Translation:The princess is saving the prince from the man.
Are there many people in Norway, who would prefer a republic over a monarchy? Why is a progressive country like Norway a monarchy in the first place? I am not trying to be provocative - I just want to know. As someone, who has grown up in a republic, I really do not understand why monarchy is so popular. And every time I ask people to explain why they support monarchy, they get really defensive instead of answering my fairly simple question.
While Norway is a monarchy on paper, the country is not run by the king and queen. Our government is elected by the people, and the king stays neutral in political matters.
On a day-to-day basis, the royals function more like well-paid ambassadors, and are generally very well liked. When people say that they support the monarchy in Norway, what they often mean is that they like the royal family. It's not necessarily a political standpoint.
Thank you for your answer. A lingot for you! Do you know any figures about how many people support the monarchy? Also, how does this play with national identity? I am sorry if my initial comment seemed, well, not-well-worded. It is just that I have received some really strange answers to my questions on monarchy. I suppose in the end this is a matter of not understanding what the lion is saying to misparaphrase Wittgenstein. :)
Hello, Roger. The two most common reasons people give for supporting monarchy are historical continuity and having a symbol of everything that makes your nation a great nation. The problem is that when you ask people to list things about their country that they are most proud of, you will get a long list of things that have happened despite the opposition of monarchs rather than things that have happened because of monarchs. If you ask for a list of historical events to be remembered, you will either get a similar list or a list that contradicts the first list. I just find that confusing and I hope someone will someday explain this in a manner that I can understand.
I am very much aware that Finland’s history affects the way I view these things. So, yes, I am biased. I am from a country that has hundreds of years of history as a place ignored by kings unless they needed some place to fight their wars, or needed men to fight their wars somewhere else. That sort of a thing gets annoying after a while. Our national “story” is very much a story of a people fighting for their right to control their own destiny. The idea that every citizen is allowed to vote and allowed to become a candidate is an important part of our national identity. Being a subject does not suit us because, you know, history. We have the perfect symbol for Finland and that is the Finnish people. So we choose our leader amongst the people.
I hope that my comment made at least some sort of sense. :)
It is a constitutional or parliamentary monarchy. Like in many other countries (just from the top off my head): Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and most commonly known, the United Kingdom (including Australia and Canada, for example, and other Commonwealth realms), cf. this list.
My experience in the republic of the United States of America has been nothing but a bunch of pompous idiots, very few of whom I would trust in any leadership position, strutting about like celebrities trying to earn the majority favor of a populace too unintelligent to be trusted to govern itself by gratuitous self-aggrandizement and empty promises, to be in a temporary position where their effectiveness is constantly hindered by the fear of losing public support and the immaturity of the political party that they beat in the last election, and where their attention is drawn away from their duties by the need to campaign for re-election, most of which boil down to immature slander campaigns, while the real power is held by an engorged council of elected idiots with inadequate oversight and excessive term lengths by comparison, all the while perpetuating the illusion of citizen power while the real voting power lies in a small handful of individuals who have no responsibility to the wishes of the citizens they represent, and all this just so that a few corporate fatcats can buy their way to the top of the dollar pile and the populace is kept blind by sensationalist news media and subjected to the ethics and moralities of a single majority religion under the guise of religious tolerance.
All of this makes the idea of trusting one person, bred from birth for leadership, to handle all the big issues so that the citizens can focus their attention on personal interests, very appealing, though I understand that is not how Constitutional Monarchies work and that historically most if not all monarchies have been too feudalistic for individual freedoms and have subjected their populaces to the religious beliefs of the monarch.
I really dislike such political disputes but reading this one was strangely heartwarming, as it proves that it doesn't always have to be an unpleasant and inconsiderate quarell. Well, I think that is just another evidence that people who are learning languages are openminded and wise :) I really love the Duolingo society! Not only languages, but also being able to read the comment section is often another encouragement for me to come here every day! Ha det bra, alle sammen :)
Thank you for answering. I guess there are republics, and then there are republics. I would never volentarily give away my right to vote for the leader of our nation (Finland). My grandfather made sure that I am a good citizen who votes, pays her taxes and buys domestic products. He felt the deepest respect for the presidential institution and taught me to feel the same way. I do not mix the person of the president with the institution of the presidency. If I did not like the person who happens to be the president, I would still respect the institution. The idea of Finland being a monarchy is completely foreign to me.
The more centralized a government is, the more unstable it is and the easier it is to infiltrate and to turn the people in power into "stooges" of those behind the scenes. With a government like the United States, there are 300 million people at the whim of a mere handful of federal employees, which makes it a very desirable target for others with power.
No one said it better than JFK himself when he called out the threat of secrecy and the importance of a free news media. National pride has been at an all time low since the Clinton years, and a large part of this may be due to the fact that Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of '96 which lifted the ban on major corporation purchases of local media outlets. The effect is very much like what you are describing, so I don't blame you for feeling disillusioned by the shift in political attitudes. Most Americans are.
I think Julius expresses the current state of the US corporatocracy beautifully.
I grew up saying the pledge of allegiance, you know "... with liberty and justice for all," during the civil rights era. My disillusionment goes back even further than the the loss of the fairness doctrine for media under Reagan or the Powell memo.
And I think kremokazmaslen's comment is wonderful too :). The Duo community is a bright spot in the world.
Another thing but as a Brit, our (and I imagine many other) nation had been ruled by the monarchy. It had been thought that God chose the next king of England; and as a country that still considers itself Christian (under the Church of England) we cannot end the monarchy as we cannot 'defy' God's choice. Also, they generate a crap ton of money through tourism and merchandise like weird plates and spoons (they real question is why do people buy it?). Yet, somehow, after paying around a billion a year in supporting the royals, they still provide more to the economy. As we also have a commonwealth, I feel (personally) that the royals (Especially Harry and William) keep peace between the 36 nations - which therefore assists politics.