Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Dutch queen to abdicate for son

queen beatrix prince willem-alexander netherlands abdicating

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 37,017 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

  • Que Sera, Sera - Whatever will be, will be..

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:08 PM

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands has announced she is abdicating in favour of her son, Prince Willem-Alexander.

In a pre-recorded address broadcast on TV, she said she would formally stand down on 30 April.

The queen, who is approaching her 75th birthday, said she had been thinking about this moment for several years and that now was "the moment to lay down my crown".

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-21237254

Posted Image

#2    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:20 PM

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Queen Elizabeth II of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and United Kingdom are fifth cousins.

They are both descendants of Stadtholder William IV of the Netherlands and Anne of Hanover (the daughter of King George II of Great Britain and Ireland).

Queen Beatrix is descended from Stadtholder William IV, Prince of Orange through his son, William V, while Queen Elizabeth II is descended from him through his daughter Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau (the great-great-great-great-grandmother of Elizabeth II).

Queen Beatrix is the 888th in line to the Throne of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Paua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and United Kingdom.

Posted Image
Stadtholder William IV, Prince of Orange (b. 1711/ d. 1751): The great-great-great-great-great-grandfather of Queen Beatrix and Queen Elizabeth II

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 29 January 2013 - 04:35 PM.


#3    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:35 PM

Quick question.  With all the royalty available for marriage why do they now tend to marry commoners?


#4    FLOMBIE

FLOMBIE

    sempere aude

  • Member
  • 2,568 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seoul/Berlin

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:38 PM

They tend to be prettier, and to stop the inbreeding (maybe that's why they are prettier).


#5    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:45 PM

I do hope Queen Elizabeth doesn't do this.


#6    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:49 PM

I think every country should have two royal families; with a king from one and a queen from the other.  It should be an elective business, with vacancies being filled from the nearest twenty or thirty relatives of the former monarch.  They should have the power, when they act together, to interfere in a constitutional crisis, but just to do something like order new elections, not to make actual decisions.

Properly handled (the way both the British and the Dutch do) it would add a touch of class to the functioning of government.


#7    FLOMBIE

FLOMBIE

    sempere aude

  • Member
  • 2,568 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seoul/Berlin

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:58 PM

Well, the idea of a royal family is that there is only one, anything else would not make any sense to them. And I believe we have no use whatsoever to any of them. I would not like Germany to have a king or emporer, especially because you have no control about what kind of person will be next in line. One might be brilliant, while the next one might be a complete buffoon. It's that, and that I do not want to see anyone being privileged by birth.

Edited by FLOMBIE, 29 January 2013 - 05:59 PM.


#8    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:05 PM

View PostFLOMBIE, on 29 January 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

Well, the idea of a royal family is that there is only one, anything else would not make any sense to them.
Ancient Sparta had two.

Quote

And I believe we have no use whatsoever to any of them.
I disagree.  I look at countries with monarchs such as Japan or Thailand or several in Europe, where the monarch works within a democratic setting, and I think the monarch adds class, a focus for the country, and can be put to all sorts of useful work.

Quote

I would not like Germany to have a king or emporer, especially because you have no control about what kind of person will be next in line.
That's why the successor would be elected from within the members of the family, not have a strict succession rule.

Oh, and we are all privileged by birth, just some more than others.  I take it you are German -- isn't that a privilege?


#9    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,148 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:17 PM

At her age she is probably ready to step down, lay low and let someone else deal with it.

The problem with royalty is while one may be a wise and fair ruler the next in line may be a tyrant or a sociopath.  If we only elected our leaders from a couple of families that would narrow down the possibility of good candidates that would make great rulers.


#10    FLOMBIE

FLOMBIE

    sempere aude

  • Member
  • 2,568 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seoul/Berlin

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:22 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 29 January 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

Ancient Sparta had two.
The exception proves the rule. ;) But it whas a pretty different concept back then to the "nobility" now and in the more recent centuries here in Europe.

Quote

I disagree.  I look at countries with monarchs such as Japan or Thailand or several in Europe, where the monarch works within a democratic setting, and I think the monarch adds class, a focus for the country, and can be put to all sorts of useful work.That's why the successor would be elected from within the members of the family, not have a strict succession rule.
Well, if you qualify pomp as class, than yes. I do not find anything classy about all these superficial people. Royalty is mostly one thing these days: Luxury. Can you tell me what useful work they are doing? Especially if you look at the money they are being granted every year.

And why have only the family members elect a king? I would want to be able to do that, too. Especially in a constitutional monarchy.

Quote

Oh, and we are all privileged by birth, just some more than others.  I take it you are German -- isn't that a privilege?
No - it's mere chance. I do not project any pride in this, and I cannot expect anything from it. I am not born to rule.

Edited by FLOMBIE, 29 January 2013 - 06:25 PM.


#11    FLOMBIE

FLOMBIE

    sempere aude

  • Member
  • 2,568 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seoul/Berlin

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:24 PM

View PostHilander, on 29 January 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

At her age she is probably ready to step down, lay low and let someone else deal with it.

The problem with royalty is while one may be a wise and fair ruler the next in line may be a tyrant or a sociopath. If we only elected our leaders from a couple of families that would narrow down the possibility of good candidates that would make great rulers.
That is how it's being done in Malaysia.

But why call it "king"? I mean, we already elect our "rulers" democratically.


#12    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:44 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 29 January 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

I think every country should have two royal families; with a king from one and a queen from the other.  It should be an elective business, with vacancies being filled from the nearest twenty or thirty relatives of the former monarch.  They should have the power, when they act together, to interfere in a constitutional crisis, but just to do something like order new elections, not to make actual decisions.

Properly handled (the way both the British and the Dutch do) it would add a touch of class to the functioning of government.
dislike button required for this opinion.


#13    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:00 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 29 January 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

I do hope Queen Elizabeth doesn't do this.

I think Charles probably will, as soon as the Queen does so because of health or dies.


#14    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:42 AM

Well no one reads carefully but instead reads what they think.  I did not say that a royal family would do the electing; I left that unstated but imagine it would either be a popular referendum or parliament.

Also why the fear of a constitutional monarch; I spelled out that any political power they had would be extremely limited.

The reason for two royal families is to serve as an additional check on them; they couldn't act unless both agreed.

There are many other ways this could be done, of course, and the monarch would not necessarily have to come from a specific family.  Still, doing it one of these other ways loses a lot.


#15    keithisco

keithisco

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,457 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:18 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 30 January 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

Well no one reads carefully but instead reads what they think.  I did not say that a royal family would do the electing; I left that unstated but imagine it would either be a popular referendum or parliament.

Also why the fear of a constitutional monarch; I spelled out that any political power they had would be extremely limited.

The reason for two royal families is to serve as an additional check on them; they couldn't act unless both agreed.

There are many other ways this could be done, of course, and the monarch would not necessarily have to come from a specific family.  Still, doing it one of these other ways loses a lot.

The UK is already a Constitutional Monarchy who wield no Political Power that cannot be overturned by parliament. So that part of your argument doesn't add up. As they (the Monarchy) have no power then there is no need to have 2 sets of Monarchy





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users