Abdication of Queen Beatrix and Succession of Prince Willem-Alexander Megathread

[Deleted]

Not sure what word is appropriate, so I'll settle on congratulating the Dutch on their new king

It'll be a while before we replace our own Margrethe II with Frederik X, as there is no tradition for Danish monarchs abdicating. The last one to do so was Christian II back in 1523, and that was only because he was losing the civil war badly. Even the mentally unstable Christian VII remained king until his death, despite his son being the de facto ruler for the last 24 years of his reign.

[Cairhiin]

I'm Dutch, don't really live there anymore but I still want to congratulate King Willem-Alexander! I also would like to show my appreciation for Beatrix and her excellent rule, if Alexander is half as good then he'll do fine.

Je Maintiendrai!

Not sure what word is appropriate, so I'll settle on congratulating the Dutch on their new king

It'll be a while before we replace our own Margrethe II with Frederik X, as there is no tradition for Danish monarchs abdicating. The last one to do so was Christian II back in 1523, and that was only because he was losing the civil war badly. Even the mentally unstable Christian VII remained king until his death, despite his son being the de facto ruler for the last 24 years of his reign.

The abdicating seems to be mainly a Dutch thing, as Beatrix is already the 6th Dutch Monarch to abdicate. It's uncommon in the rest of Europe.

[Spectral]

Watch that video, it explains it all.

Nice video, thanks. I'd heard that basic claim before, but it's nice to see it laid out in a nice Youtube friendly video.

I still don't get monarchy though, if you know what I mean.

[Muzjhath]

There's talk about our king here in Sweden stepping down infavour of his daughter. But that really shouldn't happen for a few years since his granddaughter is still pretty much an infant.

As for the "Cost". Most royal families have estates that are either run by the state, or who's revenu goes into the state. That greatly offset their cost. If you only do some research.
If the Windsor family stopped being the british royal family. THey'd likely become more powerful in economical and political clout than they are today.

But on topic.
Hail to the new king of the Netherlands, let him reign well and bring prosperity!

[Laize]

Yeah that's at best being disingenuous and more likely flat out lying. The salary of the president is not the sole or anywhere near biggest cost of the office of the presidency.

Well, like I said, security is an expense, but since the President is the executive leader of the country, it's necessary to our national stability that he be protected. While I certainly don't wish the Queen any harm, I guess I just don't understand why she needs several palaces and regiments marching around Buckingham.

Which pays for the staffing costs of the Royal Household, the costs of State Receptions and Dinners and investitures, and other such official duties that a non-monarchical head of state will also have to perform.

The US taxpayers only pick up the portion of the bill the President incurs in state dinners. Everything about his living at the White House is billed directly to him.. and from what I understand it's like... ridiculously expensive.

---------- Post added 2013-04-30 at 12:18 PM ----------

You state that the UK Monarchy costs £33 million pounds, however simply from the lands Queen Elizebeth II owns she pays the UK treasury £226.5 million pounds in revenue. This is due to an agreement made by King George III in the 18th century regarding the state paying the monarchy a fixed sum per year in return for takings from their estates. Making her cost to the UK economy at a basic level -£193.5 million pounds (as in, thats a profit not a loss)...

She also brings in business to the UK through diplomatic connections with the Middle East Royal families, India, Australia, Canada and China (see here for one example) which economists estimate to be in the region of £44 Billion pounds to the UK economy. There was a thread discussing this very subject over the last week or so here. While the royalty of the Netherlands are not pulling in this sort of a return, I can almost guarentee they bring more back to the economy in relation to whatever their cost to the Dutch people is through taxes.

But go on, tell me more about how presidents are better value for money again please?

Have to admit. Did not know the Queen paid property taxes. You win.

Anyway, what salary does she draw for being a diplomat? Whatever it is, maybe tell her to not bite/pick her fingernails when she's on international television at the Olympics?

Hey, everyone loves poking fun at our Presidents :/

[Muzjhath]

Laize, the queen doesn't need those palaces.
They are owned by her family.
She gives up the full revenue (and running off) family estates to the English/UK state. In return she get's living expenses.

So she doesn't need the big fancy houses, but they are already in the family why not use them?

[mitbrandir]

I beg to differ....
Holland got 2nd place at the last World Cup in 2010. I am pretty sure they've celebrated that just as much, if not more..

And 1st on hockey on the Olypmic games with the female team, and 2nd with the male team. Aswell as gold on gymnastics

[Yogg-Saron, God of Death]

I still don't get why monarchy is still a thing.

As a dutch person, I fully agree. To me, all those silly traditions just seem like extremely involved roleplaying. Especially old traditions in this day and age.

[Deleted]

Edit: Just realised what a mess this will make of Wikipedia. I was trying to find out who all the people swearing were, and I came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...he_Netherlands which still listed Beatrix as Queen, as well as a load of references to the "Queen" and "she". There must be loads and loads of pages like that that will have to be hunted down and fixed

There's talk about our king here in Sweden stepping down infavour of his daughter. But that really shouldn't happen for a few years since his granddaughter is still pretty much an infant.

Is that really a problem? I mean, both Victoria and Carl XVI Gustaf were heir apparents for pretty much all of their life (if I remember my Swedish history correctly). Likewise, our (current) Crown Prince was 3 when he became heir apparent.

[Deleted]

Have to admit. Did not know the Queen paid property taxes. You win.

Anyway, what salary does she draw for being a diplomat? Whatever it is, maybe tell her to not bite/pick her fingernails when she's on international television at the Olympics?

Hey, everyone loves poking fun at our Presidents :/

I think she pulls in around £8 million pounds directly from the UK treasury as a "salary" so to speak. This has been frozen for the past eight or so years (will need to check to confirm that) meaning she has actually had consecutive pay cuts due to inflation. I think a recent amendment made to the taxation of her estates means she also gets 15% of that total back as well, which is a fairly large "bonus" to live on...

Overall, the people in the UK who are anti-monarchy (and want an elected head of state, ala France / Italy / Germany etc) tend to avoid discussing the value the British Royal family add to our economy. Their main focus is on their cost understandably, however using one sided information to promote an argument is never a good thing to do

[Deleted]

Edit: Just realised what a mess this will make of Wikipedia. I was trying to find out who all the people swearing were, and I came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...he_Netherlands which still listed Beatrix as Queen, as well as a load of references to the "Queen" and "she". There must be loads and loads of pages like that that will have to be hunted down and fixed

that's not that hard, i believe, depending on how Wikipedia is setup. usually the volunteers hunt such things down pretty quickly. the more obscure pages might take somewhat longer. for example, pages about a backwater country that keeps contact with the Dutch royalty where the queen is mentioned could go for a while without being found. then again, usually such references are either zeitgeist bound (related to a specific event) or generally referenced (labeled as head of state).

[Laize]

I think she pulls in around £8 million pounds directly from the UK treasury as a "salary" so to speak. This has been frozen for the past eight or so years (will need to check to confirm that) meaning she has actually had consecutive pay cuts due to inflation. I think a recent amendment made to the taxation of her estates means she also gets 15% of that total back as well, which is a fairly large "bonus" to live on...

Overall, the people in the UK who are anti-monarchy (and want an elected head of state, ala France / Italy / Germany etc) tend to avoid discussing the value the British Royal family add to our economy. Their main focus is on their cost understandably, however using one sided information to promote an argument is never a good thing to do

Question. If the Queen's income sits at 8 million pounds but her property taxes are over 200 million, how is the royal family not bankrupt?

[Deleted]

Question. If the Queen's income sits at 8 million pounds but her property taxes are over 200 million, how is the royal family not bankrupt?

Because she gives the government the profit, as in overheads taken out first. The royal lands are very self sufficient.

[Deleted]

If a majority in country X favors the grand-grand-grand ... grand-grand child of some tribal leader in a hereditary PR position, thats fine with me as citizen of country Y.

[Deleted]

Question. If the Queen's income sits at 8 million pounds but her property taxes are over 200 million, how is the royal family not bankrupt?

The property taxes paid from the Royal family are more akin to a corporation tax, so are only paid on the profits (as in ALL of the profits, minus the 15%).

Trust me, they receive more than enough money to lead a very nice life on the £0.55 per person we pay in taxes to them. The money they put back in to the economy works out at paying £3.61 per person LESS in tax. And that figure is only from the income from their property (approx £217 million) and not the full economic worth of the Royal family (in the region of £44 billion, or £733.33 per person).

[Laize]

The property taxes paid from the Royal family are more akin to a corporation tax, so are only paid on the profits (as in ALL of the profits, minus the 15%).

Trust me, they receive more than enough money to lead a very nice life on the £0.55 per person we pay in taxes to them. The money they put back in to the economy works out at paying £3.61 per person LESS in tax. And that figure is only from the income from their property (approx £217 million) and not the full economic worth of the Royal family (in the region of £44 billion, or £733.33 per person).

Ahhh okay. So they're not just homes, but income properties as well. Got it.

[Vorondil]

Because in Europes modern monarchies we get trained diplomats that can help the state as the head. Instead of people squabiling for popularity.

Roflol, you can train a monkey to do what these people do, you cannot compare a president to a monarch.

In Belgium we have the flamboyant Laurent who's specialized in driving ferrari's and talking to corrupt foreign politicians, due to the fact he doesn't get elected, he can easily get away with this, yes, we did threaten to take away his toys (money) but we actually did jack shit.
We also have Fabiolalalalalala who tried frauding the belgium state of taxes.
And then we have the to-be-king Filip, he's just a dumbass who was fortunate enough to sprout from "royal blood", not even close to being a trained diplomat.
And we also have his royal highness Albert (who cheated on his wife (now the queen): -> Delphine).

Yes, these really are the people I want to represent my country... NOT.

[Eliot123]

I think it's pretty awesome. ^_^ Having a king/queen in this day and age seems pretty neat.

I'm not from the Netherlands but I love the country and I have many friends there (hopefully I will move there one day).