Some thoughts, triggered by Gary where he speaks about Europe, nobility elites and democracy, from my national perspective then
you might find it interesting, -or not
Europe started with the EGKS, an economic cooperation model for ruling the production of coal and steel, to aspire the rebuild of all European countries.
It was a conscious try to force the nations to work together, as sharing markets was seen as the best way to avoid national wars.
The general idea behind Europa really was simply no war anymore.
youngsters are not always aware of that fact, or even don't wanne know.
Yet, the Kosovar 'war' was shocking to see on tellie for us Europeans.
It was considered as something third-world like, like in Africa or something.
(Europe was weak in action, sure, don't forget we are just 60 years young and still expanding).
Often it's said by Americans that it was thanks to the American soldiers Europe got rid of the Nazis.
Letting alone the immense role of the USSR in that result, this is true.
Aren't you glad then that Europe took it's responsibility and created a basic structure to make war actually impossible or self destructive?
The Bilderberg group started with a huge conflict between European and American members.
America at that time still was in the ban of McArty's communists hunt, while at the same time communists parties and pacifistic tendencies were very popular in Europe in those days.
Specially Italy and France were said to be much too tolerant to communists, the Americans couldn't understand why we didn't forbid the c. parties.
(btw, you know of course the communists were the most fanatic resistence group in Nazi Germany).
Our own Queen Juliana, the mother of Beatrice, wrote history in the fifties with her famous speech in what conference was it again (UN?), appealing for radical pacefistic political strategies.
Beatrice indeed is always on the Bilderberg list, but you shouldn't take here presence so seriously.
In our constitutional structure she, as a queen, has a more and more social cohesive role, without any real power or real relations to multinationals imho (financial investments maybe, dunno).
Her only power is that formally she can refuse the constitutionaly done proposal to her, after elections, namely which parties should start conferences to form a new gouvernment.
From the other side, a real political danger could rise when she or another member of the royal family makes a public statement that isn't in line with the official gouvernment opinion.
This happend e (very) few times, most known is the Lockheed affaire around prince Bernhard, father of Beatrix, in the seventies.
The always-responsible ministers have to resign in such a situation, and Beatrix has shown to be a master in avoiding political troubles, she seems to be very well informed anyway, nationally and internationally.
That declares the popularity of the 'Kingdom' we have, it doesn't matter really, it's folklore, it is symbolic, and can only be understood if you know where this strange and somehow archaic marriage between kingdom and democracy comes from.
Don't wanne sound pedantic, you guys know all this probably.
But both the two social ruling classes deep back in the 19th century decided to choose for a deliberating approach.
The old and dying nobility, associated with the kingdoms, and the new citizens who got rich and powerfull in the society's field made a deal.
The French Revolution had made clear that you couldn't keep the new citizen away from the political power, so it had to be.
In Holland, the King could stay on the throne, but the government of (selected) citizens aquired all political responsability.
Kind of condemnation to each other, but the King started to focus on national renewing projects like railroad infrastructures and creating good trading conditions.
(It took a few years for the parlement to find it's way, but after 1867 things started to work, see later).
Stupid prince Bernhard tried to copy that role a bit too hard, later, and got pushed back hard away from all public activities and privileges
So, there's Beatrix, humanized and popular.
In times of glabalisation and immigration conflicts people tend to embrass the few elements that seem to be 'typical us'.
That's national soccer, and that's the royal family
Not the republicans 'lost the struggle' so much, it are the nation's sentiments that got the overhand, which doesn't harm anybody.
Next monday we celebrate her birthday, it's a real 'volksfest', with music festivals, a lot of street activities, etc.
The march-past for Juliana and family on the palace steps are history since Beatrix (almost 30 years).
The whole royal family comes to 'us', in the streets, takes part in a few street games, listens to and more of that kind of friendly stupidiness
One car bomb on the right spot and we are a republic by definition...
Yet, any 'divine devotion' on that day is absent, it's quite relaxed actually.
Even the most leftwing Socialistic Party, which started as Maoistic action party 30 years ago, officially left the republican idea.
Not alone for opportunistic reasons (gouvernmental availibility, getting close in the meanwhile), but also for the above practical considerations: if the people like it, why would a 'socialist wanne know better'.
Already speaking, so: there's another arguement to let the situation as is.
The political role of the King (Queen) is constitutionally determinated.
To change that you'd need 2/3 majority (which is good).
The discussion would dominate the national news for years, as the medea would pick up every word said by anyone.
It would split up our nation in two camps, without any, any real societal subject of importance.
There's more and better to do, that's the general convention about this subject, even at the socialists.
The first law in Holland (restricting industrial patrones in hiring children for work) came across in 1867, known as the Childs Law by Van Houten, and only England as most industrial nation preceded us in social legislation, imho.
In a try to avert the feared total class struggle as (wrongly) predicted by Karl Marx 20 years before, the right wing of the parliament capitulated and a majority was found.
'King Trader' Willem II in the meanwhile did his job
Analysis goes, after all we finally found a way to co-exist together, with Protestants, Catholics, Bible fanatics, hague speechers, and other criminals, and now the next king and protestant prince Willem Alexander has marriaged smylie Katholic Maxima, daughter of a political criminal, and even that got diplomaticly worked around without publicly denying that fact
If we have to discuss a thing in Holland, then it's not the constitutional position of the king(dom), we better could try to concentrate on democratic control of all politics makers on all levels.
You seem to have lost any confidence in that, which is a pity specially if it'd be true overthere.
Let's support Kasparov!
i'm not against organized governments, i think we need them. it's suicidal to TRUST them, though. they always need to be crippled and cut back, before their power becomes too great and becomes odious. at that point, they're like a bad weed in your garden, hard to get rid of without killing the whole garden.
remember the deposed king george of england supported hitler as did prescott bush?