Sunday, January 29, 2012

Royal News Roundup

Tuesday saw some great royal news in Denmark when Prince Joachim and Princess Marie welcomed a healthy new princess into the Danish Royal Family, the second child of Princess Marie and the fourth for Prince Joachim (having had two sons by his ex-wife Alexandra Manley). We of course sent our most heartfelt congratulations to the happy couple! Further north in Sweden, Crown Princess Victoria has gone on maternity leave in preparation for the arrival of her firstborn, leaving little brother Prince Carl Philip to pick up the slack in royal duties. On Wednesday he handed out the “Chef of the Year” award to Klas Lindberg for his prize-winning fried steak and lobster dish. Meanwhile, Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway joined other royals and world leaders in Switzerland for the 42nd World Economic Forum in Davos, a gathering of international big-shots to discuss ways to improve economic conditions for people around the world. They certainly have a lot to work on when it comes to that subject these days.

In southern Europe, Their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain and Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Asturias welcomed the President and First Lady of the South American nation of Peru at the Royal Palace where a special reception was held followed by a formal banquet. HM King Juan Carlos said that, “Peru and Spain maintain a fraternal relationship that is based on history, culture, language and common values” and that, “Peruvians living in Spain and the Spanish who live in Peru contribute to the further strengthening of our ties”. The King also discussed the trade agreements between the two countries and Spanish business investments in Peru which has been a great help to the Peruvian economy. The King closed his remarks by saying that Spain sees the South American country as a, “sister and friend, and it is committed to the projects of progress and welfare for the beloved people of Peru”.

In Great Britain the republican crowd threw another treasonous temper-tantrum this week with Graeme Smith calling the Duchess of Cornwall a “criminal” for, of all things, supporting a school project to have children design dishes for the upcoming Diamond Jubilee (as in a menu, not making plates to eat off of). I suppose the American school children who were taught songs of praise for President Barrack Hussein Obama (mmm,mmm,mmm) would have been perfectly acceptable to him but have British youngsters prepare some tasty treat for a milestone in the history of the monarchy of their country and it’s “criminal”! It never fails to baffle me to hear republicans in a constitutional monarchy howl at the very system so tolerant as to allow them to spew their treason whereas in republics such as France, Germany or Italy it is actually enshrined in law that the government can never, ever be anything but a republic -whether the people want a monarchy or not. One of the most highly placed traitors in the Commonwealth, Australian PM Julia Gillard, got mud on her face after claiming that Australian taxpayers had to foot the bill for gifts handed out by the Queen during her last visit to Australia. Later she had to back down since, after this aroused a clamor among Aussie republicans, the Palace put out the information that the Royal Household had paid for the gifts, which had a total price tag of about £10,000. It always makes me laugh to see socialists who never met an expenditure they didn’t like, who will shell out billions to bums, business buddies and foreign countries suddenly turn so penny-pinching when it comes to the monarchy.

There were commemorations in Germany this week marking the 300th anniversary of the birth of King Frederick the Great of Prussia on Tuesday. HIRH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia, head of the House of Hohenzollern and newlywed, was invited to speak at the Berlin Concert Hall on the occasion, which he did very well. The Prince talked about King Friedrich II and how he was regarded as ‘one of the family’ by the subsequent generations of Hohenzollerns and said it was an occasion for everyone to think about their own families as he thought about his own. Nothing flashy, nothing grandiose, but nice. I was a little surprised he was asked since we have recently seen other historic anniversaries celebrated by republics in which the royal heirs of those directly involved were snubbed by the government.

In royal news on the opposite side of the world, HM Queen Sirikit and daughter Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn of Thailand were out on Monday to celebrate the lunar New Year in the Chinese district of Bangkok. They were accompanied by the Chinese Vice Minister of Culture Li Xiaojie who also expressed the condolences of the Chinese government for the devastating floods Thailand experienced last year. The Queen and Princess wore red, the color of good fortune in the Far East. Festivities will continue until January 30. Also, over in the Pacific Kingdom of Tonga, Prince ‘Ulukalala, second-in-line to the Tongan throne, celebrated his engagement to his second cousin the Hon. Sinaitakala Fakafanua at a party in Sydney, Australia. The wedding is set to take place on May 4th of this year. There has evidently been some concern recently over the lack of suitable royal consorts for the Kingdom of Tonga with the descendants of past dynasties and noble families becoming in ever shorter supply. In due time they may have to go abroad or follow the European trend of going ‘common’ to keep the Royal Family going. We wish them all the best.


  1. Hello. I came across this blog today. I have been reading through some of your articles. I just had some questions about monarchy:

    1. You have mentioned in previous posts the idea that no King has the right to deprive people arbitrarily of their private property. Couldn't one argue that an assembly/council is absolutely necessary to make sure that no King becomes arbitrary and takes personal property? When a King breaks his oath to care more about his people than himself, does society not need some body that can compel him if necessary?

    2. It has been mentioned that monarchs are trained from a young age to rule. But what about situations where a young prince does not want to be a ruler? Or situations where there are many children and they become jealous and squabble over the throne, causing a bitter family divide and civil war?

    3. What about prejudice towards people in the lower classes? I fear that when one has a king and noble class in charge of everything, they may come to believe that the people of the lower classes have no ability to produce genius and be worthy of respect. Let us say that a person born into a poor family became a brilliant thinker. I fear that many in the nobility and possibly even monarchy would never think to listen to them because of where they were born. It would seem to me that an aristocracy of talent, which anyone could earn their way into, is preferable.

    1. First of all, as I always saw when these questions are asked (over and over again) there is not, in my firm opinion anyway, any perfect system this side of paradise. You can always come up with a "what if". So long as human being are inperfect, corruptible creatures there will never be a system that is 100% fail safe. Many people think if they come up with just the right system or just the right ideology (and force everyone to adhere to it) everything will be perfect and they can be as lax and immoral as they want to and the "system" will take care of everything. I do not subscribe to that belief. That being said:

      1. Show me a country where this is a problem because I know of no such monarchy in the world where the monarch is absolutely, positively untouchable. I don't "do" hypotheticals as it is usually pointless and leaves no one satisfied. Cite me an example where this scenario is a possibility. And if there were such a body to compel a bad king to do something, who would there be to compel that body if it misused its power? Who watches the watchers? Today, monarchies are established by law and they can be removed by (what are nominally "their") governments. Even in the past when monarchies were established by "divine right" there were still the religious authorities who were above them.

      2. Again, cite me a specific example. Civil wars and coups are much more common in republics due to feuding generals, politicians who are sore losers or elections that are contested. I know of no system in all of human history that was proof against treason or rebellion.

      3. What about prejudice towards people in the upper classes? Why is that seemingly okay? Again, cite me an example of this today. Merit is always part of aristocracy. Horatio Nelson was the common-born son of a preacher but by his merits he rose to the rank of admiral and by his victories was awarded a place in the aristocracy. I know of no country today where aristocrats rule anything, indeed today a noble title is more of a detriment than a benefit. Ask anyone in almost any country if they would rather be an aristocrat or a celebrity and I'd wager I know which they would choose.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...