关于公主的说说
降或者适。
双 子 星公主留言두 사람 별 공주 메모双 子 星公主留言두 사람 별 공주 메모双 子 星公主留言두 사람 별 공주 메모
看到很多人都提到了西班牙公主莱昂诺尔，我也顺嘴说一句，这是我最喜欢的公主。原因有二，首先自然是因为公主长得很美，气质很好。第二个也是因为西班牙国内共和势力很强，她有可能当不了女王。对这种弱势的公主自然而然会产生疼惜怜爱之情。西班牙王室不稳定的原因很多，最重要的原因是围绕老国王和老国王二女儿夫妇的一系列诸如贪污腐败，奢侈享受等等丑闻。但现在的国王王后兢兢业业，生活简朴，一定程度上重建了王室在西班牙人心目中的信心。现在西班牙国内有两股最重要的共和势力，其中一股是以podemos党为代表的激进共和党派，另一股是以加泰当地政党为代表的激进独立党派。就目前来看这两股力量在议会远远达不到一半，所以短期内王室共和的可能性并不大。放几张公主最近在阿斯图里亚斯出席公务的照片吧。
注意第一张照片里面小女孩的眼神并不是很友善。
没想到评论区这么热闹，那我就再多说两句。很多人说王室被推翻有合理性，不予置评，这是西班牙国内的事情，由TA们自己决定，TA们也有这个权利通过投票决定。外人无权置喙。但我不赞同部分西班牙人对王室成员的恶毒辱骂。如果只是理论探讨是否应该保留王室这自然可以。
还有很多人提到共和国更民主，这并没有什么必然性。全世界最民主的国家恰恰是北欧君主立宪国例如丹麦瑞典挪威。而欧洲十个君主国（包括西班牙）都是全世界二十个完全民主国。了解西班牙历史的也知道西班牙第二共和国也是一团糟，紧接着的是Franco独裁。现在的君主立宪国时期也是西班牙最民主的时期。当然，如果西班牙人就觉得西班牙变成共和国更民主这也是TA们自己的决定。
王室的作用类似于议会总统制国家的总统，例如意大利和德国的总统。这两个国家都有议会，实权在于总理。而意大利总统花的钱（不只是总统工资，还有维持整个系统运转的钱）比西班牙王室（同样不止是王室成员的工资）还要多。
评论里面应该有不少欧洲王室八卦的粉丝，我也是其中一个。不过她毕竟是个八卦博主，对西班牙政治经济制度并没有很深入了解，其实我也没有，但基本的了解还是有。所以她的文章里面有个很严重的常识性错误。西班牙王室并没有实权！也没有军权！西班牙是个典型的三权分立民主国家，并不是军人掌权！实际上现在上到首相下到议会议员也没有谁有军队背景。所以不要再说公主是个姑娘，不能跟军队打成一片，所以坐不稳王位。她确实可能坐不稳王位，但也是西班牙人投票给共和或独立党派，把他们一家赶走了而已。军队把他们一家赶跑的可能性还是很小。
再集中回复一下评论区的问题。很多人认为西班牙变共和国了更自由民主平等。首先声明，要不要共和这是西班牙人自己的选择，而且他们有这个选择。当年的宪法是全西班牙投票通过的，而现在的每次大选西班牙人也完全可以选择是投票给共和党派还是维护宪法的党派。但既然维护宪法的党派依旧在议会占绝大多数，那么王室就依然存在。
然后我还是要说一句，在我看来，西班牙共和了很可能并不如现在。因为现在要求共和的党派要么是地方独立政党，要么是podemos这种治理经济一塌糊涂的激进共和左翼政党。理论上共和国确实更民主，但现实世界是复杂的，会受到很多因素影响。
最后直接放一个Quora上西班牙小哥的回复吧，说说为什么西班牙人仍然选择了保留王室。懒得翻译了，直接放英文。
Following my heart I am republican, following my mind I don't want a republic as of today. First let me clear up something…
Republics Are As Old As Monarchies
Spaniards and Britons don't still support monarchies, republics are just as old as monarchies. I don't know why many people seem to believe a monarchy is something ancient and a republic is modern. The Romans had a republic and the ancient Athenians too, and the Carthaginians… In fact most Mediterranean ancient states were republics not monarchies. Because the Mediterranean was an urban region with permanent settlements, and good infrastructure that thrived on trade and agriculture. This means:
· It had strong public institutions. Rich agriculture leads to permanent settlements, permanent settlements need advanced legal codes and well established institutions to keep them. And strong institutions make way to construction/infrastructure.
· It had powerful oligarchs. Stable public institutions in old times tended to be built on a balance of powers, too much power in one person leads to that person breaking the law which leads to conflict and instability. If there are many, the chances of one amassing enough power to take out the others is less likely, so more stable. Furthermore the Mediterranean sea and infrastructure meant thriving trade which means power is based on wealth, so any person from any background can rise to power with wealth meaning power is bound to be shared.
Powerful oligarchs and stable institutions lead to republican systems such as Rome and the Senate. Or Carthage and their council or most Iberian city-states were also republics. The republic is not some modern creation from justice, it is just as old as the monarchy. In fact Rome went from monarchy to republic to monarchy (empire) again. Why? Because the sources of power changed, first when Rome was a warring city state trying to annex her neighbors, armies made power, so there was a monarch; when Rome became a mercantile power, wealth made power, oligarchs appeared and they overthrew the king, Rome was a republic. When Rome's expansion generated powerful generals, Civil Wars started and those powerful generals became dictators (such as Marius, Sulla…), eventually Julius Caesar and his nephew Octavian got the army in their pockets and the monarchy was re-established as an empire. If power resides in the defence, generals are the ones in control so monarchies are more suited, when power resides in trade, wealthy oligarchs appear so republics are more suited, there's nothing modern about a republic.
Modern Republicanism
The republic in modern times was brought back by the French Revolution and the enlightenment which also inspired the American independence war. Modern republicanism has taken the banner of democracy and is based on rational ideals of justice, citizenship and freedom. That's thanks to the French 18th century writers followed by the popular revolution.
This makes people believe republics are sources of justice and freedom while monarchies are just a remnant of an obsolete pre-existing thought. This is absolutely ignorant.
The same way the French dressed the republic (until then a system of oligarchs and internal struggle) with the Enlightenment’s democratic clothes, other countries like Britain or Spain dressed the monarchy (a system of warlords and war) in democracy's clothes. BOTH are sources of justice and freedom equally because both have been re-made to be that. The republic was not democratic before the French made it. The Roman republic was a corrupt state of powerful senators (oligarchs).
· Out of the top 15 democracies, 11 are monarchies! Among them Spain or Britain. Why should those 2 monarchies give up their better working democracy to copy France or the US which rank substantially lower?
I'm not saying the monarchy is inherently better, some republics like Germany rank higher than Britain or Spain. I am just saying the monarchy is provenly not worse.
Why do these 2 have monarchies?
· Spain
Spain has had 2 republics, both an absolute calamity. Spain is a Mediterranean country, we are hot-headed cultures which cannot address issues in a cool way. Any issue like Catalonia's for example proves this and this has happened many times including in both republics with other issues. For example the 2nd Republic’s government killed anarchist protestors out of rage at the movement.
When the system is a monarchy, there is a central neutral institution safe-guarding the core principles. That is what happens in Spain and that is the role of the crown. When Spain has been a republic, either political side has believed itself entitled to overthrow the institutions when they were under the opposition's control. In the 1st Republic federalists declared a middle size town a “state” and made war on the central government for not recognising that town as a state of some fantasy federation they imagined Spain was. This is the nonsense that goes on in Spain when a republic is proclaimed, parties think they are above the institutions. In the 2nd Republic the government killed protestors, the opposition attempted several coups, the labour unions were extremely hypocritical and politicised, the losing party didn't let the winners take all the offices, and ultimately parties said if they didn't win it was not valid. This is the lack of respect that political forces have for the institutions in every republic Spain has had.
Italy and Greece have this character too, but there is a difference: they don't give a damn about politics. Italians are absolutely apathetic to their own government, they have no interest in it, they mistrust it and they vote for any candidate that stands out. Spaniards take lots of interest in politics and the outcome is very different. The Italian republic is sustained on corruption and apathy, the Spanish republic was unsustainable.
I want a republic, I want a mature republic in which parties respect the constitution and institutions. As a Spaniard I know that is just impossible at least for now, and I have no intention of throwing my country into a far worse system because someone somewhere thinks a republic is an inherent source of justice and freedom. It is not. Spanish republicans think republic means their party is in power, they don't realise in a republic our government is the exact same as in a monarchy, just with a politician with a certain ideology defending the institutional order instead of a neutral king.
· Britain
The British is a culture that refuses to adopt structural change.
They are in favour of progress for the most part, but they refuse to say their way is fundamentally wrong and needs to be replaced. Not the monarchy in particular, anything. The house of lords, the lack of a constitution, the functioning of the institutions according to the traditional uses and manners.
说说大概意思吧。第一层意思是共和国和君主国一样古老，比如罗马共和国。而这个共和国并不一定更民主，因为它由一群寡头（议会元老）把持朝政。第二层意思是西班牙虽然是君主国，但依旧是全世界前15个最民主的国家之一，也就是说君主国并不一定就被证明是不好的。第三层意思是西班牙历史上的两个共和国都是一团糟，共和党人并不尊重这个体制，都将对方视为不合法的。第四层意思是虽然他希望西班牙是个共和国，但现状就是这些共和党人希望西班牙共和的原因是这样他们就能掌权了，而没有意识到变成共和国他们依旧要维持体制，尊重反对方。
公主是皇帝的女儿。公主出嫁又称“出降”、“下嫁”或“厘降”；额驸娶公主则称“尚”某公主。因为公主是“金枝玉叶”，地位比其夫（额驸） 要高。
公主婚礼主要由指婚、纳彩、出降、合卺、归宁等礼仪组成。 指婚之日，宗人府管理大臣将所选额驸带至乾清门东阶下，宣旨：“今 以某公主择配某人。”额驸跪拜接旨。指婚后，额驸家择吉日向皇家行纳采 礼（又称“一九礼”）。届时额驸送彩礼至午门外恭进。据《大清会典事例》 载，道光二十二年（1842年）以前，彩礼为“驮一、马八”；后改为“羊九 只”。纳采次日，皇帝于中和殿、保和殿悬彩设宴，款待额驸及其男性族人。
额驸等先至慈宁宫外向太后行礼，再至保和殿向皇帝行礼，然后入宴。席间 演奏吉祥乐曲。宴毕，额驸等还要到皇后宫外向皇后行礼。同日，太后在慈 宁宫宴请额驸族中女眷，皇后率皇贵妃、妃嫔等与宴。
出降前一日，内务府官员率銮仪校抬送公主嫁妆至额驸家，额驸要率族人于乾清门外行三跪九叩礼迎接。嫁妆送到后，由内务府管领命妇负责陈设。随同嫁妆送至额驸家的还有一名“试婚格格”（格格，满语小姐之意）。试婚格格由皇太后或皇后于宫女中选择精明貌美者充当，任务是在公主出降前先行与额驸同床试婚，以查验额驸有无隐疾和性生活情况等；试婚后即遣人将查验结果回报宫中。如无异常，公主出降便按期举行；反之，则另议。 试婚格格在公主出降后一般留作额驸的侧室，少数也有做公主女侍的。试婚之仪是清宫特有的习俗。此举仅限于皇家公主下嫁，其他王公贵族禁行。
公主出降这天，额驸家将准备好的“九九礼”抬至午门恭纳。礼品为鞍马18匹、甲胄18副、马21匹、驮6匹、宴桌90席、羊81只、乳酒和黄酒45瓶。受礼后，皇帝、皇太后分别于太和殿和慈宁宫宴请额驸家男女族人。但从道光二十一年（1841年）起，出降日的九九礼及筵宴均被废止。
准备出降的公主身穿吉服；吉时到，先至皇太后、皇帝、皇后前依次行告别礼；如系妃嫔所出，再向生身妃嫔行礼。然后，公主在命妇引导下升舆出宫，赴额驸府邸。公主乘舆由内务府校尉抬行。其前有仪仗开道；其后，送亲福晋、夫人、命妇等乘舆随行；最后是护送的骑马军校。送亲队伍浩浩荡荡。至额驸府邸后，额驸父礼男宾于外厅，额驸母礼女宾于中堂，公主与
额驸于洞房行合卺礼。礼毕众退。
归宁是婚礼的最后一项仪式。婚后第9日，公主偕额驸入宫拜见太后、皇帝、皇后等，依次行谢恩礼。其日宫中少不得还要大张筵宴，热闹一番。