The German president (didn't even know the guy by name) doesn't cost that much apparently, that's true. On the other hand he's also not a figure a lot of German people identify with, he does not present the annual budget, and is not a member of the government. Frankly I don't know what the guy does. He's definitely not the equivalent of the Dutch monarch as far as I can tell.

The president of the US may earn a bit less personal income (not that he minds I think, with the likely prospect of a multi-million income after his term is over) but of course the whole presidency costs far more than 12 million, I think you're also aware of that. Your 12 million only include operating expenses of the actual building, not for example staff costs. I'm not going to bother listing all the different costs and arguing about which costs are and which costs aren't attributable to the president because as you already mentioned the functions of the US president and the Dutch monarch are incomparable. Take a look yourself though. http://whitehousetransitionproject.org/resources/briefing/Patterson-Cost%20of%20WH.pdf.

Fact is that a monarch is a stable force in a country's system and social structure. She's independent and can therefore represent the whole country and it's entire population. Just look at the Obama support/hate atmosphere in the US, and similar situations in other countries with elected presidents. You won't find that kind of division in countries with a monarch. That alone is already worth the few million spent on them per year.

^What Mr_rb said.

"Most non-functional Presidents aren't embroiled in scandals, I'd like to see evidence of this to."

I can understand why you added 'non-functional' as condition all of a sudden, after all I imagine no one has any problems to think of an endless list of major scandals presidents of various major countries have been involved in over the past years. Since just one paragraph earlier you had no problem comparing the monarch of the Netherlands with the president of the US I don't see why all of a sudden 'non-functional' would be a criterion. I think my point still stands that presidents definitely also cause their fair share of scandals, on average more than most monarchs probably.

Didn't your royal family recently get into trouble for financial improprieties? And didn't your previous coterie of royals have 1 - Nazi sympathies and 2 - accept bribes from defense contractors? Impressive.

They got into problems about investing in vacation housing in a development country. If a normal person would have done that, nobody would have mind. And if you talk about Nazi sympathies, i wonder how you would have acted if you grown up in Germany in that period. Joined some kind of communist resistance organisation?

I do think you are overacting about it all. Only the bribe stuff was bad. To compare that all to Chirac's corruption, Putins power plays and the thought people like Berlusconi could have tried to get elected to president makes me think it could be worse than having royals being head of the state.

and even the German President you like to call an example is currently under investigation because of dubious loans he lied about.

I dont want to say i'm an monarchist, or even like having an Queen (im indifferent about if :) ) i just say its not much worse than having some other way of having a head of state.

@ Redhouse, i dont think i deserve to be caned just because i told people they can not just claim things to be true.

I added the qualifier non-functional because this whole debate has been about whether a monarchy is necessary and whether a President could function just as well. You say the scandals aren't an issue because actual functional Presidents have been involved with scandals. That's a false comparison. Of course you're going to be involved in more problematic issues if you have to do more things. If all you are is a glorified family museum then what the heck is there going to be a scandal about? The fact that there always seems to be one regarding these do-nothing monarchies says a lot.

"To compare that all to Chirac's corruption, Putins power plays and the thought people like Berlusconi could have tried to get elected to president makes me think it could be worse than having royals being head of the state."

You're once again comparing apples & oranges. Berlusconi was never 'Head of State'. Putin hasn't been for a while.

@Putin33, I'm totally cool with you guys having a President if we can keep our Queen ;)

You guys can continue comparing people who govern with people who do nothing and then say a monarchy is worth it, but it's a disingenuous argument. A monarch could be easily replaced by a do-nothing President who performs the same bogus 'national unity' function that you claim a monarch does. Many countries do this. Italy, Germany, India, Ireland, among others. It works fine.

"You won't find that kind of division in countries with a monarch."

Really?! The Kingdom of Belgium has held world records for number of days without a government. How has the monarchy helped there?

Has the Kingdom of Spain helped with the whole Basque issue? How about the UK & Scottish & Welsh separatism? Seems like the kingdoms are the ones with the most problems with national unity.

"Joined some kind of communist resistance organisation? "

Yes, absolutely! Why the Dutch were content to collaborate is beyond me.

What the hell is that last post about?

The Dutch monarchy's love of Nazis under Juliana.

"You say the scandals aren't an issue because actual functional Presidents have been involved with scandals. That's a false comparison. Of course you're going to be involved in more problematic issues if you have to do more things."

Most scandals presidents are involved in aren't related to their official functions, Putin. I'm pretty sure doing Lewinsky wasn't listen as Clinton's job description, and organizing Bungabunga parties wasn't on the official agenda of Berlusconi either. You could also argue that monarchs (don't have anything to do anyway according to you) have plenty of time to get into all kinds of scandals. Either way you're just making up stuff to support your standpoint.

""You won't find that kind of division in countries with a monarch."

Really?! The Kingdom of Belgium has held world records for number of days without a government. How has the monarchy helped there? "

That's not even remotely related to the point I was making. I wasn't talking about forming a government. I was talking about a division between groups of people in a country when it comes to their monarch/president. Many people in Italy supported Berlusconi, a lot also opposed him, same goes for Obama and practically any other president. A monarch is independent and therefore promote a sense of national unity. Something presidents like the one in Germany do not do in my opinion.

Putin answer the question with more than a phrase what the hell do you mean by this post:

Yes, absolutely! Why the Dutch were content to collaborate is beyond me.

Berlusconi is not nor never has been the "President" of Italy. In many countries Presidents cannot violate rules regarding political partisanship and must maintain their neutrality very strictly.

"I'm pretty sure doing Lewinsky wasn't listen as Clinton's job description"

The Lewinsky thing was hardly a 'scandal'. It was part of a witchhunt. Notice that in the 2000s, such affairs by public officials are ubiquitous and don't involve impeachment proceedings.

"I was talking about a division between groups of people in a country when it comes to their monarch/president."

Where is the division/hate with regard to past German or Italian Presidents? And you claim I'm making stuff up. Who cares about national unity with regard to the assessment of one irrelevant person? I thought the whole point was that the monarch is much more than that, a symbol of unity for the whole country. If the point is promoting overall national unity than the Belgian issue is absolutely relevant. You guys keep moving the goalposts.

Read the thread. Why do I have to read it to you? I brought up the scandal with the Prince of Netherlands being a Nazi symp. I was told that it's not a big deal and asked what I would do if I was in Germany at the time, join a communist org. I replied with yes I would join a communist org.

Alledged Nazi symp. And this "prince" was also the bribes guy, so you identified the one person that everyone with a brain agrees on is an idiot.

You present it like all the Dutch collaborated with the nazis. That's a disgusting distortion of history even for your standards.

Why use 'prince' in quotes? This prince Bernhard was the father of your Queen Beatrix herself, and consort of your previous Queen. You act like this guy was a nobody. Why was your head of state Juliana consorting with a corrupt Nazi? And what do you mean "alleged"? Did he not join the Nazi Party in the 30s? Was he not a Stormtrooper? My god and you guys claim I defend the indefensible.

One of your big arguments is that monarchs are less scandal-prone, yet I haven't heard of any President in Europe being associated with Nazis.

Dutch collaboration with the Germans was widespread. More Jews were killed in the Netherlands than any other country in occupied western Europe, including France who had a larger population (Hilberg, 1985: 64). The Germans certainly didn't need that many troops or administrators to occupy it and keep down partisan resistance. There were only *1200* full time active anti-Nazi resisters during the occupation of the Netherlands, less than 1% of the population, yet many thousands who actively helped hunt down Jews. (p. 48, Liberman - Does Conquest Pay?). As Peter Liberman says: "In Belgium and the Netherlands, fleeing ministers left in charge their department heads, or "secretaries-general" - all mainstream conservatives...only a few fascists were foisted upon the Dutch, Belgian, and French administrations".

What does this sentence mean?

"Zolang het in het belang was van het Nederlandse volk, moesten de secretarissen-generaal loyaal met de Duitse bezettingsautoriteiten samenwerken, zo luidde de opdracht van het uitgeweken kabinet."

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Hirschfeld

http://books.google.com/books?id=ykWfAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=dutch+secretaries+general+occupation+1940&source=bl&ots=BD-LtXC1LC&sig=AXV2-7r3UMJmeOk1ykyOwzjDdEo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4zL2TpPXJMKTtwf77PzPBg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dutch%20secretaries%20general%20occupation%201940&f=false

I think these books are pretty clear on the matter.

What we have here folks, is a derailed thread.

You want to talk about TC? Go for it.

Are we joking?
''One of your big arguments is that monarchs are less scandal-prone, yet I haven't heard of any President in Europe being associated with Nazis. ''

Much historical interest has centered on Waldheim's role in Operation Kozara in 1942.[7] According to one post-war investigator, prisoners were routinely shot within only a few hundred yards of Waldheim's office,[8] and just 35 km away at the Jasenovac concentration camp. Waldheim later stated "that he did not know about the murder of civilians there." an ''Waldheim had unsuccessfully sought election as President of Austria in 1971, but his second attempt on 8 June 1986 proved successful.''

Ok, Waldheim in the 80s. Thanks. Is the current President of Austria the son or daughter of a Nazi as Beatrix is?

And lest we forget, the current Queen of England is also related to Nazi symps. Score another one for the royals.

Even if prince Bernhard was a member of the NSDAP or the SS, who cares Putin? In the 30ies it wasn't clear yet what the eventual role of these parties was going to be. He was born in Germany and live there for his youth. You'd have been a member of one of those parties if you were born in Germany in those years. Fact is that during the war the prince was working with the British intelligence service and was in fact the commander of the Dutch resistance.

"Is the current President of Austria the son or daughter of a Nazi as Beatrix is? "

Are you saying nazi-sympathies (even before it became clear what the nazi party would develop into) are hereditary? Who cares what her father did when he was young. You're just desperately trying to come up with examples of what monarchs allegedly have done wrong decades ago, before they were even related to the royal house even. Pathetic.

"Dutch collaboration with the Germans was widespread. More Jews were killed in the Netherlands than any other country in occupied western Europe, including France who had a larger population (Hilberg, 1985: 64). The Germans certainly didn't need that many troops or administrators to occupy it and keep down partisan resistance. There were only *1200* full time active anti-Nazi resisters during the occupation of the Netherlands, less than 1% of the population, yet many thousands who actively helped hunt down Jews. (p. 48, Liberman - Does Conquest Pay?)."

What points are you even attempting to make here? Are you saying Dutch people were/are happy to see the Jews be shipped off to the concentration camps. Appalling, even for you.

"The Lewinsky thing was hardly a 'scandal'."

Ohhh.. stupid me, of course it makes perfect sense that it's a MAJOR scandal if your father (80 years ago) may have been a member of a party that would *eventually*, long after he cut all ties with this party, develop into the ruling party of Nazi-Germany, but when you, the most powerful man in the world, representing hundreds of millions of people, cheat on your wife for months and then publicly deny this relationship people shouldn't dare to call it a scandal...

Right Putin, what have you been smoking?

"Even if prince Bernhard was a member of the NSDAP or the SS, who cares Putin"

"Are you saying Dutch people were/are happy to see the Jews be shipped off to the concentration camps."

No, the attitude for most was probably "who cares", much like yours. Your glib attitude towards being a Nazi paramilitary, claiming that "everybody" would be a stormtrooper, is astonishing and disgraceful, an insult to the memory of millions who actually had the courage to resist and fight.

"You're just desperately trying to come up with examples of what monarchs allegedly have done wrong decades ago, before they were even related to the royal house even."

He was a Nazi Party and spy for the SS when he met Juliana in Berlin and even after they became engaged in 1936. He only resigned in 1937. He worked for (as in was on the board of directors) the same chemical company that patented Zyklon B. I know, I know, "who cares".

Wilhemina blocked the development of a refugee camp for Jews because it *gasp* was too close to her summer palace.

Look at those royals, profiles in courage.

"Ohhh.. stupid me, of course it makes perfect sense that it's a MAJOR scandal if your father (80 years ago) may have been a member of a party that would *eventually*, long after he cut all ties with this party, develop into the ruling party of Nazi-Germany, but when you, the most powerful man in the world, "

Try again. Bernhard was an SS spy in 1934, when the NSDAP was in power, and remained so for three years, only resigning because he it was bad press for the Queen to be marrying an avowed Nazi. And there is no "may" about it, you guys can continue to defend the indefensible, but it has been confirmed that he was a member of the SS & NSDAP. It's not a matter of dispute.

http://www.dedokwerker.nl/prins_bernhard.html

The fact that you think your royal family's Nazi connections are less problematic than an affair he should have never been asked about under oath is really screwed up.

"No, the attitude for most was probably "who cares", much like yours. Your glib attitude towards being a Nazi paramilitary, claiming that "everybody" would be a stormtrooper, is astonishing and disgraceful, an insult to the memory of millions who actually had the courage to resist and fight."

Absurd.. I said that in Germany in the thirties it was very normal to be a member of the NSDAP because it was not yet clear what that party would develop into. Your attitude towards the resistance and an entire country's population is what's disgraceful here. That you actually dare to use any of these arguments to attempt to prove that monarchs are the scum of this earth is truly beyond me.

Anyway, you're nuts- good night :/

"The fact that you think your royal family's Nazi connections are less problematic than an affair he should have never been asked about under oath is really screwed up. "

As you said, *alleged* connections from which he retired before he even became part of the royal family and before the party even started to commit the horrible crimes which Bernard has helped to fight against with the British secret service and the Dutch resistance.

And perhaps he should just not have had this affair huh? Whether he was asked about it under oath or not doesn't change the fact that he misrepresented hundreds of millions of people, Putin. Doesn't make it less of a scandal.