most Scots, English and Welsh people are happy with the union.

You show a very elementary understanding of British politics here. I'll direct you to another thread in a minute and you'll see what I meant.

Monarchies have helped unify countries. Germany in 19th Century was broken up into various independant states. But Bismark and his Kaiser boss helped with the merging of those states. In other cultures we see that the Saudi monarchy helped 3 states unify with each other. The UAE also is the result of 7 states merging with each other although each state really has quasi independance such as Dubai.

So one can see that monarchies are not totally useless. Countries like Norway though don't need them since the people are mostly homogenous. But Belgium, Spain, UK need them. In other cultures like Arab states and Thailand, monarchies have seen to be a stable force. I am not necessarily pro monarchy but I can see its benefits.

I just don't understand how they have "helped" unify countries. They foisted their governments on other territories by extending their frontiers. Some, although not all, of those principalities have fitted comfortably into a federal government system.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire is one good example of how monarchies do not hold people together who prefer self-determination.

Surely democracy has unified countries more than monarchies? Is the beloved United States not the best example, even though I would argue that it is actually too large for its own good?

Steffica Greles
Nov 25th, 2006, 07:50 PM
I think they should have actually more power. I want a Queen Elizabeth II who has the power to imprison people indefintely, pass crazy laws at her whim, declare war on France and invade Calais, have people beheaded, and/or drawn and quartered. I mean, you read anything from Tudor history, and it's totally engaging, and it's even true!!! What do you have now, sex tapes at worst, who cares.

I tried to give you a good rep for that but I have to spread myself around ;):lol:

Well, one thing most of us still have is a sense of humour. That's one of the things I'd miss about Britain. :)

Come-on-kim
Nov 26th, 2006, 07:59 PM
Hell not!!! I love Royal Families :p

watchdogfish
Nov 26th, 2006, 08:18 PM
Nope cos it gives a sense of identity to a country

Parsley
Nov 26th, 2006, 11:10 PM
Nope cos it gives a sense of identity to a country

Poor French, Germans, Austrians, Greeks etc. They have no identity.

Steffica Greles
Nov 26th, 2006, 11:38 PM
Poor French, Germans, Austrians, Greeks etc. They have no identity.

I know :rolleyes:

But in fairness to the poster, I think they probably meant that a monarchy is an integral part of a country's identity when it already has a monarchy. Removing the institution would thus render the country bereft of some of its pizzaz and notoriety.

While this is not necessarily true, it's a widepread feeling -- particularly in Britain. And admittedly it is a feeling I too am susceptible to as well.

Tom13
Nov 27th, 2006, 12:08 PM
Yes because they are useless, they cost a lot of money, they are above the laws. They are sometimes stupid and give a bad image of the country they represent.
They have sometimes some problems to realise they haven't any power anymore and that we don't care about what they think.
They have no legitimacy except the one of the blood and precisely their ancestors have shedded a lot of blood.
So :wavey:

watchdogfish
Nov 27th, 2006, 12:11 PM
I know :rolleyes:

But in fairness to the poster, I think they probably meant that a monarchy is an integral part of a country's identity when it already has a monarchy. Removing the institution would thus render the country bereft of some of its pizzaz and notoriety.

While this is not necessarily true, it's a widepread feeling -- particularly in Britain. And admittedly it is a feeling I too am susceptible to as well.

Yep this is what I meant. My comment was by no means a slur to countries without a monarchy although I can see how it can be construed that way :)

Renaissance
Nov 27th, 2006, 02:32 PM
Poor French, Germans, Austrians, Greeks etc. They have no identity.
No identity?

You should take a look at your country.
Belgium is tearing each other part between the flemishs and the walloons.

Identity isn't a question of monarchy but a question of shared historical legacy ,common social and moral values or language (less important).

There's no place for separatism when your identity is strong.
Separatism is very active in Belgium look at the "RWF-RBF" or "Spirit"

Tom13
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:51 PM
No identity?

You should take a look at your country.
Belgium is tearing each other part between the flemishs and the walloons.

Identity isn't a question of monarchy but a question of shared historical legacy ,common social and moral values or language (less important).

There's no place for separatism when your identity is strong.
Separatism is very active in Belgium look at the "RWF-RBF" or "Spirit"

Euh. Je pense qu'il répondait avec ironie. MDR
Sinon RWF-RBF a au moins 1000 supporters. :lol: Ils sont très puissants. :p

Shimizu Amon
Nov 27th, 2006, 05:01 PM
It's not of this time anymore.

Andy T
Nov 27th, 2006, 06:15 PM
I can't decide because there are several dilemmas surrounding this issue.

1) It's hard not to confuse the individual with the institution. There are good monarchs and bad ones, just as there are good presidents and bad ones. For every Havel in the Czech Republic or Mandela in South Africa there's a George Bush or a Slobodan Milosevic.

2) Monarchs seem to have a higher profile than ceremonial presidents: Hardly anybody in the general public outside the countries themselves knows who the presidents of Italy and Germany are, yet Queen Elizabeth II and King Juan Carlos are well-known. Even working presidents, such as Chirac, are not quite such international names. But does this really matter?

3) King Juan Carlos has almost certainly been a major force in cementing Spanish democracy - especially in the decade after Franco. Having an alternative point of reference to a political or military figure at the top of the state apparatus could be beneficial. Could that help countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro as they continue their transition.
On the other hand, Juan Carlos is just one man. There's no guarantee that ex-Kings Michael & Simeon and their heirs, or Crown Prince Alexander, have what it takes to do the same job. Ex-King Constantine of Greece shows how an ill-advised (or stupid if you want to be less kind) monarch can put democracy/stability at risk. Nepal is not a good example because it's not a European-style constituitonal monarchy.

4) The recent President of Ireland, Mary Robinson is a fine example of a European president who did a lot of good work and had much respect in the international community. Again, though, she was just one individual. The recent scandal involving the President of Israel provides a telling counter example.

5) With or without a monarchy, the palaces and castles belonging to the state still have to be maintained, the head of state and his/her close family still has to be protected and state ceremonies still have to be financed, be they presided over by a crowned head or an elected one.

6) People who reject the hereditary principle are oftentimes hypocrites: they don't like the idea of monarchs inheriting a crown and the status that goes with it yet they think its perfectly ok to inherit their parents/relatives wealth and property and the status that goes with that and want to pass on their own wealth and property to their own kids/family. It might not be on the same scale but it's the same principle.

7) Almost all elected presidents - whether ceremonial or working ones - have been politicians with a set agenda so are not really any more 'neutral' than a wealthy royal with his/her interests to defend and/or set-from-birth mentality.

8) Elected presidents can, in most cases, be booted out of office at the polls or after a fixed number of years in office whereas monarchs tend to be for life. Yet Mitterrands "reign" of 14 years in France was less than two years shorter than that of King George VI (1936-52, Queen Elizabeth II's father) and Edward VIII, the Queen's uncle, was obliged to abdicate after 11 months by the government of the time.

Having lived in two monarchies and two republics, I must say that on an emotional level I prefer a monarchy. This goes against all my political beliefs and general reason but somehow it just "feels" better to have a head of state (plus family) who's not connected with politics. Plus, in my experience, a monarch, because of his/her greater profile, is better able to promote cultural events and social concerns than a president: not only do people take more of an interest but they also don't assume that the motivation is to win votes!

Renaissance
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:30 PM
Euh. Je pense qu'il répondait avec ironie. MDR
Sinon RWF-RBF a au moins 1000 supporters. :lol: Ils sont très puissants. :p

1.4% aux elections legislatives ce n'est pas négligeable,c'est 26 fois plus que tes 1000 supporters soit la taille d'une ville comme Arlon.

Quant à savoir si c'était de l'ironie,effectivement je vois beaucoup d'humour dans ses posts précédents rien ne me convainc que Parsley est anti- monarchiste.Mais l'essentiel n'est pas là, je véhicule l'idée que l'identité nationale ne se fonde pas sur un roi,il n'y a qu'à voir en Belgique.

Parsley
Nov 27th, 2006, 10:43 PM
Poor French, Germans, Austrians, Greeks etc. They have no identity.

timafi gave me this badrep for my post above. speechless.

you should worry about having a decent player mother fucker kiefer the racquet thrower is a sore loser as for Groenefeld feel sorry for the poor kid

Parsley
Nov 27th, 2006, 10:44 PM
No identity?

You should take a look at your country.
Belgium is tearing each other part between the flemishs and the walloons.

Identity isn't a question of monarchy but a question of shared historical legacy ,common social and moral values or language (less important).

There's no place for separatism when your identity is strong.
Separatism is very active in Belgium look at the "RWF-RBF" or "Spirit"

Some people haven't heard of something called sarcasm :help:

Tom13
Nov 28th, 2006, 10:33 AM
1.4% aux elections legislatives ce n'est pas négligeable,c'est 26 fois plus que tes 1000 supporters soit la taille d'une ville comme Arlon.

Quant à savoir si c'était de l'ironie,effectivement je vois beaucoup d'humour dans ses posts précédents rien ne me convainc que Parsley est anti- monarchiste.Mais l'essentiel n'est pas là, je véhicule l'idée que l'identité nationale ne se fonde pas sur un roi,il n'y a qu'à voir en Belgique.

Ben les Anglais qui lui ont répondu ont compris que c'était de l'ironie, moi aussi et apparemment il dit lui même que c'est de l'ironie.
1,4%. Wow je savais pas qu'ils faisaisent autant. ;)
Mais comment tu connais Arlon? T'es de Longwy, Thionville, Mont-Saint-Martin?
Comment sais-tu que je suis de là?
Quant à l'identité nationale belge. Bein, la bière, la bonne bouffe et... (j'allais dire la B.D. mais les flamands n'en font pas). Mais franchement je m'en porte pas plus mal.
L'identité nationale comme tu dis, c'est d'un autre temps, comme la monarchie et la religion.

Maajken
Nov 28th, 2006, 11:00 AM
Separatism is very active in Belgium look at the "RWF-RBF" or "Spirit"
lmao spirit. you're obviously not very well informed :D

pigmalion
Nov 28th, 2006, 11:38 AM
No identity?

You should take a look at your country.
Belgium is tearing each other part between the flemishs and the walloons.

Identity isn't a question of monarchy but a question of shared historical legacy ,common social and moral values or language (less important).

There's no place for separatism when your identity is strong.
Separatism is very active in Belgium look at the "RWF-RBF" or "Spirit"

le séparatisme très actif en Belgique??? En Flandre avec le VB ok mais en Wallonie a part quelques énergumènes du genre Happart et ce fameux rattachement wallonie france comme ça a été dit plus haut qui est très minoritaire voire inexistant sur le plan politique...

About the thread subject I'm against any kind of banishment of monarchy.
I like my king. Even he hasn't any power he symbolizes the unite country.

Renaissance
Nov 28th, 2006, 11:47 AM
Ben les Anglais qui lui ont répondu ont compris que c'était de l'ironie, moi aussi et apparemment il dit lui même que c'est de l'ironie.
Timafi (Français) lui a mis une mauvaise réponse pour ce commentaire je suppose que je n'ai pas été pas le seul à le prendre au "premier degré".Ces propos étaient ambigus et ces commentaires sur d'autres sujets m'ont laissé penser que c'était un conservateur et donc a priori un pro-royaliste (il y a une démarche logique dans mon intervention).Ou alors je pense tout simplement que je n'ai pas le "don" que vous et les Anglais avez pour deceler les sarcasmes et les figures de style...desolé je dois être trop bête;)

1,4%. Wow je savais pas qu'ils faisaisent autant. ;)
Sarcasme ou pas,je pense que ce n'est pas negligeable.

Mais comment tu connais Arlon? T'es de Longwy, Thionville, Mont-Saint-Martin?
Comment sais-tu que je suis de là?J'ai peut-être du mal avec le second degré mais j'ai de l'intuition.

Quant à l'identité nationale belge. Bein, la bière, la bonne bouffe et... (j'allais dire la B.D. mais les flamands n'en font pas). Mais franchement je m'en porte pas plus mal.
L'identité nationale comme tu dis, c'est d'un autre temps, comme la monarchie et la religion.
L'idée est peut-être d'un autre temps mais l'identité nationalité est toujours une réalité d'aujourd'hui.Paradoxalement la mondialisation exacerbe dans certaines parties du monde le nationalisme,des pays comme l'Allemagne ou le Japon veulent une reconnaissance au niveau international ,chacun veut tirer son epingle du jeu.Le patriotisme economique de même que les lobbys d'influence très actifs ne sont pas des mythes.

Josh
Nov 28th, 2006, 11:55 AM
(j'allais dire la B.D. mais les flamands n'en font pas).

Ah non? Il y a plein de BDs flamands! Ca prouve encore une fois que les wallons et les flamands ne se connaissent même pas. :p

Renaissance
Nov 28th, 2006, 12:01 PM
le séparatisme très actif en Belgique???Oui comme tu le dis avec le VB.
Le RWF n'obtient pas les résultats du VB(indépendantiste) car ses idées sont beaucoup trop radicales (un rattachement à la France est impensable) mais un jour surement il y aura l'emergence en Wallonie d'une force politique aux idées independantiste (un VB wallon).
En Flandres on vote flamand en Wallonie on vote belge mais jusqu'à quand?

-Ph51-
Nov 28th, 2006, 12:19 PM
Oui comme tu le dis avec le VB.
Le RWF n'obtient pas les résultats du VB(indépendantiste) car ses idées sont beaucoup trop radicales (un rattachement à la France est impensable) mais un jour surement il y aura l'emergence en Wallonie d'une force politique aux idées independantiste (un VB wallon).
En Flandres on vote flamand en Wallonie on vote belge mais jusqu'à quand?

En Wallonie on vote Belge afin de sauvegarder ses intérêts.;) Et ces intérêts sont plutôt d'ordre financier.

pigmalion
Nov 28th, 2006, 12:21 PM
Oui comme tu le dis avec le VB.
Le RWF n'obtient pas les résultats du VB(indépendantiste) car ses idées sont beaucoup trop radicales (un rattachement à la France est impensable) mais un jour surement il y aura l'emergence en Wallonie d'une force politique aux idées independantiste (un VB wallon).
En Flandres on vote flamand en Wallonie on vote belge mais jusqu'à quand?

Le VB baisse en Flandre d'après les dernières barèmes politiques (mais reste encore entre 21 et 23% soit le parti recueille presque un bon quart des intentions politiques)
En fait le processus s'est inversé, dans les années 50-60 c'était les Wallons qui étaient très critiques vis-à-vis de la monarchie et de l'unité du pays.

Ah non? Il y a plein de BDs flamands! Ca prouve encore une fois que les wallons et les flamands ne se connaissent même pas.

y'a peut-être pleins de BD flamandes mais elles ne sont pas connues, si?
La bd belge (wallonne et bruxelloise) est reconnue dans le monde entier

Josh
Nov 28th, 2006, 12:31 PM
Le VB baisse en Flandre d'après les dernières barèmes politiques (mais reste encore entre 21 et 23% soit le parti recueille presque un bon quart des intentions politiques)
En fait le processus s'est inversé, dans les années 50-60 c'était les Wallons qui étaient très critiques vis-à-vis de la monarchie et de l'unité du pays.



y'a peut-être pleins de BD flamandes mais elles ne sont pas connues, si?
La bd belge (wallonne et bruxelloise) est reconnue dans le monde entier

Elles sont sans doute moins connues en Wallonie mais plusieurs BDs sont traduites dans d'autres langues (Bob et Bobette, Le Chevalier Rouge, Nero, Kiekeboe, etc..). Mais c'est vrai que les BDs francophones sont plus connues dans le monde.

Halardfan
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:24 PM
Yes, when the Queen hangs up her crown is when Id like to see the whole out dated monarchy thing wrapped up.

No chance of it happening becuase too many of my countrymen live in the past.

oliverbecken
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:31 PM
As tell Bush--> REPUBLICA ESPAÑOLA!!!:bounce:

Big Fat Pink Elephant
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:43 PM
No no!
Denmark got two weird animals from Australia when the prince and princess gave birth... and now she's pregnant again, so more weird presents to the Danes.
Free presents are nice:cool:
Besides, they may have priveledges, but they are also kinda embassadors of the country, and the danish royalte never make scandals:)

pssssttt... prins joachim og prinsesse alex? ;) hehe.... j/k...

norwegians says No to royalties when it comes to principles, but since our royal family is doing a good job, status quo is welcomed. our crownprince- and princess will definetly do a good job in the future.

Parsley
Nov 28th, 2006, 03:56 PM
Probably Danish will be the first.

Steffica Greles
Nov 28th, 2006, 04:36 PM
No identity?

You should take a look at your country.
Belgium is tearing each other part between the flemishs and the walloons.

Identity isn't a question of monarchy but a question of shared historical legacy ,common social and moral values or language (less important).

There's no place for separatism when your identity is strong.
Separatism is very active in Belgium look at the "RWF-RBF" or "Spirit"

Hehe. For all their apparent problems, the Belgians obviously have a better grasp of English sarcasm than the French ;)

I think you'll find that he was actually agreeing with you :)

Tom13
Nov 28th, 2006, 05:28 PM
Elles sont sans doute moins connues en Wallonie mais plusieurs BDs sont traduites dans d'autres langues (Bob et Bobette, Le Chevalier Rouge, Nero, Kiekeboe, etc..). Mais c'est vrai que les BDs francophones sont plus connues dans le monde.

Ok. :o Je connais seulement Bob et Bobette. C'est pas terrible et c'est plein de grosses fautes d'orthographes en français. Je ne connais pas les autres. :o
Mais en Wallonie et à Bruxelles, la BD c'est une institution. C'est la seule région du monde (à part le Japon peut-être) où y'a des rayons entiers dans les supermarchés qui lui sont consacrés. Va à la FNAC à Bruxelles et compare le rayon BD francophone avec le rayon BD néerlandophone. ;)

Ah non? Il y a plein de BDs flamands! Ca prouve encore une fois que les wallons et les flamands ne se connaissent même pas.

C'est clair et c'est de plus en plus vrai.

Oui comme tu le dis avec le VB.
Le RWF n'obtient pas les résultats du VB(indépendantiste) car ses idées sont beaucoup trop radicales (un rattachement à la France est impensable) mais un jour surement il y aura l'emergence en Wallonie d'une force politique aux idées independantiste (un VB wallon).
En Flandres on vote flamand en Wallonie on vote belge mais jusqu'à quand?

En fait, le VB prône le rattachement de la Flandres au Pays-Bas. Donc, c'est la même chose. Le VB est rattachiste comme le RWF et raciste comme le FN. Les indépendantistes en Flandres, c'est le NVA.
De plus, des enquêtes ont montré que les électeurs du VB étaient majoritairement royalistes et pour l'unité du pays. A Bruxelles, il y a même beauoup de francophones qui votent pour le VB ce qui prouve que les gens n'ont pas la moindre idée du parti pour lequel ils votent.
Il y a déjà eu un parti régionaliste wallon puissant appelé Rassemblement wallon.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rassemblement_wallon


Contrairement à ce que tu crois, un rattachement à la France n'a rien d'impensable car :
- La Wallonie n'est pas viable seule. Elle est trop pauvre.
- La droite française gaulliste y est très favorable car c'était une volonté de De Gaulle.
- La gauche française y aurait sacrément intérêt d'un point de vue électoraliste. :lol:

En fait le processus s'est inversé, dans les années 50-60 c'était les Wallons qui étaient très critiques vis-à-vis de la monarchie et de l'unité du pays.

En 45, on n'est pas passé loin de la guerre civile à cause de la 'Question royale' et aujourd'hui, le parti le plus royaliste en Belgique c'est le PS. Vive l'Hypocrisie.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Nov 28th, 2006, 05:41 PM
No because I think it's part of the countries cultures and getting rid of them would be bad.

Stamp Paid
Nov 28th, 2006, 06:15 PM
Oh Jesus, speak English. :rolleyes: :lol:
It was getting interesting too on page 2...

-Ph51-
Nov 28th, 2006, 07:11 PM
Ok. :o Je connais seulement Bob et Bobette. C'est pas terrible et c'est plein de grosses fautes d'orthographes en français. Je ne connais pas les autres. :o
Mais en Wallonie et à Bruxelles, la BD c'est une institution. C'est la seule région du monde (à part le Japon peut-être) où y'a des rayons entiers dans les supermarchés qui lui sont consacrés. Va à la FNAC à Bruxelles et compare le rayon BD francophone avec le rayon BD néerlandophone. ;)



C'est clair et c'est de plus en plus vrai.



En fait, le VB prône le rattachement de la Flandres au Pays-Bas. Donc, c'est la même chose. Le VB est rattachiste comme le RWF et raciste comme le FN. Les indépendantistes en Flandres, c'est le NVA.
De plus, des enquêtes ont montré que les électeurs du VB étaient majoritairement royalistes et pour l'unité du pays. A Bruxelles, il y a même beauoup de francophones qui votent pour le VB ce qui prouve que les gens n'ont pas la moindre idée du parti pour lequel ils votent.
Il y a déjà eu un parti régionaliste wallon puissant appelé Rassemblement wallon.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rassemblement_wallon


Contrairement à ce que tu crois, un rattachement à la France n'a rien d'impensable car :
- La Wallonie n'est pas viable seule. Elle est trop pauvre.
- La droite française gaulliste y est très favorable car c'était une volonté de De Gaulle.
- La gauche française y aurait sacrément intérêt d'un point de vue électoraliste. :lol:



En 45, on n'est pas passé loin de la guerre civile à cause de la 'Question royale' et aujourd'hui, le parti le plus royaliste en Belgique c'est le PS. Vive l'Hypocrisie.
GROSSE ERREUR. Aucun Flamand n"accepterait.;)

Renaissance
Nov 28th, 2006, 08:56 PM
En fait, le VB prône le rattachement de la Flandres au Pays-Bas. Donc, c'est la même chose. Le VB est rattachiste comme le RWF et raciste comme le FN. Les indépendantistes en Flandres, c'est le NVA.
De plus, des enquêtes ont montré que les électeurs du VB étaient majoritairement royalistes et pour l'unité du pays. A Bruxelles, il y a même beauoup de francophones qui votent pour le VB ce qui prouve que les gens n'ont pas la moindre idée du parti pour lequel ils votent.
Il y a déjà eu un parti régionaliste wallon puissant appelé Rassemblement wallon.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rassemblement_wallon

Le Vlaams Belang milite notamment contre les étrangers et pour l'indépendance de la Flandre. On trouve aussi dans son programme les thèmes de la sécurité et de la défense de la famille traditionnelle entre autres par l'instauration d'un salaire d'éducateur pour les hommes et femmes au foyer.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Blok

Le Vlaams Blok a réveillé les autruches des autres partis et a mis la brûlante question de la criminalité sur l'agenda politique. Le Vlaams Blok a été le premier parti politique qui a résolument défendu l'idée de l'indépendance de la Flandre.
http://www.vlaamsbelang.org/index.php?p=37
Je ne vois pas dans leur programme de rattachement aux Pays-Bas je pense que dans le VB il y a differents courants:des rattachistes comme des independantistes.




Contrairement à ce que tu crois, un rattachement à la France n'a rien d'impensable car :
- La Wallonie n'est pas viable seule. Elle est trop pauvre.
- La droite française gaulliste y est très favorable car c'était une volonté de De Gaulle.
- La gauche française y aurait sacrément intérêt d'un point de vue électoraliste. :lol:

L'argument economique ne tient pas puisque la Wallonie rattachement ou pas à la France necessite des réformes et des restructurations pour la rendre économiquement viable.L'Union européenne comme elle le fait pour les pays de l'Est peut parfaitement aider la Wallonie dans cette transition.

Effectivement je ne pense pas qu'il y aurait beaucoup d'opposition en France concernant le rattachement de la Wallonie mais le blocage est plutôt de l'autre côté de la frontière.

Josh
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:32 PM
Ok. :o Je connais seulement Bob et Bobette. C'est pas terrible et c'est plein de grosses fautes d'orthographes en français. Je ne connais pas les autres. :o
Mais en Wallonie et à Bruxelles, la BD c'est une institution. C'est la seule région du monde (à part le Japon peut-être) où y'a des rayons entiers dans les supermarchés qui lui sont consacrés. Va à la FNAC à Bruxelles et compare le rayon BD francophone avec le rayon BD néerlandophone. ;)

C'est la même chose en Flandre, dans chaque supermarché tu trouves des rayons de BDs.
Ca fait déjà quelque temps que je n'suis plus allé à la FNAC à Bxl mais la dernière fois que j'y étais, il y avait plus de BDs flamandes que francophones. Je m'disais encore que c'était étrange car à Bxl on trouve normalement plus de livres francophones que néerlandophones dans les magasins. :o

Tom13
Nov 28th, 2006, 10:28 PM
GROSSE ERREUR. Aucun Flamand n"accepterait.;)

C'est pourtant bel et bien la volonté ultime du VB. Enfin en tout cas c'est ce que De Winter a dit lors d'un reportage TV. Mais je sais bien que la grande majorité des flamands n'aiment pas trop les radins bouffeurs de patates du nord.

Borine, le VB a beaucoup de programmes différents. Au cours du temps, il a mis certains de ses objectifs initiaux en sourdine mais ça ne veut pas dire qu'il les a définitivement abandonnés. Je pense qu'ils sont un peu moins cons que Le Pen et ses dérapages permanents. Le programme d'Hitler en 32 n'est plus le même que quelques années avant. Pourtant c'est son vieu programme qu'il a appliqué.



C'est la même chose en Flandre, dans chaque supermarché tu trouves des rayons de BDs.
Ca fait déjà quelque temps que je n'suis plus allé à la FNAC à Bxl mais la dernière fois que j'y étais, il y avait plus de BDs flamandes que francophones. Je m'disais encore que c'était étrange car à Bxl on trouve normalement plus de livres francophones que néerlandophones dans les magasins.

:p Ben oui. Maintenant que j'y pense, j'ai jamais été dans un supermarché en Flandres. :lol: Donc l'identité belge: la bière, la bonne bouffe, la BD et... ben peut-être quelques autres trucs quand même.