Denmark--like the United Kingdom--is known as a constitutional monarchy. Countries that are constitutional monarchies have a king or a queen that is the recognized head of state and an elected Prime Minister that is the head of the government. Most constitutional monarchies also have a Parliment that consists of elected representatives that make decisions for the people.
One of the things that makes Denmark so interesting is that it's ruling family has been in power for almost 1,000 years! That means that Margrethe---the current Queen of Denmark who is remarkably popular---has followed in the footsteps of literally dozens of her ancestors as the leader of the Danes.
When she's in Denmark, Margrethe lives in an interesting palace known as the Amalienborg Slot. The Slot is a collection of four buildings that sit around an octagonal square. The buildings were completed in 1760 and were originally designed to be homes for four wealthy Danish families.
Those plans were ruined in 1794 when Christiansborg Castle---an earlier palace---burned down. Needing a place to live, the Royal family moved into the city!
Today, Amalienborg Slot still serves as the home of the Royal family. It sits just down the street from Marmorkirken Cathedral and is guarded 24 hours a day by special forces known as the Livgarden who wear a navy blue jacket, blue pants and a bearskin hat while marching with machine guns for hours on end!
Sounds cool, doesn't it?
Want to learn more? Then check out these videos:
So what do you think about the Danish monarchy? Do you think it's a good idea for one family to rule a country for as long as the Danish Royal family has? Would that consistency bring any advantages? What about disadvantages?
Leave a comment and join us again soon on Get Lost!
Signed,
Bam Bam Bigelow
Image retrieved from http://www.nipnet.dk/imgme/niels-dk_0516.jpg on September 8, 2007.
Hi this is Freaky Canadian, and I think that it is a good idea and a bad idea. It’s a good idea because if the queen is doing something good to help them then that might go one for a long time (1,000 years). That could be a bad thing because if the queen is not a good queen then your stuck with her for a long time. The benefits are that if you have the same family for 1,000 years then if everyone likes the queen then no one will want to kill off the queen to get in power.
Posted by: Freaky Canadian | June 25, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Mr F. asked, so what do you think about the Danish monarchy? Do you think it's a good idea for one family to rule a country for as long as the Danish Royal family has?
I think keeping the regular family will be best for Denmark. They are already trained and experienced for being the rulers. They can do things that new comers can’t. But there is always another side of the story.
I think that they should give another family a chance to rule. The only problem with that are two things. Which person in the ruling family now will have to give up there place next in line for the incoming family. And how do they choose the next family.
If it is an election how will it be run? There is a whole family and not just one person coming up. How will they know how the children will be if they may not be born yet?
From,
bunnyheart014
Posted by: caroline | June 25, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Question: Is it a good idea or a bad idea for a country to be ruled by the same family for 1,000 years?
Side one: This is a good idea because then you have a bunch of family members that know the “rules” and their trade well. Plus, they would have lots of experience and they would be able to pass down their tips to their children who were in line for the throne. Think about the people in the land. If each family thought of new techniques, then the people would get a bit frustrated, confused and overwhelmed. Ex, if the Petersons ruled the land and there goal while in power was to straiten out the “bad guys” if the throne was to be handed over to the Johnsons and they wanted to feed the poor then the town might be in a bit of a jumble.
- Sloppy Joe
Side two: Although there are some advantages, I think that you could experience a sort of arrogance in the royal family and their thinking that they don’t have to earn their spots, they are just handed to them. A new line could mean that the crown would do a better job of trying to make a good impression. Actually putting forth an honest effort to try and please the people. Plus change is always nice, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to just change things up every once in a while.
- Pooh Bear
Posted by: sloppy joe and pooh bear | June 25, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Interesting, should one family rule the country?
I think that it would be easy to have one family to rule Denmark but it wouldn’t be all that good. For the family could do what they want and keep on doing it because they don’t have to fear having another family take their place. But they also have an elected prime minister who can control the Royal Family. Also the people couldn’t really remove them because they been the loyal family for 1,000 years so they will probably make a big fuss about getting kicked out.
-but who could Denmark trust to replace the Royal Family?
It will take a lot of effort to replace the Royal family, you have to find a family Denmark can trust and be responsible. But with the one family rule it would be easy because even though you have a bad one you can have a good one come done the line to. You won’t have to go through the trouble of getting a new one every time Denmark is unhappy.
But I don’t know if it’s fair that one family gets to rule. But look at the USA. Not every family gets to be president. Also if all get to be the royal family than wouldn’t that hurt the privilege of being in the royal family? It wouldn’t be special to Denmark if every family got to rule. That would take out the whole purpose of being in the Royal Family because then other families will come and take that privilege away every year or so.
Posted by: The S man | June 25, 2009 at 09:58 AM