Why are monarchies allowed in democracies?

>>138080689
To remember where we came from
You remember that, don't you Hans?

>>138080689
1. Technically provides a brake or opportunity to repeal ill-advised laws (practically, never happens).
2. Tradition and loyalty.
3. Tourist money.

>>138080881
I do, I do. But again, why are they allowed if they have no power and no other purpose than tourism?

>>138081201
>1. Technically provides a brake or opportunity to repeal ill-advised laws (practically, never happens).
I don't think that is true. Neither technically nor theoretically nor in any form or way.

>>138081201
>2. Tradition and loyalty.
Ok, fine. But that means your tradition is to worship people who were born a certain way, while not worshiping people who were not born that way. As to loyalty, I don't follow, you aren't dogs or something.

>>138081468
>Beep boop, Ich bin ein robot
>tradition is inefficient, beep
>only work is gut

File: monarchist flag.png (134KB, 951x1024px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 951x1024px

>>138080689
Modern Republics are total cuckfests, europe needs to bring back Enlightened Absolutism

>>138081468
are national anthem is about loyalty to our monarchs, it's a matter of pride, we aren't traitors we were born in service to our monarch and we wouldn't want to change that, they symbolise our country

>>138080689
Because they have no power and therefore no effect on the democracy. Simple as.

>>138080689
Well, the monarch does have power. They have the power to get absolute power, in fact.

But using it would be undemocratic and unpopular in modern times.

The Queen can actually dissolve parliament, has control over the military and has to approve of laws before they're passed.

>>138080689
Parliament serves at the pleasure of the queen

The U.K. And crown dependencies never fought for freedom it was granted

>>138081468
> law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Consent
The Queen can dissent to any law she wants to. The point is that she doesn't.

> tradition
You don't understand the concept of monarchy at all. I recommend J. G. Frazer's book The Golden Bough; it will explain to you how monarchies are necessary and good. We don't 'worship' the Queen, she is the literal personification of the Nation, so she is rather 'revered', not worshipped.

>>138080689
>pic
Not a democracy, hans. Constitutional monarchy...

>>138083546
>has control over the military
No.
They have control over the Air Force and the Navy
But not the Army
That's why it's not the "Royal" Army.
The Queen could levy her own Army and make it a Royal one.
But the current one is not hers.

>>138083546
she can no longer dissolve parliament due to the fixed-term parliament act in 2011

>>138080689
>monarchies in democracy
They are either monarchies or democracy, can't be both.

>>138083268
>we were born in service to our monarch and we wouldn't want to change that
That's pretty... I don't even know what to say. You genuinely believe you were born "in service" to your monarch?

>>138083942
the queen is commander and chief, she is still the max authority

>>138080689
They are biding their time to reclaim power.

>>138083795
>The point is that she doesn't.
Because she can't. The moment she dissents to a law, is the moment she loses the right to dissent to any law.

>>138084138
>You genuinely believe you were born "in service" to your monarch?

because I was, I'm British and the head of state is the monarch you autist

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 9.17.55 PM.png (91KB, 1352x324px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1352x324px

>>138084128
>They are either monarchies or democracy, can't be both.
Sure they can. Even the British government says Britain is a democracy.

>>138083268
>we were born in service to our monarch

a.k.a. slaves.

Seriously, think about that statement.

>>138084313
So if the monarch commands you to do something, you, a humble servant, will do it?

>>138083247
This man knows what's up. If only we got /pol/ to actually mobilize for a cause such as this though, that'd be great.
Read Spengler everyone, he explains that our golden age was during the era of enlightened absolute monarchies. This is what can uncuck Europe.

>>138083963
What's stopping her from just marching the army and storming the commons and claiming absolute power?

File: IMG_1810.png (96KB, 600x650px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 600x650px

>>138084203
>Charles and the queen abdicate
>William becomes king, god save the king!
>William ends parliment and the independence of the crown dependencies
>revokes independent parliament of Scotland
>invade Ireland
>the British empire is restored

Yfw

>>138084247
She has done so 39 times.

>>138084138
Trying to explain 'honour' and 'duty' to one's monarch to a German will be futile.

>>138084579
I would, because I respect my country, that doesn't imply I have to and it doesn't imply most people would, because there are no repercussions anymore

>>138084672
The Scottish parliament is not 'independent'; it's 'devolved', it has some power, but not all of it.

>>138084640
1. She's 91.
2. She wouldn't want to do it anyway.
3. The army wouldn't agree to do it.
4. It's been done before, and the King lost his head.

>>138084869
THATS NOT THE POINT

>>138084579
That totally depends on what the request is. The queen is an actual, nice human being, you know; she's wouldn't ask anyone to jump off a bridge.

If the request were to cover a puddle with my coat, then I'd do it. Probably.

File: 1500077235634.png (758KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 793x794px

Democracy is a sham. Adopt the superiority of Monarchy.

>>138085179
Totally is the point. The London parliament simply has to say 'the Scottish parliament has no power', and it has no power.

The Scots wouldn't like it, but then again, they don't like anything.

File: prince_harry_nazi.jpg (21KB, 322x262px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 322x262px

>>138084672
>Queen Elisabeth, Charles and William abdicate
What then?

>>138085764
Prince George.

Harry isn't even of royal blood.

File: harakiri.jpg (93KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 500x400px

>>138085203
The request is always Harakiri. Only request that makes sense.

These requests are just not televised in your government run media.

Would you die for your Queen lads?

File: FUCK YEAH SWEKING.jpg (27KB, 364x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 364x500px

>>138080689
He shakes hands and looks cute. Bullshit that a president would have to do after a costly election. Elections alone cost more than the royal house.

>>138085995
The Queen would never ask anyone to do that.

>>138086086
Yes, but not for Parliament.

>>138086228
>The Queen would never ask anyone to do that.
Of course she would. She is old and she asked you to die for the Falklands.

>>138085764
Yeah Harry is a bastard but he will lead the anexation of Ireland for his brother the king

>>138086881
You cannot equate harakiri with the defence of sovereign British territory.

Or maybe you can, you are German...

>>138087182
Harry the Lionheart.

Let's just hope the fucking Germans don't kidnap our king on the way back from his crusades this time.

>>138080689
They wuz kangz n shit nigga, they can still follow their traditions but they do not rule. They lost all their power to the state. Monarchi is just some rich people showing off and marrying other people in their own monarchy circle.

File: 41l4j4cFlGL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (26KB, 334x499px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 334x499px

Anyone in doubt about monarchy, should read this. It will change your life.

Because the people allow it.

The queen is the best diplomat on the planet.
She allows us to remain in good relations with foreign leaders despite what ever faggot we've got as PM. And also she's the only thing holding together most of our foreign terriorty that has a shit ton of potential oil

>>138087708
You got a download link? It's £34 on Amazon

>>138089200
Stop being poor

>>138087812
>She allows us to remain in good relations with foreign leaders
Aren't you the country that just lost an empire, hates Argentina, meddles in Africa, bombed Libya, invaded Afghanistan and pissed off all of Europe including Russia?

Damn, your Queen does a really good job right there.

>>138089981
Brexit mate.

>>138090149
lol I drunkenly spent 250$ on books from the /pol/ reading lists last night

I got it in my head that I better buy some
Of these books before retailers and websites stop selling them to appease the left.

I also got the sumo theological of st Thomas Aquinas all volumes for 80$

>>138080689
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(film)
So it's like a near future fiction of when the queen passes away and the next king (Charles) takes over.
The plot of the story then goes into the government parliament makes a draconian police state censorship law and the king refuses to sign because that but keep trying to force the king to sign the law basically saying if he doesn't sign the law then the republicans will oust him and his family will be removed from power forever no longer a royal family. William's feminist wife is worried about staying in power and plots against him and team up with the plotters they end up forcing him to resign and the next king (William) takes over and signs it so that they are not stripped of power.

But that's a fictional story. Here are some similar from history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent
>when King Baudouin advised his cabinet he could not, in conscience, sign a bill decriminalising abortion, the Council of Ministers declared Baudouin incapable of exercising his powers. upon the declaration of the sovereign's incapacity, the Council of Ministers assumed the powers of the head of state until parliament could rule on the King's incapacity and appoint a regent. The bill was then assented to by all members of the Council of Ministers "on behalf of the Belgian People". both houses of parliament declared the King capable of exercising his powers again the next day.

>Article 34 of the constitution of Luxembourg formerly required the grand duke or duchess to sanction and promulgate a new law for it to take effect, the required sanction was removed in 2008, after Grand Duke Henri informed his prime minister that he could not in good conscience assent to a bill to permit euthanasia in the country. The subsequent constitutional amendment removed the need for assent

>>138092649
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Belgium
>When the law liberalizing abortion was enacted, it was controversial to many Belgians.[6] In early 1990, despite the opposition of the Christian parties, a coalition of the Socialist and Liberal parties passed a law to partially liberalize abortion law in Belgium.
>King Baudouin notified the Prime Minister on March 30 that he could not sign the law without violating his conscience as a Catholic.
>Since the legislation would not have the force of law without the king's signature, his refusal to sign threatened to precipitate a constitutional crisis
>Prime Minister Martens by which the Belgian government declared the king unable to govern, assumed his authority and enacted the law, after which Parliament then voted to reinstate the king on the next day. Others have suggested that Baudouin's action was "little more than a gesture", since he was reinstated as king just 44 hours after he was removed from power.

>>138090550
I've bought some Politics and International Relations textbooks recently. Thought I'd better brush up on what countries we can count on in the inevitable race war.

>>138080689
Your own nation descended into chaos and anarchy when the Kaiser abdicated after the First World War, then Hitler seized power, then we had another World War.

Russia descended into chaos and anarchy after the Tsar was killed. Twenty million people died under Jewish communism in the absence of traditional order.

Monarchy is right and wholesome. Democracy is the inevitable recipe for war and death.

>>138094156
>Your own nation descended into chaos and anarchy when the Kaiser abdicated
there was Bratwurst, beer and Kraut in 1920. Look it up.

>>138094295
There were also anarchist and communist terrorists threatening revolution and German veterans being shot in the streets by police.

Abraham Lincoln probably ate filet mignon and drank French wine every night while American men liquefied each other on far-away battlefields and Sherman raped and pillaged Atlanta.

>>138081468
>But that means your tradition is to worship people who were born a certain way
Sorry you were born a pleb like the rest of us, hans.

Because without our King, there wouldn't be democracy. Take it as you like. Some are grateful as the King gave up most of his powers back to the people. Some are ungrateful as they say it isn't a "true" democracy, whatever that means.

>>138080689
Not sure I get your question. UK is a Monarchy, period. Not a Democracy. UK govt serves at the will of the Queen. The Queen, in turn, is the respesentative of God.

>>138083268
UKucks, everyone.

>>138095268
>There were also anarchist and communist terrorists threatening revolution and German veterans being shot in the streets by police.
It was better than today, anon. And not as bad as you make it sound. There were a few dead, but not like with all the Muslim terrorists these days.

>>138095661
>The Queen, in turn, is the respesentative of God.
Why would God need a representative? That makes no sense. God literally created the universe, he doesn't need someone on Earth to represent him.

>>138084533
And you serve Israel, what's the problem?

>>138080689
They still own canada, new zealand, and australia

>>138080689
Tourism .

>>138081201
HM Government's current interpretation, the book The Constitution of England, says that the Sovereign cannot repeal or reject any ill-advised legislation. This was the desire of the Sovereign during the Irish War of Independence, but the Crown-in-Parliament rejected it.

>>138083910
That's the point, John. It's not really a constitutional monarchy. In fact, actual Monarchism (the belief that there should be a powerful Sovereign) is prohibited in the UK. It's a democracy.

>>138095661
lol, not really.

>>138095551
Do you like your royals? I think they seem quite nice, Denmark's young prince is a pussy, all crying and shit. GROW UP! Pathetic... Fucking based George basically told Trudeau to fuck off.

WE need some real kangs in the royal family

>>138096869
She's not a representative of God, she's the head of the Anglican church. And like you there's no need for a middleman between God and Humanity, the Pope is a cuck in a dress and a demon probably.

It's for unsecured countries like UK, Canada or Spain.
Powerful nations will always be REPUBLICS, just like FRANCE, the USA, RUSSIA or CHINA.

>>138080689
Because the British government would lose billions of dollars. King George III allowed the state to run his lands and take the profit for a yearly payment. If that deal is undone the property reverts back to the family and the worth of those lands is 11bn pounds.

File: zilvia.jpg (86KB, 650x633px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 650x633px

>>138080689
>royalty
>B-celebrities

Hans, you don't know anything.

File: 29AD83F600000578-3126728-image-a-42_1434489698127.jpg (100KB, 634x416px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 634x416px

>>138098409
>WE need some real kangs in the royal family
America's royal family attached.

File: 58320254c36188fb428b4624.jpg (163KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 900x500px

>>138098734
Sorry, I forgot someone on the right

>>138080689
President or Monarch, power still follows blood. So we might as well remain loyal to the Crown in return for predictable behaviour by the ruling Monarch. If we switched to a Presidential system we would throw away that predictability along with hundreds of millions in economic contribution made by the Crown.

>>138080689
Denmark is the only Monarchy worldwide that functions properly.

But they have sky high taxes to pay...

>>138099252
>Denmark is the only Monarchy worldwide that functions properly.
Saudi Arabia functions fantastically, for now. As does Bahrain and Jordan.

>>138099066
>in return for predictable behaviour by the ruling Monarch
She signs the laws. She reads the script of the Queen's speech on the sheepskin dried ink.

Are you saying some presidential figurehead like the one we have in Germany, can't do that?

>>138099066
>along with hundreds of millions in economic contribution made by the Crown.
Is that before or after the millions received from the British taxpayer and the European taxpayer? And in what form do the royals pay? In taxes? In direct contributions? Do they manufacture anything?

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-18 at 11.13.04 PM.png (585KB, 1158x986px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 1158x986px

>>138099500
>Saudi Arabia functions fantastically, for now. As does Bahrain and Jordan.
Saudi Arabia is closing in on bankruptcy.

>>138099640
The royals are a source of major tourism dollars and the crown estate makes about 300 million pounds in revenue a year.

>>138099640
>Are you saying some presidential figurehead like the one we have in Germany, can't do that?
I'm saying that so long as we stay as a Monarch we know exactly where the issues arise. Liz stays out of political shit for the most part so we know that when bad shit happens it's down to those in Parliament, not her. This helps keep the picture a bit clearer.

>>138099640
>>138099894
As I said, "for now". Ruling is more than the economic side of things and they do well on most fronts. And considering these places are the last remaining absolute Monarchies, it's a surprise that they do even as well as they do.

>>138083247
>>138084591
This

>>138080689
Because incest is best