What does Sup Forums think of His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales?

What does Sup Forums think of His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales?

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/27/australian-support-for-monarchy-has-grown-as-debate-for-republic-revived
telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-philip/9883276/Duke-of-Edinburghs-best-gaffes.html
telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/richard-iii-dna-shows-british-royal-family-may-not-have-royal-bl/
iflscience.com/technology/dna-tests-uncover-more-evidence-infidelity-richard-iiis-family-tree/
theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/25/richard-iii-dna-tests-uncover-evidence-of-further-royal-scandal
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It bothers me a great deal that England is a country born from Monarchy and you have these people who are essentially decorative, completely stripped of power but basically playing along

He spits on his ancestors with his acquiescence

Constitutional monarchy is the best governing system on Earth.

What is so good about Republics?

His Mom seems cool.

>best governing system on earth
if you are a leech tending her brood, sure

He looks dignified.. until he speaks..

People believe in royalty. People feel disconnected from parliament.

You've given the world a system where all people, everywhere, feel disconnected from their own governance. We used to think of a king like our father, now we have nothing but confusion, disconnection and despondence.

noob

>Constitutional monarchy is the best governing system on Earth.

until it puts a new age nut in power

Isn't he half greek?

The Queen is dead?
Long live the King!

I will miss her majesty greatly, her passing is going to tear the hearts out of countries and millions of souls around the globe.
But I will enjoy saying God save the King

>english royal family is of german descent
because fucking anglos are beady eyed rats who wouldn't be able to be king of a retarded nigger colony

half greek, half german.

They're a net benefit to the treasury.

Shouldn't have lost the English Civil War then.

Yes based Prince Philip is half Danish/Greek

Considered Jimmy Saville a friend. Dodgy cunt!

When's his next tour of the colonies?

...

...

If he would hain power, he would bring back the anti-wite red terror in communism.

His wife is fucking hideous

He's right.

Look forward to him becoming our King. Also wondering what his portrait on the money will loom like. You know that's already been commissioned and is ready to go.

Sad thing is he probably won't be king for another 10 years or so. His old lady will rule well past 100 it seems.

Dunno, but he looks like a faggot

>Danish/Greek
They are all Krauts you fucking Greek
REEEEEEEEEEE

cold blooded killer

good for tourism

Pretty sure hes Danish not German

I'm a fan. Can't wait for him to be King (not that i want Her Majesty to die, but it's been long enough without a King).

Yup, (((parliament))) ruined quite a few things.

I understand the British feeling an affinity for their Royals, but how the fuck am I, in bumfuck nowhere Australia, supposed to genuinely feel any sort of connection? I know australians on Sup Forums post that UR HIGHNESS shit but the reality is not many people under the age of 50 feel anything for Elizabeth and the Royals. If we had an Australian KANG then yeah id probably really appreciate a constitutional democracy. Our PM is a famous Republican, our opposition leader is a republican and I think once Lizzy carks it, there will be a big movement towards republicanism here.

It's a tourist attraction

>but the reality is not many people under the age of 50 feel anything for Elizabeth and the Royals
Other way around here. Most older Australians are republicans, as they bitch out about the GG saving us from Whitlam's ruin.
Younger Australians are more monarchist than the past. Basically, (((Shorten-Turnbull-Fitzsimmons))) BTFO
theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/27/australian-support-for-monarchy-has-grown-as-debate-for-republic-revived

Also
>If we had an Australian KANG
We do. Her Majesty is Queen of Australia as an Australian citizen.

>Lives in a palace 3000kms away
>thinks about us once every 3 years when she wants to send a royal on holiday

Its not the same desu. I want to have our own.

As do I. God willing, Prince Henry will become Arch-Duke of Australia.
But the problem we have there, is the same problem relating to Her Majesty not having much to do with us: Politicians.

Royal protocol is fascinating.

>Lives in a palace 3000kms away
>thinks about us once every 3 years when she wants to send a royal on holiday

This isn't really a strong argument, it can be said about anyone that isn't in Londonistan really. It's not like anyone is visited regularly.

Fuck Prince Phillip he is useless

I heard he couldn't even get it up to fuck the queen so they brought in a bull to impregnate the Queen

>Fuck Prince Phillip he is useless
You can go straight to hell, negro.
telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-philip/9883276/Duke-of-Edinburghs-best-gaffes.html

i like his ideas on town planning

Cool guy, I bet he can walk down any street in Britain and kick people in the balls without any consequences.

After the queen died the monarchy will be disbanded.

England is lost anyways. Might as well move to America we are the last free western democracy on the planet and we have Trump.

Kike paedophile. Great bloke otherwise.

>being this out of touch

see >thats right goy! move from a 87% native country (95+ if you remove the capital) which is also your homeland to a 50% and dropping mutt country! it's for the greater good!

>We used to think of a king like our father
King is derived from kin - kinship, family

he's no george

Because 'muh heritage'.

Every white Australian is there by the grace of Britain and the Crown. The second you take that away, you become an empty vessel without heritage or culture, you Americanise, 'anyone can be an Australian!'.

Our republic is basically a constitutive monarchy except our president has even more power

Cucked by an arab.

all monarchies must fall (except the ones with qt.314 queens)

I don't like the thought of a man holding a scepter above my head thinking he's better than me by virtue of being born into a certain family
it's pretty hot if it's a woman though

You are dead, mate

>I don't like the thought of a man holding a scepter above my head thinking he's better than me by virtue of being born into a certain family
Some people ARE better than others, you liberal sub-fetishist.

obviously, not because they were born into some incest ridden degenerate lineage though

think about it objectively and you're 'serving' some mutt globalist mixed with the blood of innumerable nations, how does that person represent you in any way?

>liberal
how's that

>sub-fetishist
better a woman than a man you homosexual

>not because they were born into some incest ridden degenerate lineage though
Kinda. Like you say, think about it objectively. These are the people who have had access to the best of everything. Namely, the best training for the job. They also have the least reason to be corrupt, because they already have everything, but that's only tied to them doing well.
>how's that
You sound very tall-poppy. Disparaging your betters and such.
>better a woman than a man
How about no, bitch-boy. Women can't lead, and unlike you liberal types, not everyone is persistently occupied by sex.

What the hell goes on during moments like this?

>Dude, your tie is all fucked up, here, let me just.... perfect!

Won't be king soooooo

Seeing a bloke that old wear a modern uniform just looks wrong.

Shouldn't he break the bearskins out?

>These are the people who have had access to the best of everything
sounds like something to produce effete dandies rather than rulers
who gives a shite if their tutors taught them better than anything you'd getting in the best private school, it doesn't automatically make them competent, it could just as easily have produced in them haughtiness and self-importance alone

>Namely, the best training for the job.
look at the recent election in the US and you could say rightly that Hillary had the best 'qualifications' as a career politician to be president, IE. she was a lying snake, but she didn't get in

>the least reason to be corrupt, because they already have everything
retarded argument, how many thousands and tens of thousands of monarchs in the past have been corrupt despots?
why would having everything make them content and not grasp for more and more ad infinitum?

>Disparaging your betters and such.
bootlicker

>Women can't lead
neither can pussies coddled from birth and driven around in gilded prams

He will fast rope in your bed tonight and kill you in your sleep for doubting his badassery

Severely underrated

Because I'm ethnically British

A complete douchebag

He was born in Greece but he's not Greek at all

>sounds like something to produce effete dandies rather than rulers
Way to miss the point. They've had access to the best medical and scientific advancements.
>who gives a shite if their tutors taught them better than anything you'd getting in the best private school,
Would you prefer they didn't learn at all?
>it doesn't automatically make them competent
You're exactly right. But it sure does give them better odds than not.
>look at the recent election in the US and you could say rightly that Hillary had the best 'qualifications' as a career politician to be president, IE. she was a lying snake, but she didn't get in
Exactly the problem with (((democracy))), but in this case, it was just lucky.
>retarded argument, how many thousands and tens of thousands of monarchs in the past have been corrupt despots?
Percentage wise? Not too many. It's just the bad ones who get publicity.
>why would having everything make them content and not grasp for more and more ad infinitum?
They can. From other people. They wouldn't be able to do that to their own without first helping them do better.
Think logically. They also have to pass it all onto their kids. A politician doesn't have to worry about the future, but a monarch probably doesn't want their son to get a French haircut, and would have be trained from birth to avoid it.
>bootlicker
Child.
>neither can pussies coddled from birth and driven around in gilded prams
History says otherwise.

Mate, the most likely adopted model would be the minimalist model which is effectively what we've got but without the GG represented the Queen.

Seems fine, until the Head of State's split from an impartial monarch could lead to politicised appointments.

The tradition may seem stupid but it has flow on effects to High Court appointments and other, by precedent only, apoliticalnappointments.

Then again with our current cucked pseudo-conservative government now and woefully inadequate opposition maybe we should just let the fucker burn. I'll bring the snags and VB

Dresses really well.

>implying Ireland wouldn't be way better if auld Brian's descendents were running the show

If you lost the monarchy then what would make you any different from america? And exactly what system would be better? Appointing carreer politicians to a presidential role? awful

cuck off back to rebbit

>Implying that the british monarchy aren't the leader of the illuminati

the English monarchs are a bunch of pansy faggots

He should be King with Camilla after the Queen dies. They are much more entertaining than William and Kate.

He is puppet of the Rothschilds

Whenever I see photos of Monarchs in their dress uniforms, they seem to have tons of medals.
Can someone please explain to me what the reasoning is behind this is?
Do and of the recent monarchs (1900 onward) actually earn these medals or are they given out to royal families just to make them look pretty?

He could stand to get a little higher.

Prince Philip served in the Royal Navy (during WW2 and after), most of them will be service medals

>Can someone please explain to me what the reasoning is behind this is?
They're the font d'honour. So most of them aren't service medals, but it represents that they're the ones who are in charge of them.
Some of them are given from other nations as gifts or thanks. Like Prince Phillip recieved a Knighthood from Australia as thanks for all the charitable stuff he does here.

>They've had access to the best medical and scientific advancements.
what the fuck are you on about lad, they're not astronaut kangz
how is knowing how to staunch a wound useful to a King ruling his people?

>Would you prefer they didn't learn at all?
it certainly might help to be more learned in Geography and specifics in history than most people, if they haven't the aptitude it doesn't matter though
if you want to make that the defining point of why monarchy is good then pick a smart paki out of a private school he got a scholarship to and let him rule you because he knows more about geometry and what his tutors taught him about history

>it was just lucky
no it was the American populace voting as they always have since forever, leaning once for democrats and then again for republicans

>Percentage wise? Not too many.
broofs?
it's a gold nugget in a pile of shite whenever you get a good one with an aptitude to rule

your argument seems to rest on their being "brought up to rule", when you could just as well say the same about most politicians coming from wealthy upper middle class or high class families, and with them you have at least a selection rather than one inevitably being forced upon you if you have succession the way you do for your monarchy
do you consider these people your betters by the way? you should if you consider the nobility your betters by virtue of birth and upbringing

>From other people.
?
so they'd be warmongers? what do you mean by this

>They wouldn't be able to do that to their own without first helping them do better.
so they would do it eventually
what are you getting at here

>History says otherwise.
how so

our Rí's and Taoiseachs were dirtbags in Gaelic Ireland though (according to Anglo sources, mind)

>Fynes Moryson, secretary to the Lord Deputy in Ireland, wrote that Gaelic Lords saw their labourers and tenants as "Born slaves to till their ground and to do them all services"

>how is knowing how to staunch a wound useful to a King ruling his people?
More like having access to the best medical advances puts them in the best health. Which produces better offspring.
>it certainly might help to be more learned in Geography and specifics in history than most people
That's all you thought of? Not them being learned in aspects pertinent to ruling? All skills require training, and they start earlier than anyone else in the ones which matter for governing.
>no it was the American populace voting as they always have since forever, leaning once for democrats and then again for republicans
This is really part of a different argument for a different thread.
>your argument seems to rest on their being "brought up to rule", when you could just as well say the same about most politicians coming from wealthy upper middle class or high class families
If they were brought up to rule, perhaps. Most of them are brought up in "democratic" systems to be lawyers and CEOs rather than rulers, though.
>and with them you have at least a selection rather than one inevitably being forced upon you
Your naïveté is adorable.
>do you consider these people your betters by the way? you should if you consider the nobility your betters by virtue of birth and upbringing
Of course.
>so they'd be warmongers? what do you mean by this
At least. Or they'd have to help the country develop in such a way as to be the more wealthy and powerful among peers.
>what are you getting at here
That you can't take what isn't there. Only bankers can. For a monarch to become more well off, he has to make his people more well off.
>how so
Plenty of kick-arse kings in history. And the more common average ones along the ship to keep chugging along.

I actually like Prince Charles quite a bit, even though he ass-raped his butler all those times, and even though he's genetically completely unconnected to King Richard III.

telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/richard-iii-dna-shows-british-royal-family-may-not-have-royal-bl/

iflscience.com/technology/dna-tests-uncover-more-evidence-infidelity-richard-iiis-family-tree/

theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/25/richard-iii-dna-tests-uncover-evidence-of-further-royal-scandal

Globalist cuck who lectures us on (((climate change))) while consuming more energy than anyone. I hate him and I'm a Brit. We haven't had a decent monarch since Queen Victoria.

Based Tywin Lannister.

>while consuming more energy than anyone.
How so? And even if you don't believe in climate change, what's wrong with being more efficient and conservative?

Looked really swag when he was younger, I bet he fucked a shitload of famous bitches before getting married.

...

What do you mean how so? Do you honestly think he doesn't travel much more than the average person? Do you think that when he eats he uses the same resources as everyone else? Jesus Christ.

I agree with efficiency. This UN cunt wants to tax everyone though to fill his and his globalist friends' pockets. He can fuck off.

>You will never celebrate your 85th birthday in Basra

>Do you honestly think he doesn't travel much more than the average person?
No more than a mid level exec. But fair enough.
>Do you think that when he eats he uses the same resources as everyone else?
Meh. Wouldn't begrudge that.
>This UN cunt wants to tax everyone though to fill his and his globalist friends' pockets.
That's just the mandatory party line, though. Required by parliament. At least the general intention is good.

>More like having access to the best medical advances puts them in the best health. Which produces better offspring.
grasping at straws there

>Not them being learned in aspects pertinent to ruling?
history is extremely important as well as geography and all the specialization there is in both fields
name a few of the things they'd be taught in these courses on ruling and governance then
the same things they teach in schools of Law? you seem to be in the know on this

>Most of them are brought up in "democratic" systems to be lawyers and CEOs rather than rulers, though.
who do you think runs your country?
they all study some shite like Economics, Jurisprudence, even Chemistry in college and go on to worm their way into power

>Your naïveté is adorable.
I like how you took the trouble to spell it with all the accents kek, you absolute psued
what's so naïve about it then, since that wasn't an argument

>Of course.
because they're specialists in certain fields of Law or Economics?
are you some useless uneducated NEET that you think so low of yourself?

>At least.
fool, this isn't the 13th century, you can't be an outright warmonger these days without suffering repercussions on an international scale and be condemned everywhere, an easy target for the likes of the UN and any of your political opponents seeking the moral high ground
I can see you won't be running any countries any time soon

>That you can't take what isn't there.
>Only bankers can.
are you implying a return to the gold standard or something?
I still don't get you, they need to make their people well off before stealing from to reap a better harvest, rather than keep them in constant poverty and subjection?

>Plenty of kick-arse kings in history.
and many more despots
do you have stats?
you brought up percentages lad

>And the more common average ones along the ship to keep chugging along.
you mean ones dominated by their ministers

He is a merciful god.

That is the beauty of Constitutional Monarchy, you idiot. A complete nutter could be placed in power, but what the nutter can do is limited by elected officials.
If the elected official is a complete nutter, then the King/Queen can limit his/her power without infringing upon the rights of the people.

>English Royal Family is German

>He unironically doesn't realise that only a small portion are German.
>He unironically doesn't realise that the Queen is a direct descendant of King Alfred the Great, James I, Edward I, Richard I, and Henry 4, all of whom are British.

she's a mutt related to everybody in Europe fám, she's even a direct descendant of Hugh O'Neill who her namesake Elizabeth I tried to stamp out over 4 centuries ago

based jungle niggers

>grasping at straws there
That's how the class system works, brah.
>history is extremely important as well as geography and all the specialization there is in both fields
True, but you're limiting it there. Have you never done a management course in a job? They teach you all kinds of team building crap, and how to understand the business, how to make it run efficiently, and how to build it. Scale that up to a nation. A monarch would be versed in everything from agriculture to medicine to shipping for the good of his nation.
>who do you think runs your country?
Ex-lawyers, mostly. Dickheads who couldn't do very well in their chosen careers, so they ran for office. Ain't no farmers in the chair of Minister for Agriculture, or teachers as Minister for Education, that's for sure.
>I like how you took the trouble to spell it with all the accents
Why wouldn't I? Do you also like how I put all the letters in other words?
>what's so naïve about it then
That you think any democratic process is really a selection for the people. You just have to claim to prefer one chosen candidate/party or the other. There's never a choice for anything except that which is allowed. It's pretty limited.
>because they're specialists in certain fields of Law or Economics?
Because they hold higher position and class. They are literally better.
>are you some useless uneducated NEET that you think so low of yourself?
I have a Bachelor of Commerce, and work for a bank. I'm pretty bourgeoisie.
>fool, this isn't the 13th century, you can't be an outright warmonger these days
Oh man, you need to check out this thing called the United States of America. It'll blow your mind. But yea, i did say "least." Normal methods would be economic.
>are you implying a return to the gold standard or something?
I was just making a joke about debt currency.
1/2

>she's a mutt related to everybody in Europe
Guess you Paddycucks are still mad about that whole potato business? Stick to being muslim tier scum who blow up bins then hide behind civilians when the British shoot back.

>English royals

>Doesn't realise they are actually a lot more Scottish
>Doesn't realise that the first ones to say fuck you to the monarchy were indeed the English
You Euroscum mainlanders are amusing.

He once stated he wished to be reincarnated as Camillacs tampon. Enough said.

>I still don't get you, they need to make their people well off before stealing from to reap a better harvest, rather than keep them in constant poverty and subjection?
Yes. Which, ask yourself, if you're able to keep people happy and productive, would you spoil that by stealing it? When you have to live with these people forever? Or would you just want them to be well enough so you can be fine with whatever taxes they produce?
>and many more despots
Not really.
>do you have stats?
Of every single monarch in history, rated on a scale from Kim Il Sung to Peter the Great in terms of quality?
No, i don't. That was really just referring to there being plenty of Peter the Great, or Carolus Rex, or Alexander the Great types.
>you mean ones dominated by their ministers
Po-tay-to / po-tah-to.

>If the elected official is a complete nutter, then the King/Queen can limit his/her power without infringing upon the rights of the people.
Haven't really seen many examples of that, beyond Whitlam.

What's more amusing is the fact he thinks the Royal family is entirely German, when the Germans only held the throne from 1760, and only a small portion of the Queen's line is German. For example, the Queen's only German relatives come from 1760, whereas she is directly related to King Alfred The Great and all of King's since.

You know that last English Reign died in 1807? 1814-1901 House of Hanover and since then the Saxe-Coburg, if you think those families are British you might want to check a map