Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands to address nation (abdication on 30 April)

[Tash]

It's a rule that nobody has a higher function than the king, so no head of states where invited.

 

It's more like an unwritten rule. Mostly out of respect, no-one wants to overshadow the new monarch.

[The Doctor]

 

:lol: :wtf:

 

:laugh3: :lol:

I knew this would happen somehow :laugh3:

 

It's a rule that nobody has a higher function than the king, so no head of states where invited.

 

oh I didn't know that

[Reilly]

That's a good question, one I've pondered as well..

About all I can summize is that it's a microcosm of a culture's 'ideal' writ large, or a display of symbolic ideals epitomized by a lineage. As children, we are all impressionable and through cultural traditions we form ideas of what is common in our mythology and social patterns, and thus we harken to that time in our youths when it all seemed so clear, a more perfect form to which we subscribe to and to a degree may reflect in our own family's cultural traditions, if so inclined.

It's similar I think with why people care about professional golfers, or with celebrities lives', sort of a higher form of the art and displays in cuture, and then if the role is well played, good role models emerge to which the next generation feels a kinship to.

I think it's good to have some continuity, some bedrock examples of family, some touchstones and celebration of the best of what we can be, just as we have spiritual leaders and intellectual leaders in any field.

But we are free to choose that which we wish, so to each a path of their own choosing.

Am I making any sense?

 

Yes I think I understood about 90% of that, and thank you.

 

With a golfer, as the example you used, they come to our attention for having a talent that has outshone countless other people, and whether their fame has become infamy or not, they have done something to be entitled to it. The same as most celebrities, whether acting or presenting a TV show, its something that not just any person can do, so for the most part I understand why people care about these usually intriguing characters. However, there's something fundamentally wrong with caring about someone just because, well, they're born.

 

The irony? People like Paris Hilton are hated for being one of those "famous for being a celebrity" types, when in fact just for getting out of bed to do a reality show, release another perfume or make a sex tape she's actually done more with her life than any royal figure. I don't regard most of the ambassador roles they take on as being significant, as royals they have their hands tied by not being able to get involved in anything that comes anywhere close to being political, and therefore have very little influence. 99% of the time a royal making an appearance anywhere is just a nice sentiment because they are who they are, it actually makes no difference to anything.

 

I'm not judging any royal person at all, I simply don't know what they're like either way and I don't care, I think nobody should care. We live in a world that has morally evolved the thought that we're all born equal with the same opportunities, of course this will never happen completely but at least the idea is there (People will always be born into families with different wealth, social statuses etc. and have varying opportunities). However we have this looming presence of a bloodline always hanging over society, and people making such a fuss about "Ooooooh I could be related to Henry III" as if it's some master race, it's sickening.

 

That presence of a bloodline is just a constant reminder that nobody is born equal, and that's inevitable, however why do we fucking celebrate it? To me that is absolute madness.