MONARCHY

Question: Why do we still have a monarchy while basically the rest of the world has moved on, fellow britbongs?

>inb4 they got no powerz
>inb4 muh tourism

why not? It works.

Works? How, here in Norway the royal family is just a leach on society. They have no function in governance.

>King John
>Richard II
>Mary I
>Leopold II of Belgium
>Henry VIII
>Charles I

At some point brown people are going to storm Buckingham palace and murder every inhabitant. Just a matter of time...

Note this article is 5+ years ago and pre-Syrian conflict/refugee crisis.

Agreed. Look at this map and tell me whether you would rather live in a presidential republic or a constitutional monarchy. The obvious answer is a republic.

Why not? Why do you assume a republic is any better? They have their pros and cons and most people are content with the royal family for now.

Because the British a race of slaves.

You were the slaves of Romans, you were the slaves of French kings like William the Conqueror and Richard the Lionheart. You would have been the slaves of Napoleon if the Russians hadn't saved you, and you would have been the slaves of Hitler if the Americans hadn't saved you.

You are a servile people, never meant to be the masters of your destiny. So that's why you have a "royalty", to remind you of your place in the dirt. So God save the Queen, keep the lords safe so that your nation of peasants has someone they can admire, because they sure as hell can't admire themselves.

They also help indoctrinate norwegians into becoming more leftist and liberal.

We should become a republic when the Queen dies.

I'm a citizen, not a subject.

Yeah, I totally would prefer Iraq to Norway.

Probably less Muslims in Iraq these days though

>>inb4 muh tourism
But '>muh tourism' is a valid excuse user, nobody would visit this shithole if we didn't have a monarchy

>coming from a country of prisoners

You're still part of OUR commonwealth, strayafag.

T. Paki scum

Delete this post

People don't visit the UK to see a bunch of wrinkly old royals, they visit to see the landmarks. If there's anyone pissing themselves over the royal family, it's us.

...

What is so good about Republics?

The Magna Carta and everything after was a mistake.


If you disagree you should be ground up into a paste and spread on the fields as a nutrient.

Literally nothing. Our monarch is a force of stability and yet republicans want her gone because of "muh financial leeches"

As if paying 10 millions of to a royal family is significant in terms of our budget which runs over in the trillions. We could abolish her position and we'd still be in the same economic mess.

Many of said landmarks are only here because of previous royalty, not to mention all the money we make off of crown lands.

...

>British are slaves
>Look at flag
>Kek

If we stopped funding them, we'd have to hand back crown lands (most likely). Then they'd be far better off and we'd lose out.

>fellow britbongs

You know why Ahmed, now fuck off and stop trying to destroy us from the inside.

Canada would have yet another identity crisis. We couldn't take it. Please don't.

>moved on
Regression is rarely good, Pakibro.

That's the worst part about democracies. It tricks free people into thinking they're slaves, and slaves into thinking they're free, just because they get to check a box on some paper every few years.

You're probably neither.

Don't insult me faggot, I'm probably whiter than you

>The brits oust the monarchs
>The Royal family moves to Canada and remains at the head of the rest of the Commonwealth
You could actually gain from this happening

Then why are you acting like an uneducated nigger?

Nothing is wrong with monarchy. The mad max LARPers (looking at you straya) and freaboos in this thread need to calm themselves.

A monarchy has proven to be a more effective form of government (hundreds of times more effective than muh republic masturbation) when the monarch is good (take the Victorian Era for example, or Otto Von Bismarck). The biggest issue with monarchy lies on two big factors:

- Regression to the mean

- Degeneration of the Heirs

Degeneration of the heirs is perhps the biggest issue with monarchy to date. As the first and second generation of rulers will be excellent and blow democracy out of the water, but the third generation (if not intensley trained and exposed to reality) will grow insular, spoiled, naieve and degenerate.

Fortunatley as life expectancy likely improves well beyond 100 years, the effects of this issue will be mitigated to the point where monarchies in their prime will outlast republics.

funniest picture I've seen this year

Watch Trump's inauguration and tell me you actually want an elected head of state. Imagine an that fanfare for Tony Blair.

Constitutional monarchy is a terrible system except for all the rest.

Training the heirs would probably be the most important part of the monarch's duty. Plus, with a constitution, it'd be quite safe.

Our political system requires a head of state who is not political.

This is the reason constitutional monarchy is a great system. The head of state is free from party politics, and cares solely for their country and their subjects as a whole.