Monarchy

>>134857417
cant

>>134857417
Because it's good to have a stable factor above the government. And its classy af

File: obama-angry-getty-640x480.jpg (36KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x480px

>Traitorous Yanks would rather have outdated farming equipment run their shit for 8 years rather than a Monarchy.

?

Don't mind a single person as state figurehead.
It's all the scrounging hanging on bastards like dukes and others all after my money

Monarchy is literally for cucks

Fascism is good but if you're going to base your government off of worship rather than logic then you're a fucking idiot

>>134857581
>stable
were you dropped on your head as a baby by accident or on purpose?

File: auspepevegemite.png (19KB, 307x294px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 307x294px

>>134857417
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN

>>134857417
>You have 10 minutes to explain why I should be ruled by some faggot
FTFY

>>134857417
They own the land and there's no estate/death taxes to take away what previous generations earned.

>>134857417
The Royal Family don't have any real power, they keep up relations with other countries.

>>134857417
In the old days, princes were the only ones who had the time and ability to learn law, economics, philosophy, history, diplomacy, military tactics, and politics. Kings were necessary to maintain a country because they were the only ones with enough knowledge to be able to manage it, by being able to put specialists where they needed to be to make sure the country continued to run smoothly.

These days, thanks to information being more accessible, a republic could be considered a better form of government, but without a central head the end result will always be too many chiefs and not enough Indians. When you start focusing on the quantity instead of the quality, that's where issues arise.

>>134857417
just watch this you ignorant cunt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anb7BKIujtI

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Coz he god on earf

>>134858214
The only postive i tried to use justifying a monarchy, is that it concentrates power in one place.
So you only need to worry about protecting one thing,and if the power is too corrupt for your liking you just need to remove one thing.

Its alot easier to depose tryants when they work alone,
But if the nation is ruled by a group of tyrants is harder to up root injustice.

>>134857417
Kings raising kings is the best way to get high quality rulers.
We need a king who loves not only his country, but the people of his country to teach these same values to their heirs.
With a proper king shit actually gets done.
Democracy is shit. The majority is just a bunch of retards.

>>134857417
Liberals could elect someone like Trudeau to lead your nation

>>134857417

divine right

>>134857417
Because he's going to care more about the country than anyone else, and has the most to gain from making sure it does well, in addition to being the one person trained most for the job.

You have ten years to explain why a popularity contest staged by the media among the banks to give a puppet mandate over the plebs is better.

>>134857417
Because you're a dumbass pleb and the only way you will ever achieve anything if it's under a boot
Someone needs to wear the boot

The land belongs to the Royal family. Invade/Buy it off them if you want a republic.
I quite like the Royal family. Gives a Ye Olde feel to castles.

>>134857417
for every faggot lunatic king, there were 100 bred and raised for the job. so if you think you can just elect a superior ruler out of the uneducated, unwashed mob, well ..., i thnk we can just take a look at the modern world and see why that is the bigest mistake human kind ever made.

>>134857417
they have a plan desu, it's coming to fruition soon. If you manage to survive you might enjoy the next 50 years

>>134857417
you are most likely an american, therefore you will never understand what its like to respect your monarch

>>134858834
>Gives a Ye Olde feel to castles.
As opposed to the modern art feels the French and German ones have?

>>134857417
Because blood is a thicker bond than money and fame and good monarchs have been groomed and bred in order to rule effectively. In addition to this their own prestige and worth is tied directly to that of their nation.

Monarchism is the ultimate red pill. Democracy is the structure which enables manipulating sociopaths to rise to the top.

Property rights.
The country was his family's property, and now he inherited that property.
And then the enlightenment view was that a monarch's property could be restricted through the will of the people. And now the same arguments are being used against large corporations, and even individual property.
So ask yourself: are you against the principle of private property?

>>134857417
when you have so little faith in your party system it is sometimes better to have someone who is on paper above the party politics being head of state if only to prevent the parties from gaining complete power over the country. also its good to have them as they can dismiss parliament if it becomes too fucked

>>134858929
>>134858834
>>134858312
>>134858203

>Royal fantastic have no power meme

They a huge amount of land on this planet legally and the military and police forces where they are head of state, the puppets of parliament are for us to believe we have power.

Why the fuck do we need one? They oppressed our people for hundreds of years and threw us into pointless wars and we're supposed to respect them?

Keep thinking that they somehow represent our diminishing British pride and demographic by all means though, hum god save the Queen whilst you do nothing to actually save your culture but post on Japanese image boards, myself included.>>134858214

>>134859201
They own a huge*

>>134859201
>They oppressed our people for hundreds of years and threw us into pointless wars and we're supposed to respect them?
Well said. Time to get rid of Parliament and have absolute monarchy.

>>134857417
I was thinking of making a thread similar to this one.

The best argument I've heard is that a strong bred and raised leader will more effectively lead a nation with consistent morals, political ideology, and virtues.

Someone raised to lead will lead more effectively because they're specialists in leading a nation.

On the other hand, limiting it to descendants of kings could produce spoiled brats that become tyrants.

I think a more effective solution would be to have a parliament/republic backed by a strong authoritarian figure in the form of an emperor whose lineage goes to a vote among children looking for the most merit-able, moral, and intelligent children, who then gets to be raised by the previous emperor in learning to rule a nation justly. It's sort of an in-between between a King and a President.

The roman empire had emperors anyways, and they were still a republic.

>>134857617
>Outdated farming equipment hahahaha

>>134859201
you are a pleb, you are going to be oppresed no matter what, the only difference is that the king as oposed to the president has more incentive to not fuck up the country because he leaves it all to his children.

>>134859310
>goes to a vote
So it's controlled by the banks or the media?

>>134859201
>britbongs thinks his constitutional monarchy "oppresses" his people
Come here and i'll show you what oppression looks like.

>>134859922
>britbong*

>>134859310
One caution though: if people are allowed to vote for a child to become emperor, I suspect it'll be like a beauty contest except appealing to emotion on who seems the most moral by saying things to appease the gullible (but just how evil or dumb can little shits be?). And I'm sure many parents would try and have babies for a chance to have their child become emperor (but at least it would potentially increase the white birth rate).

>>134859569
If it's a democratic vote, pretty much. And media would probably highlight kike-backed children, but at least it's a step up from having a monarchy subverted by nobles that are kikes like Rothschild.

If we could have IQ tests determine eligibility for emperor status, followed by some kind of moral test, a committee could vote for/the current emperor could appoint a child that seems the most merit-able.

I'm just wondering if the child's family should be allowed to stay in the equivalent of the white house, and if they should be allowed to dually raise their child.

>>134859971
>If it's a democratic vote
Any vote.
>but at least it's a step up from having a monarchy subverted by nobles that are kikes like Rothschild.
A proper monarchy couldn't be, though. Since they would always have more power than the kikes. Sorry, but the system you're proposing would be more susceptible to subversion/being puppets, because the (((bankers))) would just get their chosen candidate into power, as they do now.

Britain isn't a an actual monarchy, and it hasn't been since the 17th century.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand, is an actual monarchy with power. Thy actually make rules and have say on where their nation is heading.

Britain, Spain, and the rest of the other monarchies in europe, are just LARPing cucks.

>>134860194
Then just have the current emperor appoint the next one. It's the same as kingship but avoiding spoiled brats.

But I don't think indirect votes would harm as much as you think.

>>134857417

> Ruled by some faggot

Comfy life, stable civilization, live with close-knit family and kin 100% of the time. Ethnic and cultural homogeneity.

And the kicker?

Ruler is a direct competitor to the Jews. Will likely banish them from the realm and steal their Jew gold on the way out.

> Downsides.

Peasant farmer for life.

Farming is a good life, anon. Why do you hate farming?

You can be my peasant anon. I will take care of you and your family. I will rule with a strong and firm hand, allow you the freedom to earn your own gibs, as long as you spend an hour or two a week farming my gibs.

It is a good deal, anon.

>>134857417
Because their life is basically nothing but being trained to be a statesman.
They definitely BTFO of your average democratic politician

>>134860280
>Then just have the current emperor appoint the next one.
But then you're still losing the generational incentive.
>But I don't think indirect votes would harm as much as you think.
Anytime you can pretend that someone chose something like that is dangerous.

Theoretically a king in Britain could become a tyrant. If I remember correctly the monarch's can change laws if they really desire it.

Fun fact did you know that a king/Queen of britain could impeach a prime minister from the commonwealth.

>>134860582
>generational incentive
Care to elaborate?

The current emperor could stay as emperor until he dies, and if the elected/appointed new emperor dies before he can take the throne, then the genetic descendants of the emperor could take over seeing as they'd be the only other people raised for the task (but hopefully this doesn't encourage espionage like in the middle ages).

>>134860761
>then the genetic descendants of the emperor could take over
Note: Only if the current emperor doesn't die before he can raise another future emperor.

>>134860761
>Care to elaborate?
As in, the main reason the incumbent has to do well is to pass it on to his kids. If they won't be inheriting that, he'll be in a position where he's better off siphoning off as much as he can to them to take elsewhere.
You're treating them like a politician, basically.

File: Double KEK to U my friend.gif (3MB, 700x285px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 700x285px

>>134857617
>outdated farming equipment

>>134861035
But most elected politicians don't get to rule for life, which means that regardless of what they do, at least they are allowed to be emperor to the end of their life if they don't become disabled or incapacitated.

File: 1500908302097.jpg (23KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x480px

>fifteen minutes into symbolic monarchy and degenerate and he gives you these lectures

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo

File: monarchists, british royal pedophiles.jpg (2MB, 1368x3648px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1368x3648px

>>134857417

Look at those sick pedophiles. I wonder how many mass graves they have on royal land.

>>134861136
>But most elected politicians don't get to rule for life
They can in some countries, though. Like here, as long as they get elected, they can keep going.
>at least they are allowed to be emperor to the end of their life
But after that is the problem. If their child is the one next up, then odds are they'll have been setting their children up anyway, potentially to the detriment of the nation they're ruling.

>>134861181
>/pol/ recommends the movie
>Turns out to be liberal propaganda, with one nice speech, if taken out of the rest of the movie

>>134861136
>>134861035
Also, technically his kids could also be eligible for being next emperor, they just need to pass merit tests of intelligence and morality, which can happen easily if the emperor raises his kids right.

>>134861369
Just have to make sure that the emperor doesn't decide merit, and that parliament or other aspects of the republic do. The most likely time that the emperor's kids shouldn't be considered for emperor-hood is if his kids are spoiled brats or too dumb.

>>134861488
So then this little function of government for deciding the next emperor is just an anti-tyrant function.

>>134857417
Because his lineage derives power from God. There is no better way to rule a country other than a legitimate king that cares for its people.

>>134861369
>>134861488
Eugenics and gene therapy are still preferable.

>>134857417

At least a king has a duty and self interest to preserve their nation.

>>134861625
Should that not be the people themselves? Either way could be manipulated, but at least a manipulated majority populace are acting for themselves, rather than a small aristocracy pretending to serve people while stabbing them in the back.
As in, if it's not worth shedding blood for, perhaps the monarch ain't so bad, and there can be other solutions.

>>134861861
nice meme

>>134861870
Well not when you still get tyrants that do stupid things like go against the church just because they want to get remarried, and then establish their own church.

Also, that 'committee' I mentioned for appointing the emperor could be the Senate. The separation of powers could still apply, only that the role of the President/Prime minister is supplanted by the emperor.

>>134862008
>atheist in 2017
nice meme

>>134861970

>>134860194
So you're contradicting your point about media deciding the next emperor in a democracy?

>>134862144
Also, if the Senate elects emperor, then more attention would be paid to electing the best Senators.

File: me.gif (2MB, 230x175px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 230x175px

>>134862099
>He thinks i'm an atheist

>>134862015
>Well not when you still get tyrants that do stupid things like go against the church just because they want to get remarried
Hardly a big deal. His wives hadn't produced an heir, so really he should have kept going until it happened. The pope was being a fuddy-duddy.
BUT then he shat the bed by destroying historical buildings like the monasteries, which is where the problem arises.
>Also, that 'committee' I mentioned for appointing the emperor could be the Senate.
Aye, (((elected officials))).

Don't get me wrong, bro. I understand your position and see the merits. But i just don't see it being different to now, and is still too vulnerable to all the (((wrong things))).

>>134862144
A bit, yes. But you can't exactly legislated against rebellion. You can just ensure that it's used to best fertilise the soil of the nation.

>>134857417
You're not ruled by a monarch, you're ruled by a parliament.

>>134857417
excerpts from King Harald's speech:
>Norwegians have also immigrated from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Poland, Sweden, Somalia and Syria
>The place we call home is where our heart is - and it can't always be placed within national borders
>Norwegians are girls who like girls, boys who like boys, and girls and boys who love each other
>Norwegians believe in God, Allah, Everything, and Nothing
>My biggest hope for Norway is that we will take care of each other
>That we will feel that we - in spite of all our differences - are one people
Monarchists BTFO

Monarchs are biggest cucks

>>134862099
Don't have to be atheist to think that divine right for kings is a terrible idea. In a small theocracy like the Vatican, it's fine. But if you can't justify your governmental without invoking the almighty, it might just be flawed.

>>134862373
No, just Norway btfo. Get your shit together, Scandinavia.

>>134857417

>implying the British Monarchy has any modicum of power.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>134857417
because your a faggot.

>>134862413
For wanting smaller government with less involvement? I think you've got things backwards, Bulgar.

>>134862312
At least with more emphasis paid attention to electing senators, people would have more power to elect their representatives than an entire nation, because the senator only resides in the local region where a smaller number of voters reside.

With more local control over senators, and the fact that they're decentralized means media would have a hard time trying to put into power many of (((their))) key people.

>>134857417
Because royal families are literally bred to rule.
These people find themselves in the world of politics since the very beginning of their lives.

>>134857417
That badass king who ruled a strong centralized state for 40 years passes on rulership to his son who a) inherits many of the same genetic traits b) has been trained most of his life for this position. Also, stability, culture and nationalism is all much easier with a monarchy.

File: ms.gif (7KB, 170x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 170x200px

I think that I specifically should be the king.
Nobody else, I'm the best for the job.

Democracy is a false God. Learn it or continue getting stepped on in your life.

>>134862578
entire nation's president/prime minister/emperor*

>>134862578
>With more local control over senators, and the fact that they're decentralized means media would have a hard time trying to put into power many of (((their))) key people.
Just can't agree there, bro. As in, even here, we have a great local system and it still gets gamed by (((Murdoch))).

>>134862608
If you can take and hold the position, then yes.

>>134857417
That faggot was educated from birth on how to be the best possible ruler.

>>134857417
Well you wouldn't ever have a black man ruling white workers and destroying white ethnic culture for one thing anon. Plus the monarch only gains his power from the Lords who support his claim. The monarch is more of a figure head of an Ideal (insert National Cultural Identity Here) Country. The people still hold the true power and can behead him should he fail in his destined birth mission of guiding growth and ensuring wellbeing in times of war, famine, chaos. He also is held accountable for delivering Justice as his people see fit. Fine line between tyrants and benevolent kings. The greatest fortune to a king who has no concern for wealth as an aspiring goal is to be forgotten in due time after serving the people nobly. There are many great kings who lack the recognition that infamous ones get. Or ones who put their names on translations of Bibles.

>>134862728
Does your local media report on your equivalent of Congress? Like, when they get elected, does Murdoch's media specifically highlight all of the shills that they want elected and broadcast per region?

>>134862577
Have you heard your queen saying something against immigration?

>>134862859
Yup. They comment on everything in every region, and i'm in quite a rural area. You don't realise how insidious it is until you start looking.

>>134862870
No, it would be a constitutional breach if Her Majesty commented on politics.

Riddle me this

Monarchy gets it right to rule from Divine Right of Kings, but if less and less people in Europe are religious what basis do they have to keep a Monarchy? It makes no sense, so either you stay religious and keep a Monarchy or you become irreligious like now and abolish the Monarchy

>tfw I will never live in an absolute monarchy
>tfw I will never live, breathe, and fight for the beloved royal family and for the strong admired king
>tfw I will never ride alongside my king into battle for glory
Feels fucking bad man.

File: Tyrone.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x360px

>>134862948
Sheeeit.

So your local media can't compete with the (((MSM)))?

>>134857417
Because you are a goyim

>>134863022
>Monarchy gets it right to rule from Divine Right of Kings
Nah, doesn't need to.

>>134863063
It got bought out by (((them))). Our shitty local fishwrapper plays the party line to stay afloat, and our tv is wider region based.

>>134863152
So basically the wider region based media sets the tone for the masses' thinking, while the smaller local media has no choice but to support the wider region's thinking to stay economically afloat. That's fucked up, bro.

>>134863152
If it doesn't get it from the Divine Right of Kings then what makes these people more worthy and better than me to be the ruler? Why should they get my money and giant castles

>>134863330
Because they're inherently better than you, peasant.

I can't. One retarded monarch can fuck up a nation forever or even get it destroyed.

>>134863243
Oh i know. Any rival newsletters and the like develop bugger all following without being branded as fringe. Plus, no one reads them to begin with.

>>134863330
>then what makes these people more worthy and better than me to be the ruler?
Being bred for it. Being trained from birth for the job, and having the most incentive to pass it on to their son in the best condition possible.
>Why should they get my money and giant castles
I mean, traditionally people get payed for harder jobs, or by creating value. Same reason a CEO gets paid more than a rock breaker.
But like for our monarchy, they pay for themselves, and then pay the country £300m each year for the privilege of staying out of politics.
There's also the concept of ownership.

>>134863152
Well at least in our system, even with MSM (which doesn't really report on local congress members), people like Ron Paul and Rand Paul can get elected into House of Reps. and the Senate respectively.

>>134863330
They literally own the country. Parliament rents the land and royal family gets a salary.
It's not ideal no; just too much of a hassle to remove it.

>>134863479
True of any leader, or governing body. Monarchy is historically safer in that regard.

>>134863671
Oh aye, we still have that. Like even the Motoring Party get a seat or two in our senate. But by and large if you don't vote the two major parties, you're seen to be voting to have your electorate ignored.
So like here, i hate our righter wing party (LNP), and at least our lefter party (Labor) has no chance of getting in (though they currently have the state, but that'll change soon), but the party i'd rather vote for (One Nation) is comprised of dickheads who get actively worked against by the majors.
So it's better to go with the LNP, because our MP is an absolute gem who uses her party power to benefit the electorate all the time, as opposed to One Nation, who have all their electorates either ignored or shat on by the two majors.

>>134857417
thats why we left that shithole of an island dipshit i aint gotta explain shit

>>134864027
No it isn't. "You" left because it wasn't heretical enough for the Puritan's liking. Too much dancing and religiosity vis Christmas.

File: image.jpg (200KB, 956x638px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 956x638px

>tfw Louis XX will be on the French thone in your lifetime

>>134864106
no they tried to remove the cathocuck church in England after Henry's dick wouldn't work and were declare traitors by the crown

>>134864366
>traitors by the crown
Yes, great role models.

>>134863957
Simply not true. There have been countless kings which have ruined a country singlehandedly and caused its end. I can't think of a democratic Western leader that's done the same. Monarchy is the most cucked ideology next to Communism and Facism.

>>134863957
Any chance that a higher number of parliament members could help? Like with a large number of house of reps we have, it's hard for media to report on candidates for all regions. Senators barely make mention on our MSM as well, even though there's 100 of them, but only 1/3rd being voted on per election it seems.

>>134864366
Oh yea, and
>Henry's dick wouldn't work
It did. But not on his wives.

>>134864466
>There have been countless kings which have ruined a country singlehandedly and caused its end.
I'm guessing your list begins with Louis XVI and ends with Nicholas II.
Which is also wrong for your claim.
>I can't think of a democratic Western leader that's done the same.
The US government ruined the US pretty darn quickly. Didn't take long for them to have a civil war and stand entirely against their own principles. Germany's recent elected governments too have been quite ruinous.

>>134864484
>Any chance that a higher number of parliament members could help?
They wouldn't want to, and i don't think they really could.
>Senators barely make mention on our MSM as well
I suspect that's intentional, though. But i guess you guys have a bigger issue with the Supreme Court and all.

>>134864440
thats rich coming from a criminal

File: monarchy bitches.jpg (328KB, 962x918px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 962x918px

>>134857417
Because it's better than being ruled by Big Chief Umbongo simply because niggers and libtards voted for him to get their gibs.

>>134864814
You are literally using a pirate flag, my historically illiterate friend.

File: obama king.jpg (472KB, 933x1200px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 933x1200px

>>134864466
>There have been countless kings which have ruined a country singlehandedly and caused its end.

Obama was not a king.

>I can't think of a democratic Western leader that's done the same.

Trudeau.

>>134864736
You're joking?
>Napoleon the Third
>Charles the First
>Charles the Second of Spain (who was retarded because of that being bred to rule thing you were talking about)
>Wilhelm the Second
>Ludwig the Second
>Ivan the Terrible
And that's a few and doesn't include bloodthirsty rulers that butchered their own people. I will admit that Buchanan fucked up and didn't stop the war but that was the South chimping out to begin with. Germany is one of the world's leading economies and has one of the highest HDIs on earth that continues to rise.

>>134865173
Trudeau doesn't have the power to fuck shit up so quickly and easily because he isn't king.

>>134865552
>Napoleon the Third
Was barely in power. At that point, the empire was never going to keep going.
>Charles the First
Did nothing wrong.
>Charles the Second of Spain (who was retarded because of that being bred to rule thing you were talking about)
Clearly not bred to rule, but yes, certainly a proper example.
>Wilhelm the Second
>Ludwig the Second
Eh, not so much. In both cases war was the deciding factor.
>Ivan the Terrible
Is that a joke? Ivan was a great king.
>Germany is one of the world's leading economies
Easy to be when you don't plan long term, like democracies can't.

>>134865960
I don't know if there are other Ivans, but here is info on Ivan the Terrible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible

>>134866282
Yea, that's him. Apart from the incident with his son, i'm not seeing any downside.

>>134865960
>Justin the Second
>Darius the Third
>Charles VI of France
>Richard the Second
>Władysław I
Also Ludwig was an idiot who evaporated the coffers and Wilhelm was known to be ineffective and unsubtle even before the war like that horrible interview in 1908.
>Easy to be when you don't plan long term,
That is exactly what Ivan did. The economy of Russia was fucked in the long term because of him.
Status alone shouldn't decide the ruler.

>>134866828
What about the Massacre?

File: £20.jpg (251KB, 819x438px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 819x438px

>>134857417
It's better than having a president.
I'm ex British Army (Royal Engineers). I made an oath to Her Majesty.
It's similar for Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians. Because Her Majesty is the head of state for those countries.
Our monarchy is ancient and is a very stable system; Constitutional Monarchy. Canada is fucking it up, but I have faith in my ANZAC bros.

Here's the oath I swore:
> I (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

No mention of country. The monarch IS the country.
Americans don't understand this. And that's OK. Americans have their system (based upon English Common Law) but

This oath only expires when I do. Americans don't have royalty for historic reasons.
I shall defend my monarch with my life if needs must.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW9Uudkx42g

File: 16dc7fbe8807db85ef7e8c584eef9db9c57d3dc99a7c397d3430af16e5370472_1.jpg (41KB, 483x461px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 483x461px

>monarchy
ruler brought up from birth to be proficient in statesmanship. has incentive to be benevolent as the nation is effectively his property and will be held to account by vassals if he missteps. no foreign influence as the sovereign is the ultimate expression of the nation state, basically a national personification. this is the system of governance of the greatest empires that have been

>republic
ruler rises to his post by being an obsequious kikeslave with no scruples. has incentive to advance the interests of the highest bidder only. is never held to account for their misdeeds, at worst steps down from his post only to be superseded by another member of the jewish cabal who have each others backs and are basically indomitable unlike monarchs who are disposed of via a single death. is the mainstay of south american banana republics and african failed states

>>134866896
>Justin the Second
Worse ERE emperors than him, but aight. He mostly inherited a lousy situation, and did the best he could. Could have been better, but could have been much worse.
>Darius the Third
Can't really blame him for motherfuckin' Alexander.
>Charles VI of France
Also a valid example, but he took power smack in the middle of a clusterfuck as it was.
>Richard the Second
Not many would agree with you. But i do. French prick caused Magna Carta.
>Władysław I
I really don't know enough about Polish history to comment.
>That is exactly what Ivan did. The economy of Russia was fucked in the long term because of him.
Growing pains. It had to happen, but it just didn't happen as well as it could have. Doesn't outweigh the overall good he did.

>>134866900
I stand by my post.

>>134857844
a benevelont King is far superior to an ineffective president susceptible to obstructionists party politics. the best goverments in History were from Dictators and Kings! all heil King Arthur!

>>134859569
>So it's controlled by the banks
Why do people act like this has never happened to monarchies ever? Countless monarchies were controlled by the Catholic Church as well.

File: lady-louise-windsor.jpg (103KB, 736x1036px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 736x1036px

ANGLO GENES ARE BUTCHERING MUH ROYAL LOLI WAIFU
RRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>134857970
Classy. Cover everything in gold and whatever rock we can find, inbread until we're literlaly the ugliest people ina country OF ONLY UGLY PEOPLE.

Classy

a

f

File: IMG_20170107_170011.jpg (50KB, 748x563px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 748x563px

>>134857617
Underrated

>>134867168
>Americans don't understand this.
Civic nationalism is all they could have.

>>134867714
>Why do people act like this has never happened to monarchies ever?
Didn't mean to imply it hasn't. But realistically now, there would be no need in a proper monarchy, as the monarch would already own everything, so the bank could offer nothing.
>Countless monarchies were controlled by the Catholic Church as well.
And vice versa. But that's quite a different matter.

>>134867876
>But that's quite a different matter.
Not at all. The point that your theoretical monarchy is immune to outside influence is a lie with no historical basis.

File: illmnt.jpg (93KB, 532x136px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 532x136px

>>134857417
What did (((they))) mean by this?

>>134857617
Quality post

>>134867964
>Not at all.
I meant that the Vatican being influenced by monarchies was the different matter.
>The point that your theoretical monarchy is immune to outside influence is a lie
Not a lie, but yea, very few instances in history, obviously, because in all those cases the monarch was not in full control. Otherwise they couldn't have been bought.

File: 1469471902136.gif (344KB, 256x192px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 256x192px

>>134857970
>benevolent king that keeps his power in check due to fear of the people
or
>oligarchs that rule through direct mob under the guise that they do so "for the people"
Guess i'll start polishing the crown, then.

>>134858214
Even then, the Romans proved that even a pre-modern Republic could work just peachy (even the empire saw itself as republican in nature until Diocletian). The remergence of monarchies in Europe in the Middle Ages relied on feudalism, or the fact that after the collapse of the Roman Empire no political entity was able to effectively concentrate force. Rather than the concentrating force into a single "stable" entity, the rise of feudalism actually made delegation an integral part of monarchism. This is also why the trend of French centralization towards Paris ended with the death of the king: he was no longer neccessary.

>>134864466
>can't think of a democratic Western leader that's done the same
have you tried all of them, you witless canuck? every single white western nation is currently busily engaged in its own destruction. half of them wont even have a white majority before the end of the century. we are in a weimar-tier epoch of cultural degradation and promiscuity, have you been under a rock for the past 6 decades? but hey, at least we committed suicide democratically, right?

>>134857417
kek, because private property dumbass.

Feels good living in a Monarchy.

>>134860632
But do they ever do anything to limit the prime minister? It does not seem your royalty cares at all about the nation.

>>134869438
>But do they ever do anything to limit the prime minister?
Not without massive support. Otherwise it'd be interfering with politics, which they're sworn not to do. The power was used to depose our renegade Whitlam minority government, though.

>>134857617
XD

>>134857417
Because being ruled over someone you didnt vote for is a huge difference then being ruled over someone you didnt vote for.

>>134858972
>Democracy is the structure which enables manipulating sociopaths to rise to the top.
as opposed to monarchism which keeps the descendants of manipulating sociopaths in power.

>>134857417
Explain why democracy is a good thing? Explain why it should be kept when it only favours good liars as leaders? Explain why it should be kept when it throws values out the window and let's the retarded average population take control?

>>134869949
>M..muh sociopaths
You're a little baby. We need psychopaths in power and they should be born and bred to rule

>>134857617
>Still upset about America leaving
>start of downfall of the Empire
>mad that his ancestors didn't get out of Eurostan
>wishes he was in America now
Sorry your country sucks bro

>>134858068
Long live Trump

>>134869670
So basically they are cucked too?

>>134870257
I honestly hope the Trumps turn into a political dynasty. I can def see people voting for his daughter on sheer attractiveness alone.

>>134870362
Since Magna Carta.

>>134870232
Americans have 0 right to complain about white people being wiped out in America. Your Republic was designed such that whites were unnecessary in its functioning, your Constitution is based on gay principles and idealism which supercede the racial politics a monarchy would necessitate. America is totally based on civic nationalism so American whites better get used to it.

>>134857417
>Ruled
Burger education everyone

>>134870486
This is sort of true, most of the principles of the American constitution are not explicitly geared to any one nationality meanwhile the Queen is the head of the Church of England thereby eliminating Catholics

1 post by the cunt and natural took the bait habbens.

but to play a game - monarchy is limited and actors are known. if they fuck up and do wrong by the population their heads are off quick. or somehow they die in battle while 10km from the front line.

in this "politics", " democracy", facists, nazi, communist shit cunts who fuck up people are always there and morph from "system" to "system". today euro tomorrow afro, day after asian, in hope for global.

The Royal Family are jews. And so is the Saudi Royal Family. Seriously.

research post imo. they are planning for a back up. do not feed a troll some say. of course you will feed a troll.

>>134870647
Britain was and still is able to maintain its majority British character whereas the mostly English founders couldn't stop the Germans from settling in America despite their complaints. From that point on America became the melting pot, bringing in increasingly swarthy and non-European types to the point where Europeans aren't even needed.

>>134858768
>Thinks we have a direct democracy
>Hillary won popular vote
>Trump president
>America has an electoral federation by representation

Silly Aussie

>>134857417
Monarchs can focus on exercising their powers for the benefit of the realm instead of focusing completely on trying to gain or keep power like politicians do.

They also have a direct familial stake in the long-term stability and prosperity of their realms in ways politicians don't. The average politician doesn't think beyond his current term in office; the political visionary thinks as far as the span of his career. They have every incentive to enact popular but (in the longer term) ruinous policies, doubly so if the consequences happen during the term of the political adversaries with whom they alternate.

>>134870910
>>Thinks we have a direct democracy
Where did i even remotely imply that?
>America has an electoral federation by representation
Exactly. It's even more hilariously corrupt and out of touch.

>>134857417
Our next King is a fucking cuck so I can't and won't

File: 1249758938677.jpg (31KB, 450x314px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 450x314px

When you raise a leader to be a leader from birth. Put them through rigorous education and instill them with a sense of duty to the people. When they can't be bribed by petty corporations and can't quit the job without facing enormous public shame and humiliation, most of the time you get a good leader.

Most of the time... When a monarch is insane or lazy or evil it can be outright despotic. But the ratio of terrible to great monarchs is definitely less than the ratio of terrible to great elected leaders.

>>134859051
>King rounds up an army and invaded lands that do not submit
>Now the Monarchies land forever, was totally gotten legally

BritBong logic

>>134857417
Explain to me how a popularity contest is better?

>>134871055
>Now the Monarchies land forever, was totally gotten legally
That is correct.

>>134870373
I hope so

>>134861341
Dumb yank,

>"""""claimed"""""

>>134870486
Idk what you're trying to say.

Other than yes, our Constitution gives all people equal rights under the law.

Don't worry Britbong, Africans/Asians will be over running you soon enough.

>>134871372
>Africans/Asians will be over running you soon enough.
Says the <60%

>>134870983
>You have ten years to explain why a POPULARITY contest staged by the media among the banks to give a puppet mandate over the PLEBS is better.

electors, from electoral college, choose the POTUS, not plebs like in a direct democracy. Popularity implies popular vote? That should seem self evident, it's the root word. And y'all gives us shit for not speaking English proper.

>>134871162
By that logic, African/Asian migrants are legally coming in.

>>134871372
Exactly so don't bitch about whites declining in America because you have no right to

>>134871554
>words mean what I suppose they mean based on a vague understanding of etymology rather their commonly accepted and dictionary-attested meanings

alri Humpty Dumpty

>>134871416
Okay.
>Whites constitute the majority of the U.S. population, with a total of about 245,532,000 or 77.7% of the population as of 2013. Non-Hispanic whites make up 62.6% of the country's population. Despite major changes due to immigration since the 1960s, and the higher birth-rates of nonwhites, the overall current majority of American citizens are still white, and English-speaking, though regional differences exist.

You're boring.

>>134871554
>Popularity implies popular vote?
It can, but obviously it was a fairly general usage. Ya'll vote to allegedly influence the electors. That's the popularity contest. Trump allegedly won the popularity contest in enough of the places to allegedly win overall.

>>134871605
No, they didn't conquer the place. Yet.

>>134871783
>You're boring.
>62.6%
What's the bet that includes half-breeds? Otherwise shit, it was only 2.7% off, you can't be too high and mighty.

It's not up to me to explain it to you. It is up to you to dethrone "some faggot" and gain power yourself, otherwise I guess you're not as fit to rule as "some faggot"

>>134871804
Don't be too hard on them. Americans have been conditioned from birth to believe that if they entrust anyone with authority above (((democracy))) then that person will throw them in FEMA camps and initiate the new world order, stuff babies into blenders etc etc

>>134857417
>heirs to the throne are raised with the express intention that they will rule the country and spend quite literally their entire lives learning how to run it properly
>the king or queen almost certainly has a much greater connection to their nation, its history and its culture than an elected politician, and is probably more likely to try and defend it
>provides the nation with a unifying presence above the government (for example in the UK everyone argues about political parties constantly but the general opinion of republicans is that they're a bunch of massive faggots)
>this is particularly useful in times of crisis e.g. royal family staying in Buckingham Palace while London was being bombed in WWII was a notable morale booster, or in the event of the government fucking itself over six ways to Sunday
>also means the military swears allegiance to the monarch, not the government
>looks super classy
>pomp and ceremony makes the population feel better about their nation and brings in fat stacks of tourism cash

>>134857617
Sensible jej

>>134871980
Which is ironic, because it's their unelected plutocrats who tell them that.

>>134857417
Because if you don't like it you can kill the faggot, whereas in democracy you're under the false impression you have any such control.

>>134857417
Monarchs are educated from day one to rule. They are bred for that purpose. Their entire life is dedicated to public service. They are literally the most qualified people In the world to lead a nation.

>I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
>t. Her majesty queen Elizabeth II

File: princesa_leonor_7-a.jpg (80KB, 654x850px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 654x850px

>>134857417
Because of smug loli princess

File: IMG_1538.jpg (3MB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2448x2448px

>>134871761
Popular is the root word. I didn't make the rules, the English did learn your own language.

Pic related

>>134857417
Chances are if they're related to the last king, they were brought up with best scholars, monks and other best of the best teaching them.

From birth they're given counsel and taught to rule, why wouldn't you want someone qualified?

>>134857417
Because the aesthetics are amazing.

File: 15443069_10157877713765298_1934599592952327364_o.jpg (178KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1920x1080px

>>134870257
HAIL TO EMPEROR TRUMP!!

>>134871903
Half breeds? You mean almost every person on earth these days?

>>134871877
Too bad she can't sit on it, fucking protocols

>>134857617
>Outdated farming equipment

>Still better than inbred faggots that treat their nation like their cattle.

Monarchist = masochist.
No exceptions.

Round up anyone with "royal" titles and toss them into a volcano.

The gods are angry and the "royals" are doing a shit job "ruling"

>>134857417
Because you are too weak to overthrow and rule in their stead.

Might is right. You think you should rule? Get an army and usurp the throne faggot

>>134872498
I'd laugh if that wasn't so sad for you.

>>134872551
So you prefer your corporations to treat you like cattle, rather than have a centralised public servant whose life revolves around doing best for your nation?

>>134872666
Oh so you liked being cucked by Obama for 8 years?

>>134872551
>Wow the red guy lied to me! Imma vote blue next time
>How could the blue guy lie to me? Imma vote red next time
And we're the masochists.

>>134866282
The Tzar told boyars to GTFO.
The Tzar that tells boyars to GTFO is a good tzar.

Compare that to TzarCuck whose political decisions were made either to appease nobility or, even worse, to appease his "dear Alix".
Who was, afterwards, brought down by the same nobility that he adored.

>>134872789
If only the media would've actually shown Ron Paul's platform in 2012. #1 honest politician and gets no (((MSM))) coverage, even when they have to reveal that he actually won in Iowa.

>>134872789
>Wow, the king is inbred idiot who will bleed the peasants dry for the shekels and his Lords are bunch of faggots who literally will take money from the disabled to ensure that they have high quality champagne

>Nah, it's normal, they're (((hardworking))) and were given the power by God. Take my money, my inbred overlords, I don't deserve them anyway!

Shame, roach.

>>134872967
Another flaw of democracy: decent politicians get outshone by liars promising gibs me dats

>>134872701

>centralised public servant

>king

Mate, it's not HIM who is servant to public. It's YOU who are servants to him. Don't confuse it.

>revolves around doing best for your nation

>monarchycucks actually believe that.

Dude, do you believe in Santa Claus as well? Well being of the plebs were NEVER a thing of consideration for nobility. The few known examples are deviations.

>>134873204
Yeah but that's kikery's fault. I guarantee you RP would be voted for because of his strong platform more than 100 years ago.

>>134873137
>The only thing kings have ever done is abuse the population with nothing to show for it
>American scaremongering education
If you keep your Republic then white Americans deserve extinction.

File: 0.jpg (19KB, 491x488px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 491x488px

>>134870232
>Britain became more powerful after you left
>Thinks we're mad that you left
Nah

>>134873273
>Holding popularity contests doesn't inevitably create a relationship between the dominant parties and media outlets

File: royal pedos.png (254KB, 664x389px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 664x389px

>>134857417
Just one pic

>>134858420
>Its alot easier to depose tryants when they work alone
how many times did they try to kill hitler/stalin/castro/ect.?

>>134857417
>1post

>>134858504
>Kings raising kings is the best way to get high quality rulers.
why were there so many shitty kings?

>>134859051
The principle of property without restrictions is foolish. Surely you don't deny that homesteading unappropriated resources is a natural right, and is the only way to create new property? If so, why are you against this principle?

>>134858972
>Monarchism is the ultimate red pill.
no, no its not. Inbred rulers do not do well, snobbish children wont know enough to rule.

>>134857417
WE just like them. It brings the patriots together, she is like our mascot. Aslo the royal family are good for business.

You domt just throw away a thousand year tradition. Unless that tradition is FGM

>>134873269
>Don't confuse it.
I'm not, you seem to be. Feudalism =/= monarchy.
>Well being of the plebs were NEVER a thing of consideration for nobility.
Good goy. Believe that revisionism, and support the (((republic))).

>>134872551
>Monarchist = masochist.

Agreed - this is retarded

>>134873393
>The smaller amount of (((parties))) controlling MSM doesn't mean they just cover popular candidates because of marketability
Though marketability is why he didn't win prior to MSM merges. If we had a two-tiered system like France's, third party candidates might stand a chance in elections.

>>134857617
Lel

>>134873633
And how does democracy stop incompetents from taking power when the population are retarded and easily swayed, when a president could just do as he is told and do comfortably? Trump is incompetent

>>134870232
Found the nigger.

>>134873737
>The smaller amount of (((parties))) controlling MSM
Other way round

>>134873691
>>134872551
Filthy Socialists detected.

Monarchies are the penultimate expression of private ownership and personal responsibility. Republics are the embodiment of peasant mob rule and Socialism, only fit for those who hate freedom and true liberty.

>>134873979
I mean that there are a smaller amount of interests holding traditional media outlets, and the only ones left owning media are kikes.

File: 1471910950083.png (130KB, 442x353px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 442x353px

>>134872666
Satan tells us how it is.

>>134874114
How's that not inevitable when your Republic has only ever produced 2 results anyway. It's not all Jewish trickery...

>>134874299
Like I said, the two round system of France for their democratic process is more likely to get more than 2 results.

>>134857417
>(1)

>>134874084
>Monarchies are the penultimate expression of private ownership and personal responsibility.
Of a 1 man.

Republics are the penultimate expression of private ownership and personal responsibility of a nation.

>>134858860
This.

>>134858903
What's the plan, lad; do tell.

>>134874456
>Republics are the penultimate expression of private ownership and personal responsibility of a nation
Which is why every election in the US is swayed by gibs me dats, right? Turns out the average person is a selfish mong

>>134874456
>Republics are the penultimate expression of private ownership
And the ultimate expression of Rothschild ownership.

>>134874515
I don't understand how anyone can't see that. I mean, perhaps they are aliens who want to prey on the population...

Organisation is actually more difficult than theory after a while.

>>134874620
But the monarchy had express relations with Rothschilds.

>>134874802
Not as much as the (((elected governments))).

>>134874456
>penultimate
You keep using that word

>>134874749
Democracy always seems to end in socialism and communism. The people I know who are most extreme about muh democratic values are Jeremy Corbyn supporting faggots. Democracy works well for them because they can win on a platform of gibs me dats and can use mass immigration as a weapon to import voters from the third world

>>134874880
But the US considered heavily not having a central bank. And Andrew Jackson was vehemently against the idea, disestablishing the current one and eliminating the national debt.

>>134874456
>Republics
Clearly not instead of one man claiming ownership you have nobody claiming ownership and responsibility for the nation. Every elected politician does their bit to do nothing and leaves office at the expense of the taxpayer. The elected career politician does not care once they have been voted out of office, they have already earned their pension, their perks and privileges whilst everyone else must toil on with the consequences of their fuckery, be it a costly war, a stupid welfare policy or some stupid brainded social experiment that fucks with kids.

The Monarch? No such thing they are given these once crowned but they must balance interests until they drop dead or give up the throne, if they want to keep their family at the top they need to make sure they do a decent job or revolution and their rivals will take over.

>>134874620
The thing is, Australians could help to strengthen the British monarchy if you were to take some peers locally. Say, a Duke of Melbourne or similar... Perhaps that individual would even have a relationship with the British House of Lords as well.

Definitely, however, events like the Canadian Nickle Resolution—and whatever the Australian equivalent—helped to ensure the British crown was too overextended in its aristocracy-to-subject ratio, Anon

>>134875109
I think someone's been playing too much Tropico.

File: Penultimo.jpg (12KB, 180x229px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 180x229px

>>134875340
Whoops, forgot pic.

>>134857417
>You have 10 minutes to explain why I should be ruled by some faggot simply because he was related to the previous king

they're descended from jebus don't you love god?

>>134857581
>classy af
giving money to perverts is classy how?

Because if Monarchy works as it should, the monarch is born and raised to rule.

>>134857417
Bend the knee

>>134875208
Oh, so you don't have one?

>>134875208
current one of his time*

>>134857417
The Queen doesn't really rule us. She doesn't make any decisions.
The amount of money she brings in as a tourist traps is huge compared to the money she spends on her family and their frivolous lifestyles.

We elect our actual political leader, so it's best of both worlds.

>>134857417
Monarchy vs republic vs demoncracy is first level shit. The redpill is that all three can be good if they are limited in power and all three can be bad if their power is unchecked. It's all about the power of the state in relation to the individual, not how the state is organized.

>>134875322
>The thing is, Australians could help to strengthen the British monarchy if you were to take some peers locally
Preaching to the choir, bro. We did have a few Baronies and such, but they're mostly extinct. And now we have a republican PM, so we don't even have knights anymore (Tones did balls it up, sadly).

>>134875526
The Crown does make decisions except Her Majesty takes a rather laid back approach in stately affairs compared to her predecessors.

She does in theory have considerable powers she chooses not to exercise. It's interesting she went ahead with EU membership considering that effectively made her a provincial governor of the UK when it was in the EU.

>>134858541
Or hillary clinton

>>134857844
>implying natsoc isn't just watered down monarchy

>>134875575
Those damn papists.

>>134857417
This nigga`s about to murder Prince and his pregnant wife at his own wedding

>>134858860
Of course not, but if you restrict democracy to a small circle of the society. It works.

Let us not forget, the Five Good Emperors were not related to eachother, but then came the son of the Fifth, Comodus, and ruined the good line.

Monarchies are disgusting. Only a servile dog would allow a system which does not allow him to be on the top if he is able to.

Monarchies are bad, democracies are bad, so take the middle Road, restricted democracy with lifelong rule.

>>134858903
>plan
Once Liz dies, Canada and Australia get a republican constitution, the Commonwealth fully disbands, after Brexit is done and borders are in place, Gibraltar and Nirn will rethink should they stay, same for Scotland. Your deals will be petty, and Hindus and pakis will still come replacing poles and others.

In the end, you will be as relevant as Spain

>>134875550
>state vs individual
Its not even that that's just a recharacterisation of organisation of power.

The trick is in social cohesion and the values and attitudes of the times. You can have a decentralised state like the Mongol horde and still conquer empires or you can go full central planning like the Roman Empire. But both fell apart because of bad rulers, civil war and lack social cohesion.

>>134875947
>Only a servile dog would allow a system which does not allow him to be on the top if he is able to.
> restricted democracy with lifelong rule.
that would still prevent you reaching the top unless you assassinated him or something.

>>134876072
>Australia get a republican constitution
Not a chance of that happening here, thank God. Monarchy is too popular, and everyone hates politicians.

File: frankgarrett.jpg (64KB, 306x500px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 306x500px

Because he looks exactly like Frank Garrett.

>>134875947
>Only a servile dog would allow a system which does not allow him to be on the top if he is able to.
That would be all of them. So best go with monarchy for the good of all.

>>134876072
>Australia
>gets a republican Constitution
What is this Bosnian fan fiction? Does this Bosnian not understand such a fundamental change requires a Referendum to succeed which hasn't occurred in 40+ years?

>>134875947
>restrict democracy to a small circle of the society
Then you'd have to find a different word to call it than democracy, wouldn't you? :3

File: 1485983681994.jpg (9KB, 256x197px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 256x197px

>>134857417
Divine right, you damnable troglodyte.

>>134876188
Hate to burst your bubble but
>30% support a Republic
>39% support a Republic only after Elizabeth dies
69% in total. Soon....

>being ruled by a random German woman in London

>>134858972
>Because blood is a thicker bond than money and fame and good monarchs have been groomed and bred in order to rule effectively. In addition to this their own prestige and worth is tied directly to that of their nation

Yeah, it worked smooth AF during WWI, when close blood relations managed to pacify conflict between Great Britain, German Empire and Russian Empire. Oh wait, except it didn't.

>>134876863
Its still a democracy just one that has limited franchise/electors.

File: Habsburg1.jpg (23KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x400px

As your king, I have the purest bloodline

>>134876909
>divine right
No such thing

Also
>lives in a monarchy whose line is founded by a traitor Frenchman

File: Habsburg2.png (1MB, 750x1020px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 750x1020px

Kiss me, your king demands it!

KISS ME

>>134876988
>World War 1
BECAUSE SOME FUCKHEAD CALLED CHURCHILL RAMMED THE WAR THROUGH PARLIAMENT

File: 1499793931492.jpg (56KB, 602x724px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 602x724px

yarrgghhh I am your king nauggghhhwww

>>134876933
Those two groups are overlapping... It's still only 39%

>>134876933
M8, 60% said they supported a republic before our last referendum and it lost. Now support for the monarchy is the highest in decades. It ain't happenin'.
Our monarchy will stay our monarchy, and the filthy immigrants will have to deal or fuck off.

File: 1499795540410.jpg (17KB, 236x327px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 236x327px

Your princess demands affection!

File: download (42).jpg (7KB, 170x231px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 170x231px

>>134877215
Ooga booga where da wite wimmin at?

>>134877295
Still prettier than those inbreds the amerinon posted
Actually, would support obongo over Charles any day

>>134860368
Let's not equalise monarchy and feudal system. You can have one without the other. You can have monarchy without serfdom (like in modern day UK).
Also, tell that:
>Comfy life, stable civilization, live with close-knit family and kin 100% of the time.
to Spanish monarchy in XVI-XVII c. Very close and stable relations between inhabitants of Spain and Netherlands under the same monarch.

>>134877215
>muh Republics
The end of the Jagiellon dynasty in 1572—after nearly two centuries—disrupted the fragile equilibrium of the Commonwealth's government. Power increasingly slipped away from the central government to the nobility.

When presented with periodic opportunities to fill the throne, the szlachta exhibited a preference for foreign candidates who would not found another strong dynasty. This policy often produced monarchs who were either totally ineffective or in constant debilitating conflict with the nobility. Furthermore, aside from notable exceptions such as the able Transylvanian Stefan Batory (1576–86), the kings of foreign origin were inclined to subordinate the interests of the Commonwealth to those of their own country and ruling house. This was especially visible in the policies and actions of the first two elected kings from the Swedish House of Vasa, whose politics brought the Commonwealth into conflict with Sweden, culminating in the war known as The Deluge (1655), one of the events that mark the end of the Commonwealth's Golden Age and the beginning of the Commonwealth's decline.

Zebrzydowski Rebellion (1606–07) marked a substantial increase in the power of the Polish magnates, and the transformation of szlachta democracy into magnate oligarchy. The Commonwealth's political system was vulnerable to outside interference, as Sejm deputies bribed[50][51] by foreign powers might use their liberum veto to block attempted reforms. This sapped the Commonwealth and plunged it into political paralysis and anarchy for over a century, from the mid-17th century to the end of the 18th, while its neighbors stabilized their internal affairs and increased their military might.

People should study how fucked up the Noble politicians were during the Commonwealth.

>>134877477
Of course because you're a Muslim and Christianity, and therefore a Christian monarch, is your enemy

>>134877587
>Islam
>in Bosnia
>more than a meme
Kek Panjeet, good one.

Besides
>"you don't agree with me so you are surely a moslem"
Ah love those arguments...

>>134877733
>"you don't agree with me so you are surely a moslem"
Not like a white person would spout the nonsense you are. Simply wouldn't happen.

>>134877533
>republics suck because inbreds voted idiot foreigners in Poland

Easy to solve
>make a qualified nobility, ie, anyone who meets the criteria gets to be a noble, anyone who fails loses their rights to it
>outlaw voting for a foreigner (as it is already today)
There problem solved

>>134877733
Also
>According to the 2013 census, Islam is the majority faith in Bosnia and Herzegovina, making up 51% of the population, and the vast majority belong to Sunni Islam.

>>134877733
>"Obama is prettier than an ugly princess"
This is what unironically constitutes an argument in Islamic Bosnia. Is it any surprise the scientific method was invented by Christian Anglos?

>>134877802
>nonsense
I am just saying how it is.

>white person
Even if I was a muslim, check flag, still white. So, again, a nonargument

>>134877733
I thought the whole reason Bosnia became a separate state is because the Serbs couldn't live peacefully with Muslims

>>134878055
be quiet Fikret/Zeljko/Boban

>>134877902
Or you know you could just disqualify ineligible candidates.

But I see Bosnians like to make things difficult for themselves.

>>134878055
>I am just saying how it is.
And in doing so, you're spouting nonsense.

>Even if I was a muslim
See>>134877905

>>134877905
>people say they are muslim so they surely must be muslim
Next up: a gay male prostitute assassin can unironically be a Christian.

>>134877911
We were using looks for arguments, don't play dumb. Check the posts before
>American posts pics of inbreds
>Brit posts Obongo

Besides, even Obama has more charisma than Charles

>>134878326
I was joking around, it wasn't an argument you dumb muslim

>>134878326
Nice try. People tend not to joke about being Muslim, and you're clearly practicing taqqiya.

>>134878162
Check Rascia/Sanjak
>actual half Turks
>don't celebrate any "western" holiday
>don't "understand" Serbian
>untouched by Serbs for centuries
The whole war was a money wash

"If Hitler imagined for a moment that the Debate and the Division last week showed any signs of lack of unity, let him contemplate what has happened in the last few days. I cannot imagine that at any period of our lives any of us has ever experienced or passed through days more dramatic than those since the House adjourned. In that time the tremendous moment of the war has come. The first death struggle has begun. While this has been going on we have established a new War Cabinet, and, as the Prime Minister said, with new Defence Ministers all at their posts, between Wednesday and Saturday night, within three days. I do not believe that there is any other form of government which could have carried through so great a change so smoothly and in so short a space of time. It convinces me that our form of Parliamentary government is the most civilised in peace and is the most formidable weapon of control in war.

There is one other reflection which I would like to make. For many years I have been compelled to read Herr Hitler deriding and despising our Parliamentary government as decadent. Now we can give him the reply. The Nazi system has been in existence for about seven years, and when, like our Parliamentary system, it has weathered the storms for about 700 years, we can begin to argue which, when the great test comes, will have the bigger staying power."

Did they put this stuff to a referendum? Of course not. There's more to this agile system than whether you want the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right.

>>134878447
>taqiya
So I am being accused of not just being a muslim, but being the only Shia muslim in this shithole? Classy

>people don't joke around being muslim
Come take a trip here. Most of them are "muslim" so they wouldn't be annexed by Croatia and Serbia (the latter being forgiven, as only imbeciles would want to be inside Serbia)

>>134878673
>So I am being accused of not just being a muslim
When it's more than a 50% chance, and you're spouting anti-white nonsense...
Plus, you immediately went to Sunni/Shia differences. Not something a Christian would care about in such a situation.
>Most of them are "muslim"
I'll take the stats over your backpeddling.

>>134878571
Nazism isn't monarchism and I'm sure the world war that broke out after the rise of Nazism had nothing to do with its untimely demise.

>>134878419
>lol I was joking around

Nah, you were being salty. Can't blame you
>former colonial world power
>turns into Indian colony
But no, keep bullying those poles.

>>134878805
>Literally a ""white"" Muslim country
>Calling anyone else cucked

Royals are actually elected by a counsel.
It's just that early Kings that were religiously declared/anointed had the "right to lead" because they were chosen.

There is not a single instance of children being claimed to also have that right.

The "right of blood" is based on the concept that if the parents were good rulers, then the offspring would probably be good rulers as well, and if money keeps the line educated, then all the better.

Royal blood is a myth. Royal counsels can and have dethroned Royalty.

>>134863044
statistically, you would've been growing cabbages and shit, not "riding alongside your king".
>>134873869
at least you can get rid of incompetent civil official when his term comes to an end. Matter of a few years usually. Incompetent monarch can cuck his entire estate for decades.

>>134877160
Huh? Churchill had that kind of political influence in 1914? Wasn't it Asquith's decision?

>>134878794
>sunni Shia differences
If you accused me of being an orthodox and then told me I was a Pope lover, I would have still corrected you. Why? Because as anyone knows, the orthocucks don't answer to the Pope.

Same here. If you had taken time to actually even Google that taqiya nonsense, you'd known it was just something the Shia are allowed to, as well as Ibadis/Oman. Idk about alewites.

Also
>people say they are something so they must be that
Next up you will try to convince me that "Bosniaks" are a nonfictional people...

No matey, they can call themselves what they like, but there ain't more than 10% of them at best.
Mosques get built to wash money, people go to em only on holidays, half of them are low-key islamophobes (especially lefties), etc.
Hell, some refuse to service arabs.


Also
>anti white things
>being against monarchies

>>134878803
It's not monarchism but the fact remains that parliament is much more agile than the king and his orbiting cousins, which is why it replaced that system and has crushed any other new contenders from Napoleon to Hitler

>>134878866
>implying I don't hate this country
>implying that the country is muslim

Keep trying

>>134878199
If the ruling class elects the candidate, who's to decide who is "ineligible"? And moreso, who's to enforce such ineligibility against will of the ruling class?

>>134879319
Nobody wants a king to rule on his own - the world is too complex for that. What we want is to give the retarded public less power.

>>134879255
>If you accused me of being an orthodox and then told me I was a Pope lover, I would have still corrected you
Perhaps, but most Muslims would either not know, nor care enough to do so as a first response.

>Just because we're full of Muslims, have tonnes of mosques, and 51% of people call themselves Muslim, that doesn't mean we have Muslims, duh!
>Just a prank, bro!

>anti white things
>being against monarchies
Yup, that is correct.

>>134879364
The country is Muslim which is why you hate it. You're a faggot cuck to Islam lmao.

>>134879440
Why not just do what Greek city states did? Strip the right to vote off of most of the population.

Give the right to vote to (proper) academia, CEOs, high ranking member of society... Actually, just let the masons take over.

>>134857417
You shouldn't be. No one should be.

>>134879609
>Why not just do what Greek city states did? Strip the right to vote off of most of the population.
Who do you think will be (((left))) with the franchise?
>Actually, just let the masons take over.
We advocate for monarchy.

>>134879508
A larger percentage of British women wear burqas and hijabs than the people here.
You will never hear of a "sharia" police here.
You will never be moved down by a salty Abdullah here.
You will never be gangraped by Ahmads here
The media will never cry "poor pislamists" here.

So, who is more Islamic? Our leftie morons are islamophobes as well.

>>134879440
So we want a Parliament on a less retarded footing. Not for the UK to become a fascist backwater. Do you expect the monarchy to push for that or the people?

>>134879782
The country that is literally 60% Muslim (you) is more Islamic.

>>134879454
>full of mosques
Which stay empty for most of the year. And like said, most buildings being built are used to wash money so.. Yeah

>monarchism
>white
No, it is the most servile of all forms of government.