Would the Dutch/Swedish/English or the Danish accept a black king?

My question is simple so please avoid a too complicated answer: Would the Swedish/Dutch/Danish or the English accept a black king?

I just want theoretical talk so let's skip what we all know that all royal families of Europe are ancestrally white etc. Let's just say one of these monarchies stumbles upon some real problems someday and a noble group from a vast minority proposes a black prince or princess to take the throne as His/ Her Majesty. This solution may be slammed as a challenge for the country and its people to bring the ultimate proof that these places are as democratic/ impartial/ colorless as they fancy themselves to be.

Theoretically speaking..........why not? These countries already have influential politicians / officials who are either black or Muslim or both. What sounds unlikely today may get true tomorrow, if we look at the level of diversity in Europe today and at how 10 years ago nobody dreamed of a black US president.

 

Black king is coming.


Hm.. I don’t believe that it will happen soon. Though everything flows - everything changes. Let’s wait and see..

 

I am dutch and I could care less about the king I have now black, white, green or purple I have no use for any monarchy...
had history unfolded a little differently 700yrs ago one of my family would be sitting on the throne of the netherlands...I'm not at all jealous but that just highlights how ridiculous the entire monarchy concept is, losing a battle,political backstabbing or an assassination is the only difference between being king or commoner and because of historical fate I'm now expected to bow down and kiss someone's royal arse? regardless what colour that arse is I'm not kissing it...

 

I'd rather have a black monarch than a republic.

 

The United States has one. So why not? Eh?

 

The Swedish definitely would. Everything is so PC in Sweden, just ridiculous. It sometimes seems like a big contest to see who can outdo eachother with affirmative action without being too overtly racist about it. If there are three mannequins in a store, one of them has to be non-white, preferably Black. Or pictures of models at clothing stores. Wouldn't want to even imply that Swedish women are the only ones who are attractive (though we all know deep down it's true). Nevermind the fact that in most of the smaller cities non-whites only make up a tiny minority, or may not be visible at all.

If Sweden ever had a Afro king, I can guarantee he would be constantly hailed in the media for every little thing he did. He could do no wrong. The Swedish newspapers already heap praise on Obama, and he has nothing to do with the Sweden.

 

Hell no for my part. The monarchy is supposed to represent the country, and not only what it is now, but what it has been. It's a link to the past, a more than thousand years old institution keeping tradition alive. Sweden, and the other countries have historically been white, as have their monarchies, and it should remain as such. Simply put, while I'm for non white people to live in Sweden, I do realise that Sweden itself is a white country in that the vast majority have always been white, and that the group known as swedes are white, and the monarchy should reflect that. King of the swedes, and swedes, the ethnicity, is white. It's not much of a controversial thing in my view.

I do agree with wyly criticism of monarchy somewhat, but I'll add that a monarchy is worth maintaining if only for conservative reasons, and as a link to the past and a continuing thousand year old tradition. But, it serves other purposes too. Like being a neutral head of state that everyone regardless of political affiliation can look up to and rally behind. The same cannot be true for a president or elected head of state, just look at obama; hated or loved by half the population. There's also some kind of magic around a monarchy. It is just an illusion and it is perhaps inherently unfair but people do regard royalty as higher, and many people do feel strong loyalty and duty for these things.

 

It's ironic that Napoleone's marshal Jean Bernadotte who later became king of Sweden - Charles XIV John had a tattoo "Death to the kings"

 

I'm half Dutch and I voted for Obama.

 

Sure is.. But I'm sure he was an opportunist and wouldn't let principle get in the way of fortune. Not that being king of Sweden is the best post by far, but for him it was. Even though I'd preferd that we picked a swedish noble for once instead of a continental guy I must say that this le midi lad was brilliant: getting us norway and everything.

 

I understand your love of symbolism but I don't share it...here I am a descendent of the uber emperor of all european emperors Charlemagne, but because of historical fate I'm no different than you or anyone else... had history unfolded differently one of my family could be king maybe even me, which strikes me as absurd and silly...I can't comprehend people kowtowing to me because of my ancestry that would be soooo embarrassing...and to really put it into context Charlemagne's ancestors likely numbers in the 10's of millions, the only difference for me is there is a paper trail that connects me to him...so there are literally many millions of euro's that have equal royal value/claim and I just can't manage any sympathy for the royalty business...

 

The whole notion of

is utter nonsense when applied to the UK

i) What is a 'Noble group from a vast minority'? Please define

ii) Constitutionally The Monarch must be a descendent of Queen Sofia,( a daughter of James I) and it is by strict succession so if one monarch was to abdicate then the next, in order, were to ascend the throne. There is no çhoosing by nobles

We could very easily have a Black monarch. All that would need to happen is for the Child of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to marry a black person and to produce a child that outlived the Duke and that child would be as Black as Obama. It would be a fait accompli.

 

indeed, but even though it's just the result of history unfolding it's still a special thing. I'll add that you can't claim anything just because you're reletaed to some one; that's simplification of how monarchies work. Also, your sig is wrong.

 

ya I know there is no "s" in Mill, it was a cut n paste and I don't care enough to go in to my profile to change it...

 

In my view a monarchy even a constitutional monarchy looks like anachronism in the 21th century. The dying polity.

 

In my view if a country still has a monarchy that's a sign that the country has been successful and stable and fallen to revolutionairy ideas. It shows the strength of the country. The UK has a monarchy because it was never weak enough to lose it. In my view of course. and of course.. Sweden has a monarchy. Does say something eh?

 

And what about Germany, France, US, Switzerland etc.
Well that's quite a dilemma...

 

I don't want a white king , so no , no black kong as well .

You do realise your question is quite stupid ? King is a hereditary position , besides adoption , ...

Plus those countries never choose to have a king. Better to ask if they a black pm/ president as that is the head of state in thodr countries , not the king .


Btw there are barely any influencial black / muslim elected officials , this proves little or nothong brw .

 

cultural reference
[video=youtube;murGui71WE0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=murGui71WE0[/video]

 

A DNA test confirmed Prince William's Indian ancestry and he owes up to 0.8 per cent of his DNA to Princess Diana's remote ancestor who was of mixed Indian and Armenian descent. Due to the close historical links between Britain and India, it was fairly common for British officers to take local Indian wives in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and there were roughly 800,000 Anglo-Indians in India before its independence.

 

had the germans and french not mismanaged their country and getting their hands handed to them they would still be monarchies. That they're now republics is just a reminder of their historical failure. The americans and swiss are a different matter as they've always been republican.

 

You concocted this theory yourself? And which historical failure do you mean?

This is a good example when ppl had taken republican polity and not the ridiculous anachronism – monarchy and created successful & stable states.
As regards US it’s interesting when former colony had screwed king and then exceeded its former mother country in every way.
Nowadays - The relationship between former colony and its former mother country >

[video=youtube;u-9FCTbKF2o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-9FCTbKF2o[/video]

 

Indeed I did. What failure I mean? Well the failure of the french to mismanage their country so much that they got a freaking revolution on their hands, the failure of germans to constantly get into wars over the ability to handle. If you look at the british or swedish they've never, with the exception of the glorious revolution (which by the way opened up for the perfect combination: constitutional monarchy. Note that I'm advocating that, not absolute monarchy), mismanaged their country so badly or gotten owned so hard in wars that they've lost their monarchy.

Wheter a country is a monarchy or republic has little effect on its success. You have a heard time arguing for monarchy being inherently inferior to a republic when the historically most successful country in the world, namely the UK, was and is a monarchy. What determines the success of a country isn't the form of government in this way, but rather the natural resources of the country, and how much liberty is afforded to the population. The UK gave lots of freedom after the glorious revolution, and the liberties enjoyed in the US, commonly called american values, are really just old english freedoms. It just so happens that the crown violated those rights in 1776 and the americans brake loose because of it, and continued execrising those values without a monarchy.

Id est, the success of the US isn't because it's a republic, but because it has freedoms and natural resources. Colombia is a republic, brunei is a monarchy, and they're both kind of failed states. It's not releated at all.

 

If anything's anachronistic it's the republic.

The republic is a far older system of governance than the constitutional monarchy.

 

Although I reckon that it's more than mere coincidence that most of the Top 20 most democratic nations in the world are constitutional monarchies.

The US, a republic, is only the 15th most democratic country in the world and great constitutional monarchies such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and Britain are all more democratic than the US.