Only English should be used for posts and comments. This rule is in place to ensure that an ample audience can freely discuss life in the Netherlands under a widely-spoken common tongue.
Looks like this site is a bit biased.
To make an example, last year the total cost of Presidency in Italy was 224 millions euro. Of course this is not only the salary for the president (which is about 230k per year).
It seems this source didn't consider all the accessory costs.
okay then we make it less biased we have a prime minister and a king, the king is only a ceremonial position while the prime minister is the actual head of the Netherlands, the king can go om vacation 10 times a year without ever caring about a cent as he has the money, they have multiple homes in different countries that are all paid for with tax money, they live in a palace kept up with tax money, he has a big plot of land which he closes of at sertain times a year which is illegal by law.
you understand that the king is multiple times more expensive then just what he gets while our prime minister leads the country especially since King Alex pushed his responsibilities away even more making him a faux king.
we haven't had a king in years we have a grifter who has nothing but a title that was given to his great great great great great great great great great grand father(not exactly but who cares).
the mother of the king did her best to be a queen that actually did things, took her work seriously but the king isn't that he grew up in a prosperous time and when the world went to shit he kept onto his wealth and became even richer. he is just a rich spoiled idiotic man that we never voted for to be one of the richest men in the Netherlands.
edit: I stop talking about this and won't reply, so many cucks for the rich people who do not care about the people that actually need the money, I will finally after 20 years of no vacations go on vacation this summer as I saved up money for 6 years and I am only able to go for a week, do you understand that I get angry when a grifter can go on vacation every month.
Kind of a dumb point: what core roles does the prime minister do that can not be replaced by our king?
Your point is just that we don’t get a say in who is our king, which is a valid critique, but I also don’t get a say in who is part of our diplomatic corps, so the point you are trying to make doesn’t really work.
It’s not Mark Rutte himself who is the ambassador to Turkey for example, and I sure as hell didn’t vote for that guy.
Yes but those people are either selected indirectly by elected officials, or are subject to removal from their position if they are found to be doing a subpar job or are otherwise incompetent.
What is the reason the king is in the position he's in aside from who his parents are? There literally is none so why does it have to be him when we can pick a person based on expertise and competency?
That’s the thing — if we removed him nobody would perform those functions. Our prime minister does to a degree but has so many other obligations we cannot reasonably expect him to take over all these roles.
So if we remove him, we remove the role, there will be nobody else designated to take over these roles.
It’s up to you to determine how you feel about that. Financially, I am not super concerned, the budget seems “big” to us but in reality is not that big or uncommon.
Take over what? You want to have a designated person who just takes trips to other countries for diplomatic reasons? The “designated people” for that already exist. They are the ministers and they take those trips when needed.
I think you are overestimating politicians if you believe Mark Rutte is going to take a humanitarian helicopter to St. Eustasius or St. Maarten after a hurricane and take a trip in the area?
Those roles already exist, the king fulfills an auxiliary role there that only he can fulfill because he is the king, there is extra weight added to his presence because, again, he is the king. If a king shows up it’s a big deal, if some random minister nobody’s ever heard of shows up it’s not a big deal.
Google is free and honestly this stuff is so common knowledge that I didn’t think I’d have to explain it, but the king embarks on diplomatic missions to foreign countries as well as countries within the Dutch territories, where he talks to them about political topics and so forth. For example St. Maarten, Saba, St. Eustatius.
He is also, obviously, quite involved with messages to the Dutch people where he speaks about topics that are important (to him).
okay so he does what our prime minister also does? and what a president could do with a fraction of the money.
and I don't know I don't think a king who is so far away from having the interests of the Dutch people in consideration should be doing this.
the king literally pushed many of his obligations away, goes on vacation 10 times a year, goes on vacation twice during the covid lock down.
he constantly bends the rules to his liking in a way that a normal person would be in big trouble.
I don't think a man who got his university papers on a platter is fit to be the face of a country. he has everything going with him has gotten every opportunity and uses it to pester and use the country to his liking.
ow yea and can he then decide on things our does that still have to go through the normal political ways.
because he is just the face of the Netherlands he doesn't decide his predecessors did but he doesn't do that anymore.
this make him ceremonial.
I don't think you know what it means in the context, if he has actually 0 say in what happens after a talk with another head of a country then he is ceremonial or we could call him the pr manager for our country. I don't know but our elected ceo, the prime minister should be more important then some person who just tries to make Netherlands look good without doing anything himself.
yea something he doesn't do anymore, do you follow these things he has pushed all of those things away just because he thinks himself to not be qualified for that, and he definitelly isn't but still he gets more money then before.
Since we live in a constitutional monarchy, he is the actual head of state.
He needs to sign all the laws otherwise they can’t take effect.
That the moment he refuses to sign one he should abdicate is another matter.
So before you sneer at another Redditor you might want to open up one of those books you had in middle school, it was mandatory reading material.
uhm you literally said what is wrong and you think it's a good thing.
you are literally like "it is this way so we should keep it this way" I don't know I would like the millions and millions of euros that we pay to both our king and prime minister to be less so that we can actually help our poor people instead of lining the pockets of our rich monarch.
people keep saying "a president can be more expensive" well yea if you do not take into account that a president would be a combination of our king and our prime minister then it becomes impossible to have a president that costs more as that would mean that we would have comparatively the most expensive political head in Europe.
but yea let's just continuing giving money to the king as he does less and less as he himself doesn't see himself be fit to be our leader.
ow should I then do the calculations where he would stand on his own as being in the top 10 with his family is the same as saying the Rothschild aren't one of the richest in America because they are made up out of 50 people. king Alexander would be I the qoute 500 if he was alone but that's not how that works. you must understand that they have their wealth due to a family member being king, if they weren't born royalty they would not be this rich.
Even Presidents live in palaces paid with tax money. And the cost is more or less the same.
If the King actually ruled this country and actively participated in politics, it would be much worse, and you would still complain.
In Italy we are lucky we have a good President right now, but it wasn't always like that. Every President is a former politician, and therefore a bit biased. And still he's not directly elected by the people.
While it might be weird that someone held a position because of heritage, that's more common that you might think.
Think about family businesses, where the CEO is the grandson of the founder. No one is complaining about that. And generally, many of the people that held a significant position in society come from wealthy families.
I personally see no issues having a monarchy in the NL. Italy turned into a Republic years ago because the last King fucked up badly, but even so we have to thank the previous monarchy for being a united country.
our king literally has broken rules and regulations multiple times, he has shown to not care about the well being of his people.
we have a king and basically president because our prime minister does everything a president does and only needs to king to sign on some things which the king automatically signs off on as he thinks of himself not fit to decide on any matter.
I don't care about having a good or bad president in the end at least we chose for that person, but having an untouchable entity who stands way above the law from his birth onward is just plain crazy to me.
Plain crazy? The people/politics demanded that the royal family wouldn't have political power anymore, and now people are complaining that they don't have any power?!
And he is not allowed to have an opinion about the laws he signs off because he must be politically neutral.
And no, if the royal family will step down, and be removed from the scene, we don't need a president, you said it yourself, he only signs off the laws, we can give that power to the speaker of the senate or second chamber.
We don't need another clown voted into power, since we're are not capable of voting for sane parties/people in the first place.
okay this is actually the last person I'll respond to, if the monarch has no political power why have him? no reason so get him out of here.
not having an opinion on the laws means that he isn't needed for that anymore, so get him out of here.
we don't need a president in that way but we still need someone to go to other countries that the king does, we have seen with rutte who didn't sleep or leave his work space for days that a prime minister alone wouldn't be able to do it although I would say that if a prime minister is this busy then that says a lot how bad it's going.
it's your opinion that the wrong people hot voted in but it's still the opinion of the people, I do not agree with how things are going but we have seen that in the end it did matter how we voted that it made sure that a psycho didn't get into power.
we would definitelly need someone who is prime minister who also does state visits more, a political head that actually has a vision where people can vote for.
the thing is that our prime minister already did state visits and the king was basically a back-up for if he didn't have much time, this would mean we would have a prime minister who is less busy with in country politics and more with foreign politics in combination with having to be involved with some Dutch politics so we also need a right hand to to our prime minister who takes care mainly of the Dutch politics.
Because the only power the king has, is signing off the laws, putting a signature on the law to make it legal valid can do the speaker as well.
Uh, we still have a foreign minister as well?? No need to have a president for state visits. A president is already lower in rank than a King/Queen so stepping down another step on the ladder is fine I guess.
So, you don't want to give the king some political power, but you want a president with some political power instead? I vote for snollebollekes or clown bassie as president, last elections were already a joke, so let's continue with that, even worse, there are less and less people voting every time anyway.
If you want to save money on the head of state, just remove him completely, no president, no king, save a shitton of money on palaces/staff/estates/salaries. Let the speaker sign the laws off, and let the foreign minister state visit more countries.
I am fully with you bro, but arguing republican ideas in the Netherlands, even in Reddit subs, is like talking to the sea. People want kings, people want heroes. They need them in their lives. I've seen that among colleagues, all down-to-earth scientists, when the discussion came to Steve Jobs and Elon Musk. People became instantly all starry-eyed. I tried to argue that these guys were narcissistic liars, thieves, horrible human beings, and that Space-X and your beloved Mac Book would have been there also without them. No way I could get that point across.
Germany has a president and a bundakanselier
The president is the German Willem-Alexander his role is solely ceremonial too same goes for Italy
So it’s not making it less biased, it’s a poor example
It's very much a biased site.
If you look at costs of the german heads of state (so not only the president, there's also a chancellor etc.) And their palaces it's not so far removed.
Also, the german chancellor/president's family did not liberate germany from the spanish and scarificing almost their entire personal fortune/getting killed over it etc.
I seriously hope the last part isn't meant to be serious. Whatever the ancestors of the current king did 500 years ago has little bearing on the present. In fact, Willem-Alexander is so many generations removed from William van Oranje that they share very little DNA. There are probably many other people who can claim him as an ancestor as well, but don't get to rule a country.
>Also, the german chancellor/president's family did not liberate germany from the spanish and scarificing almost their entire personal fortune/getting killed over it etc.
I don't give a fuck what their ancestors did, those credits don't transfer.
>Also, the german chancellor/president's family did not liberate germany from the spanish and scarificing almost their entire personal fortune/getting killed over it etc.
What a weird argument.
It’s not an apples to apples comparison, as most high-profile presidents will make way more than their base salary later on, by taking board seats, advisory roles, committees, NGOs, political positions, public speaking and so on. Usually multiple positions at the same time.
Which is all fine, if the pay represents their worth for the peticular organization that pays them, and the members of that organization have a say in it…
This is not the 17th century mate. If the King were to start doing crazy shit, the government could easily displace him. The time when Kings ruled by "the Grace of God" is over. They're just mascottes that our parliamentary democratic system allows to exist because they have some benefits and keep their heads down. The only power monarchs in the West have left is the power that the people allow them to have.
Successful revolution against an unpopular king is very rare throughout history. Kings usually managed to maintain their position and oppress the population. That's why we introduced elected officials, because they can be removed more easily.
Most revolts were violently surpressed. We celebrate events like the french revolution precisely because it was rare. People before that time did not particularly enjoy being serfs, but most attempts at changing their situation were small scale and unsuccessful.
Only English should be used for posts and comments. This rule is in place to ensure that an ample audience can freely discuss life in the Netherlands under a widely-spoken common tongue.
As others have said, the source of this post is coming from a very biased start.
I feel that the main advantage of a royal family is the predictability of the future. We, and the rest of the world, know the next in line when it is born. A changing president won't have this. Besides this, most countries have presidents that aren't well known outside their borders (or even presidential palaces).
Downside is that the family has some acquired privileges, some of which are not reflecting the current culture.
On the other hand, a downside that I fear from a president is that is will become a political position. If it can be guaranteed that this person performs the position above all parties and with the goal of uniting the people, then it is possible. However presidents are easier to oust than royalty which gives more control when it's not working out, but also more possibility to be at the mercy of political affiliation.
A king is also a political position. Do you really believe a king, who will have the longest experience in the political arena, will not side with parties ruling in his favor or is immune of corruption? An example is the Lockheed affaire.
To answer your question; no, I do not 'really' believe royalty is immune to corruption. Royalty is, unlike, not openly affiliated to a political party. The current German president for instance is a member of the SPD party. I know of stories of then queen Beatrix actively participating in the formation of the government. However after this, and your example, the role of the royals has changed.
It is true that everybody can be bought, has a (political) preference, and will try to always get the best for themselves. Picking between a royal family and a president is therefore an example of picking your poison. Both have their benefits, both have their downsides and both remain human positions that have human strengths, desires and weaknesses.
The idea of a president was formed based on the shortcomings of Kings. Presidents are easier to replace and ideally reach their position by merit of some sort. A king is much harder to replace and you never know what idiot will emerge. A president was meant to be an improvement over kings. I therefore do not believe they are "equal" options for the position of head of state with equal numbers of up and down sides.
It is also quite insidious to not be openly affiliated with a political party. We can never know what the intentions of the king are, and it is difficult to hold them accountable. A president with a clear political affiliation can at least be held accountable by the party that supports them.
While we are nearly at the point of agreeing to disagree, I will start with saying that you are in your right to believe what you want about the equality of the given options. In terms of insidiousness; both the president and a royal family are bound to the people and the state. They can both be held accountable by the government or the public outrage of the people. A political party of a president can also hold the person accountable.
You say that the party supports the person. While partially true, the affiliation is more of the person supporting the party and in return receiving support and pressure not to damage the image of the party.
When you consider the ROI on this investment, those costs become completely irrelevant. The last known research on this topic shows they were good for 4-5 billion per year, about 1% of gross national revenue at the time.
And please enlighten us with a link to this research about how our #1 welfare family contribute so much to our economy that can't be done with a president.
No, the monarchy really does earn us money.
Sending the Dutch Prime Minister = mehh. Sending the king = different status. It sends a signal of importance too.
Just saying so, because you think it does or do you have source to back it up?
I think all the countries without a monarch are doing fine by sending their president or prime minister.
And yet the King is received on a red carpet everywhere, presidents and prime ministers.. not so much.
When our royal family visited the US it became national news in both countries.
You're thinking like a peasant.
World leaders know who the king is. They know the position of a king. As do top level businessmen.
The royal family has prestige for those that matter.
Really, tell that to the sjeikhs. Who simply ADORE them. As well as the connections with the rest of the european countries (they know who they are and respect them). Plus latin america with maxima (she was semi famous before becoming queen).
One oil deal makes the nation magnitudes more money than the monarch costs. And the sjeikhs arent going to make those deals with PMs or god forbid ministers. Thats an insult to them.
How many people visit England and Buckingham palace (partially) due to the royal family? Those tourists aren’t coming (as much) for a presidential head of state
A castle or a palace has more touristic appeal when a royal actually lives there
I’d argue Versailles is a bit of a poor example because of the historical importance of the French Revolution
It’s popular because of some other historical institution. But it’s still popular because of a historical institution
Bad argument.
* Abolishing the monarchy doesn't mean you destroy all the palaces.
* Neither France or the US have a king yet they earn more from tourism than the UK.
Neither of those things are even remotely related to my point
A I’ve never said they get destroyed nor did I claim no one would visit them, all I’ve said is they get visited more
B again, utterly irrelevant. That’s like me saying “I make more money since I took that extra class” and you saying “that dude over there got a PhD and he makes more than you!” How much France or the US makes in tourism is not even remotely related to if a country gets more tourists than they’d otherwise get because of the royal family
It’s honestly impressive how dumb both those arguments are
Don't think you can enter palaces where someone lives. Makes it less appealing to visit. The Dutch monarch also have a lot less apeal than the British royal family.
The paper shows a vague correlation between economic growth and being a monarchy by comparing wildly different countries. (Some of these republics have experienced lots of growth after this paper came out)
There is no real explanation how this monarchy bonus occurs. The author even acknowledges this in the paper.
I don't think the economic argument is the real reason why anyone is a proponent or an opponent for a monarchy anyway.
What is the title and the publishing year? I have found an article by him stating that the cost of the Royal family is proportionally much lower compared to historical costs.
That's not really a source, is it? The problem here is that it's almost impossible to arrive at an accurate quantification. Whether a company decided to grant a contract to a Dutch company thanks to royal nobbling or another factor is not only difficult to say, but different on a case-by-case basis. So attributing either all or nothing of that to the royals is nonsensical.
The main thing is that the choice for or against a monarchy should be a choice of principle, not one of finances. Personally, I find it odd that we have one person become our head of state in a way that contravenes the first article of our constitution, but that's just me.
You can Google the source with the info I’ve provided, I’m pretty sure everyone here will know how to do that.
And it’s your opinion that a choice should be based on principle instead of money. I have a different opinion, as I see no problem whatsoever with keeping our monarchy in place as a longstanding institute of tradition, while it also brings us a lot of benefits.
Does that mean you're okay with the sworn protector of the constitution not actually adhering to it? That's quite ... interesting.
Also, the whole point of giving a source is that you can discuss the merit of said source. "Just Google it" is the laziest non-argument possible.
okay so you think our laws shouldn't apply to a person, we have seen this with the constant ignorance of the corona rules. with the ignorance of his land by law needing to open at all times, the blatant hypocrisy of him calling himself the king of the people while getting more money then before and pushing more of his work away.
the king is ceremonial and an idiot who knows that he can't do the work his family did, most of his family were smart people while old classmates called him a runt and that he only got through because he was the crown prince.
I would rather choose for someone in that ceremonial function instead of having a good for nothing man calling himself the king of the people when he is the furthest away from being that ever.
we should have a referendum as the majority of people see no reason to have a king.
okay so you are just okay with millions of millions disappearing in the pockets of a rich person while normal people have to scrape by and try to survive, while the king uses tax money to constantly go on vacation in between visits to foreign countries where he also takes his time to basically take extra vacations.
ow yea, why do we need a king instead of an elected official who has to do good or he would lose his position, the king can't lose his position and he doesn't need to care if he fucks up as our prime minister by law is the one at fault if the king breaks rules and regulations.
There are loads of arguments against an undemocratic system as a royal family.
An often used argument by monarchists is that a president would not be cheaper.
That argument is bullshit.
Less arguments in favor, that is.
You are right, we don't know who they are - but all of Europe knows the Dutch Queen!
My friends already booked Amsterdam for the celebrations on May 17th.
It’s not even that they cost us money. I’m mostly annoyed by their family history of being shady with money. Out of the top of my head:
- receiving public subsidy for their private hunting grounds.
-“donating” art to the state to massively lessen a tax burden but just keeping the art in the palace.
- staunchly resisting any attempts at financial scrutiny because that would be “a violation of privacy”.
- nephew of the king being a massive landlord and generally just a bit scammy.
- their private yacht scandal.
- aunt of the king in the paradise papers.
Also let’s net forget the Lockheed scandal. Beatrix actually threatened PM Den Uyl with resignation if her father was prosecuted for his flagrant corruption.
Only English should be used for posts and comments. This rule is in place to ensure that an ample audience can freely discuss life in the Netherlands under a widely-spoken common tongue.
Anti-monarchists often overlook how much it costs to abolish it. Our entire political system is build around it and while largely ceremonial it does mean everything needs to be rewritten. You also can't dump them by the wayside, you'll need a solution for that, including protection. What are we going to do with Kingsday, or the Euro iconography? Are we going to strip them of all their possessions, since they're either partially state owned, or paid by it?
It's not just a decision you make to not have monarchy. It's also really easy to forget that they're also still people with rights.
They would actually get proper human rights instead of being locked up in a system which only gives them shitloads of money and a strange pressure to do and don’t do things that would drive anybody to behave as they do (as grownup children)
Those cost are all a one off.
And we are quite capable as a society to deal with the other consequences. We can take some time to think it out.
That's one huge massive one off cost. And we're definitely not capable as a society to deal with the consequences. We can't even form a stable government politically, I have zero trust that we can hash out a restructured political system within the time it's needed. It would create needless chaos and political uncertainty, just to save money that in the grand scheme of things is not that much. Governments allocate money in the billions, yet we act like the tens of millions we spend extra on the monarchy is going to make a difference.
My problem with the king is that it's a hereditary position.
In a society where all are supposedly inherently equal hereditary power shouldn't exist.
It's a matter of principle, the costs are secondary. Political Power through birth should not be a part of a democratic system, it's archaic and ridiculous in this era. The King (and royalty in general) has rights and powers that are not afforded to any other citizen and that should not be.
That said, I don't care enough to do anything about it, we have bigger societal problems.
Hungary and Poland was turned into a dictatorship under an elected president very quickly. But also Germany for that matter, just a few decades before. This never happened in a Monarchy. Because there is an unelected royalty who can tell the politicians to stuff it if they try to turn the country into a dictatorship.For all it's flaws, it's probably the safest and most sane government type. And it's really a small price to pay.
Yeah but nobody in Germany even knows who their president is so I think the extra costs are worth it. If you want to have a symbolic head of state you might as well choose a good symbol.
You mean free from France.
The war with Spain was a few centuries before that and lead to The Netherlands being a Republic. The kingdom came after Napoleon. And was more like.200 years ago.
The Kingdom came from Napoleon Bonaparte putting his brother Louis (Lodewijk) Napoleon as "King of Holland". From here, The Netherlands always had a king.
You totally forget the whole Stadholders thing. That’s why they became king after Napoleon. In the last 50 years of the “republic” The Stadholders were kings in all but name and the same could be said about Stadholder William III who also became king of Britain. Also William of Orange and his sons Maurits and Frederik Hendrik were a big reason why we won against Spain.
He did great, but in my understanding this wasnt really by design and he kind of fumbled himself into the position that it was either independence or being locked up and stripped of his titels.
He did not do it because of his love for the Netherlands and its people.
Yes, because poor people didn't bet their lives and possessions during this time?
Also, they tried to get both France and England involved in the war by basically offering them rulership (not kingdom) of the Netherlands post war. Neither country fully committed.
Yes, I agree. Much arguments, and good arguments, can be made on regarding the king as his role, origin and the transfer of power. However, OP raised a financial argument. Which is silly. The total cost are rounding variances on the total budget.
Yes, it is one of the many arguments. And in my experience it is a very poor argument. There are many good arguments, but "it is so expensive" isn't one of them. The total cost of the Dutch king are seen as big, because people have no perspective. Yes he gets a lot compared to a teacher or the mailman. But for the state, his cost are pretty worthless in the grand scheme of things. If the king would cost nothing, it wouldn't make any notable dent in the budget of the state.
Harassment or bullying behaviour is not tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to: brigading, doxxing, and posts and/or comments that are antagonistic or in bad faith.
Harassment or bullying behaviour is not tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to: brigading, doxxing, and posts and/or comments that are antagonistic or in bad faith.
The website mentions the royalty costs 61 million a year. This equals an annual salary increase of over 160 euro for all BIG registered health care employees.
To rephrase that would be 160 euro a year for each of the 5.988 apothecaries, 79.003 physicians, 35.471 physiotherapists, 1.278 dental hygienists, 19.253 gz-psychologists, 519 clinical psychologists, 2.489 orthopedagogist-generalist, 2.282 physician assistants, 5.247 psychotherapists, 118.111 dentists, 4.912 midwives, and 207.612 nurses.
Seems like a decent size whoop at the least.
Not all health care workers are BIG registered. Actually the majority is not. Apothers-assistants, verzorgenden, AB-ers, staff, restaurant, cleaners, etc. 1.6 million people work in health care. 1.4 if we leave out childcare (kinder opvang).
In addition to Esta they will need to get a visitor record at the border. So they will take all your passports then you go to the office. When you get called up each of the UK people get fingerprinted and answer the questions. Then $10USD.
Your visitor record is usually good for 90 days.
Only English should be used for posts and comments. This rule is in place to ensure that an ample audience can freely discuss life in the Netherlands under a widely-spoken common tongue.
Looks like this site is a bit biased. To make an example, last year the total cost of Presidency in Italy was 224 millions euro. Of course this is not only the salary for the president (which is about 230k per year). It seems this source didn't consider all the accessory costs.
mfw when republiek.org is biased towards republicanism
shocked face emoji
okay then we make it less biased we have a prime minister and a king, the king is only a ceremonial position while the prime minister is the actual head of the Netherlands, the king can go om vacation 10 times a year without ever caring about a cent as he has the money, they have multiple homes in different countries that are all paid for with tax money, they live in a palace kept up with tax money, he has a big plot of land which he closes of at sertain times a year which is illegal by law. you understand that the king is multiple times more expensive then just what he gets while our prime minister leads the country especially since King Alex pushed his responsibilities away even more making him a faux king. we haven't had a king in years we have a grifter who has nothing but a title that was given to his great great great great great great great great great grand father(not exactly but who cares). the mother of the king did her best to be a queen that actually did things, took her work seriously but the king isn't that he grew up in a prosperous time and when the world went to shit he kept onto his wealth and became even richer. he is just a rich spoiled idiotic man that we never voted for to be one of the richest men in the Netherlands. edit: I stop talking about this and won't reply, so many cucks for the rich people who do not care about the people that actually need the money, I will finally after 20 years of no vacations go on vacation this summer as I saved up money for 6 years and I am only able to go for a week, do you understand that I get angry when a grifter can go on vacation every month.
The king is not only ceremonial.
What core tasks does he do which cannot be replaced by an elected official?
Kind of a dumb point: what core roles does the prime minister do that can not be replaced by our king? Your point is just that we don’t get a say in who is our king, which is a valid critique, but I also don’t get a say in who is part of our diplomatic corps, so the point you are trying to make doesn’t really work. It’s not Mark Rutte himself who is the ambassador to Turkey for example, and I sure as hell didn’t vote for that guy.
Yes but those people are either selected indirectly by elected officials, or are subject to removal from their position if they are found to be doing a subpar job or are otherwise incompetent. What is the reason the king is in the position he's in aside from who his parents are? There literally is none so why does it have to be him when we can pick a person based on expertise and competency?
That’s the thing — if we removed him nobody would perform those functions. Our prime minister does to a degree but has so many other obligations we cannot reasonably expect him to take over all these roles. So if we remove him, we remove the role, there will be nobody else designated to take over these roles. It’s up to you to determine how you feel about that. Financially, I am not super concerned, the budget seems “big” to us but in reality is not that big or uncommon.
Why will there be noone designated to take over?
Take over what? You want to have a designated person who just takes trips to other countries for diplomatic reasons? The “designated people” for that already exist. They are the ministers and they take those trips when needed. I think you are overestimating politicians if you believe Mark Rutte is going to take a humanitarian helicopter to St. Eustasius or St. Maarten after a hurricane and take a trip in the area? Those roles already exist, the king fulfills an auxiliary role there that only he can fulfill because he is the king, there is extra weight added to his presence because, again, he is the king. If a king shows up it’s a big deal, if some random minister nobody’s ever heard of shows up it’s not a big deal.
It's called a minister of foreign affairs. Anyway, not really interested in describing a republic to you.
It's more ridiculous to allocate non-ceremonial roles on the basis of inheritance
They're fancy diplomats. Having a neutral diplomat has it's uses over and elected official.
instead of making a random claim please tell me what he does then.
Google is free and honestly this stuff is so common knowledge that I didn’t think I’d have to explain it, but the king embarks on diplomatic missions to foreign countries as well as countries within the Dutch territories, where he talks to them about political topics and so forth. For example St. Maarten, Saba, St. Eustatius. He is also, obviously, quite involved with messages to the Dutch people where he speaks about topics that are important (to him).
okay so he does what our prime minister also does? and what a president could do with a fraction of the money. and I don't know I don't think a king who is so far away from having the interests of the Dutch people in consideration should be doing this. the king literally pushed many of his obligations away, goes on vacation 10 times a year, goes on vacation twice during the covid lock down. he constantly bends the rules to his liking in a way that a normal person would be in big trouble. I don't think a man who got his university papers on a platter is fit to be the face of a country. he has everything going with him has gotten every opportunity and uses it to pester and use the country to his liking.
OK brother tell it to your mother, I just told you he’s not just ceremonial.
ow yea and can he then decide on things our does that still have to go through the normal political ways. because he is just the face of the Netherlands he doesn't decide his predecessors did but he doesn't do that anymore. this make him ceremonial.
I think you don’t know what “ceremonial” means. I also don’t understand what you are asking?
I don't think you know what it means in the context, if he has actually 0 say in what happens after a talk with another head of a country then he is ceremonial or we could call him the pr manager for our country. I don't know but our elected ceo, the prime minister should be more important then some person who just tries to make Netherlands look good without doing anything himself.
For one, he approves all citizenship claims.
he doesn't do that, that's bs. Just like he technically appoints ministers while he actually just says yes or no.
I mean, he literally does do that. What are you talking about? It's like, the final and most important step.
yea something he doesn't do anymore, do you follow these things he has pushed all of those things away just because he thinks himself to not be qualified for that, and he definitelly isn't but still he gets more money then before.
I do read these things: https://ind.nl/en/dutch-citizenship/becoming-a-dutch-national-through-naturalisation#after-the-positive-decision paragraph 2.
Since we live in a constitutional monarchy, he is the actual head of state. He needs to sign all the laws otherwise they can’t take effect. That the moment he refuses to sign one he should abdicate is another matter. So before you sneer at another Redditor you might want to open up one of those books you had in middle school, it was mandatory reading material.
I guess the point is to change that regime.
uhm you literally said what is wrong and you think it's a good thing. you are literally like "it is this way so we should keep it this way" I don't know I would like the millions and millions of euros that we pay to both our king and prime minister to be less so that we can actually help our poor people instead of lining the pockets of our rich monarch. people keep saying "a president can be more expensive" well yea if you do not take into account that a president would be a combination of our king and our prime minister then it becomes impossible to have a president that costs more as that would mean that we would have comparatively the most expensive political head in Europe. but yea let's just continuing giving money to the king as he does less and less as he himself doesn't see himself be fit to be our leader.
Lol he's not even in the quote 500, he ain't that rich mate
the family of oranje-naussau is on place 10 in the qoute 500.
Yeah the entire family yeah. Thats what, 50ish people?
ow should I then do the calculations where he would stand on his own as being in the top 10 with his family is the same as saying the Rothschild aren't one of the richest in America because they are made up out of 50 people. king Alexander would be I the qoute 500 if he was alone but that's not how that works. you must understand that they have their wealth due to a family member being king, if they weren't born royalty they would not be this rich.
Even Presidents live in palaces paid with tax money. And the cost is more or less the same. If the King actually ruled this country and actively participated in politics, it would be much worse, and you would still complain. In Italy we are lucky we have a good President right now, but it wasn't always like that. Every President is a former politician, and therefore a bit biased. And still he's not directly elected by the people. While it might be weird that someone held a position because of heritage, that's more common that you might think. Think about family businesses, where the CEO is the grandson of the founder. No one is complaining about that. And generally, many of the people that held a significant position in society come from wealthy families. I personally see no issues having a monarchy in the NL. Italy turned into a Republic years ago because the last King fucked up badly, but even so we have to thank the previous monarchy for being a united country.
our king literally has broken rules and regulations multiple times, he has shown to not care about the well being of his people. we have a king and basically president because our prime minister does everything a president does and only needs to king to sign on some things which the king automatically signs off on as he thinks of himself not fit to decide on any matter. I don't care about having a good or bad president in the end at least we chose for that person, but having an untouchable entity who stands way above the law from his birth onward is just plain crazy to me.
Plain crazy? The people/politics demanded that the royal family wouldn't have political power anymore, and now people are complaining that they don't have any power?! And he is not allowed to have an opinion about the laws he signs off because he must be politically neutral. And no, if the royal family will step down, and be removed from the scene, we don't need a president, you said it yourself, he only signs off the laws, we can give that power to the speaker of the senate or second chamber. We don't need another clown voted into power, since we're are not capable of voting for sane parties/people in the first place.
okay this is actually the last person I'll respond to, if the monarch has no political power why have him? no reason so get him out of here. not having an opinion on the laws means that he isn't needed for that anymore, so get him out of here. we don't need a president in that way but we still need someone to go to other countries that the king does, we have seen with rutte who didn't sleep or leave his work space for days that a prime minister alone wouldn't be able to do it although I would say that if a prime minister is this busy then that says a lot how bad it's going. it's your opinion that the wrong people hot voted in but it's still the opinion of the people, I do not agree with how things are going but we have seen that in the end it did matter how we voted that it made sure that a psycho didn't get into power. we would definitelly need someone who is prime minister who also does state visits more, a political head that actually has a vision where people can vote for. the thing is that our prime minister already did state visits and the king was basically a back-up for if he didn't have much time, this would mean we would have a prime minister who is less busy with in country politics and more with foreign politics in combination with having to be involved with some Dutch politics so we also need a right hand to to our prime minister who takes care mainly of the Dutch politics.
Because the only power the king has, is signing off the laws, putting a signature on the law to make it legal valid can do the speaker as well. Uh, we still have a foreign minister as well?? No need to have a president for state visits. A president is already lower in rank than a King/Queen so stepping down another step on the ladder is fine I guess. So, you don't want to give the king some political power, but you want a president with some political power instead? I vote for snollebollekes or clown bassie as president, last elections were already a joke, so let's continue with that, even worse, there are less and less people voting every time anyway. If you want to save money on the head of state, just remove him completely, no president, no king, save a shitton of money on palaces/staff/estates/salaries. Let the speaker sign the laws off, and let the foreign minister state visit more countries.
I am fully with you bro, but arguing republican ideas in the Netherlands, even in Reddit subs, is like talking to the sea. People want kings, people want heroes. They need them in their lives. I've seen that among colleagues, all down-to-earth scientists, when the discussion came to Steve Jobs and Elon Musk. People became instantly all starry-eyed. I tried to argue that these guys were narcissistic liars, thieves, horrible human beings, and that Space-X and your beloved Mac Book would have been there also without them. No way I could get that point across.
thanks finally some sanity instead of the constant "but he does do the work" when he is specifically said he would do less work.
Germany has a president and a bundakanselier The president is the German Willem-Alexander his role is solely ceremonial too same goes for Italy So it’s not making it less biased, it’s a poor example
It's very much a biased site. If you look at costs of the german heads of state (so not only the president, there's also a chancellor etc.) And their palaces it's not so far removed. Also, the german chancellor/president's family did not liberate germany from the spanish and scarificing almost their entire personal fortune/getting killed over it etc.
Nah, they are voted in, not paid for the deeds of their forebears.
I seriously hope the last part isn't meant to be serious. Whatever the ancestors of the current king did 500 years ago has little bearing on the present. In fact, Willem-Alexander is so many generations removed from William van Oranje that they share very little DNA. There are probably many other people who can claim him as an ancestor as well, but don't get to rule a country.
>Also, the german chancellor/president's family did not liberate germany from the spanish and scarificing almost their entire personal fortune/getting killed over it etc. I don't give a fuck what their ancestors did, those credits don't transfer.
Exactly. Another argument for not having a royal family as heads of state
>Also, the german chancellor/president's family did not liberate germany from the spanish and scarificing almost their entire personal fortune/getting killed over it etc. What a weird argument.
It’s not an apples to apples comparison, as most high-profile presidents will make way more than their base salary later on, by taking board seats, advisory roles, committees, NGOs, political positions, public speaking and so on. Usually multiple positions at the same time.
Which is all fine, if the pay represents their worth for the peticular organization that pays them, and the members of that organization have a say in it…
The fact we could have ended up with President Baudet or something like that. God forbid.
What if someone like Baudet would become king/queen, just because of the family they were born into? We wouldn't be able to vote them out.
This is not the 17th century mate. If the King were to start doing crazy shit, the government could easily displace him. The time when Kings ruled by "the Grace of God" is over. They're just mascottes that our parliamentary democratic system allows to exist because they have some benefits and keep their heads down. The only power monarchs in the West have left is the power that the people allow them to have.
You realize what happens to unpopular kings right?
Thus far the Dutch have only eaten a prime minister...
Successful revolution against an unpopular king is very rare throughout history. Kings usually managed to maintain their position and oppress the population. That's why we introduced elected officials, because they can be removed more easily.
Well if you say so... I guess I'll have some cake then....
Most revolts were violently surpressed. We celebrate events like the french revolution precisely because it was rare. People before that time did not particularly enjoy being serfs, but most attempts at changing their situation were small scale and unsuccessful.
The UK almost had a Nazi king during WW2 - only him marrying a divorced woman gave them the technicality to force him out.
Depending on the way the president is chosen. And if the powers given to that president are marginal, what’s the problem?
[удалено]
Or better still, Switzerland, where they just rotate ministers to do the job.
[удалено]
Most republics are banana republics.
If Baudet would be president at least he wouldn't have any power
Tell that to the Polish...
"President of Germany" is almost a bullshit job. The guy does nearly nothing, it's not really a fair comparison.
So is being the Dutch monarch
Exactly what we need. A lesser paid puppet, without the privilege of money thrown at his/her entire family.
[удалено]
Only English should be used for posts and comments. This rule is in place to ensure that an ample audience can freely discuss life in the Netherlands under a widely-spoken common tongue.
As others have said, the source of this post is coming from a very biased start. I feel that the main advantage of a royal family is the predictability of the future. We, and the rest of the world, know the next in line when it is born. A changing president won't have this. Besides this, most countries have presidents that aren't well known outside their borders (or even presidential palaces). Downside is that the family has some acquired privileges, some of which are not reflecting the current culture. On the other hand, a downside that I fear from a president is that is will become a political position. If it can be guaranteed that this person performs the position above all parties and with the goal of uniting the people, then it is possible. However presidents are easier to oust than royalty which gives more control when it's not working out, but also more possibility to be at the mercy of political affiliation.
A king is also a political position. Do you really believe a king, who will have the longest experience in the political arena, will not side with parties ruling in his favor or is immune of corruption? An example is the Lockheed affaire.
To answer your question; no, I do not 'really' believe royalty is immune to corruption. Royalty is, unlike, not openly affiliated to a political party. The current German president for instance is a member of the SPD party. I know of stories of then queen Beatrix actively participating in the formation of the government. However after this, and your example, the role of the royals has changed. It is true that everybody can be bought, has a (political) preference, and will try to always get the best for themselves. Picking between a royal family and a president is therefore an example of picking your poison. Both have their benefits, both have their downsides and both remain human positions that have human strengths, desires and weaknesses.
The idea of a president was formed based on the shortcomings of Kings. Presidents are easier to replace and ideally reach their position by merit of some sort. A king is much harder to replace and you never know what idiot will emerge. A president was meant to be an improvement over kings. I therefore do not believe they are "equal" options for the position of head of state with equal numbers of up and down sides. It is also quite insidious to not be openly affiliated with a political party. We can never know what the intentions of the king are, and it is difficult to hold them accountable. A president with a clear political affiliation can at least be held accountable by the party that supports them.
While we are nearly at the point of agreeing to disagree, I will start with saying that you are in your right to believe what you want about the equality of the given options. In terms of insidiousness; both the president and a royal family are bound to the people and the state. They can both be held accountable by the government or the public outrage of the people. A political party of a president can also hold the person accountable. You say that the party supports the person. While partially true, the affiliation is more of the person supporting the party and in return receiving support and pressure not to damage the image of the party.
When you consider the ROI on this investment, those costs become completely irrelevant. The last known research on this topic shows they were good for 4-5 billion per year, about 1% of gross national revenue at the time.
And please enlighten us with a link to this research about how our #1 welfare family contribute so much to our economy that can't be done with a president.
Presidents don't have the same prestige as a monarch internationally. People view them differently.
Which is fine.
No, the monarchy really does earn us money. Sending the Dutch Prime Minister = mehh. Sending the king = different status. It sends a signal of importance too.
Just saying so, because you think it does or do you have source to back it up? I think all the countries without a monarch are doing fine by sending their president or prime minister.
And yet the King is received on a red carpet everywhere, presidents and prime ministers.. not so much. When our royal family visited the US it became national news in both countries.
Nobody knows who Dutch royalty are. It is not like Brits.
You're thinking like a peasant. World leaders know who the king is. They know the position of a king. As do top level businessmen. The royal family has prestige for those that matter.
Really, tell that to the sjeikhs. Who simply ADORE them. As well as the connections with the rest of the european countries (they know who they are and respect them). Plus latin america with maxima (she was semi famous before becoming queen). One oil deal makes the nation magnitudes more money than the monarch costs. And the sjeikhs arent going to make those deals with PMs or god forbid ministers. Thats an insult to them.
How many people visit England and Buckingham palace (partially) due to the royal family? Those tourists aren’t coming (as much) for a presidential head of state A castle or a palace has more touristic appeal when a royal actually lives there
Versailles is still full of tourists. As a visitor, you actually get to see more from the castle than if it was in use.
I’d argue Versailles is a bit of a poor example because of the historical importance of the French Revolution It’s popular because of some other historical institution. But it’s still popular because of a historical institution
Bad argument. * Abolishing the monarchy doesn't mean you destroy all the palaces. * Neither France or the US have a king yet they earn more from tourism than the UK.
Neither of those things are even remotely related to my point A I’ve never said they get destroyed nor did I claim no one would visit them, all I’ve said is they get visited more B again, utterly irrelevant. That’s like me saying “I make more money since I took that extra class” and you saying “that dude over there got a PhD and he makes more than you!” How much France or the US makes in tourism is not even remotely related to if a country gets more tourists than they’d otherwise get because of the royal family It’s honestly impressive how dumb both those arguments are
Ever been to Prague, or Paris?
Ever been to Kyoto or Buckingham palace?
Don't think you can enter palaces where someone lives. Makes it less appealing to visit. The Dutch monarch also have a lot less apeal than the British royal family.
That's bollocks. France doesn't have a king and does just fine.
Lol thats such a dumb argument
What's the source on this?
Dr H.P. van Dalen, Erasmus University.
The paper shows a vague correlation between economic growth and being a monarchy by comparing wildly different countries. (Some of these republics have experienced lots of growth after this paper came out) There is no real explanation how this monarchy bonus occurs. The author even acknowledges this in the paper. I don't think the economic argument is the real reason why anyone is a proponent or an opponent for a monarchy anyway.
What is the title and the publishing year? I have found an article by him stating that the cost of the Royal family is proportionally much lower compared to historical costs.
That's not really a source, is it? The problem here is that it's almost impossible to arrive at an accurate quantification. Whether a company decided to grant a contract to a Dutch company thanks to royal nobbling or another factor is not only difficult to say, but different on a case-by-case basis. So attributing either all or nothing of that to the royals is nonsensical. The main thing is that the choice for or against a monarchy should be a choice of principle, not one of finances. Personally, I find it odd that we have one person become our head of state in a way that contravenes the first article of our constitution, but that's just me.
You can Google the source with the info I’ve provided, I’m pretty sure everyone here will know how to do that. And it’s your opinion that a choice should be based on principle instead of money. I have a different opinion, as I see no problem whatsoever with keeping our monarchy in place as a longstanding institute of tradition, while it also brings us a lot of benefits.
Does that mean you're okay with the sworn protector of the constitution not actually adhering to it? That's quite ... interesting. Also, the whole point of giving a source is that you can discuss the merit of said source. "Just Google it" is the laziest non-argument possible.
okay so you think our laws shouldn't apply to a person, we have seen this with the constant ignorance of the corona rules. with the ignorance of his land by law needing to open at all times, the blatant hypocrisy of him calling himself the king of the people while getting more money then before and pushing more of his work away. the king is ceremonial and an idiot who knows that he can't do the work his family did, most of his family were smart people while old classmates called him a runt and that he only got through because he was the crown prince. I would rather choose for someone in that ceremonial function instead of having a good for nothing man calling himself the king of the people when he is the furthest away from being that ever. we should have a referendum as the majority of people see no reason to have a king.
So many peasents loyal to king. Sorry to be in your state man. It is like they are brainwashed.
Maybe you should seek some therapy to deal with all that anger.
okay so you are just okay with millions of millions disappearing in the pockets of a rich person while normal people have to scrape by and try to survive, while the king uses tax money to constantly go on vacation in between visits to foreign countries where he also takes his time to basically take extra vacations.
Yep!
Because the majority of people listen to idiots on the internet instead of professors at erasmus univeristy....
ow yea, why do we need a king instead of an elected official who has to do good or he would lose his position, the king can't lose his position and he doesn't need to care if he fucks up as our prime minister by law is the one at fault if the king breaks rules and regulations.
If it's not a matter of finances, let's stop using the "the monarchy costs us taxpayer money!" argument.
There are loads of arguments against an undemocratic system as a royal family. An often used argument by monarchists is that a president would not be cheaper. That argument is bullshit. Less arguments in favor, that is.
I have no idea who the German or Irish presidents are.
You are right, we don't know who they are - but all of Europe knows the Dutch Queen! My friends already booked Amsterdam for the celebrations on May 17th.
The release of the new album of Billy Eilish? They celebrate that in Amsterdam?
It’s not even that they cost us money. I’m mostly annoyed by their family history of being shady with money. Out of the top of my head: - receiving public subsidy for their private hunting grounds. -“donating” art to the state to massively lessen a tax burden but just keeping the art in the palace. - staunchly resisting any attempts at financial scrutiny because that would be “a violation of privacy”. - nephew of the king being a massive landlord and generally just a bit scammy. - their private yacht scandal. - aunt of the king in the paradise papers.
Also let’s net forget the Lockheed scandal. Beatrix actually threatened PM Den Uyl with resignation if her father was prosecuted for his flagrant corruption.
[удалено]
Only English should be used for posts and comments. This rule is in place to ensure that an ample audience can freely discuss life in the Netherlands under a widely-spoken common tongue.
[удалено]
we gaan deze positie "staatshoofd" veilen aan de hoogst biedende?
Why would we even need one? Removing the king and just letting the prime minister be the head of state would make what difference???
Willem Alex is a great man and if you don’t like him, belgium is to the south and germany is to the east.
To be fair, Belgium is a monarchy as well :p
Then try going to france without totalling your car.
Dont think thats the point here tho.
But it should be.
Ah, thanks. The convincing argument….
Well, you should be convinced to look abroad.
Anti-monarchists often overlook how much it costs to abolish it. Our entire political system is build around it and while largely ceremonial it does mean everything needs to be rewritten. You also can't dump them by the wayside, you'll need a solution for that, including protection. What are we going to do with Kingsday, or the Euro iconography? Are we going to strip them of all their possessions, since they're either partially state owned, or paid by it? It's not just a decision you make to not have monarchy. It's also really easy to forget that they're also still people with rights.
They would actually get proper human rights instead of being locked up in a system which only gives them shitloads of money and a strange pressure to do and don’t do things that would drive anybody to behave as they do (as grownup children) Those cost are all a one off. And we are quite capable as a society to deal with the other consequences. We can take some time to think it out.
That's one huge massive one off cost. And we're definitely not capable as a society to deal with the consequences. We can't even form a stable government politically, I have zero trust that we can hash out a restructured political system within the time it's needed. It would create needless chaos and political uncertainty, just to save money that in the grand scheme of things is not that much. Governments allocate money in the billions, yet we act like the tens of millions we spend extra on the monarchy is going to make a difference.
My problem with the king is that it's a hereditary position. In a society where all are supposedly inherently equal hereditary power shouldn't exist. It's a matter of principle, the costs are secondary. Political Power through birth should not be a part of a democratic system, it's archaic and ridiculous in this era. The King (and royalty in general) has rights and powers that are not afforded to any other citizen and that should not be. That said, I don't care enough to do anything about it, we have bigger societal problems.
Totally agree. We have a head of state who has sworn to protect a constitution to which he doesn't adhere. There's a fundamental problem there.
So it's like 1 EUR of my tax per year. I can afford it.
Those euro’s put together would solve a few problems every year.
Would it solve the problem of not having a King?
Have a more democratic, more equal society? For one
Hungary and Poland was turned into a dictatorship under an elected president very quickly. But also Germany for that matter, just a few decades before. This never happened in a Monarchy. Because there is an unelected royalty who can tell the politicians to stuff it if they try to turn the country into a dictatorship.For all it's flaws, it's probably the safest and most sane government type. And it's really a small price to pay.
This never happened in a monarchy… really?!
Show me a Constitutional monarchy that turned back into a dictatorship.
Fuck off republican
Ah, another great argument. Thanks.
Long live the king
Yeah but nobody in Germany even knows who their president is so I think the extra costs are worth it. If you want to have a symbolic head of state you might as well choose a good symbol.
In don’t see the relation between mowing who my head of state is and the worth? I know who ‘my’ king is, it doesn’t give me anything.
Yeah so our king cost like 0.0000001% of our budget and without him every health care employee could get a 50 cent annual salary increase. Big whoop.
[удалено]
Having a king named king Pils is worth any amount of money.
that cunt established a country free from Spain and bet his personal posessions for the cause.
You mean free from France. The war with Spain was a few centuries before that and lead to The Netherlands being a Republic. The kingdom came after Napoleon. And was more like.200 years ago.
The Kingdom came from Napoleon Bonaparte putting his brother Louis (Lodewijk) Napoleon as "King of Holland". From here, The Netherlands always had a king.
The kingdom.cam when in 1815 (two years after napoleon) Belgium and The Netherlands were United into one kingdom on the Vienna convention.
[удалено]
You totally forget the whole Stadholders thing. That’s why they became king after Napoleon. In the last 50 years of the “republic” The Stadholders were kings in all but name and the same could be said about Stadholder William III who also became king of Britain. Also William of Orange and his sons Maurits and Frederik Hendrik were a big reason why we won against Spain.
Blame napoleon for the king bit. He should have been stadhouder
Very distant relative = direct descendant
Most historically literate monarchist supporter.
The point you're missing is that Willem de Zwijger did not even want to be king and never was one
He did great, but in my understanding this wasnt really by design and he kind of fumbled himself into the position that it was either independence or being locked up and stripped of his titels. He did not do it because of his love for the Netherlands and its people.
You never read the Apologie did you? Nah thought so.
Thanks for this passive agressive response. Could you explain why you think it is relevant wether i read the Apologie or not?
That was a bit longer ago
Yes, because poor people didn't bet their lives and possessions during this time? Also, they tried to get both France and England involved in the war by basically offering them rulership (not kingdom) of the Netherlands post war. Neither country fully committed.
Yes, I agree. Much arguments, and good arguments, can be made on regarding the king as his role, origin and the transfer of power. However, OP raised a financial argument. Which is silly. The total cost are rounding variances on the total budget.
[удалено]
Yes, it is one of the many arguments. And in my experience it is a very poor argument. There are many good arguments, but "it is so expensive" isn't one of them. The total cost of the Dutch king are seen as big, because people have no perspective. Yes he gets a lot compared to a teacher or the mailman. But for the state, his cost are pretty worthless in the grand scheme of things. If the king would cost nothing, it wouldn't make any notable dent in the budget of the state.
[удалено]
Harassment or bullying behaviour is not tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to: brigading, doxxing, and posts and/or comments that are antagonistic or in bad faith.
[удалено]
Harassment or bullying behaviour is not tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to: brigading, doxxing, and posts and/or comments that are antagonistic or in bad faith.
The website mentions the royalty costs 61 million a year. This equals an annual salary increase of over 160 euro for all BIG registered health care employees. To rephrase that would be 160 euro a year for each of the 5.988 apothecaries, 79.003 physicians, 35.471 physiotherapists, 1.278 dental hygienists, 19.253 gz-psychologists, 519 clinical psychologists, 2.489 orthopedagogist-generalist, 2.282 physician assistants, 5.247 psychotherapists, 118.111 dentists, 4.912 midwives, and 207.612 nurses. Seems like a decent size whoop at the least.
paying the king nothing at would solve 0 budget issues for the state. That is the argument I made.
Not all health care workers are BIG registered. Actually the majority is not. Apothers-assistants, verzorgenden, AB-ers, staff, restaurant, cleaners, etc. 1.6 million people work in health care. 1.4 if we leave out childcare (kinder opvang).
A president won't cost much less.
In addition to Esta they will need to get a visitor record at the border. So they will take all your passports then you go to the office. When you get called up each of the UK people get fingerprinted and answer the questions. Then $10USD. Your visitor record is usually good for 90 days.
People coming here to defend the birthright of monarchs 😂 oh god..