we wuz kangz

>>2698218
1 you should just have paid your taxes and be thankful for the Brits removing the French threat

2 some kind of democracy, not necessarily universal. This rule ensures that the rulers can't be to tyrannical unless he uses democracy to abolish democracy since their rule is based on the people and not a few aristocrats and priests

3. Technically it does

>>2698218
>3. would a monarchy work in a first world country today, hypothetically speaking?
It does, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom & Canada, 4 countries with a majority anglo english identity (quebec is fucking embarressing). 3 of them even keep the Union Jack

>>2698242
It wasn't just about taxes my friend, there's an entire laundry list of shit George III was trying to pull in the 13 colonies. Since he couldn't be an absolute monarch in Britain like he was in Hanover, he tried it in the colonies and we wouldn't put up with it either.

File: IMG_6733.jpg (48KB, 220x344px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 220x344px

>>2698218
1. No, you should have bought British not French and Dutch. You should have accepted the taxes as a necessary burden to get new land. You shouldn't have chomped out when the québécois were appeased
2. Constitutional monarchy with bicameral parliament, aka 1800's British monarchy
3. Yes if they have been brought up with it, and the king designates the heir rather than it being primogeniture

>>2698261
>he wuz N Absoulitist N SHIET
please burgers the only evidence you show for this is cracking down on MUH FREEDOM OF PSECH during a fuckijg war