Opening of Parliament (Folketinget) 2003-2023


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
In the Copenhagen Post article, I notice that there is a Speaker seated next to the Prime Minister. Here's my question: if the Prime Minister were to die in office, would the Speaker automatically advance to Prime Minister, or would there have to be a new election? In the US, we have the President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House (of Representatives). If the president dies in office, the vice president becomes president. If for some reason he cannot, or if he dies before he is sworn in, the Speaker of the House is next in line. I'm pretty sure that's the way it works re the speaker - I have to look it up.
 
:previous: I disagree on that one. If it ever came to a showdown between QEII and her government or QMII and her government - I would not place my bet on the governments.
Especially if QMII or QEII "voiced their concerns" publicly.

I don't know enough of the system in the Netherlands to say anything about that.

As for Sweden the opinion and political elite have successfully managed to sideline the King, and in any case they don't to listen to anyone but themselves...

I would advise Her Majesty never let it come to a "showdown" because in the end the monarch will loose. Grand Duke Henri allowed it to come to a "showdown": he refused to sign a Bill. Answer from the oh-so authority-loving Luxembourgers? In a blitz session of Parliament, the Constitution was changed, making Henri’s signature unnecessary, so losing the same "veto power" Queen Margrethe II -in theory- has... In the meantime the detested Bill was approved.

A similar "showdown" happened in Belgium. The Belgians simply declared King Baudouin "unfit to reign" (for one day), took over the royal prerogatives, bypassed the King and in the meantime the detested Bill was approved. With other words: Margrethe and Elizabeth may try to use their veto. It will be gunned down and the last time ever this "weapon" will have been used...
 
Last edited:
In the Copenhagen Post article, I notice that there is a Speaker seated next to the Prime Minister. Here's my question: if the Prime Minister were to die in office, would the Speaker automatically advance to Prime Minister, or would there have to be a new election? In the US, we have the President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House (of Representatives). If the president dies in office, the vice president becomes president. If for some reason he cannot, or if he dies before he is sworn in, the Speaker of the House is next in line. I'm pretty sure that's the way it works re the speaker - I have to look it up.

No, the designated (by the government only) vice-PM would take over.
If no vice-PM has been designated, traditionally the highest ranking minister alive would take over. I.e. the Foreign Minister, followed by the Finance minister (Treasury) and the Minister of Interior.

The Chairman of the Parliament would only be involved is there de facto is no government left or worse: no Monarch and no Regent.

I would advise Her Majesty never let it come to a "showdown" because in the end the monarch will loose. Grand Duke Henri allowed it to come to a "showdown": he refused to sign a Bill. Answer from the oh-so authority-loving Luxembourgers? In a blitz session of Parliament, the Constitution was changed, making Henri’s signature unnecessary, so losing the same "veto power" Queen Margrethe II -in theory- has... In the meantime the detested Bill was approved.

A similar "showdown" happened in Belgium. The Belgians simply declared King Baudouin "unfit to reign" (for one day), took over the royal prerogatives, bypassed the King and in the meantime the detested Bill was approved. With other words: Margrethe and Elizabeth may try to use their veto. It will be gunned down and the last time ever this "weapon" will have been used...

That certainly depends on the issue!

Say the government wish to introduce legislation that may be considered morally shady or a government wishing to usurp more power than it was supposed to. And the QMII or QEII stands up and go against it, thent I'd say most governments would be hesitant about going through with it. One thing politicians really fear is the public opinion.
It does require that the Monarch has a lot of personal credit with the population. QEII and QMII have a lot of credit!

I'm no familiar with Luxembourg. But I do remember King Baddouin abdicating for one day, because it went against his conscience and religion to sign a bill regarding abortion. That was a neat compromise IMO.

Another thing is that the politicians in DK can't do a Luxembourg on QMII. That will require a change of the Constitution. That takes time and requires a general election and also a referendum. - Against a Monarch who has the ears of the public.

It will lead to a constitutional crisis, yes, but it's dangerous for the politicians as well and could just as easy lead to political oblivion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous: I disagree on that one. If it ever came to a showdown between QEII and her government or QMII and her government - I would not place my bet on the governments.
Especially if QMII or QEII "voiced their concerns" publicly.

Eh, regardless of the public opinion, QMII would be forced to abdicate if she should refuse to follow government recommendations. She is constitutionally obliged to do so. The only way in which she could retain her position would be a scenario like the one in Belgium in 1990 in which King Baudouin asked the government to declare him temporarily unable to reign while they passed the abortion law but, as you say, that is implausible as it requires a change of the constitution. It is, however, completely inconceivable that QMII should even think of letting it come to a "showdown" between her and her government unless Denmark is in some state of belligerency in which the government deliberately is acting against Danish interest. Anything else would be a coup d'état.
 
:previous: Yes, but can you imagine politicians being willing to force QMII to abdicate unless they are absolutely sure to have a winning hand - and even then?
QMII has a lot of pondus in the public, also among those who are against the monarchy.
Especially because the government might very well lose the next election on that one.

In other words: A government can force QMII or QEII to abdicate, but it's almost certain to be a Pyrrhic victory.
In that way QMII and QEII have a veto if need be and that translates to influence and power.

Apart from that it's uncertain such a showdown would be public knowledge until years later, because I believe most governments will think twice and rephrase a bill, if it's faced with a no from the court.

But a refusal to sign followed by an abdication is if things are going all out.
The more likely thing to happen is for QMII or QEII to give an interview where she express a view that is opposite that of the government policy or alternatively the New Year speeches by QMII, in which half the population is watching.
It's down to who has the most credit among the voters, QMII and QEII or the politicians?
 
Opening of Parliament (Folketinget) 2003-2015

:previous:
It's down to who has the most credit among the voters, QMII and QEII or the politicians?


I guess we all know the answer to that don't we ???


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Last edited:
I guess we all know the answer to that don't we ???


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Monarchy is not a popularity contest. The voters decide who they want to run the country and the Queen's role is not to go against that.
 
Whilst this might not be the place for a discussion about the powers of the Queen of Denmark I would add... IMO both points made above are valid, the issue they centre around is what is it the Queen might veto or be against? If it was an issue the majority of the public were for and supported or was even undesirable but necessary, a tax rise for example, the result of the monarch vetoing or talking out against it could well mark the end of the monarchy. If, however, the issue is more controversial with the public but the government say it is necessary the Queen speaking or acting out against it would probably cause the Government to have to think again, possibly even face a new set of elections.
Bear in mind that QEII did in-fact recently 'interfere' with the democratic process in Britian, during the Scottish referendum campaign she deliberately allowed herself to be heard saying that 'people needed to think carefully', okay of course its not coming out and saying don't do it, but it was widely reported as meaning as such. The difference is that it was careful enough an intervention to be deniable and what she ways suggesting was popular enough with the majority of the people that no-one really made a fuss.
 
:previous: Yes, but can you imagine politicians being willing to force QMII to abdicate unless they are absolutely sure to have a winning hand - and even then?
QMII has a lot of pondus in the public, also among those who are against the monarchy.
Especially because the government might very well lose the next election on that one.

In other words: A government can force QMII or QEII to abdicate, but it's almost certain to be a Pyrrhic victory.
In that way QMII and QEII have a veto if need be and that translates to influence and power.

Apart from that it's uncertain such a showdown would be public knowledge until years later, because I believe most governments will think twice and rephrase a bill, if it's faced with a no from the court.

But a refusal to sign followed by an abdication is if things are going all out.
The more likely thing to happen is for QMII or QEII to give an interview where she express a view that is opposite that of the government policy or alternatively the New Year speeches by QMII, in which half the population is watching.

I can't imagine a scenario in which this would be even remotely plausible – unless QMII judges that what the government is doing is actively damaging the country or the Danes. And I'm by no means a fan of the current government but I trust that they won't take it that far ;)

QMII intervening politically strides against the whole idea of a constitutional monarchy and she has always made it very clear that she is neither political nor actively involves herself in political matters. As it should be. And as such, the mere idea of her doing an interview talking about how she opposes the government is inconceivable.

It's down to who has the most credit among the voters, QMII and QEII or the politicians?

No. It doesn't come down to popularity. Like grevinnan said, a constitutional monarchy doesn't work that way. Should QMII choose to go against a democratically elected government, unless the country is in a state of belligerency, it would be a coup d'état and while I love QMII and the monarchy as much as the next Dane, I think you're overestimating the love if it comes down to QMII or democracy. The government (and the parliament) is elected to represent the general public. If QMII goes against the government she is indirectly going against the public and unless the elected officials are abusing their power, a such scenario is never going to play out.
 
:previous: Is it?

While I freely admit that the notion of the monarch opposing the government policy is extreme. I can nevertheless easily imagine a number of scenarios where a monarch might intervene.

Some of the greatest threats to the democracy IMO don't come from outside, but from within.

These are three current examples of proposed politics. I'll leave it to you to guess which countries I refer to. - That shouldn't be hard...

1) In a country where a political elite has taken complete power, distancing itself from their voters, who only have one serious alternative. That alternative is however unpalatable for many voters, because the party is either considered too extreme, too amateurish or the voters don't agree with the core values of that party.
The political elite has across the political divide decided to completely keep that party out of influence no matter what, even though it represents a large segment of the voters.
That's the background.
A bishop proposes to remove Christian symbols from churches, like crosses, and preferably turning them into multi-faith temples. In the holy name of political correctness the political elite decides to go ahead.

2) The nationalists have taken power in a country. These are people with a fondness for brown shirts and who tend to suffer from stiff right arms.
From the stance that this country is for the natives only, the government embarks on an "active" policy aimed on "persuading" people from certain other cultures and religions in particular to leave "voluntarily". - A new "kristallnacht" looming just around the corner.

3) At present your country is taking part in a bombing campaign in another country, against what are basically extremist barbarians who are in rebellion against the totalitarian government in that country. Your country would like to see that government toppled as well but that hasn't been possible.
Now, an old ally of that country intervenes militarily on behalf of the albeit totalitarian, but legal, government. That ally is a not inconsiderable military power.
A number of your politicians now advocate establishing no-fly zones over the country backed by force and if need be you shoot down planes from the intervening country. Other politicians advocate equipping rebellious fractions on the ground with advanced anti-aircraft weapons in order for them to shoot down planes from the intervening country.
The government in your country, smarting form having their pride hurt, agree. - Apparently ignoring the fact that such a course will lead to military confrontation, perhaps even war, with the intervening power. - Thus ending up defending the very same people you used to bomb.

- Finally may I remind everyone that the Nazis were democratically elected.
 
First pictures of the DRF in Folketingssalen :)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8773.JPG
    IMG_8773.JPG
    28.5 KB · Views: 4,784
  • IMG_8774.jpg
    IMG_8774.jpg
    117.7 KB · Views: 1,821
Last edited:
What a pity that the Folketing does not add something special to dress up. A simple flower guirlande added to that dreadful balcony would already have add some colour!
 
I noticed that the Prince Consort was absent,does he normally not attend?
 
I noticed that the Prince Consort was absent,does he normally not attend?

He is retired ;) I think this is one of the events where he will not be seen attending as of this year. And he is no longer Prince Consort of Denmark, "only" Prince Henrik.
 
I actually saw the opening - it ran on the TV at my work. And EB had a live-article following the DRF - you know - do they fall a sleep? ;)

A fine tradition to watch the opening. Margrethe looked happy, but was studying the ceiling very carefully, as usual. We were not far into the speech before Marie looked seriously bored! The others did a better job to look interested. Frederik and Mary flirted/teased with each other, maybe that was a way for them to stay so good awake. They must still suffer for jetlag. Benedikte sits a little bit alone in on the balcon, but also managed to stay awake nicely through.

Margrethe was seen taken the elevator up instead of the stairs. It's the first time I think. She get's older, and it goes fast now.

Margrethe and Mary had a good laughing at the arrival - simply because their hats did it was a little difficult to kiss each other, but they succeded. However, not without laughing:

https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=fd20f5306f3015d403e014ae801af4f8&oe=585F6AAD
http://danapress.de/thumb.php/01555...HiCeqsFfFdUV5NIlbsjR559lxahrPmUxydZvx_QE0EyaK
http://danapress.de/thumb.php/01555...HiCeqsFfFdUV5NIlbsjR559lxahrPmUxydZvx_QE0FCaK
http://danapress.de/thumb.php/01555...HiCeqsFfFdUV5NIlbsjR559lxahrPmUxydZvx_QE1cyaN

Margrethe studying the ceiling:
http://danapress.de/thumb.php/01555...-gHiiCntVXFeUR5O4IUuTd54dpxA8ZzLJ1U3G9wc3vyaS

F&M flirting:
http://danapress.de/thumb.php/01555...PEE9UYa-K64ryaBK3ZGnyzrPj1DSeM5nk6jbj-wM1AiaM

A not so elegant kiss from Margrethe to her oldest son :D
http://danapress.de/thumb.php/01555...PkEBUYa-K64ryaBI35GgKPrDnVNeBM5nkbZPx_QEznyaJ

Benedikte needing a helping hand down:
http://danapress.de/thumb.php/01555...fQzxRhZ0qLoHyZBK3ZOnqnWfHqWk8ZzLJ1W3G9wc5ICaV

Gallery from Facebook (with some unseen pictures):
https://www.facebook.com/News-about...85/photos/?tab=album&album_id=674402269394295
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:Also the prime minister did not meet them outside?
http://ppe-agency.com/500px/Oct2016/PPE16100430.jpg

Not on this occasion.

The DRF were there as guests of the Parliament, not the government, as such they were met by the Presidium of the Parliament in descending order of seniority.
The first to greet them was the Chairwoman, Pia Kjærsgaard, and as the Chairwoman she was presenting flowers to QMII.
The second in seniority presented flowers to Mary, the third to our Marie, and the fourth to Benedikte.

That order also decided who escorted whom up the stairs and inside.
The Chairwoman escorted QMII.
And since PH has retired, the second in seniority escorted Frederik, the third Mary and so on.
 
Last edited:
No, as a consolation prize for loosing the last election, she became a member of the presidium. - That and three pints of freshly tapped blood every week...
 
Margrethe was seen taken the elevator up instead of the stairs. It's the first time I think. She get's older, and it goes fast now.
Did QMII take the Pater Noster? :)
 
:previous: Is it?

While I freely admit that the notion of the monarch opposing the government policy is extreme. I can nevertheless easily imagine a number of scenarios where a monarch might intervene.

Some of the greatest threats to the democracy IMO don't come from outside, but from within.

These are three current examples of proposed politics. I'll leave it to you to guess which countries I refer to. - That shouldn't be hard...

1) In a country where a political elite has taken complete power, distancing itself from their voters, who only have one serious alternative. That alternative is however unpalatable for many voters, because the party is either considered too extreme, too amateurish or the voters don't agree with the core values of that party.
The political elite has across the political divide decided to completely keep that party out of influence no matter what, even though it represents a large segment of the voters.
That's the background.
A bishop proposes to remove Christian symbols from churches, like crosses, and preferably turning them into multi-faith temples. In the holy name of political correctness the political elite decides to go ahead.

2) The nationalists have taken power in a country. These are people with a fondness for brown shirts and who tend to suffer from stiff right arms.
From the stance that this country is for the natives only, the government embarks on an "active" policy aimed on "persuading" people from certain other cultures and religions in particular to leave "voluntarily". - A new "kristallnacht" looming just around the corner.

3) At present your country is taking part in a bombing campaign in another country, against what are basically extremist barbarians who are in rebellion against the totalitarian government in that country. Your country would like to see that government toppled as well but that hasn't been possible.
Now, an old ally of that country intervenes militarily on behalf of the albeit totalitarian, but legal, government. That ally is a not inconsiderable military power.
A number of your politicians now advocate establishing no-fly zones over the country backed by force and if need be you shoot down planes from the intervening country. Other politicians advocate equipping rebellious fractions on the ground with advanced anti-aircraft weapons in order for them to shoot down planes from the intervening country.
The government in your country, smarting form having their pride hurt, agree. - Apparently ignoring the fact that such a course will lead to military confrontation, perhaps even war, with the intervening power. - Thus ending up defending the very same people you used to bomb.

- Finally may I remind everyone that the Nazis were democratically elected.


My personal opinion is that the right way to prevent any of the scenarios you described above. e.g. a fascist government taking over the country, is not to have a residual royal veto power, but rather to have constitutionally entrenched rights protected by an independent Constitutional Court as it is the case e.g. in the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and, incidentally, if I am not mistaken , also now in the Kingdom of Sweden, which is the only monarchy in Europe that has formally abolished the royal veto power.

By the way, looking back at European history, in several countries that experienced the rise of fascist or similar right-wing populist regimes, e.g. Italy, Spain, Romenia, Bulgaria and Greece, the monarch either openly backed the regime or was otherwise unable to stop it. In other words, it seems to me that royal prerogative is rather ineffective in situations you describe as any attempt to use it against the wishes of an authoritarian government would simply cause the monarchy to be overthrown.
 
Last edited:
Not on this occasion.

The DRF were there as guests of the Parliament, not the government, as such they were met by the Presidium of the Parliament in descending order of seniority.
The first to greet them was the Chairwoman, Pia Kjærsgaard, and as the Chairwoman she was presenting flowers to QMII.
The second in seniority presented flowers to Mary, the third to our Marie, and the fourth to Benedikte.

That order also decided who escorted whom up the stairs and inside.
The Chairwoman escorted QMII.
And since PH has retired, the second in seniority escorted Frederik, the third Mary and so on.

Tak Muhler!!!!:flowers: Lovely fall bouquets for the royal ladies today.

Thank you for the video of the queen's arrival. Just realized that she's taking those stairs one at a time SIDEWAYS while interacting with the receiving line. I know she's had some mobility issues, but that is still impressive IMHO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom