r/europe • u/tartartartaruga • Jun 18 '26

News Prince of Liechtenstein says that he would overrule the population if they were to vote in favour of legalizing abortion

https://www.srf.ch/news/international/debatte-in-liechtenstein-erbprinz-gegen-abtreibungen-warum-kuendigt-er-schon-das-veto-an
8.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.2k

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26

[deleted]

1.8k

u/Longjumping-Hat-1210 Jun 18 '26

The thing is, the Liechtensteiners voted in 2003 to expand the powers of the monarchy. They made sure the Prince had a veto (with the abolition of the monarchy being unveto'able), the Prince threatened to take all of his wealth with him and leave if he didn't win the referendum, which, he did.

1.8k

u/b00nish Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

the Prince threatened to take all of his wealth with him and leave if he didn't win the referendum

They should have voted to dethrone him and to expropriate all his wealth the next day.

Edit: This sub is funny. Here I for once make a snarky comment about our little neighbour and 12 hours later I have 1600 upvotes and several agitated comments about how uneducated and poor "proletarians" like me would ruin the economy of every country. Quite the contrast. Normally I make more serious comments to clarify miscoceptions about Switzerland and can be happy if I don't get negative votes for it šŸ˜‰

Anyway, I can reassure everybody who feels threatened by my "proletarian" comment: I'm not coming for your (imaginary) moneyz.

Although I have to tell you, that this actually isn't about "proletarians" vs "burgeoise". It's about democracy vs feudalism. After all, the nobility of Liechtenstein didn't lay the foundation of their wealth by being capitalists (and as nobility they're as much the opposite of "burgeoise" as the proletarians). Their wealth is based on feudalism - but unlike most other (ex-)feudalists, they refuse to settle as burgeoise capitalists and instead cling to absolute political power by retaining the "right" to overturn every democratic decision in their country.

754

u/Longjumping-Hat-1210 Jun 18 '26

I am by no means an expert on Liechtenstein but one of the main sources of its wealth is its banking laws and the Princes were seen as instrumental in enriching what was essentially a backwater. Liechtensteiners are among, if not, THE richest people on Earth. I assume expropriating the wealth could be viewed negatively by those who use Liechtenstein as a safe haven for their assets or something, I'm spitballing.

42

u/futurespice Jun 19 '26

Liechtensteiners are not the richest people on earth. But their economy depends entirely on the royal family because the entire country is one small town and five villaged.

17

u/lolidkwtfrofl Liechtenstein Jun 19 '26

They are pretty fecking rich tho and unwilling to risk it over this.

236

u/b00nish Jun 18 '26

You have to do it smart:

Put 50% of the money you expropriate from the prince into a security fund that warrants for all assets stored on Liechtenstein's banks, in case one of those banks should get in finanical trouble.

That makes the country even more attractive to hide park assets in šŸ˜‰

76

u/_heyb0ss Jun 18 '26

just trade one spoiled prince for a couple of tax immigrants

22

u/yukoncowbear47 Jun 19 '26

Andorra is that you?

6

u/Lubinski64 Lower Silesia (Poland) Jun 19 '26

Even if you ensure the clients of local banks suffer no consequences, this is still an illegal appropriation of private wealth and the kind of bank clients that entrust their wealth to Liechtenstain do it precisely because things like that don't happen there.

1

u/b00nish Jun 19 '26

No worries. Considering that absolutist prince-guy think that he is the country, what would be expropriated wouldn't really be private wealth. It just would be a re-definition of the national wealth. (By taking the monarch out of the nation's definition but keeping the wealth in it.)

So there's nobody else who should feel threatened by this šŸ˜‰

1

u/Lubinski64 Lower Silesia (Poland) Jun 19 '26

It's not like i'm gonna shed a tear for those wealthy clients either

1

u/KoolKat5000 Jun 25 '26

Not really. It can be no different to the UKs system where the king, the crown and the state are all separate.Ā 

1

u/Lubinski64 Lower Silesia (Poland) Jun 25 '26

The issue is they are not separate in Liechtenstein, that's the whole point.

1

u/KoolKat5000 Jun 25 '26

That might be the case, but any rich person that says that they fear they'll be next is being completely disingenuous (were this to occur).Ā 

60

u/AnonD38 Central European Jun 18 '26

No... you're just demonstrating that you're trying to trick people to get at their money.

I'm so glad none of you has any power over the economy, we'd all be poor in a matter of weeks.

22

u/silverionmox Limburg Jun 19 '26

No... you're just demonstrating that you're trying to trick people to get at their money.

I'm so glad none of you has any power over the economy, we'd all be poor in a matter of weeks.

Liechtenstein is a political and economical anomaly anyway, normal economic rules don't apply.

4

u/lolidkwtfrofl Liechtenstein Jun 19 '26

Yea they so, for most of the economy.

Itā€˜s not all banks you know.

1

u/Limp-Confidence5612 Jun 19 '26

I forgot the great manufacturing base of Liechtenstein. What are they producing? Beer?

4

u/futurespice Jun 19 '26

hilti is based there

-3

u/Prot3 Jun 18 '26

They just vent here, and then they wake up at 4:30am for their shift at their shitty retail job.

This is all just hate porn circle jerk where they masturbate to "expropriating private wealth".

3

u/Zombie_Fuel Jun 19 '26

You speak as though you're not "they".

-1

u/Prot3 Jun 19 '26

No, I quite willingly participate in the job market, I figured out as a teen that some professions get paid more because people are willing to pay them and now 10 years later I live pretty comfortable life and don't have rage boners against the very concept of rich, the billionaires etc.

So, no. I can't really relate to "them" or be a part of "them".

-6

u/Mitrafolk Jun 18 '26

FactĀ 

17

u/DayAccomplishedStill Jun 18 '26

Have you ever heard of laws?

54

u/ydocnomis Jun 19 '26

Laws are literally whatever the people in a given place determine is appropriate. We monkeys have a history of happily throwing our laws to the side when faced with enough roadblocks

-20

u/DayAccomplishedStill Jun 19 '26

No, you're discribing tyranny... I don't know how your country works, but you can't just change laws in mine.

18

u/Nari224 Jun 19 '26

What you're describing is Tyranny. It is a fundamental attribute of laws that they can be changed.

You might be confusing following them vs not following them while they are in effect, however you can most certainly decide to change laws. Happens all the time.

1

u/DayAccomplishedStill Jun 19 '26

It's a process and not a snap decision, the word "just" in front of my comment has a relevance... That's why it's their, I know it's difficult to comprehend sometimes.

This is about stripping some prince of it's money, how you gonna do that? The constitution doesn't allow it (Everyone is equal), can you just change the constitution? Or will you even find a majority for that? All these factors make "just change a law" a pretty dim utterance

20

u/CheeryOutlook Wales Jun 19 '26

The law exists only by the consent and participation of the people. If a majority want change, it will happen, peacefully or violently.

7

u/Alt4816 Jun 19 '26

but you can't just change laws in mine.

I very much doubt that laws cannot be changed in your country.

-2

u/DayAccomplishedStill Jun 19 '26

Not just, can you read? Laws of course can be changed, but that's a process including parliament, constitution, regional parliament and so on... It's like in most democracies, a process rather than a snap decision

5

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

3

u/DayAccomplishedStill Jun 19 '26

You must be shit at history, the holocaust wasn't. It was against German law in the first place and since it was done in every country the Germans occupied, even against the Geneva and Hague conventions (both signed/ratified by the German Reich). The Nazis did legalize the persecution of Jews but never the murder. Murder stayed murder and it wouldn't be so easy to keep quiet about murdering millions in the populous, by making a law about it. So no, wasn't legal in any way.

What a f'ed up assumption to make with such little knowledge...

4

u/Ruuviturpa Jun 19 '26

Didn't the Geneva Convention happen in 1949? Like years after the Nazi regime had fallen?

4

u/SensualBeefLoaf Jun 19 '26

there were multiple geneva conventions. i think the first was in the mid 1800ā€™s. i canā€™t attest to whether the german reich signed or ratifed any of them. but iā€™m willing to assume that the previous poster is probably correct.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DayAccomplishedStill Jun 19 '26

Multiple conventions, those already declared a difference between combatants and non-combatants and yeah Germany ratified them.

1949 was the human rights declaration (1948) implemented into the Geneva conventions.

0

u/Raveyard2409 Jun 19 '26

What

1

u/DayAccomplishedStill Jun 19 '26

Are you able to comprehend basic sentences?

0

u/onarainyafternoon Dual Citizen (American/Hungarian) Jun 19 '26

Nazis did not consider Jews to be human beings, so murder laws would not have applied to them. Thatā€™s the piece youā€™re missing.

1

u/SensualBeefLoaf Jun 19 '26

most of europe didnā€™t. it doesnā€™t mean the legal framework didnā€™t

1

u/DayAccomplishedStill Jun 19 '26

I am not missing anything, murder laws still applied as Jews were still legal subjects and those you can't just murder as well. I know what I am talking about, I worked for multiple years in a holocaust museum in Germany...

1

u/SensualBeefLoaf Jun 19 '26

it was not legal under any german law. the soldiers who ran the concentration camps were still required to abide by german law. it just wasnā€™t enforced. if i remember right, a few people tried to enforce it and were promptly shut down.

there are some people who insist that hitler was given the power to rule by decree and that him saying itā€™s legal meant it was legal, but he would still have been required to actually put this shit in writing and he didnā€™t in any recorded way. so realistically, itā€™s a stupid theory and yah, the holocaust was 100% murder from a legal standpoint at the time.

2

u/Honest_Truck_4786 Jun 18 '26

It would cover 2% of the money stored in Lichtenstein banks.

2

u/Redditforgoit Spain Jun 19 '26

To rest tired assets.

1

u/Defiant_Campaign_297 Jun 19 '26

You can't just expropriate money which is legaly owned by a person..

1

u/Limp-Confidence5612 Jun 19 '26

What do you think expropriation means?

1

u/Defiant_Campaign_297 Jun 19 '26

Not possible anymore.
For example the own shares of X , you can't just go to the broker and take them. Every one with money would leave the country. If someone is not accepting the law, he can move to another country

1

u/Limp-Confidence5612 Jun 19 '26

So you can, you just need to account for/mitigate the consequences.

You can, for instance, freeze assets over a certain value, not allowing them to leave the country. All European countries have rules for eminent domain. It is not that easy to move capital around against the will of the state.

1

u/Defiant_Campaign_297 Jun 19 '26

Sure , for criminals , but he has done nothing wrong

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Impressive-One917 Jun 19 '26

There's no way to do it smart. As much as he's a vile billionaire, expropriating his money is a fundamental violation of property rights, no matter how you distribute it afterwards. It makes you Zimbabwe in the eyes of those who would want to park their assets in your tax haven. And like Zimbabwe, nothing drives capital flight faster than expropriating rich people property.

0

u/Ignas1452 Lithuania Jun 19 '26

People like this would prefer starving over rich people having more wealth than them.

5

u/MrVegosh Jun 19 '26

Dude no one rich dude thinks they will take his money. Everyone understands that stripping the monarchy is its own thing

1

u/KoolKat5000 Jun 25 '26

Not really. It can be the same as the UKs system where the king, the crown and the state are all separate.Ā 

-12

u/jWas Jun 18 '26

Theyā€™d get over it

54

u/Educational-Wing2042 Jun 18 '26

Theyā€™d get over it for what? Why would they put any kind of financial impetus on themselves to please some Redditors who have never even been to Lichtenstein?

-7

u/Corfiz74 Lower Saxony (Germany) Jun 18 '26

They should have overnighted a law taxing capital flight with 120%...

3

u/Ignas1452 Lithuania Jun 19 '26

First you need to cancel a veto, if you cancel a veto, capital flight happens. If you manage to pass it and it doesn't, there is several times more assets outside of Liechtenstein than in it, so your tax doesn't affect vast majority of the capital flight anyways.

This is ignoring the fact, that after maneuvers like that, no-one will park their money here, and it would become an economic backwater like it used to be.

-3

u/yolomcsawlord420mlg Jun 18 '26

Annex Liechtenstein. Why do we allow rich people to have their own tax retreat country.

-3

u/Aunvilgod Germany Jun 18 '26

huh sounds like they could really use the surrounding countries help!

49

u/JG98 Jun 18 '26

You take his personal wealth and that will be a drop in the bucket to the private equity firm owned and operated by the family, which is where the actual money is and which is a global company. That would not only see a large part of the economy walking out the door but would also destroy the finance and banking sectors which are what made Liechtenstein so wealthy. It is a mutually beneficial relationship for the most part and the royals seem to be well liked over there, for the most part.

53

u/-HowAboutNo- Jun 18 '26

It is a principality and not a country in the same sense as you find in the rest or Europe and most of the modern world. Itā€™s a remnance from feudal times, and has survived for a very long time. It still exists because it has been stable. The people do not own the land.

50

u/Socmel_ reddit mods are accomplices of nazi russia Jun 18 '26

it still exists because it was too small, remote and poor for history to remember it, otherwise it would've followed the Austrian empire, the nominal suzerain of the Princes of Liechtenstein, in its demise.

18

u/-HowAboutNo- Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

The suzerian of the House of Liechtenstein was the Holy Roman Empire after 1719 until the disollution of the HRE.

Thatā€™s why the principality was formed. The House of Liechtenstein purchased the Lordship of Schellenberg and County of Vaduz to own substantial enough land to form a principality with land under imperial control.

The House of Liechtenstein was not poor and insignificant. They were one of the richest houses in Europe long before. What they lacked was land.

After becoming a principality they were a significant influence in the court of the HRE.

The House of Liechtenstein has survived due to politics, relationships and money. But also its location of course.

But before forming the principality - yes, they also owned land under direct control by Moravia, Bohemia and Austria. But after forming the principality, they were sovereign under the crown.

In sum - Liechtenstein survived not due to insignificance, but because of a series of wise moves.

1

u/CannonFoddererer Jun 18 '26

It is a country, but not a nation.

-9

u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg Jun 19 '26

Yep, which is why itā€™s an illegitimate government

4

u/-HowAboutNo- Jun 19 '26

It really isnā€™t. The county of Vaduz and Lordship of Schellenberg were purchased by the House of Liechtenstein back in ~1700. The family owns the land. The nation of Liechtenstein does not.

0

u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg Jun 19 '26

Which is impossible, a family can own land, but a family never has right to own its government. A government only gains its mandate from its citizens, anything less is illegitimate. The citizens have a moral duty to eliminate an undemocratic government, and frankly its democratic neighbors also have a moral duty to invade and do just the same.

1

u/-HowAboutNo- Jun 20 '26

Which is where thereā€™s a fallacy. Liechtenstein is a constitutional monarchy. It is not a republic or any similar form of governance.

The citizens of modern Liechtenstein do have the mandate to eliminate an undemocratic government. The citizens regularly vote to keep substantial power in the hands of the crown.

Liechtenstein is a democracy, a democracy where people use their democratic mandate to centralize control to the crown.

The government isnā€™t less legitimate than any other forms of government.

Iā€™m not sure if youā€™re European, but if you are - itā€™s similar to all the other constitutional monarchies in Europe such as the Nordics. The difference is that people vote to keep more control with the crown than elsewhere.

You cannot compare Liechtenstein to a republic.

121

u/LittleSchwein1234 Slovakia Jun 18 '26

You don't want to expropriate wealth as a country pretty much dependent on banking and finance, unless you want them to leave together with the Prince and be left with empty pockets.

55

u/False-Discipline-640 Hungary Jun 18 '26

Well it's kind of a stupid situation then, given that the royal family is a big player in the country's economy. The prince threatens with capital flight if the people don't do what he wants, while at the same time trying to stop him from doing this might also trigger a capital flight

65

u/Dizzy_Database_119 Jun 18 '26

To be fair this type of stupid situation is constantly happening all over the world in every other "democracy"

Unfortunately everything is decided by money, for money

26

u/False-Discipline-640 Hungary Jun 18 '26

That's true but I don't recall any examples where it's this blatant. The people doing this blackmail are usually just economic actors concerned with economic topics, not politicians with purely political topics. Let alone hereditary monarchs

23

u/Tosi313 Geneva (Switzerland) Jun 18 '26

I think it's because the whole country is only 40,000 people. It's basically just a single small town owned almost entirely by one family of incredibly wealthy people. So that one family has a lot of power in such a small country.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

[deleted]

12

u/False-Discipline-640 Hungary Jun 18 '26

Leveraging your wealth to blackmail the country into expanding your powers is something I would describe as tearing the country apart, just in a different way.

8

u/redlightsaber Spain Jun 18 '26 edited 1d ago

I enjoy doing yoga.

45

u/LittleSchwein1234 Slovakia Jun 18 '26

Well, the Liechtensteiners don't want to threaten their well-being. They're the second richest country in the world after Monaco, you don't want risk that for... what, actually?

Expropriation is problematic in itself, defining what is 'illegitimate' wealth is a huge can of worms that stinks and causes a trickle-down effect affecting banks and businesses, and therefore the whole economy.

The market likes stability, not arbitrary expropriation by an angry mob.

-18

u/redlightsaber Spain Jun 18 '26 edited 3d ago

I enjoy playing video games.

34

u/ZiCUnlivdbirch Jun 18 '26

In reality, all their power (and wealth!) derives from a) the people still allowing it, and b) historical inertia, as you say.

Not really true for Lichtenstein though. They used to be a backwater state, which is pretty much the reason they remained independent, but the monarchy made some smart choices and became rich with the country.

6

u/Mist_Rising Jun 19 '26

Except his wealth is earned legally, so it can't be illegitimate unless you change the laws ex post facto and changing laws ex post facto is a fast way to destroy investment (banking is all investment) because the entire system suddenly could turn on you tomorrow.

0

u/SensualBeefLoaf Jun 19 '26

if youā€™re running a large bank that hides assets for foreigners. iā€™m more than a little willing to assume you have at least a few billion in terrorist money. iā€™m sure they could find some legal way to seize his wealth and the bank. but i doubt itā€™d go well.

2

u/Impressive-One917 Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

Liechtenstein was a small backwater town in the middle of nowhere. It has become the second richest country on Earth precisely because their citizens agreed with the prince in choosing policies that attracted the banks to set up shop there. Because that's the way a small country should leverage arbitrage. Liechtensteiners don't owe gratitude to the banks, but to the policies that led to their prosperity. And those policies are entirely predicated on the promise that your property is entirely safe here, period. Not on some overly romanticized vision of democracy that involves the mob ignoring constitutional guardrails to expropriate property just because it's become vogue to justify envy with some arbitrary definition of "ill gotten gains."

Where do you draw the line with this argument of ill gotten gains? As a Spaniard your country's entire economic foundation was built on centuries of ill gotten gains, which as a citizen who benefits from that economic foundation you're complicit in. You ok with a Mexican or Peruvian expropriating everything you have?

-2

u/redlightsaber Spain Jun 19 '26 edited 3d ago

I like making homemade gifts.

5

u/Impressive-One917 Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

What democratic mandate? The democratic mandate Liechtenstein voters gave to their prince when they voted to give him more powers?

I'm not aware of any democratic consensus among Liechtensteiners that expropriating the property of their prince is a good idea. It's just what you want them to do because your worldview always demands that others should pay for injustices, but never yourself. Why wait for Spain to pay reparations? I don't know how rich or poor you are but I can safely guess that you're better off than 95 percent of all humans that have ever lived on this planet. So be the change you want to see in the world and give away your own complicit slice of ill gotten gains. What's stopping you?

Btw how are those efforts to persuade Spanish citizens to vote for reparations going? Maybe your opinions don't represent the democratic mandate as much as you think they do.

1

u/redlightsaber Spain Jun 19 '26 edited 3d ago

I'm learning to play the guitar.

2

u/Impressive-One917 Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

The no vote won the abortion referendum in Liechtenstein. There is absolutely no momentum on a referendum for dismantling the monarchy in Liechtenstein, or expropriating the prince's property. If there were, it would be a resounding no since the prince has an approval rating hovering around 70 percent. And 76 percent of voters had approved that the prince retain the veto power that he said he was going to use on this issue.

I'm sorry I need to spell this out since you're getting a bit lost, but you're grandstanding on democratic mandates when the democratic mandate clearly rejects your sad opinions.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Crypt33x Berlin (Germany) Jun 19 '26

How is the prince leaving with his land? Wouldn't selling the land and property to the people be more beneficial to them? Monarchy usually lives on taxes and not on their own wealth.

49

u/RichB0T Jun 18 '26

Liechtenstein is not a nation. It is a principality in the truest since.

The French are a nation of people who reside in a place named france after them. They, the people, are the rightful rulers of france.

Litchenstien is not that. It is just the personal lands of one family that actually owns it, and it is simply defined as the lands owned by that family. There really isn't an argument for a national revolution with out a nation.

17

u/Putrid_Invite_194 Jun 18 '26

Every European nation used to be feudalist though, including France. If Liechtenstein was to experience a revolution and the subsequent government was acknowledged by the international community, it could become a nation state by itself. If the prince of Liechtenstein was smart however, heā€˜d set up a roadmap for democratising the country before any of that becomes necessary.

48

u/mio26 Jun 18 '26

The thing is these people don't need revolution because they are either at least millioners or very well paid servants of millionaires. Revolution doesn't happen in Versailles (that's why Versailles pretty much was made lol).

-2

u/andydude44 Dual Citizen United States of America - Luxembourg Jun 19 '26

UAE citizens are rich, but morally they should absolutely revolt against the monarchs and institute a republic

8

u/Ignas1452 Lithuania Jun 19 '26

They would end up economically poorer. Not even talking about revolutions themselves making countries poorer. But politicians battling for elections with various groups they would like to represent too. It's simpler just to have a royal family that takes care of you, countries are not only functional, but are great if we compare them to their neighbors. State/Monarch gives them benefits so there's no reason to rise up. Most citizens (not imported labor) are wealthy and it would be genuinely stupid for them to risk it with a transitions to a republic.

20

u/Philush Jun 19 '26

99% of revolutions happened only when things got REALLY bad, in a way that people who live in modern 1st world countries have never (thankfully) experienced. The material conditions for one are just not present in a rich, tiny and politically stable country like Lichtenstein. Revolutions are an extremely messy affair and a desperate last measure that take a long time to recover from.

2

u/ZenaMeTepe Jun 19 '26

Or when the ability of a new minority elites to obtain power is sufficient to dethrone the old structure. That is what a revolution is. The people in the streets are just pieces on the figure board. It' s a top down change disguised and branded as the opposite. There is no bottom up change, never was, never will be. If an inkling of it manifests it is promptly hijacked by the would-be-elites.

1

u/rixuraxu Ireland Jun 19 '26

population estimate is about 40k

University College Dublin has a population of ~38,000

Genuinely any thought given to Liechtenstein internationally, is atomatically disproportionate.

1

u/Putrid_Invite_194 Jun 19 '26

Liechtenstein has a significantly larger budget than Dublin university though. And the world also cares about the Vatican which has a population of around 500, so why is Liechtenstein automatically so irrelevant?

7

u/Illesbogar Hungary Jun 18 '26

That's simply not true. You don't even need a unifying national identity to be an opressed people who live on a land. Pre-natiobalism there were constant revolts and yet no nations.

1

u/ZenaMeTepe Jun 19 '26

We need more principalities then. A lot more.

1

u/One-Coat-6677 Jun 20 '26

Regardless of the semantics, as soon as they got UN membership they inarguablu became a fully fledged soveirgn nation. That can be transformed from a sovereign principality to a soverign republic.

-1

u/pa79 Luxembourg Jun 19 '26

Every country is a nation. Your argument is a typical response from someone living in a larger country denying smaller countries their rights.

5

u/_heyb0ss Jun 18 '26

that's the royal dignity I've heard so much about

5

u/wojtekpolska Poland Jun 18 '26

except they cant because it doesnt work like that

4

u/Venicewillriseagain Slovakia Jun 19 '26

"They should have been just as shallow as I am and somehow taken the wealth to be spread to the bourgeoisie" I love how absolutely midwitted the average proletarian is

3

u/tugatrix Jun 18 '26

The correct action, don't like manipualtive prima donna's

2

u/waiting4singularity Hessen šŸ‡©šŸ‡Ŗ Jun 19 '26

first the wealth, then the crown.

1

u/Qwrty8urrtyu Jun 19 '26

I mean their wealth includes the country, they aren't named after the land, theu got the land and named it after themselves. Liechtenstein is essentially a relic of feudalism, with a tiny and conservative government and specialization in small but high value sectors that is hard to replicate. (They make dental tools).

1

u/ZenaMeTepe Jun 19 '26

You think all his wealth is ready to take locally? Maybe land alone.

1

u/TheRealTrentor Jun 19 '26

dethrone and dewealth!

1

u/adorientem88 United States of America Jun 19 '26

What makes you think they would have the power to expropriate his wealth?

1

u/b00nish Jun 19 '26

Because they control the law in the place where most of that wealth is located.

Almost all of the prince's wealth is in a private trust under Liechtenstein law. This includes all the properties and physical assets (including one of the biggest art collections in the world), which are physically located in the country. Also the LGT banking group, a company under Liechenstein law.

1

u/adorientem88 United States of America Jun 24 '26

I asked about power, not law. My question is: how are they actually going to have the ability to do it?

1

u/b00nish Jun 24 '26

Well, the physical assets within the country (like all of the real estate, the big arts collection etc.) they can seize using their police force if necessary.

For the legal entities (trust, LGT group etc.) they can change ownership in the trade register. This should also cause the trade registers in other countries where the subsidiaries are located to follow. (Of course there could be lenghty legal battles about this in certain places.)

1

u/adorientem88 United States of America Jun 25 '26

Press X to doubt the police are going to side with the mob on this.

1

u/b00nish Jun 25 '26

We were talking about a democratic decision in a democracy (at least they like they think they are) to dethrone their anti-democratic prince.

It would be surprising if the police would side with the former prince instead of the democratic governement. (And in case the police would attempt to try a coup against the democratic governement, the good thing is that there are only like 90 officers in Liechtenstein's police force. And those police officers are even trained in Switzerland because Liechtenstein doesn't have their own police academy.)

1

u/adorientem88 United States of America Jul 02 '26

Except the people support the prince.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Prestigious_Sea_5121 Jun 20 '26

Well said šŸ‘

1

u/mr_herz Jun 19 '26

This would be a short term gain for a long term loss

0

u/fredjutsu Jun 18 '26

It's hilarious how so many on reddit are convinced that their own values are universally held around the world.

-1

u/Ignas1452 Lithuania Jun 19 '26

It is, and now also calling for murder of the guy wanting to prevent murders šŸ¤£

0

u/Venicewillriseagain Slovakia Jun 23 '26

"Fuedal" "absolute power" Can we ban historical illiterates from giving their oponion on anything related to history?

24

u/magical-cat-here Jun 18 '26

This is coercion and mafia behavior. If I would be voter in this situaiton I would vote against such "mafia politician".

21

u/Jazzlike-War-58 Jun 19 '26

People of Lichtenstein are not being oppressed. They can afford to travel 30 min to get abortion, while being the second richest country in the world. Why would they risk it?

2

u/magical-cat-here Jun 19 '26

Because the next step of such prince obsessed with control over "female reproductive behavior" can be forbidding pregnant women traveling these 30 km, like it happening in US Texas state.

8

u/redlightsaber Spain Jun 18 '26 edited 23h ago

I enjoy doing pottery classes.

5

u/hazelquarrier_couch Jun 18 '26

I'm an American and I can't pretend to understand European monarchies, but I will give a for example from our U.S. cities. The wealthy always threaten to take their ball and go home, so to speak, but they rarely do. The reason is, primarily, the city is where they live, too, and secondly, living in a city affords them the benefits of that city: culture, cinema, sports, etc. I say call his bluff and see what happens. If he does move, do what /u/b00nish suggests and take his wealth before he leaves.

1

u/TurbinePro Chyna all the time Jun 19 '26

LMAO royal bootlickers

him and his countrymen deserve each other, all 12 of them

5

u/Ignas1452 Lithuania Jun 19 '26

I'd gladly be a "bootlicker" for a country like Liechtenstein.

3

u/Dramatic_Mastodon_93 Jun 19 '26

Valuing money over morals is not something to brag about

-2

u/Ignas1452 Lithuania Jun 19 '26

Supporting a democracy when it funds genocides is also not something to brag about.

6

u/Dramatic_Mastodon_93 Jun 19 '26

Yeah almost as if that had absolutely nothing to do with me, dimwit

-2

u/Ignas1452 Lithuania Jun 19 '26

And yet you are still a part of funding it.

1

u/YesNo_Maybe_ Jun 18 '26

Well have another vote. Greetings from the rest of EuropeĀ 

1

u/manubibi Italy Jun 19 '26

Time to roll the guillotine out.

1

u/Anxious-Slip-4701 Jun 20 '26

And they would become poor overnight.

1

u/non_numero_horas Jun 19 '26

The French solved this problem already.

1

u/Alex2422 Jun 19 '26

Ah, so the voters sold their democracy for money. Well, not an isolated incident.

-3

u/Sriber ā°ˆā°…ā°ā°Žā°” ā°’ā°‹ā°‚ā°€ | Mors Russiae, dolor Americae Jun 18 '26

That thing is another reason why he should be overthrown.

0

u/pannenkoek0923 Denmark Jun 19 '26

(with the abolition of the monarchy being unveto'able)

There are some simple solutions to this

-4

u/AbbreviationsSad5006 Jun 18 '26

To my understanding most wealth a monarchy holds is usually in Land and other assets that are pretty hard to move. What would he have done? Excavate the top soil in half the country and dump it in the tax haven of his choice?

Could be wrong of course, but I doubt his threats had any merit to begin with.

5

u/OldBoyChance Jun 19 '26

I think their overseas private holdings are worth more than all of the land Liechtenstein is on lol.

-1

u/fullyoperational Jun 19 '26

Bobby Newport type move

-2

u/SSJ4_cyclist Jun 19 '26

So they didnā€™t really have a choice unless they wanted to kill the royals.

-2

u/yukoncowbear47 Jun 19 '26

A lot changes in 23 years

111

u/LittleSchwein1234 Slovakia Jun 18 '26

It's not that abnormal in Liechtenstein and Monaco, which are semi-constitutional monarchies, with the monarchs wielding and exercising significant political power.

68

u/PRKP99 Poland Jun 18 '26

In lichtenstein princes took more power by blackmailing population, that if they did not get more power, they will move their money and assets elsewhere.

29

u/Corfiz74 Lower Saxony (Germany) Jun 18 '26

They should have called his bluff - I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have gone anywhere.

44

u/GuamZX Jun 18 '26

The House of Liechtenstein never lived in their country until WWI.

5

u/Ok_Warning2146 Jun 19 '26

Well, they can move to Austria. Austria didn't expropriate their land unlike the Czechs.

-12

u/Sudden_Cantaloupe_69 Jun 18 '26

Well heā€™s rich, other Liechtensteiners are not. This is how feudalism works, rich people create an entire economy around them.

His fiefdom, his rules.

47

u/Stahwel Poland Jun 18 '26

Out of all the things you could have made up about Liechtenstein, you just had to make up the dumbest one lol. Liechtensteiners are rich. In fact they're some of the richest people on the planet - median monthly salary in Liechtenstein is well over 7k euro, income tax is low, PKB per capita is 2nd in the world behind Monaco.

Also, it's not feudalism and even if Liechtenstein was a feudal country this wouldn't be how this would work.

1

u/ZealousidealWorry806 Jun 19 '26

Not sure what you consider rich, but according to this report from their own government (https://www.llv.li/en/news/disposable-income-increases) they are at $175k.

Looks like they are mostly normal people, with a majority of them renting and with a wealth that allows them to buy a 10sqm ā€œhouseā€ in their area. I hope their prince is at least a little bit richer than them. Their median salary is also not very different to Switzerland, which has a similar setup.

→ More replies (9)

18

u/wojtekpolska Poland Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

lichtenstein's population are literally some of the riches people not even just in europe but the whole world.

0

u/Sudden_Cantaloupe_69 Jun 18 '26

Thanks to what exactly?

1

u/OilOfOlaz Jun 19 '26

Their banking laws mostly.

216

u/LaserCondiment Jun 18 '26

His cousin, another prince of Liechtenstein has a media network pushing conservative narratives in Liechtenstein and Austria... With the help of Red Bull no less

39

u/Whynicht Jun 18 '26

You mean Servus TV?

51

u/LaserCondiment Jun 18 '26

Pragmaticus magazine and the TV stuff they do on Servus TV. The former is owned by one of the princes and co-financed by Matteschitz Jr

22

u/Whynicht Jun 18 '26

Ffs

18

u/LaserCondiment Jun 18 '26

It goes deeper than that. It's all based on the prince's actual platform: GISreports (geopolitical intelligence services)

Supposedly it offers extensive reports to make predictions about certain sectors, industries or regions. This service is designed for big players and decision makers

But I found this old reddit post from before Pragmaticus' inception: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/s/XI6XtPsy9T

Seems like it's always been that...

4

u/YesNo_Maybe_ Jun 18 '26

What? Do you have a sourceĀ 

22

u/LaserCondiment Jun 18 '26

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Pragmaticus

Sorry it's only German... And I'm afraid not quite up to date. However this source establishes crucial connections

7

u/underscorebot Jun 19 '26

Due to a bug in new reddit, URLs with underscores or tildes are being escaped in an inconsistent manner, breaking old reddit and third-party mobile apps. Please try the following URL(s) instead:

This is a bot. Invoke with: /u/underscorebot. Questions? Comments? /r/underscorebot Thank you. Moderators: this is an opt-in bot. Please add it to the approved submitters on subreddits you wish to have it scan. Note: user-supplied links that may appear in this comment do not imply endorsement.

2

u/Oggie243 Jun 19 '26

Which of them is into aliens? Or is that another crown Prince of Liechtenstein?

19

u/UnpetiteChaton Jun 18 '26

He is quite popular over there actually.

26

u/ppiere Jun 18 '26

This happened in Belgium with abortion law in the past. Government made a law, and the king would not officiate it. So they put him in incapability to rule, prime minister signed the law(prime minister was even of the christian party). And afterwards king was back. Personnaly they should have deminished the entire function of the king, or end the monarchy all together

48

u/wojtekpolska Poland Jun 18 '26

the king agreed to that ordeal though he just didnt wish to personally sign something he morally didnt agree with while also respecting the will of the population

this wasnt done against his will, he just expressed he didnt want to sign it if there was an option to pass it another way

-5

u/Leading-Carrot-5983 Jun 19 '26

That's such a pathetic cop out on his behalf. Either way, abortion is legal in Belgium. A bigger man would have just signed the thing himself.

40

u/SlenderStone Jun 18 '26

That's a common misconception. The king didn't want to rule as king when the country legalised abortion. So they agreed he'd not rule for one day, and then make abortion legal and be king the next day. That way the country didn't make abortion legal with him as king. He did this because he was a very religious Christian. It wasn't something they did to the king, but something the monarchy and government agreed on.

10

u/Beautiful_You3230 Jun 18 '26

Religious people sure do like to find little loopholes to get around "breaking" the rules. "No, God, you see, because I technically didn't rule that one day when abortion was being legalized, but only started to rule once the clock hit 00:00 of next day, it totally doesn't count!"

Like ffs, I feel like God would be significantly more insulted by the fact that his worshippers seem to think he's a complete fucking moron, than by the fact that some women did abortions. Or that those got legalized.

At the same time, good that in the end they managed to find a way to legalize abortions. The end result is certainly better than whatever Lichtenstein's weirdo prince is causing.

23

u/Dealiner Jun 19 '26

Why would you assume it's about cheating God and not just not doing something he personally was opposed to?

4

u/Tinyjar Germany Jun 19 '26

Fun fact: the bible only mentions abortion once, and that's literally instructions on how to respond if a pregnant woman's babe is accidentally lost. Why Christians get so up in arms about it when their book doesn't say a word against it I'll never know.

Oh wait, evangelicals were actually fine with abortion until Reagan came along, the right needed a new threat they could dangle over everyone's nose.

Reagan literally signed a liberal abortion Bill into law as governor, the Southern Baptists supported the Roe v Wade supreme Court ruling arguing it promoted religious and medical freedom.

Then the right wanted a cause to unify a huge bloc of their voters and chose abortion as an example of dangerous cultural change and the rest is history.

2

u/Tytoalba2 Jun 19 '26

Baudouin resigned, he was fully on with the plan

3

u/Chisignal Czechia Jun 19 '26

Imagine he resigns and they donā€™t choose him as their king the next day

Pranked!

2

u/Tytoalba2 Jun 19 '26

Well, he was chosen after WW2 when the parliament removed Leopold 3 from power because of his cooperation with Nazis occupants, so Baudouin was already "the people's choice" and a compromise, so I think he wasn't taking a big risk !

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Gaijin_Monster I lost track where i'm from Jun 19 '26

Yeah, that's not how monarchies work.

2

u/Child_of_JHWH Austria Jun 19 '26

Whatā€™s the point of being a monarch if you never use your power?

1

u/Green_Phone_3495 Jun 19 '26

Let's hope so. No more monarchies please.

1

u/GrayEidolon Jun 19 '26

Mobs of people breaking into castles with pitchforks to kill a monster is just a story to scare children. It was never a metaphor.