No particular reason Ursa, just putting stuff out there and see what people think. I don't think this is about Friso, the RVD or the PM could just put out a statement right?

Well perhaps to make it more personal. But I guess we'll have to wait until 7 PM to find out.

Could we have link to English website please?

Klik op accepteren als je al geïnformeerd bent over het gebruik van cookies. Which I think translates to "I will bend you over the information desk if you eat too many cookies" But I could be wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21237254

Let's get #trixit trending on twitter :D

Oh it already is I guess.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23trixit&src=tren

Probably, within a few months time and for the first time in 130 years, the Netherlands will have a King..!

Queen Beatrix will abdicate in favor of her oldest son Willem-Alexander on april 30th of this year. She was quite an impressive personality and had a reputation for being a hard worker who was particularly well-informed about the state of affairs. Having never violated the constitution and maintaining a >70% approval rating throughout her tenure and >80% at the end of her tenure, one day she'll probably be regarded as one of the best Dutch sovereigns ever.

yay for being good at a wholly ceremonial job! Sorry, but I don't think anyone from the US will ever understand those of you who have fond feelings for monarchs.

http://www.nrc.nl/inbeeld/files/2013/01/ANP-1848319-728x735.jpg

Until these monarchs open their pie-hole erist! Boom! Looks like she's in a pretty serious US affair there for someone with a ceremonial gig. In your face!

Well, I do appreciate a good splash of color. Why I miss guilders as well. That sunflower!

The lighthouse wasn't so bad either; redhouse loves lighthouse

@erist: in some countries, like the netherlands or belgium, the monarch has actually a bit more to do in state affairs than just ceremonies. For this reason, it is important that he or she is up to the job (esp. in Belgium). Also, in times of crisis like the WWI and II, the monarchs of the Low Lands did a particular well job in keeping the nations up (among other things this included fighting in the trenches personally) - have you ever had a president doing this AFTER he got elected?

no, but I do think it would be a nice requirement and would cut down on wars. In any case, monarchs are still weird.

The really wonderful thing about monarchs is they tend to marry into the families of monarchs from other nations. Before you know it the ruling houses of all similar nations are related and one big happy family, and as such we will never have a war :).

In all seriousness, though, a damned fine effort from a damn fine Queen. Well done, that ma'am!

@erist,

constitutional monarchies are more democratic than republics. Here's why: in a republic two opposing factions of the ruling class, the executive and the representative, can claim an electoral mandate. Barack Obama was elected by the American people, John Boehner was elected by people that were elected by the people. No wonder they're always fighting. In a constitutional monarchy that situation is impossible and as a consequence, politics is much more flexible. Also, a royal family allows a constant factor in government, that can nourish international relationships that last longer than just a presidency, but in fact are passed on from generation to generation.

Also, Beatrix had an 81% approval rating. She earned her position not by highlighting differences, as politicians running for office do, but by the opposite: by highlighting what we have in common. Having a head of state who does not now, or in his/her history, represent a major line of political thought is a huge advantage to the political process.

@ Octavious: you are being sarcastic? At the eve of WW1 most of the great powers were related... closely.

@redhouse - "constitutional monarchies are more democratic than republics"

Are you saying that a system which has 2 sets of elected representatives is more dmocratic than a system that has 1 set of elected representatives plus someone who is there by an accident of birth? You could claim that a constitutional monarchies is more effective, or more popular, or even less costly - but more democratic? Please.

I live under a constitutional monarchies (UK) our royal family are great, i have nothing against them if people want to privately fund their lifestyle that's fine, but a royal family has no place in a democratic society and they should not receive any tax revenue.

Well, by default I think they are more democratic in societies like the Dutch and English ones, where the royal family enjoy very open and widespread support. I'm a monarchist myself and I guess 75% of the Dutch support this form of government.

Re: sets. I actually said quite the contrary. And republics don't have 2 sets of elected representatives, they have one or several sets of elected representatives, and one or several sets of elected executives. This gives the people the possibility to contradict itself (by first choosing e.g. socialist senator followed by a conservative president), and people who vote that way (which is their right by the way) block, in my opinion, a healthy democratic process whereby there is a fundamental agreement between executive and representing branch of government.

And their lifestyle is very much a separate affair. Presidents cost money too.

I did say that you could make the case for CMs being more effective, and more popular and even cheaper. But none of that equates to a democratic mandate. Just because a Monarch may ride as high as 100% in an opinion poll, it doesn't make it democratic until we have someone else on the ballot paper. Make you case for CMs by all means, but don't try and pretend they are democratic, it weakens your arguement.

The Obama Presidency is much more expensive than all the monarchs of Europe combined.

But it wouldn't be democratic to abolish a monarchy when it has 100% support right? In that case a republic would be less democratic than a monarchy, wouldn't you agree?

If we had a vote every 4 years and people had a choice "do you want to keep the queen/ king" then I'm happy to accept the result.

If we abolish the monarchy and then hold an election to vote in ceremonial head of state and allow former monarch to stand. Then I'm happy.

Keeping a monarchy, however popular based on an opinion poll of anything less than the entire voting age population is not democratic. I stress again, a monarchy can be more popular, more effective and cheaper than a republic (but so can a dictator) but neither a dictatorship or CM are democratic.

I am surprised you are arguing this point. You normally have a good understand of an arguement, here you appear to be arguing an indefensible position just because you think CM is 'better'. You may be right that they are better, but surely you must concede that they are not in their present form more democratic.

Maniac,

I'm actually quite open to the possibility of a republic, but I believe it would require modifying our current electoral system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method) to a district system (like in the UK) to avoid that two equal and opposing forces are in both branches of the ruling class.

That being said, yes, I believe a CM is more democratic than a republic under certain conditions that are currently largely satisfied in NL (large popularity, proportional electoral system).

I also am against holding a referendum on the issue. Our elected representatives all have a stance on the issue and, reflecting the communis opinio of the nation, there's a majority for keeping the monarchy.

A republic wouldnt necessarily entail a DS, as long as parliament retains the one and only electoral mandate. The president shouldnt be chosen directly, but within parliament, much as currently happens with the PM and the chair of the Second Chamber.

Thanks for sharing redhouse, great to see a fellow monarchist. It's easy to be dismissive about the quirkiness of a monarchy, but I agree, Bea has done a tremendous job. And I'll certainly have to get used to Kingsday!!

In the Netherlands, there are comparatively few elections. One at the local, one at the provincial, one at the national and one at the European level. And I hold my representatives accountable on all possible issues. Let's say I vote green party, then I hold them accountable for what they say (if they're in the opposition) and what they do (if they're in government). I don't care about the rest. No excuses. As for Obama, is it his fault that he didn't "repair the economy", or is it the friends of John Boehner? Or is it perhaps a natural evolution of the economy itself? This question has not been definitively answered.
In our system, I'd hold "our John Boehner" accountable for everything that happens. I'd vote for somebody else if I believe it rained too much or if somebody served my sandwich with too much sauce. It's as simple as this.

^In other words, in a monarchy (or a system with lots of appointed or hereditary positions) the few votes I cast are much more forceful than the plethora of votes I'd cast in, say, California.