The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 73

Poland will have a queen again


sobieski 107 | 2,128
4 Jul 2013  #1
Be it in Belgium.
King Albert II of Belgium will abdicate on 21 July 2013. On that day his eldest son, Prince Philip will be instated as the 7th King of the Belgians.

His wife Crown Princess (soon to be Queen) Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz is half-Polish. Her mother is Anna Maria Komorowska, herself daughter of Count Leon Komorowski and Princess Zofa Maria Sapieha of Krasiczyn, Clan Lis . Mathilde is thus related to Polish President Komorowski, but also indirectly to Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski

Interesting to know is that the Belgian Constitution does not provide for royal abdications.
patrik 6 | 14
4 Jul 2013  #2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Poniatowska

Elena Poniatoska probably would be a better candidate
OP sobieski 107 | 2,128
4 Jul 2013  #3
Philip has married Mathilde, so...
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
5 Jul 2013  #4
King of the Belgians

Why is that formulation always used? No-one says King of the Norwegians or Danes, do they?
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
5 Jul 2013  #5
I'd guess that he is the King of all the Belgians - the Flemish, Walloons and Germans. Makes sense if you consider how Belgium was formed and how the King is seen as a unifying influence.
Nile 1 | 155
5 Jul 2013  #6
Misleading topic.
OP sobieski 107 | 2,128
5 Jul 2013  #7
Why is that formulation always used? No-one says King of the Norwegians or Danes, do they?

This is because Leopold of Saxen-Coburg Gotha - later Leopold I of Belgium, was offered the crown by the people. This still has its consequences.

The King of the Belgians (next sovereign will be a Queen) becomes king by the grace of his compatriots, not by the grace of God. So the King does not stand above Belgium. He also always speaks of compatriots, not of subjects. The King only gets his throne when he promises the Belgians to guarantee their independence (in the

time NATO an antiquated formulation, nevertheless), and after he in parliament promises loyalty and obedience to the "laws of the Belgian people. The throne is not his, it is of the people and not opposite.

The King has to be neutral, he is a kind of referee. He cannot even sign contracts in his name, not even private. He has no right to voice his opinion in public. In fact he legally does not have an opinion. Everything what he does, say and act upon, has to be approved by the Prime Minister.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
5 Jul 2013  #8
Everything what he does, say and act upon, has to be approved by the Prime Minister.

So would it be exactly like the Queen of England or are there some differences? Apart form the obvious one of her being the head of the Church of England?
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
5 Jul 2013  #9
The King has to be neutral, he is a kind of referee.

He needs to be with the amount of bickering and squabbling in Belgium ;)
Barney 14 | 1,469
5 Jul 2013  #10
So would it be exactly like the Queen of England or are there some differences?

The English Queen plays a very political roll, she is not neutral and often influences legislation.

The very idea of monarchy is anti democratic, Poland will not have a queen again.
whyikit 6 | 102
5 Jul 2013  #11
I am assuming you are meaning the Queen of the United Kingdom, as there is no such thing as the queen of England.....

I do not think she has much if any political power...
Barney 14 | 1,469
5 Jul 2013  #12
I do not think she has much if any political power...

She and others in her family are asked and ask to review legislation, they have a veto.

Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills
guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
5 Jul 2013  #13
She and others in her family are asked and ask to review legislation, they have a veto.

I think it's done that way because the Queen and others have a long history and can see things from a long term perspective rather than the short term. I know The Queen at least is fearsomely well informed about foreign affairs, for instance.

Don't forget that she also had very bad relations with some people - her relationship with Blair after the Iraq War was notoriously cold, for instance.

But while she has a formal veto, it's also understood that should the Royal Family ever use it (except, perhaps, in a dire constitutional crisis with no escape) - then Parliament will immediately abolish it.
whyikit 6 | 102
5 Jul 2013  #14
I sit here corrected, again.... Dislike them even more now....
Harry
5 Jul 2013  #15
The government would be far more likely to call a general election in order to seek a specific mandate from the people. And of course it is the monarch who dissolves Parliament, so if they don't call an election, she can.

Dislike them even more now.

Why? A figurehead (or at least almost entirely figurehead) for each state is needed to counter-balance the government. Unlike elected presidents, the royal family cost nothing to elect; in fact they bring in a lot more than they cost.
jon357 63 | 14,124
5 Jul 2013  #16
She and others in her family are asked and ask to review legislation, they have a veto.

Excellent.

She can also declare a state of emergency and twice has had to choose a Prime Minister. On both occasions she against political advice advice - most recently when the 1974 general election had an inconclusive result and she had to decide whether to maintain the Conservative status quo or ask the Labour leader Harold Wilson to form a government. The decision was a sound one.
whyikit 6 | 102
5 Jul 2013  #17
Harry I wouldn't say they cost nothing. They do bring tourists in however this is only a real benefit to London and the south. I alsodislike a lot of what happened around Diana and the reaction of the queen and the royal family. Although the newer generation seem to be better. However the main reason is I do not like anyone who is not elected by the people and are put there due to blood right.
Harry
5 Jul 2013  #18
Harry I wouldn't say they cost nothing.

They contribute far more the tax purse than they receive via the royal list. Simple as that.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
5 Jul 2013  #19
amount of bickering and squabbling in Belgium

You mean there are countires that squabble more than Poland?! Not necessarily along ethnic lines but in terms of an overall 'squabble index'.
Barney 14 | 1,469
5 Jul 2013  #20
But while she has a formal veto, it's also understood that should the Royal Family ever use it

She uses it quite a lot to block bills that she doesnt like and to alter bills that may have an effect on her private income as does her son. It's totally undemocratic but if that is how the British like being governed why not make the political interference public knowledge, the exact details are still secret.

Unlike elected presidents, the royal family cost nothing to elect; in fact they bring in a lot more than they cost.

Of course there is no cost for unelected undemocratic institutions, Stalin cost nothing, and Pinochet cost nothing in terms of electoral expenses.

in fact they bring in a lot more than they cost.

Tourists will still go to England with or without an undemocratic head of state. Elton John or Mark E Smith could do the ambassador for Britain thing. They could do the arms fairs trousering backhanders as well as anyone so long as they held the position of power.

Excellent.

If you like paying for undemocratic institutions its great but why not pay another more frugal family to do the job?

However the main reason is I do not like anyone who is not elected by the people and are put there due to blood right

I tend to agree because their first loyalty is to themselves.
Harry
5 Jul 2013  #21
Of course there is no cost for unelected undemocratic institutions

The IRA cost lots of money. Did you have a point when comparing the British queen to Stalin? Other than trolling I mean.

Tourists will still go to England with or without an undemocratic head of state.

And the contribution made to the British tax purse by the Crown Estate, what about that? Oh, sorry, that doesn't fit in your usual 'bash the English' approach and so you ignore it.

They could do the arms fairs trousering backhanders

Prince Bernhard was a member of the Belgian royal family, not the British royal family. But why let truth get in your way when you think you have a chance to bash the English?
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
5 Jul 2013  #22
She uses it quite a lot to block bills that she doesnt like and to alter bills that may have an effect on her private income as does her son. It's totally undemocratic but if that is how the British like being governed why not make the political interference public knowledge, the exact details are still secret.

She doesn't use it. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of veto, but as we understand it - she can only use the veto by withholding Royal Assent to a bill.

As for the other stuff - I think someone that has been the Head of State for over 60 years might just have a wealth of experience to draw on, don't you think? It's no different to drawing on the Father of the House for advice, for instance. It's also worth pointing out that Her Majesty's Ministers don't have to listen to a word she says.

Barney, have you ever been to tourist areas such as Royal Deeside? You'd see the huge amount of money that the Royal Family bring in - not to mention all the utter crap sold on Oxford Street and so on.

Tourists will still go to England with or without an undemocratic head of state. Elton John or Mark E Smith could do the ambassador for Britain thing. They could do the arms fairs trousering backhanders as well as anyone so long as they held the position of power.

Actually, what's undemocratic about it? The UK could vote to become a Republic tomorrow, but no-one would be that stupid.

If you like paying for undemocratic institutions its great but why not pay another more frugal family to do the job?

Because part of the job is to act and look like royalty. In return, tourists spend a fair bit of cash on them.

I tend to agree because their first loyalty is to themselves.

I think many members of the Royal Family have done far more for others than anyone else on this forum. Their charity work is often deliberately under reported, for a start.

Don't get me wrong, they're not perfect - but when you consider the antics of the elected Heads of State in Poland, I'd much rather stick with our boring Queen.
Barney 14 | 1,469
5 Jul 2013  #23
Did you have a point when comparing the British queen to Stalin? Other than trolling I mean.

The British queen like Stalin is unelected, The IRA did cost a lot of money as did the British Army's castration and roasting people alive policy the link being that the people roasted alive were Black Africans asking for democracy, we know how you hate the Black liberation movement. The IRA is only relevant here because I am Irish and British Racists always throw that slur at Irish people when they have no argument.

If you cant defend an undemocratic institution that is guilty of political meddling without attacking the messenger that's fine but not very clever.

.

And the contribution made to the British tax purse by the Crown Estate, what about that?

That would become state assets it's very simple Harry

Prince Bernhard was a member of the Belgian royal family,

Prince Andrew is English

For someone claiming to be free of nationality you sure do raise the British Nationalist cause often.
jon357 63 | 14,124
5 Jul 2013  #24
She uses it quite a lot to block bills

No she doesn't. What makes you think that?

If you like paying for undemocratic institutions its great but why not pay another more frugal family to do the job?

They bring far more into the economy than they cost.
Barney 14 | 1,469
5 Jul 2013  #25
Royal Deeside?

Does anyone else get a chance to review and alter bills the exact nature of these alterations made by yer woman and her son remaining a state secret?

If the British like having an unelected head of state that's fine just don't claim that it's democratic.
Harry
5 Jul 2013  #26
No she doesn't. What makes you think that?

Barney is always happy to lie if there's even the slimmest chance that he'll get away with it and it'll make the English look bad.

the British Army's castration and roasting people alive policy

That was policy was it? Or are you just lying yet again? Why might you be lying? Might you not want people to be reminded of the countless murderers and 'kneecapping' that your precious IRA carried out?

you hate the Black liberation movement.

How many times are you planning to lie in this this thread Barney? I hate terrorists, regardless of their colour or creed or nationality. You appear to have that some of them as your heroes: that's your problem.

That would become state assets it's very simple Harry

No, the Crown Estate is the personal property of the monarch.

They bring far more into the economy than they cost.

Yes, but they're British and successful and thus Barney has two reasons to hate them.
jon357 63 | 14,124
5 Jul 2013  #27
lie if there's even the slimmest chance that he'll get away with it and it'll make the English look bad

Except people don't get away with it, not on here, anyway and anyone with half a brain can see precisely who it makes look bad.

Yes, but they're British and successful and thus Barney has two reasons to hate them.

Nail, head, thwack.
Barney 14 | 1,469
5 Jul 2013  #28
Barney is always happy to lie if there's even the slimmest chance that he'll get away with it and it'll make the English look bad.

You don't consider British courts a source of truth? That's fine with me think what you want.

That was policy was it?

Yes, as demonstrated in a British court.

I hate terrorists, regardless of their colour or creed or nationality.

Of course you do Harry as long as they are not in uniform implementing racist and sectarian laws.

Yes, but they're British and successful and thus Barney has two reasons to hate them.

I don't care where they are from I dont like them because they are unelected and meddle in political life the same reasons I never liked apartheid or Pinochet Anyone would be successful if given millions by the state.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,653
5 Jul 2013  #29
Barney, can we therefore assume that you were completely against those meetings held by Mo Mowlam in the Maze, or that you were completely against all those secret meetings that the British Government had with the IRA? I'd also assume that you were completely against any secret and classified meetings held with terrorist leaderships in the run up to the Belfast Agreement, too?
Barney 14 | 1,469
5 Jul 2013  #30
Delph the theme of the show is monarchy


Home / News / Poland will have a queen again
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.