07-07-2002 00:39									#61
	Remove this text

St. Marcus, re: Prez vs. Monarch: You seem to be assuming the President is useless. Then why get one? The real comparison should then be between Monarch and "nothing," in which nothing's costs are clearly less.

mindseye: Don't miss out this time! I know everytime I see a Historical Filth, I copy it, paste it into notepad, save it onto my hard drive, add "by Peter Ingraham," send it off to an important magazine, and collect my check for fabulous amounts of money. You should all do the same!

	07-07-2002 02:59									#62
	Remove this text

quote: The real comparison should then be between Monarch and "nothing," in which nothing's costs are clearly less.

It would even cost us money. The Queen and family pay taxes. And a quite substantial amount at that. The main cost the taxpayer has to pay up, are for upkeep of the palaces and the like. These magnificent buildings would have to be kept up regardless if we had a monarchy or not.

quote: To the extent that a president with the whole exective power is "better" than a PM elected by paliament, the constitutional monarchies of Europe actually impose a very high cost.

Why on earth do you believe a president is better than a PM? Because the people can chose him directly? That also doesn't hold, since we are looking into the possibility of a directly elected PM (and idea I very much oppose btw). Other than that, a PM and president have the same powers, the same job. So please back up your claim by some arguments.

	07-07-2002 04:39									#63
	Remove this text

Saint Marcus, they would also pay taxes if they were mere mortals

	07-07-2002 09:12									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus It would even cost us money. The Queen and family pay taxes. And a quite substantial amount at that. The main cost the taxpayer has to pay up, are for upkeep of the palaces and the like. These magnificent buildings would have to be kept up regardless if we had a monarchy or not. Why on earth do you believe a president is better than a PM? Because the people can chose him directly? That also doesn't hold, since we are looking into the possibility of a directly elected PM (and idea I very much oppose btw). Other than that, a PM and president have the same powers, the same job. So please back up your claim by some arguments.

Let's put it this way, are there any presidents where there are constitutional monarchs. I don't believe so. So monarchies do stand in the way of a strong, independently elected executive.

Whether this is a superior form of government is a separate debate. But it is clear that the post of PM evolved because there was a monarch. (Question for all, were the Frankish Mayors of the palace the first PM's.)

	07-07-2002 10:46									#65
	Put an end to popups!

Go ahead. Top her. Then we'll just have to invade to restore them.

But seriously... What would you replace them with that would cost less? And interfere less with a system of government that appears to work well, from a distance that is.

Go ahead, elect someone. They might actually get to thinking 'you know, I've got the mandate of the people...'

	07-07-2002 12:25									#66
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Who would I replace her with? I'd go for Oliver Postgate, personally. I think that gentle and slightly eccentric old gentleman would make a fabulous President. Or Tony Hart.

I'd also entirely fund the Presidential process from turning Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Balmoral, Sandringham and St James's Palace into hotels/theme parks.

In case anyone thinks there might be a shortfall, just sell off the Koh-i-noor and the Star of Africa and invest the proceeds. That should net a budget of about 50 million over 5-year terms.

The Presidential salary? I imagine that it wouldn't be required to match the Queen's present £10,000,000 per annum. In addition, dropping the Queen's exemption to death duties would also save millions.

Piece of piss. Next question?

	07-07-2002 12:30									#67
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Mindseye- as requested.


Historical filth- When Popes attack.

I've been having another rummage through the underwear drawer of history in search of the most entertaining filth, and this has lead to a lengthy trawl through the history of the papacy. What a shocker- if you thought the history of the kings of England was a convoluted and bloody one, you'll find that they were rank amateurs when compared to the popes.

"Death by natural causes" for popes in the first 350 years of the church was either being martyred by the Romans or starving to death in exile in Sardinia. For the next 1000 years, the most popular single cause of death was being strangled by your successor as pope. Among these unfortunates were good men and bad men, the wise and the ignorant, sinners and saints. To help seperate the wheat from the chaff I've decided to sling together a ranking of the worst popes of all time.

The selection criteria has been heavily biased away from political ineptitude and megalomania in favour of personal vileness. That's largely because most popes seem to have been pretty megalomaniacal and prone to starting wars and persecutions when there was nothing good on TV- had I focussed on these vices I'd have had to go for a top 100. Instead I've gone for the perverts, the corrupt, the murderous and the plain evil. I've also left out the scandals involving the first 600 years of the church (amusing though it is) simply because it's impossible to sort out the truth from the myth. So, specially tailored for your baser instincts, here are the ten worst popes of all time.

10- Sabinian (604-606).

Sabinian has a reputation for extreme for extreme meanness and avarice. Even in the most devout accounts there's very little said in his favour. This is probably due to his conduct during a severe winter famine in Rome when he refused to use the Papal granaries, preferring to let his people starve to death in the streets. Bless him.

9- Celestine III (1191-1198).

Not so much bad as utterly useless, Celestine was 85 when crowned as Pope, and already senile. He was utterly incapable of looking after himself, let alone the affairs of state and he allowed the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV to run riot, even going so far as to imprison the crusader king Richard I of England.

8- Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) (1492-1503)

One of the most infamous of popes, Alexander VI fathered bastards by the score and live a lifestyle more closely associated with the more decadent of Roman Emperors than popes. His papal bull of 1493 set the scene for the decimation of the native Americans by the Conquistadors. His offspring included Cesare (used by Macchiavelli as the model of "The Prince") and the infamous Lucretia who was never happier than when she was poisoning people or ****ging her brothers.

7- Stephen IV (896-897)

Kicked off his reign in a particularly entertaining way by having his immediate predecessor Boniface IV murdered. That might have been considered a tough act to follow, but he surpassed himself by exhuming the rotting corpse of Pope Formosus, dressing it in papal robes and trying it in a papal court for heresy- it was sentenced to have it's fingers cut off before being dumped in the Tiber. Eventually Stephen was imprisoned and, unsurpringly, murdered.

6- Urban II (1088-1099)

I said I was sticking to personal odiousness, but I had to make an exception for Urban II. His big contribution to history was to denounce those naughty Muslims as instruments of the devil and kick off the Crusades- the longest and most destructive war ever. It introduced the Christian notion of the "holy war" and set the seal on Christian/Islamic relations for the next 1000 years. What a bastard.

5- Innocent VIII (1484-1492)

Possibly the most inappropriately named pope ever, Innocent VIII was a particularly energetic persecutor of witchcraft. If you're looking for someone to blame for the "medieval holocaust" then he's a good place to start. He also unsuccessfully attempted to launch a crusade against the Turks, started several wars among Italian states, deposed King Ferdinand of Florence simply for running up a few debts, emptied to papal coffers then partially re-filled them by selling bishoprics. He is regarded as having the morals of a rabid dog with a raging horn, and (along with Alexander VI) he helped the cause of the Protestant movement immeasurably.

4- John XII (955-964)

Became Pope at the age of 18, probably due to the fact that his father was the dictator of Rome, and you could tell his heart was never in it. He probably spent far more time between the thighs of Rome's prostitutes than he spent on the papal throne. Despite plotting an armed rebellion against Emperor Otto, he was actually deposed for "dishonourable conduct". Restored shortly after, he is believed to have been the only Pope to have ****ged himself to death, dying mid-rut during a particularly energetic session with one of his mistresses at the age of just 27.

3- Boniface VII (974 and 984-985)

We're into the heavyweights now. Quite a few Popes murdered their predecessors, but only Boniface VII murdered two Popes (strangling Benedict VI and poisoning John IV). Naturally, one might expect that he might have ended up being murdered by his successor, but in a break from tradition he was in fact torn to pieces by an enraged Roman mob. Who could blame them?

2- Paul IV (1555-1559)

A real charmer here. It's a great injustice that by the 16th century Popes no longer to get their intestines pulled out and wound around a stick by ambitious rivals, because if ever a Pope deserved it, it was Paul IV. Utterly disastrous at politics and in handling the Protestant crisis, his reign saw the final secession of the English church from Rome. His anti-Spanish policies kicked off a major war, while his screaming anti-semitism resulted in his founding of the Rome ghetto and ordering that all Jews wear badges to identify themselves for more convenient persecution. Does he start to remind you of someone?

1- Benedict IX (1032-1044, 1045 & 1047-1048)

Oh boy. History has seen some disaster areas sitting in the papal throne, but this lad tops the lot. A teenager when crowned, his philosophy could be summed up as "If it moves- hump it. If it objects to the humping- kill it". Uniquely, he was Pope three times. His first papacy ended when the Roman population, incensed by his "violent and licentious conduct" rebelled and forced him into exile. Finding himself a bit strapped for cash, Benedict took the somewhat amazing step of selling the papacy to his grandfather, leaving Sylvester III as the only man ever to have bought himself the job of Pope. Twice restored, and twice more deposed by the public who had no intention of leaving a colossal pervert in the job, regardless of who's son he was. Benedict had the habit of excommunicating anyone who disagreed with him, or pissed him off in any way. Remarkably, after being booted out for the third and final time, he wasn't murdered but died of natural causes ten years later.

So that's my personal top ten. I could have missed a few, however. There's hundreds of them, after all.

	07-07-2002 17:03									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Delightful! Thank you!

	07-07-2002 17:24									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Let's put it this way, are there any presidents where there are constitutional monarchs. I don't believe so. So monarchies do stand in the way of a strong, independently elected executive.

???

Let's recap.

A. The Dutch PM has the same powers as the American President.
B. As said, politicians are looking into the possibility of getting a directly elected PM (like the President is in the USA). If this is done, we have a "strong, independently elected executive" as well as a monarch.
C. A directly/independently elected executive isn't better than an indirectly elected executive, per se.

Why do you think that only directly elected officials can be any good? Why do you think a directly elected official is incompatible with a monarch?


So far none of the arguments against a constitutional monarchy like we have in Holland, holds any ground. Also, if 90% of the people support the monarchy, isn't it a sign of "true democracy" that the monarchy is preserved?

	07-07-2002 18:25									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Ah, good. So that 90% is determined by an election, is it?

Or is it by some sort of vox pop survey on people seen buying "Gosh! Isn't Queen Beatrix a lovely person!" T-shirts?

Now you're saying that none of the arguments against a Netherlands-style monarchy holds any ground (other than the lack of democratic involvement). Presumably that's on the grounds that they're cheap and relatively inoffensive?

Well so's an Ikea futon. Hey! It wins on both counts. Stick a crown on it and curtsey to it.

	07-07-2002 18:32									#71
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Are there any pictures of those deformed Habsburg guys?

	07-07-2002 18:36									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Bear in mind that portraits are done to flatter the subject.

Don Carlos.

Attachment: doncarlos_head.jpg
This has been downloaded 36 time(s).

	07-07-2002 18:37									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Carlos.

Attachment: carlos2_round.jpg
This has been downloaded 36 time(s).

	07-07-2002 18:41									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The Habsburg jaw was probably more pronounced in real life so in profile they probably resembled bulldozers. Even in the half-profiles above it's still clear that they fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

	07-07-2002 19:18									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Ah, good. So that 90% is determined by an election, is it?

NIPO polls. Most respected and reliable poll takers in Holland.

quote: Now you're saying that none of the arguments against a Netherlands-style monarchy holds any ground (other than the lack of democratic involvement). Presumably that's on the grounds that they're cheap and relatively inoffensive?

Yes they're cheap. They make their own money and pay taxes. They are also quite popular. Furthermore, they don't have any real power.

And lack of democratic involvement? Who cares? They have no power anyway. If you take away their titles, they'll still be just as rich, and so will their offspring. Worse even, if you take away their titles they get more power, not less. At the moment, the law prohibits certain actions done by the royal house, if the monarchy should end the Oranges may very well expend their influence dramaticly.

So please tell me, what will be the benefits for Holland to change it's style of a constitutional monarchy to a German style republic?

	07-07-2002 21:45									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The prospect that should their offspring prove to be offensive and money-grabbing little tosspots they could be voted out in short order. Next question?

	07-07-2002 22:55									#77
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

They don't have any power? How bad can they make things?

You're reasoning does not make sense whatsoever. Yes, everyone knows absolutist monarchies suck, and everyone knows Britain sucks, but the constitutional monarchy does function very well in a number of countries, like Holland and Sweden.

The only argument you have against them is that you have a personal aversion of monarchies. Did you have a traumatic experience when you were little that somehow involved the British royal family?

	07-07-2002 23:29									#78
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The monarchy in Holland does not work one bit.
AWAY with THEM

	08-07-2002 00:22									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus They don't have any power? How bad can they make things? You're reasoning does not make sense whatsoever. Yes, everyone knows absolutist monarchies suck, and everyone knows Britain sucks, but the constitutional monarchy does function very well in a number of countries, like Holland and Sweden. The only argument you have against them is that you have a personal aversion of monarchies. Did you have a traumatic experience when you were little that somehow involved the British royal family?

Let's examine your own reasoning, SM. The only justification you're offering for the Dutch monarchy is that at the moment they're reasonably well-behaved, they are less expensive than something obscenely expensive and have no actual power. Are you familiar with the expression "to damn with faint praise"?

To introduce a possibility- would you continue to be happy with monarchies if your next King/Queen starts raping children? Would you happily respect their hereditary right to be your monarch?

My reasoning is that hereditary monarchies are unsatisfactory because they offer no democratic involvement and have no mechanism for removing bad monarchs who refuse to abdicate, short of revolution.

You aren't actually disputing that. You're saying that Dutch and Swedish monarchs are well-behaved. If you think my reasoning sucks, why are you not challenging it?

	08-07-2002 01:29									#80
	Increase Your PM Length

Interesting. Queen Beatrice's husband used to be in the Hitler Youth. I wonder if that might have cost her a few theoretical votes, if the Dutch electorate had any say in the matter.

Ooooh! What's this? "Prince Bernhard" and "bribery scandal"?

	08-07-2002 01:39									#81
	Tired of ads?

I will support my rejection of the Constitutional Monarchy with some 'case stusies' regarding the Dutch Monarchy. Apart from the fact that the Netherlands has a longer history of being a Republic then a Monarchy (respectively from the insurrection to Spanish Monarchs from 1568 to 1804, and Monarchs from 1804 untill now) thus heridetary rule can be disputed just by that.

I need only point out three cases in the post-WW II period, where it is clear IMO that the Monarchs DO have power, and this leads to big trouble.

In 1948 the grandmother of the current Dutch Queen abdicated. This was to a large degree triggered by the fact that she had been pressing for a less restricted role in politics than the constitution granted her. During her exile in London during the second worldwar, she had grown quite fond of her power, and the fact she had been able to rule without the influence of an elected Parliament and Cabinet. The newly reinstated Parliament were (offcorse) opposed to to a truly Reigning Queen, and the Queen was not prepared to take the old 'Powerless' position.

Her daughter became at some point during her Reign under the influence of a woman who was a sort of paragnost (or something like that). The Queen, who had given birth to a blind daughter previuosly, put a lot of trust in this women, and this led to several conflicts in the domestic area with her husband (also quite influential in the political Arena) and the Government. The Queen was heavily involved in several political disputes, and made governing quite a difficult task. Offcourse the whole heridatary aspect here made it very difficult to get rid of her.

This year the Crownprince got married. This has lead to great disputes in the government, since he fell in love with a girl who's father had been an important burocrate in the Argentinian Junta of Videla. So the whole circus of political (in)signifacance of this fact started, accompanied by the occasional 'faux pas' of the crownprince who saw his beautifull bride wretched from his hands by all this political bickering. In the end, the government dicide we had to get a safeguard from the Royal Family allowing in some way a dictatorial sentiment in their midst, and offcourse Holland was the great supporter of Human Rights Worldwide blablabla, and the best way to show the Dutch conceirn for human Rights was found in DISALLOWING THE FATHER TO ATTEND THE WEDDING! Pfew,what a marvelous feat!

So much for the Dutch Monarchy having no influence in Dutch Politics!
I would like to point out to Saint Markus that at the moment FOUR members of the Royal Family have the constitutional right to attend meetings of the 'Raad van State', the most influential non-elected body to advise the Government,and in the end the highest constitutional Court in the Netherlands. It has to be said they have no voting rights, but they have the right to speak in this body, so they have definately influence. By constitution the Royals that have rights to attend the deliberations of this Body are: the King, his or her spouse, the Crownprince and his or her spouse.

I say: get rid of them, if they are that great, they should get themselfes elected in Parliament, and who knows,they might end up being Prime-minister.

edit: Ron Jeremy: You don't have to look to the spouses our Royals choose, they are perfectly capable of ****ing up themselves

	08-07-2002 01:59									#82
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ron Jeremy My reasoning is that hereditary monarchies are unsatisfactory because they offer no democratic involvement and have no mechanism for removing bad monarchs who refuse to abdicate, short of revolution.

Your reasoning is faulty, because you obviously haven't taken the time to look beyond the UK situation. In Sweden, for instance, if we wanna lose the king all we need is one election and a majority in the parliament voting for it before and after said election. It needen't even be a qualified majority.

The fact that our parliament has been dominated by the Social Democrats - who have a change to republic officially stated as a goal in their party program - for the best part of 80 years without that happening should give a hit to just how popular such a move would be.

But should crown princess Victoria start to molest children after ascending to the throne, we'll probably give her a kick. Unless political correctness has managed to include pedophiles among the oppressed sexual minorities by then, of course.

So you really need a revolution not to end up with a tampoon for head of state? Perhaps you need one then. But get off other European cases.

	08-07-2002 02:01									#83
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Feelthy monarchist.

	08-07-2002 23:32									#84
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by moominparatrooper Your reasoning is faulty, because you obviously haven't taken the time to look beyond the UK situation. In Sweden, for instance, if we wanna lose the king all we need is one election and a majority in the parliament voting for it before and after said election. It needen't even be a qualified majority.

Moomin, dear heart, much as I'd love to look up the minutiae of minor nations I prefer to look at those capable at providing some degree of entertainment and from what I've seen of the Swedish monarchy of recent years I'd recommend it only to people who get dangerously over-stimulated by a cup of milky tea.

Besides, you're again calling my reasoning on hereditary monarchy faulty, but aren't challenging it. The Swedish situation may be an exception, but exceptions to to indicate the existance of rules, or at least overriding trends. Seeing as the Swedish monarchy was basically gifted to someone on a "you'll do" basis in recent years (by dynastic standards), to say nothing of the democratic safeguards, most traditional monarchies wouldn't recognise Sweden as being one.

	08-07-2002 23:39									#85
	Increase Your PM Length

I think Swedish parliament is just not throwing the King out because they, as a bunch of glasses-wearing weenies, just can't bring themselves to bring down Kaarle XVI Kustaa, the biggest cheese of Swedish glasses-wearing weeniedom.