Call him old-fashioned, but Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg believes that the purpose of a monarchy is embody the country's fundamental and abiding values (in Europe and her Diaspora, those of classical, historic, mainstream Christianity, itself the synthesis of the Biblical and Classical traditions) from each age to the next.
He has therefore vetoed a Bill to legalise the killing off of the inconveniently old, sick or disabled.
So he is to be stripped of his powers.
But who will then have to sign any Bill before it comes into effect?
Who, indeed...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Call him old-fashioned, but Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg"
ReplyDeleteFunniest. Line. Ever.
Maybe they will get one of his relatives. King Baudouin of Belgium refused to sign a bill authorising abortion, so he abdicated for 24 hours so his nephew (and now present crown prince) could sign as regent.
ReplyDeleteOf course the Luxemburgers might be looking at the Swedish model. Since 1975 all acts of Parliament automatically become law when passed by the Riksdag unless they are challenged on constitutional grounds. I believe the Talman (the Speaker) declares the bill law when the legislative process is complete.
Carl Gustav of course does not appoint government ministers either. The Talman orders an election for the Prime Minister, swears him in and the cabinet. The King however witnesses these things and acts as MC.
Carl Gustav accredits diplomats, represents the country etc (he sits on the government's foriegn affairs committee to assist on this matter).
But not really much else apart from being his country's chief rep.
Why, Frederick? He's only 53.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, it is republics that look like relics of Modernity carried over anachronistically into the Postmodern world.
At least if they derive (as almost all of them do) from the French Revolution, then their entire founding 'mythoi' have now been demolished both philosphically and in practice (Marxism, Fascism, neoliberal economics, neoconservatism).
They never work, anyway. They are like the closely related "separation of Church and State" (only enforceable on the State's part, and most devoutly upheld by people who do not meet at least once per week, nor have prominent building for the purpose, &c) in that regard. That never works, either.
Constitutional monarchies give a constitutional outlet to people's natural instincts and inclinations, but within a more or less (but, mercifully, not totally) democratic framenwork.
In republics, on the other hand, people prostrate themselves to absolute monarchs, elected or otherwise, whose position just happens not to be hereditary, or at least not in theory. They also very often obsess over the gossip surrounding other people's Royal Families, not least including our own. And where applicable, they will remain heavily dependent on traditional leaders, such a our own deposed Royal Family would become, if we were lucky.
Alternatively, they might become as the Stuarts or their Bourbon cousins became, a focus for every conceivable form of dissent for at least a century, and a prolonged, even permanent, challenge to the legitimacy of the State itself.
Just as I expect countries to leave the Euo (another classic piece of Modern anachonism) sooner rather than later, so I expect countries to resume their monarchies sooner rather than later, as well. And specifically on the British model, I might add. Russia looks like a good bet.
David, you're like one of those talking dolls sometimes - pull the string and off you go.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see that you can't answer any of the points.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing "old-fashioned" about monarchies. There are 10 in Europe (12 if you count Andorra and the Vatican), all in the western part. A further 15 sovereign states and numerous other territories entirely voluntarily retain their links to our monarchy, which is also their monarchy severally and collectively. Are Canada, Australia and New Zealand up to date enough for you?
Monarchies are what people really want and need. If they don't have them, then they borrow other people's (the French and the Americans are both obsessed with the Windsors, as the French also are with the Grimaldis) and invent their own next-best-things (there is serious talk of Hillary
Frederick doesn't approve of backward places like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium or Luxembourg.
ReplyDeleteHe prfers the progressive paradise of China or somewhere.
It cannot be a coincidence - indeed, it is not a coincidence - that a far higher proportion of monarchies than of republics are democracies.
ReplyDeleteIs that what Frederick considers "old-fashioned" about them?
If so, is he a traditional Leninist, or has he carried it over (via Trotsky, via Shachtman) into union with the thought of Leo Struass and Ayn Rand?
Yes indeed neoconservatism is a threat to the monarchy. Do you think that the Harry's Place writers are monarchists? Or that Oliver Kamm is?
ReplyDeleteRepublicanism grew and grew under the prolonged neocon government recently overthrown in Australia. That party is now led by the man who led the yes campaign in the last referendum.
The parent body in America sees monarchies as embodying the independence from the USA of eight West European countries (10 if you include Monaco and Liechtenstein, 12 if you include the Vatican City State and Andorra) and 16 English-spaeking democracies round the world. So monarchies have got to go.
Exactly.
ReplyDeleteNeoliberal economics, libertarian social policy and neoconservative foreign policy are inseparable, and none is compatible with monarchy, not least (though not only) because the institution itself embodies entirely different values, as Grand Duke Henri clearly understands.
The Australian Liberal Party adopted neoliberal economics, libertarian social policy and neoconservative foreign policy years ago, anti-monarchism grew under its rule, and it is now led by Michael Turnbull. That party is a major Cameron Project role model. If he himself were not related to the Queen...
Of course, a great many of the countries retaining the Queen as Head of State are in the Americas, and the United States shares with one of them the longest land frontier in the world. Much American thought has never accepted that they are rightfully independent at all - the Founding Fathers assumed that their new country would embrace all the British possessions in the Americas.
But they will remain independent. So long as they retain the monarchy.
Why would I want to "answer" any of your points? I never claimed to disagree with any of them in the first place. As usual, you're arguing with someone who exists only in your own head.
ReplyDeleteWe,, what DID your first comment mean, in that case?
ReplyDeleteThat your line was really funny. That's all.
ReplyDeleteBack on-topic, please.
ReplyDeleteThis is the topic - that monarchies are anything but old-fashioned, and are a vital bulwark against (among much else) neoliberal economics, libertarian social policy and neoconservative foreign policy, so that they must not be relegated to a "purely ceremonial" role.
ReplyDeleteOne for The Aberdonian, which will become a republic first, Scotland or Canada?
ReplyDeleteHe'll no doubt answer, but I say that neither will while the other doesn't. The monarchy in Scotland guarantees it in Canada, and the monarchy in Canada guarantees it in Scotland.
ReplyDelete