Dutch queen Beatrix announced to step down

[Q]

As announced on BBC (click for original formatting):

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands to abdicate for son

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands has announced she is abdicating in favour of her son, Prince Willem-Alexander.

In a pre-recorded address broadcast on TV, she said she would formally stand down on 30 April.

The queen, who is approaching her 75th birthday, said she had been thinking about this moment for several years and that now was "the moment to lay down my crown".

Queen Beatrix has been head of state since 1980, when her mother abdicated.

In the short televised statement, the queen said it was time for the throne to be held by "a new generation", adding that her son was ready to be king.

Prince Willem-Alexander, 45, is married and has three young children.

He will become the Netherland's first king since Willem III, who died in 1890.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte was also due to address the nation on Monday evening.

Abdication 'tradition'

Queen Beatrix is the sixth monarch from the House of Orange-Nassau, which has ruled the Netherlands since the early 19th Century.

Correspondents say her abdication will not provoke a constitutional crisis. Under Dutch law, the monarch has few powers and the role is considered ceremonial.

In recent decades it has become the tradition for the monarch to abdicate.

Queen Beatrix's mother Juliana resigned the throne in 1980 on her 70th birthday, and her grandmother Wilhelmina abdicated in 1948 at the age of 68.

Queen Beatrix will be 75 on Thursday.

She has remained active in recent years, but her reign has also seen traumatic events.

In 2009 a would-be attacker killed eight people when he drove his car into crowds watching the queen and other members of the royal family in a national holiday parade.

In March last year her second son, Prince Friso, was struck by an avalanche in Austria and remains in a coma.

[Q]

High time for a republic I'd say!

[Q]

Would it really matter if we changed from our monarchy, where the royals hold no executive power at all, to a republic? The power is already in the hands of the parlement while we are a monarchy, and I don't see how a switch from a monarchy to a bourgeoisie republic would be benefitial for us.

This is simply wrong. This myth that the queen holds "no power" is really widespread, but I would've expected leftists to be a little better informed.

If you're right, I'm sure that the Prime Minister visits the queen every week over... well... a nice cup of tea? No? To give but one small example.

[Blake's Baby]

Oh for fuck's sake, Q, are you serious? It's window dressing. The House of Orange-Nassau has no more power than the Windsors or the House of Bernadotte. This isn't the 1830s, the era of fighting for the bourgeois-liberal republic is long gone.

Abolish the Monarchy! Then the Prime Minister won't have to meet the Monarch for 2 hours a week! That'll change everything!

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I wonder if there will be demos like in 1980, looking at the state of the left here probably not.

[Q]

Oh for fuck's sake, Q, are you serious? It's window dressing. The House of Orange-Nassau has no more power than the Windsors or the House of Bernadotte. This isn't the 1830s, the era of fighting for the bourgeois-liberal republic is long gone.

Abolish the Monarchy! Then the Prime Minister won't have to meet the Monarch for 2 hours a week! That'll change everything!

Of course it's not the 1830's. Thank you Captain Obvious.

But it is quite clear that claiming that Beatrix has only ceremonial functions is also bull. I'm not saying that she directs Premier Rutte's every move, but she does have her influence. Like any rich family really, but of course this one having a formal position in the Dutch state.

[Sasha]

Well let's do our damned best to make this a galvanising moment, the fact they will spend millions of public money to hoist that fat posh boy and his junta wife on a golden throne better gets some ppl riled up
Best chance in years to throw a nice spanner in the works of normal complanicy

[Blake's Baby]

Of course it's not the 1830's. Thank you Captain Obvious.

But it is quite clear that claiming that Beatrix has only ceremonial functions is also bull. I'm not saying that she directs Premier Rutte's every move, but she does have her influence. Like any rich family really, but of course this one having a formal position in the Dutch state.

So, you agree that fighting for the bourgeois-liberal republic (ie, calling for the abolition of the monarchy, as you just did) is ridiculous?

[Q]

So, you agree that fighting for the bourgeois-liberal republic (ie, calling for the abolition of the monarchy, as you just did) is ridiculous?

As I put it on Facebook, when I was called "aw, you commie": "Totally. As consistent democrats we have no message to any monarchical institutions (or prime ministers, presidents... you name it)".

So, what bourgeois-liberal? Oh well, I'll let you in your tangent.

[feeLtheLove]

I don't even understand. Why do they still have Queens if they don't do anything?

[l'Enfermé]

Oh for fuck's sake, Q, are you serious? It's window dressing. The House of Orange-Nassau has no more power than the Windsors or the House of Bernadotte. This isn't the 1830s, the era of fighting for the bourgeois-liberal republic is long gone.

Abolish the Monarchy! Then the Prime Minister won't have to meet the Monarch for 2 hours a week! That'll change everything!

I don't know about Orange-Nassau but the House of Windsor alone is more powerful and influential than most countries.

[Blake's Baby]

Constitutional power. Abolishing the monarchy in the UK wouldn't affect their wealth.

[Sasha]

Since our queen owns a huge share in Shell and a bunch of other multinationals next to all the prestige and secret influence her royal position gives (she heads the bilderberg group for example) she gives the windsors a run for their money.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Her son, soon to be our king, will be called Willem IV.

I already heard that he wants to get back a big deal of political power instead of continuing Beatrix' purely cerimonial position.

So a republic you say? You can forget about that. We're going back to a real monarchy...



"Dance you peasants!"


_

[Q]

But let's say you are right and the queen and the prime minister are lobbying together or the queen is steering the pm or whatever it is you are proposing...

See post 7 for what I'm proposing.

Would you really care wether you are being ruled by the queen or by a pm?

See post 10 for an answer on your question.

You already know you are not going to vote for the bourgeoisie pm, so you like neither the queen nor the pm and both won't represent your wishes and both wont represent the interests of the workers. So why care about who rules the country, a queen or a pm?

First of all, at the very least we can elect our PM (well, indirectly anyway). So that is a step up from a monarch, be it for what it is.

Second, I defy the polarity of putting it like "oh, so you're against the monarchy, therefore you must be for the president then?". As a communist I am against all monarchical, top-down forms of rule.

I already heard that he wants to get back a big deal of political power instead of continuing Beatrix' purely cerimonial position.

So a republic you say? You can forget about that. We're going back to a real monarchy...

I didn't hear much about that. But if he tried, I doubt he'd get very far. The tendency, fortunately, is towards limiting monarchical power within the state. Witness, as a recent example, the formation of a new cabinet, which is now no longer led by the monarch.

[Q]

That is not what I said, that is more or less what you said, or at least how I interpreted it. If you are saying we should upgrade to a republic, then you are calling for a president. Which is a weird thing to do for a communist, to say at least.

And this goes really to the heart of the matter: I dispute that a republic automatically means a president (or any such similar thing). The call for the democratic republic is really old in the communist tradition. Engels for example championed it.

Where I do disagree though with most communists (the majority supporting some sort of council republic model) is that I'm a supporter of a demarchy (or Athenian democracy); a model that relies on lotteries more than on elections and consequently is a whole lot more democratic in that it is the "people that rule", as opposed to political cliques with their established networks, money and power.

But alas, this is completely going offtopic, so I'll leave it there.

[Blake's Baby]

... The call for the democratic republic is really old in the communist tradition. Engels for example championed it...

And yet, even though you agree tht the demand is 'really old', I get called 'Captain Obvious' for pointing out that we are no longer living in the 1830s.

Yes it is an 'old' demand. An outdated demand. The form that capitalist rule takes is pretty much unimportantl. Stop fighting the 200-year-old lost battles of the liberal bourgeoisie and take up the cause of communism, comrade.

[Q]

And yet, even though you agree tht the demand is 'really old', I get called 'Captain Obvious' for pointing out that we are no longer living in the 1830s.

Yes it is an 'old' demand. An outdated demand. The form that capitalist rule takes is pretty much unimportantl. Stop fighting the 200-year-old lost battles of the liberal bourgeoisie and take up the cause of communism, comrade.

Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree on what constitutes the "fight for communism". My immediate interest is to have the working class enforcing its political hegemony, as a class-collective. However you look at it, the monarchy has no part in that.

You seem too focussed on maximalist demands. But then again, you do self-identify as a left-communist.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Whether the monarchy has any substantial power / influence in any country or is purely ceremonial is not relevant, in my opinion. Monarchs should not still be a staple of any modern democracy (even if it's a flawed liberal bourgeious one). How any leftist can dismiss the calls for monarchies to be abolished simply because it won't lead directly to communism right away (day one, queen ousted, day two, communist state) seems absurd...if it's not about directly aiding the final, decisive revolution, then why bother!? All causes are irrelevant unless they somehow guarantee communism?
So yeah, hope that some anti-monarchist sentiment gets stirred up, whether or not it will lead to anything more, who knows.

[Blake's Baby]

... How any leftist can dismiss the calls for monarchies to be abolished simply because it won't lead directly to communism right away (day one, queen ousted, day two, communist state) seems absurd...if it's not about directly aiding the final, decisive revolution, then why bother!?...

Well, exactly - if you mean 'day one, abolish the monarchy, day two, communism' is absurd. So why call for the abolition of the monarchy?

If it doesn't progress the cause of the working class, why bother? The working class has no interests in fighting for a bourgeois-democratic republic. It doesn't advance class-consciousness, it doesn't advance proletarian power, it doesn't do anything except allow the bourgeoisie to claim a false democratic legitimacy. It strengthens the power of the bourgeoisie. Why do you want to fight for our enemies?