What Is Royalty In The 21st Century?

[Jaga]

we were just discussing lots of genetic diseases in royal family of Habsburgs. But royalty is still there.
Here is an interesting article about the role of monarchy in today society:

What Is Royalty In The 21st Century?

As I entered the courtyard of Copenhagen's Amalienborg Palace, soldiers in tall, black bearskin hats stood guard. Outside one of the buildings, the Palace of Christian VIII, I pressed a tiny brass button next to a plaque that read "Their Royal Highnesses the Crown Prince and Princess."

I was buzzed in. The palace entrance was gilt, scarlet, and robin's-egg blue. A lady-in-waiting, the light- blue badge of royal office on her left shoulder, stood beside an oil painting at the top of a curving staircase. She showed me into an immense, high-ceilinged receiving room where I would wait to meet Frederik Andre Henrik Christian. Or, as he is officially known, His Royal Highness Prince of Denmark, the Crown Prince, Count of Monpezat--and heir to one of Europe's oldest royal families.

As I sat, soft-footed servants came and went. I heard an occasional cough, the distant clink of bone china. A functionary came in and whispered that there would be a brief delay. It gave me a chance to ponder the question that had brought me here and that had long been troubling me: What is the point of royalty today?


Do We Still
Need Royals?
By Janice Kaplan

It's not a new question. Sixty years ago, King Farouk of Egypt said that soon there would be only five of his kind left--the King of England and the four kings in a deck of cards. For a time, he was almost right. After a coup saw him fall from grace in 1952, he joined the kings and queens who had toppled like bowling pins since the end of World War I.

However, the thinning has slowed. Royalty remains in places as varied as Japan, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, and Tonga, but the greatest concentration is in Europe. While the grandest-seeming family is in the United Kingdom, even Queen Elizabeth does not preside over as lengthy and uninterrupted a monarchy as Denmark's, which began in 936 A.D. with the colorfully named Gorm the Old.

Denmark is a nation doubly blessed by circumstance and history. By one recent reckoning, the 5.5 million Danes are the world's happiest people. They also have the good fortune to reside under the genial supervision of Her Majesty Queen Margrethe, the mother of Crown Prince Frederik.
...

[pieter]

Jaga,

The strange thing is that although the Netherlands have a past as republic of the seven provinces it is now a monarchy of 12 provinces! It is nearly a monarchy with republican elements, because in this libertarian country of Calvinists, Catholics, humanists, conservative-liberals, Social-democrats and liberals, the monarchy is accepted, but not as important like it is in Great-Britain, Spain or for instance Jordan. Many people are fond of them as a historical fact and Dutch tradition, but in the same time you do not have the orange mania around the Royal house like you have the orange mania around for instance the International soccer match, Holland-Germany, when suddenly a sort of Orange Patriotism arrives. The Northen-Irish Orange order, followers of a Dutch King of England are more fanatic Orange Royalists than the Dutch!



I would decribe the Dutch Royalism as moderate, innocent, and mere ceremonial!

Pieter

Monarchy of the Netherlands

The Netherlands has been an independent monarchy since 16 March 1815, and has been governed by members of the House of Orange-Nassau since.

History

The first king of the Netherlands, from 1806 until 1810, was French. Napoleon installed his brother Louis Bonaparte as king over what was then called the Kingdom of Holland, a puppet state.

The present monarchy was originally founded in 1813 when the French were driven away and the then prince of Orange was proclaimed as Sovereign Prince of The United Netherlands (comprising certain northern provinces). The new monarchy was confirmed in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna as part of the re-arrangement of Europe after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte, and its status as kingdom was also confirmed. The House of Orange-Nassau were given the modern day Netherlands and also Belgium to rule as the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. In addition, the King of the Netherlands became hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg.

Prior to the Napoleonic wars, most of the (semi-independent) provinces of the Netherlands had been led by stadtholders from the House of Orange-Nassau. The state remained, formally, a confederated republic, even when in 1747 the office of stadtholder was centralised (one stadtholder for all provinces) and became hereditary for the House of Orange-Nassau.

The first king of the constitutional monarchy of the Netherlands, William I, was a direct male line descendant of John the Elder, a younger brother of William of Orange (also known as William the Silent) who, from 1568 on, had led the Dutch in their eighty-year struggle for independence from Spain. His family had a considerable influence on Dutch politics. They came from Dillenburg, Germany, home of the Nassau family. Willem's title 'Prince of Orange' was acquired through his inheritance of the principality of Orange, located south of Valence in France, in 1544.

Abdication of the throne has become a de facto tradition in Dutch Monarchy. Queen Wilhelmina and Queen Juliana both abdicated in favour of their daughters and William I abdicated in favour of his eldest son.

The present monarch, Queen Beatrix, has stated she will not abdicate in the near future, to allow Crown Prince Willem-Alexander and his wife Princess Máxima to spend time with their family.

Monarchs of the Netherlands

(1890-1948)

When Wilhelmina came to the throne in 1890 at age 10 (her mother, Queen Emma, second wife of the then deceased William III, acted as regent until Wilhelmina reached the age of 18), Luxembourg, also a former member of the erstwhile German Confederation, was not willing to accept a (female) Grand Duchess under Salic law. Instead a family member, Adolf, former Duke of Nassau, became Grand Duke of Luxembourg, ending the personal union between the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

The 58-year reign of Queen Wilhelmina was dominated by the two World Wars. She married a German prince, Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Schwerin, who unfortunately was not happy with his unrewarding role of husband-to-the-queen. Wilhelmina's strong personality and unrelenting passion to fulfill her inherited task overpowered many men in position of authority, including ministers, prime-ministers and her own husband. She is mostly remembered for her role during World War II. The initial disappointment of many Dutch people because of her quick withdrawal to London faded (though it was never forgotten and by some was never forgiven) when she proved to be of great moral support to the people and the resistance in her occupied country. Hendrik and Wilhelmina had one daughter, Juliana, who came to the throne in 1948. They lived in The Hague and in Palace 't Loo (Paleis 't Loo) in Apeldoorn. She died in 1962. For her early reign and character, the letters of Queen Victoria give a good perspective.

Juliana (1948-1980)

Juliana reigned from 1948 until 1980, and whereas Wilhelmina reigned like a general, Juliana expressed a more motherly character. One of her first official acts was to sign the treaty of independence of the Dutch colony Indonesia. She became involved in two major crises: the Greet Hofmans affair and the Lockheed bribery scandals, both of which directly threatened the credibility of the throne. She married a German of noble descent, Prince Bernard von Lippe-Biesterfeld. Together they had four daughters, Beatrix, Irene, Margriet and Christina. After their return from Ottawa, Canada in 1945 (where Margriet was born), they lived in the Soestdijk Palace (Paleis Soestdijk) in Soestdijk, about 20 km north-east of Utrecht. She died on 20 March 2004. Her husband Bernhard died on 1 December 2004.

Beatrix (1980-present)

The Dutch royal family today is much larger than it has ever been. Queen Beatrix and her husband, the late Prince Claus, have three sons, Willem-Alexander (married to Princess Máxima), Friso (married to Mabel Wisse-Smit) and Constantijn (married to Princess Laurentien). Her sister Margriet and her spouse Pieter van Vollenhoven have four sons: Maurits, Bernhard, Pieter-Christiaan and Floris. Four of these seven princes as well as Margriet, are all (potentially) legal heirs to the throne, although the first right goes to the Crown Prince, and after him his daughters Catharina-Amalia, Alexia, Ariane, and then his brother Constantijn. Prince Friso lost his right to the throne because his marriage to Mabel Wisse Smit was not approved by the Staten-Generaal. The two other sisters of Beatrix, Irene and Christina, have lost their rights to the throne because their marriages were not approved by the Staten-Generaal. They both married Roman-Catholics and Irene herself converted to Roman-Catholicism, which at that time (the 1960s) was still politically problematic for an heir to the throne.

Traditionally, Dutch monarchs have always been members of the Dutch Reformed Church although this was never constitutionally required. This tradition is embedded in the history of the Netherlands. An additional complication which the government wanted to avoid, was that Irene's husband, Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma, (whom she later divorced) was a Spanish member of a noble family that claimed their alleged rights to the Spanish throne.

Willem-Alexander

The heir apparent to the Dutch throne is Prince Willem-Alexander (born 1967), the Prince of Orange since 1980. He studied history at the University of Leiden and became actively involved in water management. His wife is Princess Máxima (née Máxima Zorreguieta Cerruti), an economy major, whose father was a minister of agriculture in the dictatorial regime under General Videla in Argentina. Because of that, their relationship was accompanied by fierce public debate, and only officially sanctioned after quiet diplomacy, resulting in Máxima's father agreeing not to be present on their wedding day (2 February 2002). Former minister Max van der Stoel and prime minister Wim Kok seem to have played a crucial role in this process.

On 7 December 2003 Princess Máxima gave birth to a daughter: Princess Catharina-Amalia. On 26 June 2005 another daughter was born: Princess Alexia. On 10 April 2007, a third daughter was born, Princess Ariane. After Willem-Alexander they are second, third, and fourth in line to the Dutch throne.

Full title

All members of the Dutch Royal Family, in addition to the royal title King/Prince of the Netherlands, hold (or held) the princely title Prince of Orange-Nassau. In addition to the titles King/Prince of the Netherlands and Prince of Orange-Nassau, descendants of Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld hold another princely title - Prince of Lippe-Biesterfeld. The lowest title held by members of the Dutch Royal Family is the comital title of Jonkheer (Lord) von Amsberg, inherited from Queen Beatrix's husband Jonkheer (Lord) Claus von Amsberg.

Queen Juliana, the only descendant of Queen Wilhelmina and Duke Hendrik of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, was also Duchess Juliana of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Since the title can pass only through males, Queen Juliana's descendants are not Dukes of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.

It is noteworthy that Princes of Orange-Nassau lose the title Prince of the Netherlands if they enter into marriage without consent of the Parliament.

[pieter]

Historical documentries:

Adelheid Emma Wilhelmina Theresia Queen mother
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/nl/b/b2/Emma.JPG

Queen Wilhelmina visits the Dutch town Alkmaar in 1923


Queen Juliana 1948


QUEEN OF HOLLAND 1956


Marriage of Beatric and Prince Claus



Coronation of Beatrix in 1980


Wedding:Willem Alexander & Maxima, The Kiss(es) on the balcony

Adios Nonino (traditional Argentinian music from Maxima's country)

[Jaga]

Pieter,

thanks for the history of Dutch monarchy. I believe that monarchy can give people a feeling of stability in difficult times. It is nice to hear such an encouraging history of Dutch queen during the war.
Think also about Spain king, he prevented Franklo's followers to grab power after Franko died.

[kaima]

This is the place where I come out with my beliefs in democracy and as a strong, if not radical, anti-monarchist. Radical because I see communism in the last century as having brought an end to the old monarchies and nobility that stifled central and eastern Europe so long. Perhaps 1000 years ago or 500 I would have bought into the natural order of 'God, King, Lord and Country'. You do tend to believe in the system in which you grow up.

I applaud communism for having slaughtered so many 'royal' and 'noble' swine. I am sorrowful at the rise (seemingly natural within human nature) of a new self serving and self perpetuating rich and ruling class in this brave new world we live in. But I will stick with my ideals of independence and self determination that I identify with the best in Americanism.

Before the Obama trip to England there was the usual press blather about propriety of bowing or curtsying to the queen; as an American I believe we all have the obligation, if not the moral imperative, to extend courtesy as we would to anyone. I never heard the outcome of the press coverage and am not much interested in what they had to say. I almost expect the right wing press to come up with some lesbian analysis because the queen and Mrs. Obama touched one another.

I just returned from a trip to Hawaii where I had many interesting talks with native Hawaiians, seemingly a happy result of my long contact and knowledge of Alaska natives. We had some interesting talks and historical comparisons, to include some European foibles that are generally skipped in our common histories.

It seems the Hawaiians had their own monarchy, consolidated under king kamehameha when he slaughtered his way to unifying the islands. Of course, he earned the title 'great' for that endeavor, just as it is awarded in Europe. It seems the Hawaiians had a tradition of engaging in a 4 month peace season and an 8 month war season. This proved a handy way to keep the population in check and transfer private property from one regional leader to another on a regular basis. It gave the young studs something to keep busy with as warriors and kept them from cooking up revolts against the established leadership.

Then the white man came in the form of Captain Cook, a great man in western history and an arrogant, overbearing chief in Hawaiian eyes, well worthy of killing when he returned a second time to demand slave labor from the independent Hawaiians.

Alas and alack, the missionaries arrived and brought new gods and temptations with them; with time, intermarriage and disease brought by filthy European whites reduced the tanks of native Hawaiians, and the missionaries begat businessmen children and the grandchildren overthrew the legitimate Hawaiian government and asked the US to take it as a territory to protect prosperity. Today the 'private ownership' of lands resides in the heirs to this last band of thieves to steal from previous occupants and the legitimate monarch, and it seems as if there is no going back.

All in all it seems as if the short 200 + year history of Hawaii reflects much in European history with commoners dying for the honor and the gain of their 'betters', in a perpetual game of steal from the neighbor. The family of the monarchs seem to be lying low and laying no open claims to regain what was usurped; crownlands became property of the new rulers and has been kept or parceled out to become the new private lands, upon which commoners are not allowed to trespass.

What has changed with time, the title of the 'owners'?

Kai
To monarchists I say, come to our shores and be greeted with a 21 gun salute ... aimed at your ship!!!

[pieter]

Apr 20, 2009 17:22:21 GMT -7 Jaga said:

Pieter,

thanks for the history of Dutch monarchy. I believe that monarchy can give people a feeling of stability in difficult times. It is nice to hear such an encouraging history of Dutch queen during the war.
Think also about Spain king, he prevented Franklo's followers to grab power after Franko died.

Jaga,

You are right about these things!

In the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Great-Britain and Spain you have people who think like you, Kaima and me! My position is in the Middle between you and Kaima! A moderate Republican in the European context (actually a democratic republican).
I believe in democracy and therefor if the majority wants their Dutch Queen they can have her. In the Dutch history you had the
"Patriots" (patriotten) which were Republicans and the "Orangiststs", who where Monarchists or Royalists. From a historical perspective I am a supporter of the Patriots, a believer in the Old Dutch Republic! But the House of Orange got the support of the majority, the people (the mobs some say in a historical context, the masses). In contrary to Kaima, I didn't like the slaughter of the monarchies by the French Jacobins, Russian Populist Narodniki and the Bolsjewist Communism and in some cases 19th century liberal nationalism. The French revolution and the Russian revolution were disturbing, destroying societies and creating the empty atheist societies in which there was no real replacement of the religions they replaced.

The monarchies, feodalism and nobility systems were inequal and bad in some cases, but the bloodshed, terror, and equality what came after that brought social ilnesses, degradation and mass enslavement too. Think about the 7 million Ukranian farmers and others who were killed in the great famine Holodomor in the early thirtees. Think about the Industrial revoltution with it's asocial Capitalism, which enslaved the working class, who was near to starvation. That suffering of the European working classes with dying children and ill adults was the reason for the rise of socialism, Communism and anarchism as revolutioniary ideologies of their time. Hunger, thirst and extreme poverty were normal for the working classes of that time. Karl Marx labeled it as verelendung (which means a continuing and increasing deplorable situation of being!

In many parts of the world this asocial steak Captialism still exists. Think about China, the third world and Russia. The Communist systems were not better either, because they caused more deaths than Fascism, Nazism, militairy dictatorships and terrorism together. And I have my doubts about the Western working class culture which dominates in Europe and America, because the culture from down below has a decadent, hedonistic, irresponsable, uncivilized thing which destebalizes society.

"In Europe for instance we have an Underclass of 80 million people of both native Europeans and newcommers."

I am not that glad by the disappearance of the aristocracy, nobility, ruling classes, monarchies and traditional intelligentsia classes in Europe. Often dynasties, ruling classes had experiances, culture and a sense of responsability. Today many functional classes are fading away, such as the traditional family companies, middle class, skilled workers, certain shops and skills (quality professions)! The Wallmartisation or McDanaldization of the world!

Italy for instance is stil a manifacturer of hand made quality products, but these products are quicky replaced by Chinese
massproduction. And China is in my eyes the worst combination
of Communism and Capitalism. Human rights violations, the environmental pollution of the unrestricted asocial form of Capitalism, lack of personal freedom and people who work as work slaves 7 days a week 12 hours a day, to have a living!

Pieter

P.S.- I am against the heroic image or the idalization in Americanism (the American culture), the European culture (which is Americanised) and the Sovjetculture of the worker!
Many people forget that the Sovjet human which was created during seventy years of Sovjet Communism stil exists in the National Captialist Russia of Putin and Medvedev. The KGB, Sovjet Nomenklatura class (Party aparatshiks) and ideological trained generations are the real face of the Russian Federation. For me the working class is not the example of a good person, hard working people or anything else. You have good hard working American and European workers, but next to that you have equaly good European and American farmers, middle class and even high class. Teachers, shop owners, office people, family company owners and others do not work less than the workers, but the Populist politicians of left, centre and right always talk about the workers!

In my personal life I have had many bad examples of this over idealized class. Rude, vulgar, sexists, uninterested, not wanting to learn, hostile towards other classes, jealous, small minded, opportunistic and negative.
Not all of them, but a large part of them. What I want to say is that I believe in the Catholic corporatist idea of a harmonious cooperattion between differant classes, Calvinist virtues, Judeo-christian morality, moderate reformist Western-European Social-democracy (also called Democratic socialism, which is opposed to Communism).

Pieter

[karl]

Of only perhaps a comment to add to this very fine subject. For I would be remiss of not of mention of a personal note of connection to Dänemark of upon my mothers side of family as dänischer for that I am with still family there. For this of responsibility by knowledge.

But to the business at hand:

I think perhaps there layst some what, a misconception of the historical importance to Royalty, or the most part, the part played by many families of notice {that being of inheritance of family responsibility}. For of this must and should be remembrance of the beginning of so called royal families to our early history of war and reward. For as of early service to the kingdom {pertaining to Germany}, the service if successful, was reworded by an appointment of land of considerable amount. The warier then of former service, with this grant of land, was given workers as an entitlement to work the land.

The retired military officer, now gentleman by virtue of appointment, was then placed in a position of responsibly for the welfare of these workers, and as so, would be required to provide to them, home shelters for them selves, but, to also their families that were to come.

For the protection of these borders, the now retired Officer, must by virtue of his new responsibilities, must provide protection to the new lands acquired and to those people placed under his protection and administration. Must then place into action, the building of a fortress {castle/Schloss/fortress/keep} as protection against invading what ever, and protection for the workers and families. And as so goes to the present.

For of remnants of these former times, are the families of present. Some would call of them as of {Aristocratic} or what ever, the truth is: They hold the reigns of power by virtue of former and present holdings from the industrial revolution, through the various wars {European} to present. For it is not of choice of present family members that they are in currant positions of so called power. But of this, they must conduct business as what it is, strictly business.

For throughout the ravages of time and wars, many surviving families were destroyed for only of reason they were Jewisch. Some, to be destroyed by the new {20s-30s}advance in power by the National Socialist or of common {Nazi}. Whilst of others, to survive by needs of the government and or international association of banking/industrial shared interest.

For I am sure of familiar names will strike and accord of thought of mind.

Family Warbure {I.G. Farben} as supported by the American family of Rockefeller/Banking Family Bush. Of family Krupp.

Of the families cursed with inheritance of these responsibilities placed upon the surviving members.

It is to their individual responsibility of insuring of adequate education into the currant world of business. For with this, is the strong purpose of not only the retention of wealth, but to be of strong performance in the world of business.

For of this, to be strongly supportive into the world of worthy causes of {Art/Research Foundations/ and patronage of public responsibilities}. For this is the curse of inheritance, and so it must be...

www.kongehuset.dk/english/

archive.corporatewatch.org/genetics/bayer.htm

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3255.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben_Building

Of this all, the question of what is Royalty to todays world? The most obvious answer is: Of course nothing... For it is nothing. But to the holdings of credible reserves of convertible funds, it is of very much interest.. And this is the question of responsibility of the surviving family member {s}. For to advance of these funds, or to withhold any responsibility to the governing government of public democratic.

For it is strictly business. For to assistance to the currant government of power, or to wait for a better advancement of advantage of returns, to allow time for the currant movement to fail and be replaced by a better opportunity of the new government.

For the family, must survive, for of present of what ever government is in power, it may be that it will be replaced by a new power. For it is of advantage that all things be placed in prospective of advantage.

Karl

[tuftabis]

Kaima, welcome back! ;D
Did I say I like to read your posts? Even if I don't quite always agree?
So please don't mind too much this is the case now...

Apr 20, 2009 20:58:41 GMT -7 kaima said:

This is the place where I come out with my beliefs in democracy and as a strong, if not radical, anti-monarchist. Radical because I see communism in the last century as having brought an end to the old monarchies and nobility that stifled central and eastern Europe so long.

Well, not that I disagree totally, not at all. I am NOT a monarchist I will never be, just plain old-fashioned now, liberal (European meaning) democrat I am BUT

my impression, backed by the 29 years of life communist rule, is that communism didn't bring an end to the certain unjustice related to monarchist systems of old time. Communism, the real communism, not the theoretical Marxism, has brought MORE injustice. It was in fact a step backwards -to feudalism. And to feudalism without the rudimentary justice that preceeded monarchies in actual history.

Pieter has written "The monarchies, feodalism and nobility systems were inequal and bad in some cases, but the bloodshed, terror, and equality what came after that brought social ilnesses, degradation and mass enslavement too." I agree with that, if we talk about these monarchies and 'post-monarchies', evolving into democracies which has been followed by totalitarian systems. I think Wilhelm Emmanuel, Baron von Ketteler, bishop of Moguntia (Mainz) should be reminded here. Another brainy German, next to Karl Marx. The first one who found a way how make the social classes interaction peaceful. As we know Karl Marx saw it as a constant fight and struggle, and with scary results. Everyone knows Marx, few know Ketteler, even though the latter saved our civilizations from the intellectual and actual hordes. What did he do? Not much formally, he didn;t even form a philosophical doctrine, or a political system. He was just an old-fashioned, humanistic, German (not to be confused with militaristic Prussians who overrrun the good old Germany) peace-loving intellectual, and a bishop. And he came to Vatican Sobor the First, with Marx's "Capital" in hand. Not as his supporter, but in order to try to find a way to solve the social problems in a logic other than Marx's, other than by conflict. He succeeded and then started what we know call the social vision of church. Much of the present day liberal (European meaning) democracies are an incarnation of this vision.

[kaima]

Thank you Pieter and Tufta. I appreciate your commentary and thoughts, and cannot argue with much of what the two of you say. My own comments, I am sure you realize, are short and incomplete and presented primarily to layout my anti-monarchist perspective. I can imagine a number of my ancestors took part in several Bauernkrieg or revolts against the established, oppressive feudal system (which I equate directly to the royal/noble system).

With much of feudalism officially ending around 1850, I see it lingering historically into the 20th century, with WW I ending many of the privileges and bringing unity to Poland and an end to Austria-Hungary. However, I see the feudal mentality carrying on strongly in Hungary between the wars with their strong policies to restore Greater Hungary & bring those incompetent Slavs back under Hungarian rule and governance much as God wanted it to be! It took WW II and the Soviets to largely end that revanchism, and the last 60 years have brought about an acceptance, if somewhat reluctant, recognition of current borders and independent nations within EU. Theoretically I do not regret the loss of 'noble' lives or property. Certainly I don't rank one life above another ... well, there are the belligerently ignorant that you refer to Pieter ... but there will be dregs in any society, democratic, monarchist or communist. So while some rank life value by rank or wealth or influence, I rank it by accomplishment, intelligence, effort at improvement or potential at productivity or contribution to society.

I certainly cannot deny the oppression and damage of the communists, or the nomenklatura they established. I witnessed some of that in my travels behind the Iron Curtain and was quite impressed by it. Simply expressed I returned to America with the idea that we have freedom from fear and freedom to travel that the people under communism lacked. Normally Americans refer to four freedoms, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Travel behind the Iron Curtain really gave new meaning to 'freedom from fear'. I had never before witnessed neighbors spying upon one another, or people seriously worrying about what they said. Our Watergate scandal hit shortly after my first trip to Hungary & CZ, and I never understood why such a minor scandal rocked America so hard. Today it seems we manufacture scandals where there are none. That last is a digression.

Sadly I must break my train of thought, I have an appointment I must tend to. I hope to return to this topic later. I must say, however, that I also have not read Ketteler.

In short, my conclusion would be that given monarchy, capitalism (as in taking contrlo of democracy through influence) or communism or other system will all be overcome by the human tendency to grab as much power or financial power as possible and hold it for heirs as strongly as possible. So perhaps revolution is inevitable when abuses accumulate to unbearable levels. Currently it seems that the world is falling strongly under the influence of a very few politicians under the control of even fewer financiers. In America we are far from revolution; the people have fully bought into the idea that a few have the right to accumulate from the many, and reduce the common weal through their greed. The common man is quite ready to defend the privileges of of the wealthy.

Now I must run.

Kai