Republics in Action
Two top news of 31st December 2007 from an African and an Asian republic:
Kenya: Mwai Kibaki, 76, showed a steely core by swearing himself in within an hour of being pronounced victor in an election denounced as fraudulent by opposition challenger Raila Odinga and questioned by international and Kenyan observers.
Kibaki now faces the momentous task of reuniting a country split pretty much down the middle by an election that has brought several dozen deaths, first during campaign rallies and then in an explosion of violence over the results.
Pakistan: The party of assassinated Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto named her 19-year-old son as its new leader Sunday and announced it would contest general elections set for January 8.
"My mother always said that democracy is the best revenge," Bilawal Bhutto told a chaotic press conference in the family's ancestral home in southern Pakistan.
At an emergency party meeting here, officials also named Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, as co-chairman to assist Bilawal.
Do you remember, how the republican system was called in another blog? Rational and fair. The dynastic rule of the Pakistan’s People Party and the rigged presidential elections in Kenya are certainly proof how rational and fair that system works.
Of course we could switch sides and just do as the republicans do, whenever there’s a crisis in a Monarchy: Abolish the whole thing! Get rid of that 2,500 year old republic system, that didn’t work in Rome and certainly is not fit for any country in the 21st century to satisfy the needs of the people! Republics had their time, now we must move on. The change towards the Monarchy is inevitable.
And follow the republicans' own example: Don’t make the mistake to ask the people, just abolish it by simple parliamentary vote. Better: Do away with it by decree. Should you really be forced to hold a referendum, make sure you can paint your opponents as “unpatriotic”, ban them from using the media to transport their point of views on that matter. And once the republic is abolished, ban any political activities to get it back. Just like Comrade Prachandra said in the case of Nepal: “The monarchy will never make a come back in this country”. He keeps threatening to "punish" those who want a Monarchy.
Why bother about the wishes of the people? Republicans always think: "We know better what’s good for them." The Monarchists should adapt an attitude that reflects the thoughts of their republican opponents. 70 percent of the British want the Monarchy? Rubbish, the future is theirs, republicans claim. Deny the facts of such opinion polls, just as the Australian republicans do. Latest polls show only 45 percent want a republic (what model?), but in republican opinion pieces they give the impression as if 75 percent would support their idea. (“It was estimated that 75% of the population would have voted the royals out of existence [in the 1999 referendum].” They even make plans about the republic's inauguration ceremony for whenever their dreams may come true (The Sunday Age, 30th December 2007, “A call to armchairs”). Keep on dreaming!
So, I proclaim the republic of Pakistan a failed state. That’s even admitted by some Pakistani thinkers:
http://www.pakistanthinktank.org/default.php/p/articles/pk/942. The system adopted in 1956 has been unable to be modernised. It must be replaced by a system that functions better. A pretender could be a member of the former Muslim Mughal Dynasty that ruled large parts of India until the mutiny of 1857 and their deposition by the British. Or Pakistan could opt for a model that had been very popular in 19th century Europe: Import a new dynasty that has nothing to do with the internal fights and quarrels. A Pahlavi Prince could serve the country better than a military ruler or a member of the oligarch families that treat Pakistan like their fiefdom, their feudal property. The descendants of the Nizam of Hyderabad could be asked, after all, they lost their throne because they would have joined their state with Pakistan. Should someone be brave enough to accept the Crown of Pakistan, he deserves our support.
The same goes for Kenya that since the golden days of the quasi-Monarch Jomo Kenyatta has gone from disastrous presidential rules to civil unrest after every presidential race.
Make a sharp cut and get a Crowned head of state. Let the government and parliament do their job, but keep the highest position in the country outside party politics.
Get a King!
Monday, 31 December 2007
King Michael makes preparations for his succession
King Michael I of Romania (Regele Mihai I) enacted new Fundamental Rules of the Royal Family of Romania to succeed all other Statutes and House Laws from the 30th December 2007, the 60th anniversary of his deposition in Romania.
The Preamble states: “In keeping with His Majesty’s Command and with all modern requirements, these Fundamental Rules, enacted by the hand of King Michael I, Sovereign Head of the Royal House of Romania (Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen), by the Grace of God, Crowned King of Romania and jure sanguinis Grand Master of the Orders and Decorations of the Royal House of Romania, shall … have its validity and power upon signature, by the King’s hand. By this document, all earlier statutes and all privileges, styles, titles, rank and rights of Dynasts or their descendents are revoked.”
Article 1 (2) demonstrates the King’s determination not to recognize the republican regime that was illegally established on 30th December 1947: “The Head of the Royal Family of Romania, by all common practice and convention, is de jure and de facto Sovereign in terms of their authority over the Royal House of Romania, at any time. Immediately upon the death of the Head of the Royal House of Romania, without further proclamation, the Heir Apparent or Heir Presumptive, whichever shall be living and first in line to the succession at that moment in time, shall from that moment assume the rank or style King or Queen, regardless of the Family’s position as a reigning or non-reigning Dynasty and regardless of the fact that they may or may not later choose against the use of such style or designation.”
In Article 1 (6) the new Statutes clarify that no other descendants of King Charles II (Carol) except King Michael had any claims to the throne: “The descendants of the late King Carol II of Romania, by any collateral branch, shall maintain the style and rank accorded to them during the reign of His late Majesty King Carol II. According to the wish and precedence set by His late Majesty, such descendants shall continue to be excluded from the line of succession and shall not be members of the Royal House of Romania.”
According the Fundamental Rules(Article 2 (6) the successor to His Majesty will be his eldest daughter, Her Royal Highness, Crown Princess Margarita (*26th March 1949) “shall be henceforth and will remain after my death Custodian of the Romanian Crown (ad personam)”.
In Article 2 (7) the Fundamental Rules name Nicholas of Romania Medforth-Mills, „who shall assume the title, style and rank of Prince of Romania and Royal Highness (jure sanguinis) on 1st April 2010, upon his 25th anniversary, or immediately upon the demise of the current Head of the Royal House of Romania, which ever is sooner and at such a time shall enter the order of succession to the Headship of the Royal House of Romania, with full entitlement upon succeeding”.
It is also interesting to note Article 3 (1), which states that „all members of the Royal House of Romania will be or must seek to become Romanian citizens“. It has been a common practice until recently by all king of republican regimes to strip members of their Royal Families of their nationality and deny them regaining the nationality. Such a move by any Romanian government would not prevent members of the Royal House of Romania to claim their succession rights.
Comment
It is ironic that the Communists who had been responsible for the coup d’état in 1947 that sent the King and His family into exile, raise doubts about the legality of the King’s power to issue new Fundamental Rules of the Royal Family of Romania, claiming that only a reigning Monarch had the right to do that. But nobody would oppose them in putting the King back into his position, which he without any doubt held legally until 1947. (See: http://monarchist-league.com.au/index.php?topic=228.0 )
“The Abdication of His Majesty King Mihai I has never been made legal in Romania. After King Mihai had been forced into abdicating, in order to save the lives of over 1,000 young people arrested for blackmail, the National Assembly members got together. But the Parliament had no quorum. And even if there had been a quorum, after the abdication had been adopted they were to settle Regency, because of the Constitution. A republic could not be proclaimed via a monarchist Constitution. A new Constitution, a republican one, would have had to be adopted to this end, and people would have had to agree or nor by means of a referendum. No such legislative measure was taken. The servants of Moscow disregarded people's choice for monarchy and defied the Church. King Mihai I was anointed a King, which is clear even to Gigi Becali.”)
The Romanian republicans – from left to right – deny the King’s rights because they hope for the extinction of the male line of the Royal House of Romania. Without the King’s daughters’ rights to the throne, these rights would fall back to the head of the Princely House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, the South German and Catholic branch of the Hohenzollern in Germany. After the republicans failed to promote an illegitimate son of King Carol as “rival pretender” to King Michael, they had hoped for a German pretender who wouldn’t even be able to speak Romanian instead of the popular Crown Princess Margarita who has been unceasingly doing charity work in Romania since she was allowed to return to her home country.
It is characteristic of the visionary mission King Michael has been following all his years that he sets milestones for his succession and the continuity of the Romanian Royal Family. A vision that is lacking in nearly all republics – and all politicians, naturally.
Long Live King Michael of Romania!
PS. Copies of the new Fundamental Rules of the Royal Family of Romania are available in Romanian and English. If you are interested in receiving a pdf-file, please send me an e-mail.
Friday, 28 December 2007
What is rational and fair?
Here’s a good one: “I am a natural & philosophical supporter of the Presidential Republic as the best, more rational and fair government structure.”
(http://noggia.
blogspot.com/
2007/12/another-
good-reason-to-
abolish-this.html)
For nearly 200 years this “rational government structure” has been the major form of state in Latin America. And look at the mess all the presidents, caudillos and military dictators have produced. If a republic is such a modern way of how to run a country, why is it that among the ten countries with the highest standard of living seven are Monarchies, in fact the first six countries with the highest record in human development have without exception a crowned head of state:
1. Norway * 0.956
2. Sweden * 0.946
3. Australia * 0.946
4. Canada * 0.943
5. Netherlands * 0.942
6. Belgium * 0.942
7. Iceland 0.941
8. United States 0.939
9. Japan * 0.938
10. Ireland 0.936
Five more monarchies rank among eleven and twenty.
This latest index, the index for 2004, lists 177 countries in order of achievement. Nations ranked from one to 55 are deemed to have ‘High Human Development’, those from 56 to 141 are deemed to have ‘Medium Human Development’ and those from 142 to 177 are deemed to have ‘Low Human Development’.1)
Let’s look how fair republics are. The year 2000 is still on everybody’s memory, when the US citizens elected a new head of state and head of government. Very rational to have both in one hand. And very useful to have one’s brother as governor in one of the key states that finally pushes you into the White House. And it is equally fair if you belong to an influential family that's daddy once had been in the White House and grand dad as a senator paved the ways for his siblings. And of course it is only fair that you start the presidential race not as someone who lives under bridges, but as a boy (!) who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. How else would one be able to raise money to take part in the primaries. The Age, 28 Dec. 2008: “For the first time, the cost of the 2008 presidential race is likely to exceed $US1 billion, ($A1.14 billion) with Democrat frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each expected to spend $US80 million to $US100 million on the primary phase alone.”
Monarchies are branded “expensive”, but how many coronations could you finance with the money spent in this primaries’ circus every four years? Queen Elizabeth's coronation was 54 years ago. The British Monarchy’s budget is a fraction of the money spent in the presidential race. Of course the candidates get donations, but without a sound money basis of their own they would not be able to rent an office in, let’s say, Harlem or Witchita Falls, not to mention Washington DC.
If Hillary Clinton does win the presidency of the United States, next year, and serves four years, the USA will have had 24 years of two family rule in this country. The modern president has immense new power, after leaving office - millions of dollars in book deals, a library, and the ability to attract a hundreds of thousands of dollars from one speech to a special interest.
“Rational & fair” that’s what I call a Monarchy. It is rational to keep politicians away from at least one job in the state. It is a great advantage that the position as the Australian head of state is not up for grabs. Should Rupert Murdoch decide who’d be Australian president? He’s the one who hates our Royal Family – only to put his children into different positions in his media empire. We can’t stop him expanding his acquisitions, but his power hungry attitude shows that we need the Monarchy to keep him out of the presidential race – at least in Australia.
1) Fortunately, there is a reasonably objective way to answer these questions, courtesy of the UN Human Development Programme. We can use its Human Development Index (HDI), which was originally developed by the late Pakistani economist, Mahbub ul Haq. This index uses three dimensions to measure a country’s average human development, as follows:
1. A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth;
2. knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weight) and the combined primary, secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio (with one-third weight); and
3. a decent standard of living, as measured by Gross Domestic Product per capita expressed in US dollars on a purchasing power parity basis.
Here’s a good one: “I am a natural & philosophical supporter of the Presidential Republic as the best, more rational and fair government structure.”
(http://noggia.
blogspot.com/
2007/12/another-
good-reason-to-
abolish-this.html)
For nearly 200 years this “rational government structure” has been the major form of state in Latin America. And look at the mess all the presidents, caudillos and military dictators have produced. If a republic is such a modern way of how to run a country, why is it that among the ten countries with the highest standard of living seven are Monarchies, in fact the first six countries with the highest record in human development have without exception a crowned head of state:
1. Norway * 0.956
2. Sweden * 0.946
3. Australia * 0.946
4. Canada * 0.943
5. Netherlands * 0.942
6. Belgium * 0.942
7. Iceland 0.941
8. United States 0.939
9. Japan * 0.938
10. Ireland 0.936
Five more monarchies rank among eleven and twenty.
This latest index, the index for 2004, lists 177 countries in order of achievement. Nations ranked from one to 55 are deemed to have ‘High Human Development’, those from 56 to 141 are deemed to have ‘Medium Human Development’ and those from 142 to 177 are deemed to have ‘Low Human Development’.1)
Let’s look how fair republics are. The year 2000 is still on everybody’s memory, when the US citizens elected a new head of state and head of government. Very rational to have both in one hand. And very useful to have one’s brother as governor in one of the key states that finally pushes you into the White House. And it is equally fair if you belong to an influential family that's daddy once had been in the White House and grand dad as a senator paved the ways for his siblings. And of course it is only fair that you start the presidential race not as someone who lives under bridges, but as a boy (!) who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. How else would one be able to raise money to take part in the primaries. The Age, 28 Dec. 2008: “For the first time, the cost of the 2008 presidential race is likely to exceed $US1 billion, ($A1.14 billion) with Democrat frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each expected to spend $US80 million to $US100 million on the primary phase alone.”
Monarchies are branded “expensive”, but how many coronations could you finance with the money spent in this primaries’ circus every four years? Queen Elizabeth's coronation was 54 years ago. The British Monarchy’s budget is a fraction of the money spent in the presidential race. Of course the candidates get donations, but without a sound money basis of their own they would not be able to rent an office in, let’s say, Harlem or Witchita Falls, not to mention Washington DC.
If Hillary Clinton does win the presidency of the United States, next year, and serves four years, the USA will have had 24 years of two family rule in this country. The modern president has immense new power, after leaving office - millions of dollars in book deals, a library, and the ability to attract a hundreds of thousands of dollars from one speech to a special interest.
“Rational & fair” that’s what I call a Monarchy. It is rational to keep politicians away from at least one job in the state. It is a great advantage that the position as the Australian head of state is not up for grabs. Should Rupert Murdoch decide who’d be Australian president? He’s the one who hates our Royal Family – only to put his children into different positions in his media empire. We can’t stop him expanding his acquisitions, but his power hungry attitude shows that we need the Monarchy to keep him out of the presidential race – at least in Australia.
1) Fortunately, there is a reasonably objective way to answer these questions, courtesy of the UN Human Development Programme. We can use its Human Development Index (HDI), which was originally developed by the late Pakistani economist, Mahbub ul Haq. This index uses three dimensions to measure a country’s average human development, as follows:
1. A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth;
2. knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weight) and the combined primary, secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio (with one-third weight); and
3. a decent standard of living, as measured by Gross Domestic Product per capita expressed in US dollars on a purchasing power parity basis.
Tuesday, 25 December 2007
Does dropping "Royal" make a Hospital more efficient?
Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital has axed its reference to the Queen shortly before Christmas. It will now be known as The Women's after advice from consultants that its traditional name was "ineffective". The hospital opened in 1856 and was known as The Women's Hospital from 1884 until Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, conferred the title upon it in 1954, the year after her coronation during a two-month tour of Australia.
Greens MP Greg Barber welcomed the change and encouraged others to follow. "It must be sad for the monarchists," Mr Barber said. "RSPCA, Royal Women's, Royal Lifesaving, I support their cause, it's got nothing to do with them being connected to royalty."
We know, we live in a time, when “spin” rules politics. Now hospitals discovered spin as well. How else could we interpret Mandy Frostick’s defense for dropping the “Royal” of the Women’s Hospital? "We were advised by a professional wayfinding signage company who developed the signage package." And what the hell is "a professional wayfinding signage company"?How much does the hospital spend on new signage instead of investing it into their work? Who is being helped by insulting our Australian Queen?
And concerning Greg Barber’s statement, I am surprised that he dedicates so much of his precious time into discussing Royal attributes, when after being contacted by me concerning hazardous waste he himself wrote to me this year: “Unfortunately we are unable to handle every issue that comes before us and particularly issues of a Federal nature.”
Green issues don’t seem to count, all is spin. Welcome to the virtual world, “Women’s” and Greens.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/royal-womens-dumps-royal/2007/12/25/1198344986052.html
PS.
The same day that the Melburnian media reported the dropping of the "Royal" attribute it caused such a storm that a couple of hours later The Royal Women's Hospital was forced to go public and back down:
Women's hospital staying 'royal'
December 25, 2007 - 12:33PM
Australia's oldest public hospital for women, the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne, has today vehemently denied reports that it is about to discard its 53-year-old royal warrant.
It was today reported that the hospital had been advised to discard its royal warrant.
But Royal Women's Hospital spokeswoman Mandy Frostick said the hospital had not changed its name and had no intention of changing it, despite a large illuminated sign on Friday appearing high up on the side of the hospital's new $250 million building in Parkville.
Due to open in June, it will be situated immediately beside the Royal Melbourne Hospital.
"Of course we are proud to be The Royal Women's Hospital, but people also know us as just The Women's and that was a consideration in pointing people to our building as opposed to the Royal Melbourne Hospital next door," Ms Frostick said.
However, she said the hospital would continue to display its full name at street level, on its flag and throughout its premises.
"The most important function of the illuminated signs is to ensure people can quickly and easily identify The Women's - and can clearly distinguish our entrance from the adjacent Royal Melbourne Hospital entrance - particularly at night and during an emergency," Ms Frostick said.
"Signage experts strongly advised against using our full name on the illuminated signs at the top of the building as this would require a significant reduction in the size and consequent impact, rendering it ineffective from a visibility and identification perspective. "
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/womens-hospital-staying-royal/ 2007/12/25/1198344994971.html
PPS.
Nothing of the kerfuffle of The Royal Women's Hospital made it into the printed version of The Age. Its edition of 26th December did not contain a single sentence about what had made internet headlines on the 25th. I bet with you it would have been on page one, had The Royal Women's Hospital dropped the "Royal" attribute. To misquote The Age: "If it doesn't matter to us, it has not to matter to you."
Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital has axed its reference to the Queen shortly before Christmas. It will now be known as The Women's after advice from consultants that its traditional name was "ineffective". The hospital opened in 1856 and was known as The Women's Hospital from 1884 until Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, conferred the title upon it in 1954, the year after her coronation during a two-month tour of Australia.
Greens MP Greg Barber welcomed the change and encouraged others to follow. "It must be sad for the monarchists," Mr Barber said. "RSPCA, Royal Women's, Royal Lifesaving, I support their cause, it's got nothing to do with them being connected to royalty."
We know, we live in a time, when “spin” rules politics. Now hospitals discovered spin as well. How else could we interpret Mandy Frostick’s defense for dropping the “Royal” of the Women’s Hospital? "We were advised by a professional wayfinding signage company who developed the signage package." And what the hell is "a professional wayfinding signage company"?How much does the hospital spend on new signage instead of investing it into their work? Who is being helped by insulting our Australian Queen?
And concerning Greg Barber’s statement, I am surprised that he dedicates so much of his precious time into discussing Royal attributes, when after being contacted by me concerning hazardous waste he himself wrote to me this year: “Unfortunately we are unable to handle every issue that comes before us and particularly issues of a Federal nature.”
Green issues don’t seem to count, all is spin. Welcome to the virtual world, “Women’s” and Greens.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/royal-womens-dumps-royal/2007/12/25/1198344986052.html
PS.
The same day that the Melburnian media reported the dropping of the "Royal" attribute it caused such a storm that a couple of hours later The Royal Women's Hospital was forced to go public and back down:
Women's hospital staying 'royal'
December 25, 2007 - 12:33PM
Australia's oldest public hospital for women, the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne, has today vehemently denied reports that it is about to discard its 53-year-old royal warrant.
It was today reported that the hospital had been advised to discard its royal warrant.
But Royal Women's Hospital spokeswoman Mandy Frostick said the hospital had not changed its name and had no intention of changing it, despite a large illuminated sign on Friday appearing high up on the side of the hospital's new $250 million building in Parkville.
Due to open in June, it will be situated immediately beside the Royal Melbourne Hospital.
"Of course we are proud to be The Royal Women's Hospital, but people also know us as just The Women's and that was a consideration in pointing people to our building as opposed to the Royal Melbourne Hospital next door," Ms Frostick said.
However, she said the hospital would continue to display its full name at street level, on its flag and throughout its premises.
"The most important function of the illuminated signs is to ensure people can quickly and easily identify The Women's - and can clearly distinguish our entrance from the adjacent Royal Melbourne Hospital entrance - particularly at night and during an emergency," Ms Frostick said.
"Signage experts strongly advised against using our full name on the illuminated signs at the top of the building as this would require a significant reduction in the size and consequent impact, rendering it ineffective from a visibility and identification perspective. "
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/womens-hospital-staying-royal/ 2007/12/25/1198344994971.html
PPS.
Nothing of the kerfuffle of The Royal Women's Hospital made it into the printed version of The Age. Its edition of 26th December did not contain a single sentence about what had made internet headlines on the 25th. I bet with you it would have been on page one, had The Royal Women's Hospital dropped the "Royal" attribute. To misquote The Age: "If it doesn't matter to us, it has not to matter to you."
Monday, 17 December 2007
The Royal Standard for The Queen of Australia
Who has closer ties to Britain?
Isn't it funny, that one of the Australian republicans' "arguments" against the Monarchy is that "the relevance of the English crown to Australia has all but disappeared", but on the other hand, the ties between British and Australian politicians had never been more intense than these days.
"Labor and Labour ... became closer after Mr Rudd ALP leader and look set to deepen during his prime ministership", writes The Age in a report on how the British Labour Party's tactics won Kevin Rudd the federal elections. ("How the British came, saw and helped Rudd", James Button and Katharine Murphy, December 17, 2007 http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/how-the-british-came-saw-and-helped-rudd/2007/12/16/1197740090746.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Of course it is not stupidity, when Barry Everingham referred to "the English crown" (in Republican call to arms, December 3, 2007, HeraldSun, Melbourne).
He knew exactly why he had chosen this term, which isn't even correct in the United Kingdom. All that matters in this country is the Australian Crown and Australian Monarchists get no aid from their British counterparts.
I welcome the ALP's move to seek help from the British Labour Party, because I think Australian politics could learn a lot from Europe. Looking to the US for examples of good policy making never got very far. But the ALP could see from many European examples how useful the Crown could be. The Australian Crown remains as beneficial for this country as the British Crown is for the British people and the Canadian Crown for the Canadians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
