Comments on Kingdom Come and Gone

You'd love Thailand, then. They play the national anthem and show a montage of photos of The King before movies, and you're expected to stand up (and everyone does). You can go to jail for saying mean things about him (and this happens sometimes, too)

He's been in power longer than even Queen Elizabeth (its true!)and is the longest serving head of state in the world at the moment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej

plus Thailand also has Ladyboys, and everyone likes that.

If we had a royal family, we could focus all of our soap opera hero worship on it instead of the president.

Does he wear a lapel pin? Does he believe in Jesus? What does his campaign say about us as a people?

We can focus all that crap on some gilded symbolic royal mirror and elect people who are good at running things.

Except I like the "any American can rise to the highest seat of power" thing.

dan- i dont know if u read a little further into nepal, but it is going to be ruled by maoist.

the former maoist guerillas who decided to participate in the elections swept into office.

nepal was no lovely kingdom, it had a brutal caste system and it forced a lot of the rural people into semi slavery, this caste system is similar to what india use to have. the maoist arent going to be any better, but im guessing a lot of the anti chinese tibetans living in nepal are thinking about new digs right about now.

Mr. Savage, rather than monarch-love, it sounds like you're more a fan of the parliamentary style of government in general, rather than our presidential system. Many republics (Germany, Israel, Italy, India, etc.) have a figurehead president with little or no power beyond the official head-of-state functions. For the most part, they remain out of politics and are intended instead to serve as figureheads, much in the same way those constitutional monarchs act in Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and so on... In all those cases, the PM takes the daily flak as head-of-government.

I'm envious. I think in presidential systems, the people all too often can't distinguish when their leader is acting as head of state or head of government, and critics are all too often silenced with accusations of being unpatriotic or treasonous.

I wonder how many bleeding heart libs who support Tibetan independence know how oppressive the ruling monks could be.

Also, I've just discovered Prince Carl Philip of Sweden, possibly the best modern argument for monarchy out there. (I have, to be fair, only seen pictures.)

I feel precisely opposite Mr. Savage, and am appalled that the British haven't yet thrown off the Platonic notion that there's a singular form that we should all pattern our lives after.

Plato is the source of much ill in the world, and monarchies are but one manifestation of that.

@6:

Oh, I totally agree! Friends of mine in college used to live in Sweden, and told me that Prince Carl Philip was once something of a gay icon there. Pictures of him up in gay bars, etc. I can see why! But, he's not heir to the throne.

I'm inclined to go with the Bolshevik approach to royalty, but unfortunately the people that throw out the royals usually wind up taking up in the palaces...

The new Maoist government has done a compassionate thing though; the 94 year-old lsat living mistress of a king who died in 1955 is being allowed to stay on in her pavillion in the pace grounds because she has no other home. I think it is very sweet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25099292/

@8: I can see why! Between Carl and the football team, the Swedes that are into men are spoiled for choice.

Besides, it's more fun to not be the heir, I'd say.

This is more galling than the Malkin post. @3 is correct about the brutality of this regime, maybe you should post something about yearning to live under Stalin's rule. Hitler had a flare for the dramatic - sure he exterminated gays, but how about those lightning bolts on the collars and some of those rallys with the Wagner and the torches.

@6 & 8, Felipe, Prince of Asturias, is another very, very good argument for monarchy. Yowza.

I agree completely. Take Canada. We have a fabulous, hot, amazing Governor General (who represents the Queen) who does all the ceremonial acts of state--and speaks for all Canadians when she does. (www.gg.ca). She can visit the troops, and you know it's not to score electoral points.

You never really get rid of royality. Here is the proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretender

Pretenders are all the rage in europe. They are the celebrities.

Obviously you've never seen our lot then...

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/belgium/img/belfamily06pic.jpg

@14: I see your point, but she still can't hold a candle to Adrienne Clarkson.

As for Dan's glamour criterion though, Canada hasn't hit the mark since Trudeaumania. (The man dated Streisand!)

We Canadians are probably doomed to enjoy only the reflected splendor of the Windsors.

Thank you, Dan. I first noticed this with King Ronnie in the 80's. People want the prez to embody the nation.

What they seem to forget is that they have just elected... a politician.

Nation, government, two different things.