Danish Royal Wedding
 

Is anyone else watching the Danish Royal Wedding right now?

Seeing the crowned Prince crying unashamedly as his bride walked up the aisle (or runway per my husband) was truly touching.

And his Australian bride is breathtaking. Also, it was lovely watching her walking beside her kilted Scotish father.

Tune in if you can - Great shots of Copenhagen. All European royalty seem in attendance.

When are most Europeans going to come around (as France and Germany already have) and get past this royalty nonsense? It's so medieval and backward. Almost like a superstitious belief that these "nobles" are inherently superior to everyone else.

S Mueller:

You're absolutely right.

Like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Europe's mnarchies - Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the UK - have so much to learn about freedom and democracy from France and Germany.

Indeed, for the past two centuries, all freedom-loving people in these oppressed monarchies have gazed wistfully at those paragons of virtue.

When we weren't wishing we could be ruled perpetually by a bunch of gerrymandered, decaying judges telling us what they think a bunch of 18th century slave-owners would have wanted us to do.

Missed it! If the festivities happen to be rebroadcast, could someone post the network that's carrying this?
Thanks!

Heard this morning that the bride has given up her job at Microsoft.

Don't worry, folks..this "event" will never replace "The Young and the Restless."

My previous post got deleted. I'll post one devoid of pro/con monarchist discussion.

When I was in Copenhagen, I saw this cathedral that was used today from the outside, but I did not go in. Now I really regret that. I don't know how I missed that.

It's also known as Vor Frue Kirke.

Web site:
http://www.koebenhavnsdomkirke.dk/
http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/800_Vor_Frue_Kirke.html
(click on the small thumbnails)

I agree with all the anti monarchy stuff but I watched the wedding and thought it was very moving. They seem a lovely couple who made the ceremony their own as well as a stuffy formal occasion. Loved them both but why wouldn't I ..I'm Australian with a Danish grandmother! Just look at the two things as seperate issues. God knows it is a relief to have something happy going on in the world!

Going back to the original question, yes, Queenie, I watched some of it on Internet TV (LIVE transmission from a Danish TV station). The shots of the cathedral, streets of Copenhagen, cheering crowds, got us very excited about next Summer' trip to some Northern European countries.

As far as the topic of European Royal Houses, I see those figures for their historical significance, i.e. bloodlines. I am sure most of the people in those countries see it as such as well. What I really don't understand (the only kings I grew up with were the Three Kings), is the people supporting extravagant lifestyles in the name of Royalty. Oh, well....our royalty is Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt, and getting 20 MIL per movie is way much more extravagant and ridiculous.

Queenie, next week' is Prince Felipe of Spain Royal Wedding, I'll post a weblink for Internet LIVE transmission if I find one.

I was up late and did watch it. They both looked very happy and I hope they will be. Betsy - were you being ironic? mary Donaldson has never worked for microsoft - she was what I would call an estate agent and you would call a realtor, I believe.

And to Chattera - if you wish to argue against a monarchy suggest you don't use the amount they cost to do it, as guess Dubya costs a whole lot more.

Alice-- obviously you need to get better informed so that when you make statements you may sound smarter. Mary Donaldson worked as a Real Estate law professional while in Australia. Subsequent to that she lived in Paris and then Copenhagen. That is when she was employed by Microsoft. She quit Microsoft in October 2003 when the engagement to the Prince Heir of Denmark was announced. I didn't researched this lady's life to know this; that fact appeared in almost all recent articles about the wedding.

On the other statement (please notice it is Chatters, not Chaterra...), well, good thing there are general elections every four years, isn't it? By the way, when was the last time, the issue of Royalty was voted on in any of those countries?

You know that there has never been a vote. Swedes are sometimes critical, but Danes just seem to love their queen and princes with real devotion. And many also said it yesterday. Denmark is the world's oldest monarchy (they also have the world's oldest national flag), so I guess it would not be so easy even mentally to end that.

We're thinking of offering him the position of King of Australia.

If we can't get rid of the stupid monarchy, then at least get rid of the English one - our next king will otherwise be Charlie who wants to be a tampon - I mean, really!

At least this one's decorative!

Monarcy is the ultimate inherited privilege and its anachronistic survival should be repulsive to any modern intelligent person.

The existence of monarchies is offensive in the same sense that Confederate symbols displayed on state flags are offensive. Both are symbols of antiquated notions of humanity that unenlightened people refuse to abandon.

Europeans should realize that these "Heads of State" are not Barbie Dolls, they are descendants of families that exploited, an, in many cases brutalized, their ancestors. And yet those with empty minds continue to admire royals for no reason beyond the fact that "they're pretty."

Despite all of our disagreements, Americans and French have at least one thing in common. We refuse to be the "subjects" of anyone, no matter how "pretty" they may be.

Perhaps you could write to the Danish people individually and explain to them how you feel?

This mistake they've made seems important to you to set straight. I'm sure they would appreciate knowing that they're doing things incorrectly.

'preciate the advice Clif, but I don't think the Danish royals would take kindly to me tampering with their property... I'm sorry, I meant to say their subjects.

Not me to defend Monarchy but to answer Chatters first. Well in Norway there was a vote on if they wanted to keep the monarchy in 1905. The result..about 95% for the monarcy if I recall correctly. And in recent polls last year I beleive it was 60-70% that still support the monarchy. Compared to how many supported the US sitting president, it was 49.5% wasn't it ? :)
And as a matter of fact all those criticizing the northern European monarchies, you do know how a constitional monarchy actually work right ? Comparing our election system to f. inst. the american one doesn't make me embarrased at all.

Cobos

The presidential elections are very much a family affair, Bush Jnr and Snr, etc. etc.

Democratic to the very last man standing. Oh well I don't have to live there or holiday there so Bush or not I don't really care, as I've said before "Posh and Tex" will both be leaving office one after the other!

Twice, and nearly two centuries apart, in American history have a father and son pair made it to the White House. This is hardly a precedent. Moreover, I have long been bothered by the fact that people of privileged birth seem to have significantly greater opportunity to move into the White House (e.g., Bush, Gore, Kerry, etc.). But this advantage is not overwhelming (e.g., Clinton, Reagan, etc.). And the electorate has the final say. They may not always choose wisely, but most Americans believe that is an acceptable risk.

The Norwegian popularity poll is interesting. It seems to me that the acceptance of European monarchies is founded largely on romanticized fairy tale-like notions of princes and princesses, as opposed to an objective assessment of the benefits of the institution itself. If this is the case, these monarchies may not survive the age of technology (e.g., CNN, internet, hidden surveilance cameras, etc.). The well-documented antics of the House of Windsor are a perfect example.

Many of the justifications that I read for these monarchies are along the lines of - they are "above politics" and provide a "stabilizing influence." Their powers, which in at least some cases are very real, would only be exercised in a national crisis.

The "above politics" bit seems naive and the "stabilizing influence" could be for the worse as easily as the better. The real test of these monarchies would be a true national crisis. The last such crisis was the Second World War and many monarchs failed the test. Some fled to Britain, some collaborated (and spend the remainder of their lives trying to obfuscate this fact). The bravest of them simply chose not to stick their heads out too far.

"Fairy tale-like notions of princes and princesses"??

Pardon me smueller, but if anyone has those notions, it would be the Americans. We Europeans don't, because we know how modern constitutional monarchies actually work. We live in them. It is clear to me from your post that you do not.

The age of technology has been going on for quite some time now, and there are still as many monarchies around as there was when it started. And frankly, I don't see what on earth modern technology would have to do with anything. Are you implying that if we knew what our royal families were really up to behind closed doors, we would kick them out? In that case you should know that we have been well aware of their antics for centuries. But we don't care! Wether this is good or bad is not for me to say, but there you are.

There are several reasons for this. Unlike the US, we care more about how our contry is run than whom (or what for that matter - read up on European royal history some time, it's interesting reading...) our rulers are sleeping with. Finally, and most importantly, modern day CONSTITUTIONAL monarchies have NO power!
Their powers are not "very real" - they are symbolic at best, and even those symbolic powers are being taken away bit by bit. Modern day kings and queens simply do not have political ambition - it isn't like in those faery stories you accused us of being taken with. And even if they did, what do you think would happen? If a king tried to declare himself supreme ruler of - say - Norway, he would be arrested. This isn't the 17th century.

As for what happened during the second world war - what would you suggest the royals do? Remain in their countries and be killed by the occupating force? They didn't go to England for a vacation, they were national symbols, the survival of which was important to the moral of Norwegian citizens. All of which is beside the point, because it was not the Royal families jobs to prevent invasion of their country. That is what the government does - a government which also fled the country.

In closing, as someone living in a constitutional monarchy I can assure you that we are not ruled by Kings and Queens. They are more a sort of glorified ambassadors. Wether or not that is something on which money should be spent is another matter - but thinking they have political power is just being misinformed.

Personally, Faux does not favor monarchies. Faux thinks they have outlived their usefulness in the modern world. It is, however, no one's business except people living within a country with a constitutional monarchy as to whether a monarchy continues to exist. North Americans should just shut up about it because they do not live in these contries.

Having said all of this, the Danish people spirited all of the Jews out of the country and very few Jews were killed by the Nazis. So, in my book, that is, faux sure, a great big "hurrah" for the Danes.

I don't care if Denmark continues to have a monarchy or not but I hope the couple will be happy. At least the members of the Danish royal family appear to behave better than the children of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.

Now, y'all have a nice day and quit looking for things to feud about.