May 26, 2012
Published: 26 Apr 11 15:10 CET | Double click on a word to get a translation
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/33408/20110426/
Swedish anti-monarchy advocates are heading to London this week to join their UK counterparts in a 'not the royal wedding' celebration similar to events which took place at the wedding of Crown Princess Victoria in 2010.
What do you think? Leave your comment below.
Sweden's Trade Union Confederation on Saturday elected as its new president Karl-Petter Thorwaldsson, who proceeded to call for a restoration of the Swedish welfare model. READ »
Swedes were enjoying a real taste of summer heat on Friday with thermometers indicated record highs in some areas of the country, with more of the same promised over the weekend. READ »
A warrant has been issued for the arrest of a man in connection with the shooting of an Uzbek imam in northern Sweden in February. READ »
Sweden is set to host US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in early June and discussions will concern green energy, internet freedom, Afghanistan and the Middle East READ (2 COMMENTS) »
Swedish striker Zlatan Ibrahimovic has stated that he is happy at AC Milan and will honour his contract, while bemoaning the club's lack of financial muscle. READ »
A doll billed as a "real retard" found its way into stores in Gothenburg in western Sweden on Thursday, prompting strong reactions about a campaign meant to draw attention to the treatment of people with disabilities. READ (15 COMMENTS) »
A jealous Swedish woman who murdered her ex-boyfriend’s new partner in September has been sentenced to 14 years in prison. READ (14 COMMENTS) »
After having lived in Sweden for a certain number of years, many ex-pats start asking, “Am I going native or what?” Check out The Local's guide to tell-tale signs that you may be more integrated into Swedish society than you first realized. READ (18 COMMENTS) »

Sanna is one of 2 million people in Sweden under the age of 18. Sweden is seen as a good place to grow up. The law makes sure children are well-protected and defends their rights and any organizations work with children's well-being. Read more »
August Strindberg's plays shocked society, dazzled audiences and revolutionized drama. A century after his death, Strindberg, with his powerful, timeless themes, is celebrated around the world. Read more »
The story of K Composite Magazine »
"I’m working on a couple long articles which will be posted here soon. While those are in the works, I thought I’d share this article and interview about my magazine, K Composite, which was recently published on the site Design-Milk.com. Enjoy! Scott Ritcher launched his now digitally glossy mag, K Composite, back when Macs were used..." READ »
|
|

lång
adjective
Lång means long, tall and can be used for height, distance or time.
More news from Germany at thelocal.de
More news from Switzerland at thelocal.ch
More news from France at thelocal.fr
More news from Norway at thelocal.no
Sweden – Up North, Down to Earth is a book about Sweden today. A country of natural beauty and open space, and a society focused on equality, human rights and sustainability. Meet regular and astonishing Swedes, supercars and indie rock bands, vampires and royalties.
Buy your copy of Sweden – Up North, Down to Earth from Sweden Bookshop
Register now for:
> Free use of noticeboard
> Special discounts
> Weekly news roundup
> Unlimited use of discuss
Your comments about this article:
The comments below have not been moderated in advance and are not produced by The Local unless clearly stated. Readers are responsible for the content of their own comments. Comments that breach our terms and conditions will be removed.
I wonder what meaningful job does she have ? - or is she also a parasite on the state finances ?
And rui move, why should they give up their fight? Just because you aren't interested in it does not mean it should not be carried on by someone. An injustice is an injustice, whether it affects you or not...and injustices do happen in democratic monarchies, in case you haven't noticed.
What would they replace it with? A president/ Please, I live with a president and he does not represent my country the way that your royal family does. The cost is to much for your king, then try paying the cost of a president and congress, it is hundreds times more. I know this to be true because I live it. The life style of your king is nothing compared to what I have to put with, he is cheap. And the roayl family brings in more in goodwill and toursim and industry then the entire government of my country. I'll take your royal family anyday compared to what I have.
I am by no means a royalist, however .... When it comes to the Uk royals I strongly believe they earn their keep and bring in allot more cash than they earn/spend.
What I dislike however is when royal families do virtually nothing but sponge and even worse is when they live outside the country that pays for them and not earning their keep.
It is a bit sad that the Queen has stuck her political oar in with the Palace inviting any old despot who claims to be Royal such as The king of Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince of Bahrain ( who has now cancelled because if he left his Palace he might find it taken over when he tried to go back)
The Zimbabwe ambassador is invited and even Ghaddafi was originally on the invite list. Former Tory PM's John Major & Maggie are invited ( She declined because of ill health - i.e. she is gaga) but neither Tony Blair or Gordon Brown got an invite, because William is only second in line to the throne and only former Prime Ministers who are members of the garter are being invited.
I am in favour of retaining the monarchy as a constitutional hangover that is a tourist attraction that brings in more than it costs, but using Royal prerogative to invite a bunch of tyrants and make political preferences shows how out of touch with reality Queen Elizabeth is.
And to think that my new grandchild has been named Elizabeth!!
Any news stations seeking to satirise or make fun of the event will not be given access.
The question is more why WOULDN'T republican Swedes want to protest against the British Monarchs. Republicans the world over tend to have the attitude that all monarchys are bad, just some are worse than others (comparing the English and Swedes to the Thai, Saudis and Emirates for example). Showing solidarity with others going through what they are going through makes much sense.
And for all those talking about the well-documented myth that monarchies bring in tourist cash (just look at France and Italy as an example of what tourists go to a country for: they wouldn't stop going to the UK and Sweden if the monarchy went) please stop. There are still wrong but more acceptable arguments for keeping a monarchy than that.
As a Celt (Scots/Welsh), I could not give a damn about the 'British' monarchy. Yes France still rakes in the money from the visitors to Versailles and lives a lot on its royal past, but have them actually around does bring in more money.
I used to work in Windsor and twice a day the road that my office was on was closed when the guard marched to a from Windsor Castle. When I complained about it to the landlord of the local pub, he said that he would have to close up if it was not for all the gawking tourists that turned to watch the twice daily show.
Hi Rick, as you've probably noticed from my comments I am a republican. I worked closely on the "rigged" (not technically but politically by Howard) referendum in Australia to keep the republic or not and the tourist argument was debunked quite easily and often whenever the monarchists dragged it out again by comparing to other countries and weighing up the cost to keep them. There is simply no evidence from anywhere in the world where there was a monarchy and now there isn't to support the claim that they are good for tourists.
It is though, from various royal courts, seen as a very effective way to counter the "parasite" line that has gained much traction over the years from republicans in various countries. They (the royal courts)had to use this propaganda so as to change perception from being historically priviledged and slothful to "earning their keep." But it is nothing more than PR. Anecdotally I#m sure people working in the tourist industry see many come to gape at the Royals but they would come anyway to gape at something else.
From working on the campaign the tourist argument was easy to discount and safe ground for republicans. The tougher ground for republicans in a battle for the hearts and minds of the people is to counter the old "if it aint broke don't fix it" line that monarchists love trotting out in a "four legs good, two legs bad" style whenver they are losing a debate) even if one explains that having an inherited monarch means "it" is broke. People, especially from certain nations, are naturally conservative at times.....
@august1st:- so if what you say is true, the millions of yanks & other tourists that go to the UK to see Buck Palace, Lizzy II, Changing of the Guard etc etc, would still go even if the Monarchy was abolished?
As for them costing the taxpayer! when compared to the amount of revenue created, they, the immediate Royal Family, cost very little to the taxpayer.
The tougher ground for republicans in a battle for the hearts and minds of the people is to counter the old "if it aint broke don't fix it" line.
The problem that I see, is the political aspect of another tier of politics that comes in when you have a President of the Republic. The Royals while being an anachronism, are largely apolitical at least in public. When you get an elected head of state, you run the risk of having a three tier political system where you could have 3 different political views between the lower and upper houses of parliament and the presidency.
The best solution would be to replace the monarchy with a ceremonial head of state, but that is nothing more than moving the Monarch out of buck house and moving in another bloke to do the same job
Why would they stop coming all of a sudden without a changing of the guard?? Do people visit the UK over France because of this? London is a fantastic city that people will visit regardless, like Paris. It is amazing how naive people are thinking that people would start giving London a swerve without a sitting monarchy and they somehow contribute to more people coming. You're seriously underselling how good a city London is in its own right and how it will always attract tourists.
@ Rick
Agree with your sentiments, but logically, as an inherited monarch is as ridculous an an inherited doctor, having the position open to all citizens of a country, even if it means moving the royals out of a palace for this person, is the only logical and fair system. So you would be swapping an unfair and priviledge-based system to a fairer one. This is surely worth doing.
It is interesting about your other point regarding the apolitical nature of monarchies. I and many others maintain that by their very existence they favour the conservative side of politics. Did you notice from which party the 2 living prime ministers in the UK who didn't get an invite from Wills came from? No doubt monarchies are political, especially in countries like Saudi Arabia and Thailand but even in the UK and Sweden.
The excuse given by the Palace was that as it was not a full state wedding, as Wills is only second in line, that it was not protocol to invite all living past prime ministers as had been the case with Charles & Di. They only invited Major & Maggie ( not going because she is gaga and thinks SHE is the Queen), because they are members of the order of the garter. They did however invite:
The Zimbabwe Ambassador representing a despot who is on a travel ban to the UK
The King of Saudi Arabia - shoots his own people
The Crown Prince of Bahrain - refused because he is afraid he might be deposed if he leaves the country
The King of Swaziland I'm not sure if that is with or without his 13 current wives ( he gets a new 12 year old every year)
The Libyan ambassador was originally invited but was later cancelled
We could have an elected figurehead instead, someone from showbiz perhaps, an ex big brother competitor. Or maybe a successful businessman, from the weapons industry. Are you morons out of your tiny little minds - we have a perfectly good person available who behaves decently and gives our miserable culture a bit of continuity - HRH Elizabeth.
Now you might argue about the extended family who get a load of cash for not very much and who the medals get handed out to each year - all worth changing with the times. But as a symbol of a nation - who better? We certainly don't want some awful president figure building monuments to themselves like the French.
Good start there with the "throwing protestors in jail" line - great concept for a democracy - and your comment only went downhill from there.
The Queen isn't some bionic superwoman who goes around "looking after" buildings. She owns them, or more accurately, inherited them though, you're right about that.
The UK could have an elected figurehead, you're right. There is no need to presume that it would be a former Big Brother contestant or a successful businessman from the weapons industry. You get bad elected figureheads like you get bad Royals: you only have to look at the history of the UK royals to see that and the state of Royal Family's and elected officials worldwide, there are some good some bad. Elected officials do not equal populist and/or undeserving leaders as you are stupidly implying in your comment.
How well do we know Elizabeth really? All we and you know is the carefully crafted PR version of her. I like Christopher Hitchens' take on her in his recent article:
"I am not sure how deserved this immunity really is. The queen took two major decisions quite early in her reign, neither of which was forced upon her. She refused to allow her younger sister Margaret to marry the man she loved and had chosen, and she let her authoritarian husband have charge of the education of her eldest son. The first decision was taken to appease the most conservative leaders of the Church of England (a church of which she is, absurdly, the head), who could not approve the marriage of Margaret to a divorced man. The second was taken for reasons less clear."
As for the way she acted after Diana's death…. You really have to wonder why someone who has simply fulfilled their duty is held in such esteem. She has simply hung around and done what was asked of her. Big deal.
A REAL British treasure, Morrissey sums it up best when he says: "Why would I watch the wedding? I couldn't take any of that seriously. I don't think the so-called Royal Family speak for England, I don't think England needs them.
I don't believe they serve any purpose whatsoever. They are benefit scroungers."
I lived in London for 4 yrs, I know what it's like, the tourist side might be "fantastic" but the reality of living, working & commuting in & around the place is not that good.
Yes lot's of tourist would give it the "swerve".
#A REAL British treasure, Morrissey#, you've got to be joking right, he's tone deaf, more people must have committed suicide after listening to his depressing drivel than any other singer & he comes from the wrong side of the Pennines.
With such poor music taste as you obviously have by dissing Morrissey and by extension the Smiths your opinion doesn't really carry much weight.
"It would certainly be interesting to see what percentage of these protesters are living on state benefits."
Like the whole Royal family you mean
Somebody implied earlier that to not support such things was tantamount to
killing ones own culture & posterity. The 'elites' of this world, to which the monarchy belong, have been doing that to us for centuries.
I do not care one bit about 'William and Kate' (or any royal) getting married, lots of people get married all the time without all the pomp, and this just reinforces their belief that we accept their skewed perception of us. Turn the bloody TV set off, do not watch the royal elites, who don't care about us one iota, and let's get along with our lives without these people.
The Royals belong in a museum.
They make a really cute couple, and if Kate is willingto put up with some really dysfuntional realatives, maybe they can break this endless cycle of welfare and get a job like Prince Harry.
"Like the whole Royal family you mean"
Well done! That's my point. If you live on state benefits, it's the pot calling the kettle black. Did I spell it out enough for you?
The difference is that the institution of the Monarchy and the Royal Family earn Britain dividends in many ways.
Britain is the only Kingdom, where the lesser Royals get money from the government for doing SFA just because they are related in some way via marriage or divorce to the Windsor family. There are some 25 'royal' families that live on benefit.
At yesterdays wedding they where the ones who filled 4 mini buses to get from Buck house to Westminster. The majority of British taxpayers, do not even know who they are supporting.
Well said!
@Njal
I suppose the naïve minority have a right to express their opinion.
However I do agree with the abolition of the House of Lords, these are just filthy rich political morons. These are the people sucking dry national finances.