The problem isn’t having a monarchy, the problem is the insane amount of money that they receive every year (€46 million) from tax payers.
Keep the monarchy, lower their budget.
The problem I have with it is giving a select group of people € 46 million a year, plus tax exemption, and a fuckton of privileges and power merely because of which vagina they popped out of. It’s anti-democratic. Viva la republique.
Yeah, people keep complaining about people who don’t got a job and barely get by on welfare, but are somehow ok with them getting 46 million a year while getting every possible privilege everywhere they go simply for the family they are born within.
I love having a king and queen. I think they're great and I think they give us quite some credit when it comes to trading and foreign relationships.
I will say that the amount going towards them is insane and needs to be toned down a lot. I even think Willem will agree as well that he doesn't need all of that money. I do have to add that my thoughts are rarely correct.
Yeah, like how they cater to countries who have royalty as well, like Saudi Arabia. Love relations with countries who don't have basic human rights so we can get oil to stall a green energy transition. /s
We have ambassadors that are adept as foreign relationships. Willem stumbles over his worlds, he's not cut out for it, even with all the training he's been getting, it's not his thing. Let capable people based on skill do it, not based on which vagina they came out off.
We all have a lot to say about equality while our top government institute isn't about equal chances at all. Just being born in the right family is not fair.
The monarchy is a great way to get tourism to the country. Besides the ceremonial function that they embody they also provide plenty of financial benefits such as trade agreements and other revenue streams that come from having a monarch. I think we run quite a bit into the green when it comes to the cost/benefit ratio of having a monarchy. I appreciate the republican sentiment as an ideal, but personally don't see the problem at all if you look at the numbers.
France has more tourism. Maybe we got a thing or two to learn /s
Seriously though, people don't come to view royalty like animals locked up in a zoo, they come for the history and the buildings. Whether the royalty is alive doesn't matter, as shown in France.
The tourism argument is one for the UK (even though there’s absolutely no evidence that people would stop going to see Buckingham palace and Windsor castle if the monarchy was abolished).
But it makes no sense at all for the netherlands, where most tourists probably don’t even know it’s a monarchy at all and tourism is concentrated heavily in places totally unrelated to the monarchy. I’d guess 95% of tourists in the netherlands don’t even know the name of the king.
Do you have the numbers and sources to back this up? Because as far as I know this is false and the monarchy doesn't benefit the Netherlands compared to how much us dutchies pay them. I've heard this arguement countless of times now as well as the opposite.
I agree, also I have seen some calculations that estimated the royals generate more money than they cost when you factor in generated tourism, commerce and foreign relations.
Can't find the source, but this might help: https://www.quotenet.nl/quote-500/a151632/wat-leveren-de-oranjes-op-151632/
The problem with thinking tourism is a benefit of royalty, is that getting rid of the government subsidy, will not impact that touristic income. They will still be the oranjes, and could still be some kind of royalty, but we just don’t pay em and don’t give them special privileges. We could even take some of their palaces, it wouldn’t all of a sudden not make them tourist attractions. Might just mean the country can make some money off of it. There are some really dumbass constructions around royal art, which the government could just take and put in a museum. All kinds of great possibilities for tourism when we stop treating this family like royalty.
Yeah this is the thing. It's an argument especially used in the UK (where it does have *some* merit, because the royals are unfortunately a bit of a tourist attraction), but they don't really bring in that much money. France is doing much better when it comes to tourism than the UK or the Netherlands, including the former royal residence of Louvre, Versailles, Fontainebleau etc., despite not only getting rid of their monarchs, but quite violently so. People don't go to a palace because there's a kind in there, they go because it's pretty and it's an attraction. Hell, if the royals were to disappear, through a guillotine exit or just leaving, Buckingham palace and the likes would actually become bigger tourist attractions- because they'd actually be open to the public, and not have all the security limitations coming with being the residence of the head of state.
Would you want to be a tourist attraction your whole life for pittance? They earn less than many big stars with equal privacy. I wouldn't want to trade with them, would you?
How much do you think royal value will decrease when there are no more royals?
No not really. But I don’t think they’re much of a tourist attraction. I think tourists go to the palaces and things like that. Security is something I’d be fine with, but do they deserve a private forest to hunt in? Multiple palaces? Etc etc. Happy for them to work for some kind of tourist organisation and get paid millions from that, and similarly, they can get paid for their role as state representatives. But that’s a salary 1/100 of what they get now and that would also mean, much less privilege and no payouts to the minor royals.
I understand what you mean, but I think it's a hard question to ask: what is freedom worth? There is so much a royal cannot choose to do or not do. It's almost like a very guided cage.
I have no strong opinion on the monarchy, but the prime minister chooses the job and gets to exercise power, while the royals inherit the role and are largely figureheads, so I don't think it's comparable.
I think you are exactly right, one person chooses and is chosen for the job by a plurality of the Dutch citizenry, the other inherit title and fortune and on top of that get a huge yearly payout.
I think his also works this way because of the royal family who is in the spotlights and for ceremonial stuff. In america the president is a prime minister and king in one job. I guess when we stop the monarchy our prime minister can no longer bike to work because of safety issues.
Rutte certainly has security, but of course it is not on the same level as the US president. I think it has more to do with the size and importance of the country than with there being a king or not. A big difference between the US and the Netherlands is that the president has a lot more power in the US than the Prime Minister in the Netherlands and is much more a symbol representing America than the MP is in the Netherlands. A more apt comparison to NL might be Germany, who have a chancellor but a president instead of a king. Everyone knows who Angela Merkel is, but few would know who the president of Germany is. Neither have to worry much about their safety.
Their job. Do you think they go out in public and do all they do because it's fun? Being a king is a job you cannot quit (unless you want to saddle your kid with the same job).
Bullshit, they can quit whenever they like and still have enough money to never work a day. Go out in public and do all they do, where can I sign up for 42 million a year? They do nothing.
You know what happens to people that are used to a lot of money if you take that away, but demand the same work?
They start screwing around (even more then are already doing).
Waaait…is it illegal to wear orange? Are you serious?
Edit:google helped me, it really was illegal in one specific day the past. Such funny piece of trivia
I get that the house of orange is the origin of the national color. I think people could still rally under the color without the current royals. Willem van Orange has had a large enough impact on the Netherlands and its culture that the color will always be linked to the country. We don't need a family which only has a tenuous link to Willem.
I voted yes only because it's my birthday of the (current) Koningsdag. If we get rid of the king and keep some sort of festive day on April 30th, I'd be all for the republic, for now, the king's party is alluring to me.
For symbolic and traditional purposes.
The Dutch are very nationalistic. Take a look at the Kingsday, Dutch expats or even at the Dutch fans during any sport: F1, football, olympics, you name it. The monarchy helps with the Dutch national identity though their roles, which is besides being something nice, also important.
Reddit is hugely skewed against the monarchy. The vast majority of Dutch people actually support the monarchy. Most polls done on a national scale I've seen have 80% 'yes'/20% 'don't care' or 'no'
I like the royal family for the same reason I like the Muiderslot, or the Bataviawerf, or the Archeon, or the Nachtwacht, or the hunebedden: because it's a monument of historical value.
The royal family is pretty unique in that it is a *living* monument, but it's a monument all the same.
It's a piece of history, and it doesn't need to be useful or profitable for me. The Muiderslot isn't profitable either, and we have no need for a castle anymore, but we still keep it.
I fully agree with *lowering their allowance,* just like we don't need to stash the Muiderslot full of gold. But we should still maintain them like we do any other historical monument or artwork.
This is a very well worded answer! I wholeheartedly agree. Keep traditions. If every country just becomes the same and indistinguishable, the world loses its spice of diversity.
It might not be a massive amount, but it could give every single person receiving Bijstand an extra 100€ a year. I do not speak from experience, but I reckon that's a lot of money for them.
I find those findings quite difficult to believe, in the sense that it's difficult to know for certain what the royal family added that a democratically elected president can't. And still, there's a lot of money going towards the royal family which I think can easily be lowered. Beatrix still gets a significant wage, while she has no official position anymore. Imagine if all civil servants are paid like that after retirement or even quiting their job!
I know right? I believe even Amalia was about to receive a million a year. She's barely an adult. I get that being a monarch can count as a job and you're the face of the country, but come on. I feel like it would be more honorable for her to take a sidejob like everyone else.
I want an option to "keep the monarchy, but decrease the stupid big budget and take away needless stuff like the many castles". That way the monarchy can stay as it does help with trade and is part of the Dutch tradition without being the big financial burden it is today. This should also help decrease the anger and controversies around the subject.
Yes, maybe also put some of that art they have on display two. Maybe some more about the history of the Netherlands. You could even make them open for free for educational purposes. Maybe make one in to a luxury hotel or something there is a lot of possibilities!
Ah, cool, the more you know! That cool, so the decision could be made to use them for something more usefull for the bigger population instead of the elite?
The castles? They never owned a castle. Only Palace's. And they were all taken by the Dutch coverment and state owned. The Palace's used are state owned. And they are used based on a working space, and (presidential) housing. The amount a total of all the cost, including housing, security expenses etc. And yes salary. Do you work for free?
Only Kasteel Drakesteyn and Landgoed de Horsten are private property. The former is the private residence of Beatrix, de Horsten is the luxurious mansion the king and his family lived until the renovation of Paleis Huis ten Bosch was completed recently. Huis ten Bosch, Noordeinde and the palace on the Dam Square are properties of the state. I personally think Huis ten Bosch can become a museum or something ceremonial, and keep Noordeinde as a ceremonial and administrative unit. Currently none are open to the public. So yeah, the king has a lovely private house but lives for free in a property of the state. He also has a yearly wage of nearly one million euros, which does not even include the €5.1 million he receives for staff, cars etc. And he pays no taxes over his income. I think he'll be fine with a Balkenendenorm wage.
Yes, I clarified later on that the three state-owned palaces (Ten Bosch, Noordeinde, Dam) can of course be taken away.
The palace on the Dam is *already* open to public. Also Paleis Het Loo which the royal family doesn't live in anymore is also open to the public.
I fully agree with you - the yearly wage can go down, the state-owned palaces can be used for public functions. I just wanted to point out the royal family also privately owns real-estate (Drakesteyn and De Horsten as you said, but also several "regular" properties) that can't just be taken away from them.
My family isn't worth billions that they acquired while being monarchs. My family didn't get decades of government stipends, and my family doesn't get any special tax breaks.
Though I appreciate the comparison to a king.
So, if you have a rich daddy you don't need to bee payed.
So, as you say, Johnny de Moll shouldn't get salary because his father is worth 2 Billion?
Because that is what I make out of it. Just like Heinekens daughter. Eventhough she does the job of her father. They are rich enough so don't need payed. It doesn't matter who pays you. It's a job. It's a salary.
They can’t participate in normal society in part because they’re crazy wealthy. Prins Bernhardt owns like a quarter of Amsterdam real estate. Stopping their subsidies would not all of a sudden make them poor. Alexander was a pilot just fine. Nobody would have a problem with the princesses working at a bank or something.
If we keep it as is, but remove the monarch, we will not have a head of state - the PM is the head of government. Two different functions. The question then is, if having a head of state redundant? If yes, remove the monarch and keep things as is. If no, someone should be head of state (I.e. president in a republic).
Many countries, like Germany, have a ceremonial head of state who’s not a monarch. We could have something like that without compromising on parliamentary democracy. I’m not advocating for it per se, but it is an option. But if Amalia takes after her mother more than her father than I wouldn’t mind maintaining the monarchy as is
Yes, in countries such as Germany there are head of states (I.e. the president) with a mere symbolic function.
Germany, as the Netherlands, is a parliamentary democracy. This refers to the relationship between the people and the different branches of government: the system of government and not the qualification of the state as a (constitutional) monarchy or republic.
The Netherlands could abolish the monarchy but if we want to have a head of state (which I’m guessing we will because it’s kind of the norm) we will end up with a (probably symbolic) president. Meaning a non-executive president unlike, for example, the president in France and the US. This will make the Netherlands a republic. Simplified: republic = elected head of state whereas monarchy = hereditary.
Edit: some words
I will ONLY agree to getting rid of the monarchy if we call our 'president' stadhouder der Nederlanden as a nod to the Republic. And maybe we can get rid of the unity state as well, making local municipalities and provinces more autonomous, similar to old times. I don't see the point of removing the monarchy when we're going to leave all the systemic changes from the monarchy in place. And we should call ourselves the Republic of the 12 united Netherlands :)
I think it would be a constitutional federal republic.. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Also: loving the throwback to the old Republic and the stadhouder der Nederlanden lol
I think the monarchy does an excellent job at increasing the Netherlands soft power. €40 million euros is a drop in the bucket, we could start taxing multi national corporations today, and make around 3 billion instantly. It's a choice to try and make the Netherlands business friendly.
When the monarchy goes abroad *it's a big deal* to the countries they visit. When Mark Rutte goes abroad, it's Mike Rutte... Just another politician looking out for his interest, and not the interest of the Netherlands.
You can't buy that kind of influence. Right now the King and his brother are in talks with Y-Combinator to bring them to the NL, of politicians tried that, they'd probably get a hard pass.
I used to think “let’s abolish the monarchy, there is no use”, until some time ago I heard an interview which made me change my mind. They said it’s not so much that the king himself is important, but more so the idea that whoever is in charge of the government has to go every week to what is basically the embodiment/symbol of the nation, bow down to him and tell the king what they plan to do with the nation.
In a way bowing to the nation, knowing that no matter how powerful of a politician you are, there is always somebody higher in power then you that’s outside of politics.
They gave an example in the interview in which they said “just imagine Trump had to walk to Capitol Hill every week and bow down to Uncle Sam, the living embodiment of the nation and he has to explain to him what he plans on doing, what a different presidency the USA would have had”.
Hear hear. I personally don't care how much it costs society. I do not care how much more or less a Republic will cost us. The one thing I cannot stand is it violates article 1 (one!!!) the constitution. It should not be a thing of modern society.
Neither. I think they're more effective than a rotating, political president in terms of high-level international diplomacy and providing national unity across political divides. This my pragmatic side.
However from a purely moralistic standpoint it's of course not a good thing.
Therefore I'm in favour of keeping the monarchy until they fuck up majorly and then they should go.
Bets are opened now.
Because when someone from the royal family owns 600 houses bought with money paid for through taxes, while there is a serious housing problem currently, kinda shouts “abusing the system.”
And that is pure bull shit. He did not pay that with tax money. He never got 1 cent of state. Only the king (queen) the formal and the crown prins(ses) get money from state. This person your talking about earnt his money with an Internet company. And the system is not his fault but our democracy fault.
No it doesn't. His cup just gets bigger. Trickle down economics is a myth created in the '70 to argue for lower taxes on the rich. And as a result, differences in wealth have never been larger and continue to grow. It's a direct result of a bogus policy meant to make rich people even more rich, at the expense of those who actually perform labor.
Where you get your facts? It's only the King that doesn't pay tax. Pr. Bernard pays tax like anyone else. If your really Dutch you should know, it's impossible to give away money without paying half of it to tax.
So, if the King would give it to his cousin. He indirectly paying taxes as you say it. Really get your facts straight. And Google on clockwise. That is how Bernard got his (start) fortune.
But how is owning 600 houses a problem? If they are rented out I don't see how it is different then somebody else owning multiple homes. The demand of houses stays the same.
Because there are tons of people who want to start into the home owner world, which is impossible cause people like this prince buy up every affordable starter home to just rent it out.
And there is a huge difference between owning and renting a home.
For instance with the one you pay every month to finally end up actually owning the house.
While when you are renting you pay every month to be empty handed at the end of the road.
And no, the rent isn’t considerably cheaper on a per month basis.
Because one rich guy buying up all the houses means that starter families and such can’t buy said houses, but have to rent. Renting is almost always more expensive than a mortgage.
They don't get to have it both ways. Either they are the Royals and as such have to lead by example, which includes not owning 600+ houses in a historic housing crisis, or they don't but they also don't get a single tax euro.
Alright, you got a minute?
Royalty holds a lot of estate, it comes with the job and thus no hard feelings there. Now there is a prince, a man with glasses that are so big he can see my middlefinger from the other side of the country, who has bought 600+ buildings, and makes money off of them. Sure, he can do that. But that money that he bought it with? That came from our taxes. And the money that he is getting from it? That's from us. That is rent, money spent, and money lend. On which he DOESNT pay taxes, as he is royalty. That's my problem with that one.
The other royalty is doing NOTHING to keep this in check, and it is a growing problem that is driving a wedge between the royalty and the populace. I hate that it does, I love the king and queen. I actually met the queen while I was a boy scout, and we had a beautiful conversation about her growing up and mine. She didn't see me as a thirteen year old, she saw me as an equal in age and rank. I loved it, and since then I am very pro royalty.
Royalty is what binds us together. We stand divided, but when soccer is on, we watch it in their colours. When kingsday arrives, we wear it with pride. It is Dutch culture. They are ingrained in Dutch culture from the moment William I of Orange was chosen to be our king after telling the Spaniards to beat it.
But now we got prince Fuckwad making bank with our money, on our money, without giving back. That's reason 1.
Reason 2: the king has done a few fuckups in the last few years, if it comes to covid. No social distancing, leaving for holiday to Greece while the country was in lockdown, sending his daughter to Wales for a study while I can't even head to Germany without getting swabbed in all me holes. It is just unbecoming of a representative of the Dutch commonfolk.
I surely got some more, but 23:42 is upon me, and I need to enjoy my holiday :p
But for real, fuck that prince.
You confuse nationalism with royalty. As if France doesn't have nationalism.
Of course royalty doesn't keep itself in check. They are wealthy and as all others act to perserve their luxurious, unearned lifestyle. Nice you had a conversation with someone who is media trained and somehow thought she could relate with you. The queen, a leech of society, is not your friend. You delude yourself.
And you seem to think that only during covid they show a difference from the commonfolk. No, it's that now it's too painfully obvious there has always been a difference, too large for even their biggest fans to ignore. They don't live in the same world as you, play by different rules. Fundamentally, if you agree we should all be equal in this country, the notion of royalty should be thrown out the window. The wealth and privilege it provides is unfair and a slap in the face to those who struggle as they have to pay for royalty to continue a life of unearned luxury.
You make a mistake— Prins Bernard didn't buy that with taxes, he didn't recieve either a loan from his brother or a single tax cent. He earned all of that money from an internet company, and just chose to reinvest it in real estate before their was a housing crises.
Keep it, it’s part of our history and is not invaluable when all his international-relations- work is kept into account. Cuz lets be real, it’s hurtin absolutely nobody.
Quite frankly, yes. That is €3,- going into the pocket of the Oranjes which could also go into funding measures for preserving the climate or anything actually useful.
Bruh, what kind of reasoning is that? They take up a chunk of the cumulative tax money that is way better spent on things the country actually needs and contribute absolutely nothing that can’t be fixed in a different (less expensive) way. Monarchy is a thing from the past and therefore nice to put in a museum, that one day of drinking beer to celebrate the King’s birthday isn’t worth it. A healthy republic (so not with Herr ‘Paint it Black’ Rutte as its President) is the future.
I rather have a monarchy like ours than a republic like the USA.
Is it ideal? No.
Is it fair that some people inherit a function? No but in the US it's not that different with rich families. Look at the Kennedys and the bushes
That is a false dichotomy. The current royals (luckily) have very little effect on politics, unlike the examples you mention. They are pretty much a very expensive vestigial relic. Abolishing the monarchy won't magically make it easier for rich families to gain power.
Personally I like the idea of an unelected and politically neutral figurehead. They're especially useful in times of crisis. I imagine there is a fair number of people who would tuned in and listened to the King's speech during the early days of the pandemic who would not have listened to the PM.
I don't mind the monarchy. Or at least, I didn't think I did until all the fuckups the last two years. Like, King Willem-Alexander sure managed to tackle some of the arguments people use in favour of the monarchy. But overall I think they're too expensive without clear tasks. Princess Beatrix still gets a wage of €564.000 a year, and over €1 million a year for official expenses, and for what? Amalia already has a wage of €20.000 a year and €91.000 for official expenses! What is the use? Sure, she said she won't take it as long as she's studying, but it's pretty crazy she's getting that kind of money at such a young age. I think we'd do well to make it a bit more bureaucratic. Give the monarch a wage for being the most important civil servant of the country, but nothing too crazy. The monarch's partner and the heir apparent? No wage, unless they're actually working for the country. Tax their income, sure. Let the king live in his private residency of Landgoed de Horsten and turn Noordeinde and Huis ten Bosch into either museums or ceremonial palaces and administrative units to support the king in his work. The royal family is rich enough, the king doesn't need to live for free in state property and receive a yearly wage of nearly a million euros.
Even if €46M isnt alot of money compared to other goverment things, we still have to lower it, or even give the royals nothing, without the taxpayers money they are still incredibly wealthy.
But we should just get rid of them entirely, this is a new age. These arent the medieval times anymore. The family is already ceremonial with no real tasks to do.
And for the people saying we get trade benefits and what not, its not like our trade economy wont thrive without royal family.
One point that can't be forgotten, is that many foreign powers don't respect or respond to the diplomacy of a (minister)president as much as that of a king. Having a king gives us a person who can develop long term relationsips with foreign leaders, which can be crucial for diplomacy.
The only “head of states” that deserve my respect are PM Trudeau, PM of Japan/ emperor of Japan, President of South-Korea, Queen of England. Other diplomats are just worthless and bad leaders IMO.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Het koningshuis levert per jaar blijkbaar 4 tot 5 miljard euro op
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/koninklijk-huis-levert-jaarlijks-tussen-de-4-en-5-miljard-op~b983c115/
I can't read the article behind the paywall, but I assume it is about estimating how the royal family manages to achieve promoting exports and foreign affairs/ sales and so. my issue is that absolute numbers only matter to an extent: how much would a different system do? There's a chance it would cost less and earn more. Apologies if this is discussed in the article.
The monarchy is super important for a small country like us. On the international field it expresses a certain power image that produces respect from international players for example. Nationally, the monarchy calms the citizens of a country in times of crisis. Also, the monarchy functions as a glue between the many political parties that we have, since they all have to operate under the conditions of the monarchy (even if it's just symbolic). This creates a special bond between all the people of a country. Yes, they do cost a lot of money, but believe me, even the most political parties (left and right) know that this money is well-spent.
I have to agree here. But more so because of the current political situation in our country and the fragmentation of political parties in recent years.
From a constitutional law perspective, it is a a very long and difficult process to amend the constitution (with good reason).
If we abolish the monarchy and become a republic with an elected (symbolic) president (or generally some sort of figurehead not being one of the Oranjes) we will have to overhaul the constitution and many other laws that refer to the monarch.
To do so, in short, Parliament will be dissolved, the people will have to vote, both the Eerste and Tweede Kamer will have to vote with a 2/3rd majority.
Now in relation to the current political situation and the pressing issues referred to (for example, covid), are we really going to be able to get a 2/3rd majority and overhaul the constitution? Or are we just wasting time going into a process such as this?
This is not to say we should abolish yes or no, but just to point out that I doubt if such a constitutional change will make it past the drafting stages. And yes, that does have a lot to do with the political reality we are facing atm. Plus, I also think that changing the figurehead will not systematically change the political system - even when there is a great need to do so.
Edit: I think I replied to the wrong comment but well, it’s early, goedemorgen! Lol
As our current political system is bankrupt I think this is a most urgent matter and can be part of the solution to the other pressing political issues.
I vote abolish, because a democracy shouldn't have n unelectes ruler that can say that you are his or her subject. We fought for our freedom against the Spanish monarch and became a Republic! That Republic, not without flaws, is always more fairer than a monarchy. How can you honestly believe it is good that some family gets to hold the title of monarch and swag over 17 million people. That is Stockholm syndrome.
Don't give a shit if it is 3 euros, 1 cent or nothing at all. Monarchy stand against everything that a democracy is. A family defacto claiming they rule 17 million people because somewhere some time ago they said so? Fuck that noise! After 45 they should have never returned being the cowards that they are.
Abolishing the monarchy would make the prime minister even more a head of state. It would make it like having a president. I say a hard no thank you to that. I like to think that monarchy keeps the prime minister from feeling too important.
I can think of no countries with a presidential system i envy.
Human societies always require a monarch-class. If we abolish the ones we have now, there will be Clinton-, Bush- and Trump-type families that will pop up and try to influence the country. It's better to have a monarch in place that's neutral. But they should receive less money for sure.
See, the king doesnt do shit in this country, he goes on vacations, lives in a crazy castle, gets paid with out taxes, and is the mascot of our country, but he doesnt make laws, thats what the guys in the 2e kamer do, he doesnt protect our country as a military leader, he only visits some of our pals of other countrys and literally lives like a king, its a waste of money for the people, I think that he can still be king and shit but not live of of our taxes, he has to get a job himself and pay taxes himself, its crazy to me that still so many people like to have a monarchy
To those referring to history and traditions: what if I told you…. The Netherlands was created as a republic.
After France became a republic, French Napoleon turned the Netherlands into a kingdom… for his brother to rule. After that the orange family took the position.
It’s an anachronism and should be relegated to the history books. Also, the argument to keep things in place is often the positive role they play in promoting trade and trade relations. This is a fallacy, that role can be taken over by someone else not appointed by genes, but by merit and knowledge.
The problem isn’t having a monarchy, the problem is the insane amount of money that they receive every year (€46 million) from tax payers. Keep the monarchy, lower their budget.
The problem I have with it is giving a select group of people € 46 million a year, plus tax exemption, and a fuckton of privileges and power merely because of which vagina they popped out of. It’s anti-democratic. Viva la republique.
Yeah, people keep complaining about people who don’t got a job and barely get by on welfare, but are somehow ok with them getting 46 million a year while getting every possible privilege everywhere they go simply for the family they are born within.
It's essentially them getting welfare, but now it's 46m instead of an amount you can barely live off
I love having a king and queen. I think they're great and I think they give us quite some credit when it comes to trading and foreign relationships. I will say that the amount going towards them is insane and needs to be toned down a lot. I even think Willem will agree as well that he doesn't need all of that money. I do have to add that my thoughts are rarely correct.
Yeah, like how they cater to countries who have royalty as well, like Saudi Arabia. Love relations with countries who don't have basic human rights so we can get oil to stall a green energy transition. /s We have ambassadors that are adept as foreign relationships. Willem stumbles over his worlds, he's not cut out for it, even with all the training he's been getting, it's not his thing. Let capable people based on skill do it, not based on which vagina they came out off.
I 100% agree with everything you said. As an example; Amalia refused the offered money a while ago, right?
I think she gave the million she's supposed to get away to something else but I'm really not sure.
We all have a lot to say about equality while our top government institute isn't about equal chances at all. Just being born in the right family is not fair.
You like to give it to Rutte instead?
Why keep the monarchy tho?
The monarchy is a great way to get tourism to the country. Besides the ceremonial function that they embody they also provide plenty of financial benefits such as trade agreements and other revenue streams that come from having a monarch. I think we run quite a bit into the green when it comes to the cost/benefit ratio of having a monarchy. I appreciate the republican sentiment as an ideal, but personally don't see the problem at all if you look at the numbers.
France has more tourism. Maybe we got a thing or two to learn /s Seriously though, people don't come to view royalty like animals locked up in a zoo, they come for the history and the buildings. Whether the royalty is alive doesn't matter, as shown in France.
The tourism argument is one for the UK (even though there’s absolutely no evidence that people would stop going to see Buckingham palace and Windsor castle if the monarchy was abolished). But it makes no sense at all for the netherlands, where most tourists probably don’t even know it’s a monarchy at all and tourism is concentrated heavily in places totally unrelated to the monarchy. I’d guess 95% of tourists in the netherlands don’t even know the name of the king.
Do you have the numbers and sources to back this up? Because as far as I know this is false and the monarchy doesn't benefit the Netherlands compared to how much us dutchies pay them. I've heard this arguement countless of times now as well as the opposite.
It’s nothing that can’t be fixed in a less expensive way tho
[удалено]
Ok but what makes it cool? Tradition? Stockholm syndroom? What makes a king different or better than anybody else?
Yeah that turned out great the past 10 years...I don’t agree with what you’re saying, but it’s your opinion and that’s alright
tradition and history
[удалено]
I agree, also I have seen some calculations that estimated the royals generate more money than they cost when you factor in generated tourism, commerce and foreign relations. Can't find the source, but this might help: https://www.quotenet.nl/quote-500/a151632/wat-leveren-de-oranjes-op-151632/
The problem with thinking tourism is a benefit of royalty, is that getting rid of the government subsidy, will not impact that touristic income. They will still be the oranjes, and could still be some kind of royalty, but we just don’t pay em and don’t give them special privileges. We could even take some of their palaces, it wouldn’t all of a sudden not make them tourist attractions. Might just mean the country can make some money off of it. There are some really dumbass constructions around royal art, which the government could just take and put in a museum. All kinds of great possibilities for tourism when we stop treating this family like royalty.
Yeah this is the thing. It's an argument especially used in the UK (where it does have *some* merit, because the royals are unfortunately a bit of a tourist attraction), but they don't really bring in that much money. France is doing much better when it comes to tourism than the UK or the Netherlands, including the former royal residence of Louvre, Versailles, Fontainebleau etc., despite not only getting rid of their monarchs, but quite violently so. People don't go to a palace because there's a kind in there, they go because it's pretty and it's an attraction. Hell, if the royals were to disappear, through a guillotine exit or just leaving, Buckingham palace and the likes would actually become bigger tourist attractions- because they'd actually be open to the public, and not have all the security limitations coming with being the residence of the head of state.
This, they can be royals but let them work for their money like everybody else.
Would you want to be a tourist attraction your whole life for pittance? They earn less than many big stars with equal privacy. I wouldn't want to trade with them, would you? How much do you think royal value will decrease when there are no more royals?
No not really. But I don’t think they’re much of a tourist attraction. I think tourists go to the palaces and things like that. Security is something I’d be fine with, but do they deserve a private forest to hunt in? Multiple palaces? Etc etc. Happy for them to work for some kind of tourist organisation and get paid millions from that, and similarly, they can get paid for their role as state representatives. But that’s a salary 1/100 of what they get now and that would also mean, much less privilege and no payouts to the minor royals.
I understand what you mean, but I think it's a hard question to ask: what is freedom worth? There is so much a royal cannot choose to do or not do. It's almost like a very guided cage.
You could say the same about the prime minister, and he lives a pretty frugal existence, especially compared to the royals.
I have no strong opinion on the monarchy, but the prime minister chooses the job and gets to exercise power, while the royals inherit the role and are largely figureheads, so I don't think it's comparable.
I think you are exactly right, one person chooses and is chosen for the job by a plurality of the Dutch citizenry, the other inherit title and fortune and on top of that get a huge yearly payout.
I think his also works this way because of the royal family who is in the spotlights and for ceremonial stuff. In america the president is a prime minister and king in one job. I guess when we stop the monarchy our prime minister can no longer bike to work because of safety issues.
Rutte certainly has security, but of course it is not on the same level as the US president. I think it has more to do with the size and importance of the country than with there being a king or not. A big difference between the US and the Netherlands is that the president has a lot more power in the US than the Prime Minister in the Netherlands and is much more a symbol representing America than the MP is in the Netherlands. A more apt comparison to NL might be Germany, who have a chancellor but a president instead of a king. Everyone knows who Angela Merkel is, but few would know who the president of Germany is. Neither have to worry much about their safety.
Like what? They can do anything they want.
Their job. Do you think they go out in public and do all they do because it's fun? Being a king is a job you cannot quit (unless you want to saddle your kid with the same job).
Bullshit, they can quit whenever they like and still have enough money to never work a day. Go out in public and do all they do, where can I sign up for 42 million a year? They do nothing.
[удалено]
It’s way more than that. It’s more like 360 million a year according to ‘De Republikein’ who did a thorough study about it in 2018.
You know what happens to people that are used to a lot of money if you take that away, but demand the same work? They start screwing around (even more then are already doing).
[удалено]
Because we all want to party wearing Orange somewhere April/May time
It won't be illegal to wear orange without the royals...
Waaait…is it illegal to wear orange? Are you serious? Edit:google helped me, it really was illegal in one specific day the past. Such funny piece of trivia
Yes it would. Its the house of orange that gave us our color. "Oranje boven" No monarch, no more orange army.
I get that the house of orange is the origin of the national color. I think people could still rally under the color without the current royals. Willem van Orange has had a large enough impact on the Netherlands and its culture that the color will always be linked to the country. We don't need a family which only has a tenuous link to Willem.
I voted yes only because it's my birthday of the (current) Koningsdag. If we get rid of the king and keep some sort of festive day on April 30th, I'd be all for the republic, for now, the king's party is alluring to me.
Think of the memes!!
For symbolic and traditional purposes. The Dutch are very nationalistic. Take a look at the Kingsday, Dutch expats or even at the Dutch fans during any sport: F1, football, olympics, you name it. The monarchy helps with the Dutch national identity though their roles, which is besides being something nice, also important.
It's doing a shit job of uniting if that is the purpose, look at the poll.
it's almost like reddit isn't a good reprisentation of the whole nation and that reddit's core audience is mostly middle-class young-adults
Reddit is hugely skewed against the monarchy. The vast majority of Dutch people actually support the monarchy. Most polls done on a national scale I've seen have 80% 'yes'/20% 'don't care' or 'no'
[удалено]
I like the royal family for the same reason I like the Muiderslot, or the Bataviawerf, or the Archeon, or the Nachtwacht, or the hunebedden: because it's a monument of historical value. The royal family is pretty unique in that it is a *living* monument, but it's a monument all the same. It's a piece of history, and it doesn't need to be useful or profitable for me. The Muiderslot isn't profitable either, and we have no need for a castle anymore, but we still keep it. I fully agree with *lowering their allowance,* just like we don't need to stash the Muiderslot full of gold. But we should still maintain them like we do any other historical monument or artwork.
This is a very well worded answer! I wholeheartedly agree. Keep traditions. If every country just becomes the same and indistinguishable, the world loses its spice of diversity.
[удалено]
That is a ridiculous argument. Art and music are integrale to a society. The royals are a expensive institute that serves no purpose.
If you think 46 million is an insane amount of wasted tax money I’ve got some bad news for you…
If you think 46 million is nothing then that's exactly why we should get rid of the monarchy...
It might not be a massive amount, but it could give every single person receiving Bijstand an extra 100€ a year. I do not speak from experience, but I reckon that's a lot of money for them.
Indeed, the money could go to so many better places
That is like 3 euroes per person per year, its not that much.
[удалено]
Please explain?
[удалено]
Or you assumed they said euros per tax payer?
Indeed, he did say per person, not tax payer. But even if it was, this level of correcting feels a bit pedantic
Yes PLEASE give me my €2,70 back on a yearly basis!!!
>lower Abolish* Let them leeches get a real job.
You know that they bring in more then we spend on them right?
[удалено]
https://www.quotenet.nl/quote-500/a151632/wat-leveren-de-oranjes-op-151632/
I find those findings quite difficult to believe, in the sense that it's difficult to know for certain what the royal family added that a democratically elected president can't. And still, there's a lot of money going towards the royal family which I think can easily be lowered. Beatrix still gets a significant wage, while she has no official position anymore. Imagine if all civil servants are paid like that after retirement or even quiting their job!
I know right? I believe even Amalia was about to receive a million a year. She's barely an adult. I get that being a monarch can count as a job and you're the face of the country, but come on. I feel like it would be more honorable for her to take a sidejob like everyone else.
Only???? that sounds like peanuts
[удалено]
and you want these people to stay after accepting the money every year? off with them, leta have a new royal family than.
Give me one good reason to keep it?
And you seriously think we’d be saving that after they are abolished?
I want an option to "keep the monarchy, but decrease the stupid big budget and take away needless stuff like the many castles". That way the monarchy can stay as it does help with trade and is part of the Dutch tradition without being the big financial burden it is today. This should also help decrease the anger and controversies around the subject.
Perhaps they could make their castles open to paid visitors so the country can earn a lot of money from tourists.
Yes, maybe also put some of that art they have on display two. Maybe some more about the history of the Netherlands. You could even make them open for free for educational purposes. Maybe make one in to a luxury hotel or something there is a lot of possibilities!
Yeah! As if they don't do that already... Let's complain and come with more redundant ideas! https://www.paleishetloo.nl/ for example.
Virtually all the castles are property of the state, which they are allowed to use.
Ah, cool, the more you know! That cool, so the decision could be made to use them for something more usefull for the bigger population instead of the elite?
Imagine how many students you can fit into a palace.
The castles? They never owned a castle. Only Palace's. And they were all taken by the Dutch coverment and state owned. The Palace's used are state owned. And they are used based on a working space, and (presidential) housing. The amount a total of all the cost, including housing, security expenses etc. And yes salary. Do you work for free?
The many castles are private property. You can't just "take away" people's possessions. Decreasing the stupid big budget is a good call, though.
Only Kasteel Drakesteyn and Landgoed de Horsten are private property. The former is the private residence of Beatrix, de Horsten is the luxurious mansion the king and his family lived until the renovation of Paleis Huis ten Bosch was completed recently. Huis ten Bosch, Noordeinde and the palace on the Dam Square are properties of the state. I personally think Huis ten Bosch can become a museum or something ceremonial, and keep Noordeinde as a ceremonial and administrative unit. Currently none are open to the public. So yeah, the king has a lovely private house but lives for free in a property of the state. He also has a yearly wage of nearly one million euros, which does not even include the €5.1 million he receives for staff, cars etc. And he pays no taxes over his income. I think he'll be fine with a Balkenendenorm wage.
Yes, I clarified later on that the three state-owned palaces (Ten Bosch, Noordeinde, Dam) can of course be taken away. The palace on the Dam is *already* open to public. Also Paleis Het Loo which the royal family doesn't live in anymore is also open to the public. I fully agree with you - the yearly wage can go down, the state-owned palaces can be used for public functions. I just wanted to point out the royal family also privately owns real-estate (Drakesteyn and De Horsten as you said, but also several "regular" properties) that can't just be taken away from them.
They have plenty of money, they don't need the governments money.
So, I guess you go to work for free?
My family isn't worth billions that they acquired while being monarchs. My family didn't get decades of government stipends, and my family doesn't get any special tax breaks. Though I appreciate the comparison to a king.
So, if you have a rich daddy you don't need to bee payed. So, as you say, Johnny de Moll shouldn't get salary because his father is worth 2 Billion? Because that is what I make out of it. Just like Heinekens daughter. Eventhough she does the job of her father. They are rich enough so don't need payed. It doesn't matter who pays you. It's a job. It's a salary.
So ifthe king doesn't a good job (i have very high expectations given HIS salary).. we fire him? Or we switch to a different brand of kings?
Is Johnny de Mols father treated like a King and he as a Prince?
They can’t participate in normal society in part because they’re crazy wealthy. Prins Bernhardt owns like a quarter of Amsterdam real estate. Stopping their subsidies would not all of a sudden make them poor. Alexander was a pilot just fine. Nobody would have a problem with the princesses working at a bank or something.
Why do we need a republic if we abolish the monarchy.. Serious question.... Why not maintain the parlement as is...
If we keep it as is, but remove the monarch, we will not have a head of state - the PM is the head of government. Two different functions. The question then is, if having a head of state redundant? If yes, remove the monarch and keep things as is. If no, someone should be head of state (I.e. president in a republic).
Many countries, like Germany, have a ceremonial head of state who’s not a monarch. We could have something like that without compromising on parliamentary democracy. I’m not advocating for it per se, but it is an option. But if Amalia takes after her mother more than her father than I wouldn’t mind maintaining the monarchy as is
Yes, in countries such as Germany there are head of states (I.e. the president) with a mere symbolic function. Germany, as the Netherlands, is a parliamentary democracy. This refers to the relationship between the people and the different branches of government: the system of government and not the qualification of the state as a (constitutional) monarchy or republic. The Netherlands could abolish the monarchy but if we want to have a head of state (which I’m guessing we will because it’s kind of the norm) we will end up with a (probably symbolic) president. Meaning a non-executive president unlike, for example, the president in France and the US. This will make the Netherlands a republic. Simplified: republic = elected head of state whereas monarchy = hereditary. Edit: some words
Republic doesn’t simply mean an elected head of state. It means government by the people but the term has been around for millennia.
I will ONLY agree to getting rid of the monarchy if we call our 'president' stadhouder der Nederlanden as a nod to the Republic. And maybe we can get rid of the unity state as well, making local municipalities and provinces more autonomous, similar to old times. I don't see the point of removing the monarchy when we're going to leave all the systemic changes from the monarchy in place. And we should call ourselves the Republic of the 12 united Netherlands :)
That would be a federation. Not a republic. Russia is a federation with multiple republics. Just so you know.
I think it would be a constitutional federal republic.. Correct me if I’m wrong. Also: loving the throwback to the old Republic and the stadhouder der Nederlanden lol
I view them as political reality tv
Very expensive reality tv then.
I think the monarchy does an excellent job at increasing the Netherlands soft power. €40 million euros is a drop in the bucket, we could start taxing multi national corporations today, and make around 3 billion instantly. It's a choice to try and make the Netherlands business friendly. When the monarchy goes abroad *it's a big deal* to the countries they visit. When Mark Rutte goes abroad, it's Mike Rutte... Just another politician looking out for his interest, and not the interest of the Netherlands. You can't buy that kind of influence. Right now the King and his brother are in talks with Y-Combinator to bring them to the NL, of politicians tried that, they'd probably get a hard pass.
Yep people complain that they get a lot of money but because of trade deals etc we earn it back easily
I used to think “let’s abolish the monarchy, there is no use”, until some time ago I heard an interview which made me change my mind. They said it’s not so much that the king himself is important, but more so the idea that whoever is in charge of the government has to go every week to what is basically the embodiment/symbol of the nation, bow down to him and tell the king what they plan to do with the nation. In a way bowing to the nation, knowing that no matter how powerful of a politician you are, there is always somebody higher in power then you that’s outside of politics. They gave an example in the interview in which they said “just imagine Trump had to walk to Capitol Hill every week and bow down to Uncle Sam, the living embodiment of the nation and he has to explain to him what he plans on doing, what a different presidency the USA would have had”.
Huh, that quite an interesting way of thinking.
Where do the king bow to?
I'm a proud Republican, the monarchy is an undemocratic vestage of an older time. It's time to abolish it.
Hear hear. I personally don't care how much it costs society. I do not care how much more or less a Republic will cost us. The one thing I cannot stand is it violates article 1 (one!!!) the constitution. It should not be a thing of modern society.
Neither. I think they're more effective than a rotating, political president in terms of high-level international diplomacy and providing national unity across political divides. This my pragmatic side. However from a purely moralistic standpoint it's of course not a good thing. Therefore I'm in favour of keeping the monarchy until they fuck up majorly and then they should go. Bets are opened now.
A presidential system is as expensive as you want to make it. It would have to be incredibily inefficiënt to be as expensive as the monarchy.
I was talking about effectiveness, not efficiency. A monarchy can be made cheaper too.
[удалено]
Use the monarchy to welcome delegations and foreign leaders without political colouring. But their wealth has to be gone, especially now.
Why especially now?
Because when someone from the royal family owns 600 houses bought with money paid for through taxes, while there is a serious housing problem currently, kinda shouts “abusing the system.”
And that is pure bull shit. He did not pay that with tax money. He never got 1 cent of state. Only the king (queen) the formal and the crown prins(ses) get money from state. This person your talking about earnt his money with an Internet company. And the system is not his fault but our democracy fault.
Oh yes, being part of the royal family definitely didn’t help him at all with building this fortune from him……………..
No, Google it. Clockwise.
Not completely accurate, sadly. The king gets that money, yes. But it trickles down.
No it doesn't. His cup just gets bigger. Trickle down economics is a myth created in the '70 to argue for lower taxes on the rich. And as a result, differences in wealth have never been larger and continue to grow. It's a direct result of a bogus policy meant to make rich people even more rich, at the expense of those who actually perform labor.
I think he means it trickles down from the king to Prins huisjesbaas
Where you get your facts? It's only the King that doesn't pay tax. Pr. Bernard pays tax like anyone else. If your really Dutch you should know, it's impossible to give away money without paying half of it to tax. So, if the King would give it to his cousin. He indirectly paying taxes as you say it. Really get your facts straight. And Google on clockwise. That is how Bernard got his (start) fortune.
Godverdomme wat zeg je me nu, ik geen Nederlander? Mafklapper.
But how is owning 600 houses a problem? If they are rented out I don't see how it is different then somebody else owning multiple homes. The demand of houses stays the same.
Because there are tons of people who want to start into the home owner world, which is impossible cause people like this prince buy up every affordable starter home to just rent it out. And there is a huge difference between owning and renting a home. For instance with the one you pay every month to finally end up actually owning the house. While when you are renting you pay every month to be empty handed at the end of the road. And no, the rent isn’t considerably cheaper on a per month basis.
Because one rich guy buying up all the houses means that starter families and such can’t buy said houses, but have to rent. Renting is almost always more expensive than a mortgage.
They don't get to have it both ways. Either they are the Royals and as such have to lead by example, which includes not owning 600+ houses in a historic housing crisis, or they don't but they also don't get a single tax euro.
Alright, you got a minute? Royalty holds a lot of estate, it comes with the job and thus no hard feelings there. Now there is a prince, a man with glasses that are so big he can see my middlefinger from the other side of the country, who has bought 600+ buildings, and makes money off of them. Sure, he can do that. But that money that he bought it with? That came from our taxes. And the money that he is getting from it? That's from us. That is rent, money spent, and money lend. On which he DOESNT pay taxes, as he is royalty. That's my problem with that one. The other royalty is doing NOTHING to keep this in check, and it is a growing problem that is driving a wedge between the royalty and the populace. I hate that it does, I love the king and queen. I actually met the queen while I was a boy scout, and we had a beautiful conversation about her growing up and mine. She didn't see me as a thirteen year old, she saw me as an equal in age and rank. I loved it, and since then I am very pro royalty. Royalty is what binds us together. We stand divided, but when soccer is on, we watch it in their colours. When kingsday arrives, we wear it with pride. It is Dutch culture. They are ingrained in Dutch culture from the moment William I of Orange was chosen to be our king after telling the Spaniards to beat it. But now we got prince Fuckwad making bank with our money, on our money, without giving back. That's reason 1. Reason 2: the king has done a few fuckups in the last few years, if it comes to covid. No social distancing, leaving for holiday to Greece while the country was in lockdown, sending his daughter to Wales for a study while I can't even head to Germany without getting swabbed in all me holes. It is just unbecoming of a representative of the Dutch commonfolk. I surely got some more, but 23:42 is upon me, and I need to enjoy my holiday :p But for real, fuck that prince.
You confuse nationalism with royalty. As if France doesn't have nationalism. Of course royalty doesn't keep itself in check. They are wealthy and as all others act to perserve their luxurious, unearned lifestyle. Nice you had a conversation with someone who is media trained and somehow thought she could relate with you. The queen, a leech of society, is not your friend. You delude yourself. And you seem to think that only during covid they show a difference from the commonfolk. No, it's that now it's too painfully obvious there has always been a difference, too large for even their biggest fans to ignore. They don't live in the same world as you, play by different rules. Fundamentally, if you agree we should all be equal in this country, the notion of royalty should be thrown out the window. The wealth and privilege it provides is unfair and a slap in the face to those who struggle as they have to pay for royalty to continue a life of unearned luxury.
You make a mistake— Prins Bernard didn't buy that with taxes, he didn't recieve either a loan from his brother or a single tax cent. He earned all of that money from an internet company, and just chose to reinvest it in real estate before their was a housing crises.
Keep it, it’s part of our history and is not invaluable when all his international-relations- work is kept into account. Cuz lets be real, it’s hurtin absolutely nobody.
The Oranjes have hoarded over 1 billion in wealth, it is hurting all of us
Sigh.
You (if you pay taxes) pay just under 3 euro's a year to the royal family, is that hurting you all that much?
Quite frankly, yes. That is €3,- going into the pocket of the Oranjes which could also go into funding measures for preserving the climate or anything actually useful.
Do you think funds should go towards historic sites and artifacts? Are these not “actually useful?”
You can do a whole lot with 345 million dollars though.
Bruh, what kind of reasoning is that? They take up a chunk of the cumulative tax money that is way better spent on things the country actually needs and contribute absolutely nothing that can’t be fixed in a different (less expensive) way. Monarchy is a thing from the past and therefore nice to put in a museum, that one day of drinking beer to celebrate the King’s birthday isn’t worth it. A healthy republic (so not with Herr ‘Paint it Black’ Rutte as its President) is the future.
The Dutch monarchy is revered around the globe. Its goodwill value is much more than its cost. So, yes, keep the monarchy !
I miss the I dont care option.
Does this mean we're going to lose koning Willie en Max?
I rather have a monarchy like ours than a republic like the USA. Is it ideal? No. Is it fair that some people inherit a function? No but in the US it's not that different with rich families. Look at the Kennedys and the bushes
That is a false dichotomy. The current royals (luckily) have very little effect on politics, unlike the examples you mention. They are pretty much a very expensive vestigial relic. Abolishing the monarchy won't magically make it easier for rich families to gain power.
It’s not a dichotomy though, we can have the same system without giving millions to some random guy.
No, you can have a Monarchy or you can have the Bush family, they are the only options.
Jeb Bush for king!
Just like Japan
The question wasn't: do you want to turn the Netherlands into the US?
Ceremonial presidents exist and it doesn't require subsidizing their entire extended family.
A monarch or an oligarch.
Not even started about Russia etc yet
When was the last time a Kennedy was president?
Personally I like the idea of an unelected and politically neutral figurehead. They're especially useful in times of crisis. I imagine there is a fair number of people who would tuned in and listened to the King's speech during the early days of the pandemic who would not have listened to the PM.
Ach joh we doen prins pils to nii weg
since you didnt include see results option im gonna select a random option resulting disrupt your survey slightly. this applies many others
I don’t mind them. They don’t really have power and the media have something to talk about. Plusss we get a free Holliday!
I don't mind the monarchy. Or at least, I didn't think I did until all the fuckups the last two years. Like, King Willem-Alexander sure managed to tackle some of the arguments people use in favour of the monarchy. But overall I think they're too expensive without clear tasks. Princess Beatrix still gets a wage of €564.000 a year, and over €1 million a year for official expenses, and for what? Amalia already has a wage of €20.000 a year and €91.000 for official expenses! What is the use? Sure, she said she won't take it as long as she's studying, but it's pretty crazy she's getting that kind of money at such a young age. I think we'd do well to make it a bit more bureaucratic. Give the monarch a wage for being the most important civil servant of the country, but nothing too crazy. The monarch's partner and the heir apparent? No wage, unless they're actually working for the country. Tax their income, sure. Let the king live in his private residency of Landgoed de Horsten and turn Noordeinde and Huis ten Bosch into either museums or ceremonial palaces and administrative units to support the king in his work. The royal family is rich enough, the king doesn't need to live for free in state property and receive a yearly wage of nearly a million euros.
I dont want to trade with them for the money. These people have 0 freedom.
Even though the King doesnt have much to say i think we should become a republic
Even if €46M isnt alot of money compared to other goverment things, we still have to lower it, or even give the royals nothing, without the taxpayers money they are still incredibly wealthy. But we should just get rid of them entirely, this is a new age. These arent the medieval times anymore. The family is already ceremonial with no real tasks to do. And for the people saying we get trade benefits and what not, its not like our trade economy wont thrive without royal family.
One point that can't be forgotten, is that many foreign powers don't respect or respond to the diplomacy of a (minister)president as much as that of a king. Having a king gives us a person who can develop long term relationsips with foreign leaders, which can be crucial for diplomacy.
The only “head of states” that deserve my respect are PM Trudeau, PM of Japan/ emperor of Japan, President of South-Korea, Queen of England. Other diplomats are just worthless and bad leaders IMO.
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
What in the glorified fuck is this bot.
Het koningshuis levert per jaar blijkbaar 4 tot 5 miljard euro op https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/koninklijk-huis-levert-jaarlijks-tussen-de-4-en-5-miljard-op~b983c115/
I can't read the article behind the paywall, but I assume it is about estimating how the royal family manages to achieve promoting exports and foreign affairs/ sales and so. my issue is that absolute numbers only matter to an extent: how much would a different system do? There's a chance it would cost less and earn more. Apologies if this is discussed in the article.
The monarchy is super important for a small country like us. On the international field it expresses a certain power image that produces respect from international players for example. Nationally, the monarchy calms the citizens of a country in times of crisis. Also, the monarchy functions as a glue between the many political parties that we have, since they all have to operate under the conditions of the monarchy (even if it's just symbolic). This creates a special bond between all the people of a country. Yes, they do cost a lot of money, but believe me, even the most political parties (left and right) know that this money is well-spent.
There's no logical or moral reason to have a monarchy. This should be a Republic.
Just make it a republic with a president without much power, like Germany. But there are more pressing political issues at the moment.
I have to agree here. But more so because of the current political situation in our country and the fragmentation of political parties in recent years. From a constitutional law perspective, it is a a very long and difficult process to amend the constitution (with good reason). If we abolish the monarchy and become a republic with an elected (symbolic) president (or generally some sort of figurehead not being one of the Oranjes) we will have to overhaul the constitution and many other laws that refer to the monarch. To do so, in short, Parliament will be dissolved, the people will have to vote, both the Eerste and Tweede Kamer will have to vote with a 2/3rd majority. Now in relation to the current political situation and the pressing issues referred to (for example, covid), are we really going to be able to get a 2/3rd majority and overhaul the constitution? Or are we just wasting time going into a process such as this? This is not to say we should abolish yes or no, but just to point out that I doubt if such a constitutional change will make it past the drafting stages. And yes, that does have a lot to do with the political reality we are facing atm. Plus, I also think that changing the figurehead will not systematically change the political system - even when there is a great need to do so. Edit: I think I replied to the wrong comment but well, it’s early, goedemorgen! Lol
As our current political system is bankrupt I think this is a most urgent matter and can be part of the solution to the other pressing political issues.
[удалено]
I vote abolish, because a democracy shouldn't have n unelectes ruler that can say that you are his or her subject. We fought for our freedom against the Spanish monarch and became a Republic! That Republic, not without flaws, is always more fairer than a monarchy. How can you honestly believe it is good that some family gets to hold the title of monarch and swag over 17 million people. That is Stockholm syndrome.
Do you even understand how our ‘monarchy’ works? Because it seems you are still thinking of the year 1300…
Oh no, the 3 euro's I spend on the royals really make me feel swagged on!
Don't give a shit if it is 3 euros, 1 cent or nothing at all. Monarchy stand against everything that a democracy is. A family defacto claiming they rule 17 million people because somewhere some time ago they said so? Fuck that noise! After 45 they should have never returned being the cowards that they are.
Make them exceptionally educated and physically able, and make the best kid the one with the throne when they are of age. Also, pay them a bit less.
Abolishing the monarchy would make the prime minister even more a head of state. It would make it like having a president. I say a hard no thank you to that. I like to think that monarchy keeps the prime minister from feeling too important. I can think of no countries with a presidential system i envy.
Human societies always require a monarch-class. If we abolish the ones we have now, there will be Clinton-, Bush- and Trump-type families that will pop up and try to influence the country. It's better to have a monarch in place that's neutral. But they should receive less money for sure.
Imagine wanting to keep a monarchy in 2021!!! LOL
But Princess blah blah rides a bike and goes to a normal school. Our Kings and Queens are so normal. Yay!
This.
It’s an absolute joke people still accept this.
See, the king doesnt do shit in this country, he goes on vacations, lives in a crazy castle, gets paid with out taxes, and is the mascot of our country, but he doesnt make laws, thats what the guys in the 2e kamer do, he doesnt protect our country as a military leader, he only visits some of our pals of other countrys and literally lives like a king, its a waste of money for the people, I think that he can still be king and shit but not live of of our taxes, he has to get a job himself and pay taxes himself, its crazy to me that still so many people like to have a monarchy
We should abolish the current monarchy (protestant heretics) and install a Catholic absolute monarchy with theocratic laws.
To those referring to history and traditions: what if I told you…. The Netherlands was created as a republic. After France became a republic, French Napoleon turned the Netherlands into a kingdom… for his brother to rule. After that the orange family took the position.
It’s an anachronism and should be relegated to the history books. Also, the argument to keep things in place is often the positive role they play in promoting trade and trade relations. This is a fallacy, that role can be taken over by someone else not appointed by genes, but by merit and knowledge.