Dutch queen to abdicate for son

[Still Waters]

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

[TheLastLazyGun]

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.

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 January 29, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[+OverSword]

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

[FLOMBIE]

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

[Frank Merton]

I do hope Queen Elizabeth doesn't do this.

[Frank Merton]

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.

[FLOMBIE]

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 January 29, 2013 by FLOMBIE

[Frank Merton]

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.

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.

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?

[Ashotep]

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.

[FLOMBIE]

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.

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.

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 January 29, 2013 by FLOMBIE

[FLOMBIE]

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.

[+OverSword]

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.

[ExpandMyMind]

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.

[Frank Merton]

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.

[keithisco]

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

[Frank Merton]

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

Yes, most of us know that Britain has a constitutional monarchy. Lucky Britain.

[FLOMBIE]

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.

I misread this as in the family members would be the ones voting for one of their own:

That's why the successor would be elected from within the members of the family[...]

Sorry, mate.

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

Fear? It's more of a question why we do not only need a single person, but one (or in your idea two) whole families who are in need of lots of money for their pompous lifestyle who do not have any real power or function besides having some sort of "class".

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

I do not think this could even put into practice. You forgot the mindset of these people. Do you think one family would agree on two or three consecutive kings from the other family? No way.

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.

Then why call it king? In Germany we have a president who serves this very function: He cannot be the member of a political party, he appoints and dismisses the chancelor and his ministers, he can refuse signing a law and thus reactivate the legaslative process, and has primely the function of guiding and representing the country. He is also doing that for "only" 199.000 € contrasting the millions a royal family costs. Who needs kings and queens? They do not fit into modern politics and are a relict from the past. What useful work can they be put to that a person of common birth cannot?

[Frank Merton]

"From within the members of the family" is not elected by the members of the family. Read it again.

[Frank Merton]

I think having a king and queen works better psychologically, aesthetically, serves better as a symbol of the nation, is given more attention by foreigners (and they are more pleased with royal visits than with anything else) and brings in lots of tourists.

[TheLastLazyGun]

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

Nowdays, unlike centuries ago, most royals marry for love.

Prince William loves Catherine Middleton so he married her even though she's a commoner.

[TheLastLazyGun]

I would not like Germany to have a king or emporer

I would not like Britain to have a politician as Head of State, as Germany has.

At the end of the day, the constitutional monarchy, not the republic, is the best form of governance in today's world.

Edited January 30, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[TheLastLazyGun]

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.

That never happens in a republic, does it?!?!

And it's worse in a republic because in a republic such a ruler has the politicial power, whereas Queen Beatrix and Queen Elizabeth II don't have political power. I'd rather have a sociopath becoming a constitutional monarch than becoming a president.

Edited January 30, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun

[FLOMBIE]

I would not like Britain to have a politician as Head of State, as Germany has.

At the end of the day, the constitutional monarchy, not the republic, is the best form of governance in today's world.

Actually, no. Joachim Gauck was a Pastor.

I just think that any kind of royalty is obsolete these days.

[TheLastLazyGun]

I just think that any kind of royalty is obsolete these days.

I don't.

I could argue that the republic is obsolete. After all, Ancient Rome was a republic and so was Ancient Greece.

[Antilles]

Republics are boring. Presidents last 4 years, 8 years, they're gone. QEII has been at the game since 1952. How many PM's and Presidents and dictators and tin pot wannabes has she seen off?