Well Sup Forums?

well Sup Forums?
How do you justify monarch on this day and age?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/MoJVn0Eq8y0
youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo
telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/9584755/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-Prince-Charless-love-for-Saviles-ladies.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>How do you justify monarch on this day and age?

Bessie didn't vote to let the shitskins in. Your parliament did that.

Anything to prevent the proles asking "who is really in charge?". She is a mascot for the system that supports her.

How do you justify not killing yourself when you look in the mirror you stinky 3rd world subhuman

You do know she reading the government speech, she doesn't get a say on what goes in it...right?

I'd rather pay for one monarch than 200 million mexicans

Figurehead monarchs are a pretty neutral issue, they don't seem to sway public opinion much in either direction

Divine right

>tfw no absolute monarchy
Democracy doesn't work.

Oh yes please let the left go after the queen
That will backfire hard.

>wanting to give absolute power to this cuck at any moment

yeah okay

Monarchy works best with constant plotting and regicide between noble families when required.

>implying absoute monarchy supporters accept anything other than prince charlie and the jacobite king

It's not about what we want. It is GODS WILL.

>this will never happen

youtu.be/MoJVn0Eq8y0

Forgot the link, I'm a retard.

Literally a welfare queen

Who is that guy next to her in the royal throne? I thought they didn't have a king? If they do, why haven't I ever heard of him, only the queen?

prince consort, literally the he-wife of the queen

It's her husband Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Look up quotes from him he's brilliant.

The Queen holds 99% of the royal titles. The King is pretty much just her husband.

Prince Philip, the Queen's husband

the goyim just need to be controlled.

You want to talk about wealth inequality? At the turn of the 20th century, 81% of Americans owned property. Just 3% of Mexicans did. Our Anglo legal system (and genes) gave us a robust middle class.

>sell all that shit
>split the money between everyone
>everyone gets ~$1

He is Prince Phillip. He actually the best royal they have. He fucking hilarious.

"I decare this open, whatever this is"

"At a project to protect turtle doves in Anguilla in 1965, he said: “Cats kill far more birds than men. Why don’t you have a slogan: ‘Kill a cat and save a bird?’”

"to a British trekker in Papua New Guinea, 1998: “You managed not to get eaten then?”

To Atul Patel at reception for influential Indians, 2009: “There’s a lot of your family in tonight.”

To a woman solicitor, 1987: “I thought it was against the law for a woman to solicit.”

It's quite easy to justify the monarchy in this day and age, not that current year means anything. And completely ignoring 1post by your ID.

The queen is the head of state and she mainly has a ceremonial role in the day to day workings of government, the royal family also provides good people to host public events, openings and award ceremonies. That said, From birth the members of the royal family are groomed to be the head of state and every responsibility that entails, this is their first responsibility in life and as such are literally the best people for the job. They are also the best failsafe for a collapsing or corrupt government, if at anytime the government goes full autist she can dismiss them and enforce it as she is the head of the armed forces, the military take orders from her. I highly doubt that this would ever have to happen as the Westminster system is extremely stable, but it is an option. If the Germans had succeeded in taking out British parliament or if the government had been ineffectual in WW2 the king Could have dismissed the government and ran the country until hostilities had ended. The royal family may appear to be redundant by the uneducated, but having an impartial highly educated, trained, unaffiliated observer sitting at the top of the system that has the power to fix the shit when it goes wrong is something republics should envy.

The monarch makes more money than she costs anyway, not to mention her private properties which she lets the government take the income from more than offset her cost.

Every Nation needs some core device to protect their culture and way of life, in the United States that device is the Constitution. In the United Kingdom it's the King or Queen.

I give you a toast Ladies and gentlemen
May this fair land we love so well
In Dignity and freedom dwell
While worlds may change and go awry
There'll always be an England
While there's a country lane
Wherever there's a cottage small
Beside a field of grain
There'll always be an England
While there's a busy street
Wherever there's a turning wheel
A million marching feet
Red, white and blue
What does it mean to you?
Surely you're proud
Shout it loud
Britons awake!
The Empire too
We can depend on you
Freedom remains
These are the chains
Nothing can break
There'll always be an England
And England shall be free
If England means as much to you
As England means to me

>cuck
>ex wife got knocked up by a Muslim so he had them both executed rather than defile his sons
>also married said woman who is one of the all-time babes with literal 10/10 tits

Someone is always going to rule us. In a capitalist society it's the one who is ruthless enough to amass a great wealth. In an aristocratic society, it's the one who was lucky enough to be chosen by God. Pick one. I'd pick the normies any day over ruthless globalists.

She wouldn't be if they abolished the monarchy though, being ancap, surely you would let her keep her private property and everything, the royal family is independently wealthy.

>>implying TRUE absoute monarchy supporters would accept anything other than Arthur, King of Britons back from Avallon to rule Europe.

Silence peasant.
youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo

>If this photo was taken today it would include a paki, a african, and a transgender for PC sake.

You would have massive improvement if you just gave lords real power and let all the hereditary peers sit, and let the political doner life peers die out.

No it wouldn't.

wooooow that's so wild

I do believe in an aristocracy it falls to whoevers ancestor conquered the most shit. Divine rite is just an excuse to hold onto that power.

>still want to hold onto british nationalism
>need to defend anti nationalist cuck heir
>dilute yourself into thinking he called diana because of her muslim boyfriend

lolling @ your life

Says the fool whose ancestors sent away Dom Pedro II and doomed the country.

We'd be much better off if we genuinely managed parliamentary/royal relationships better and returned to how it was, say, between the English civil war and Glorious revolution where most of the legislation comes from.

In the words of the traitor Oliver Cromwell, who got one thing right, an absolute parliament is as tyrannical as an absolute monarchy - but our ancestors experience was with tyrannical monarchies so their solution was to give power to parliament and this is what we have now.

The Queen (or any reigning monarch) whilst still subject to removal by the Crown if they overstepped boundaries, should have the unconditional right to pass or deny Royal Assent.

>I do believe in an aristocracy it falls to whoevers ancestor conquered the most shit. Divine rite is just an excuse to hold onto that power.
Yes, it's an excuse, but regression to the mean means that it's going to be pretty average people who end up ruling in the end. Not everyone can be Alexander the Greats.

You too had your chance at being a prosperous and wealthy nation when Maximilian was in charge, Juan.
Instead, you chose to forever be poor, violent and stupid when you killed him.

except she wore a blue dress and hat with yellow flowers this year...

Considering he is the consort to the head of state, an extremely important public figure in an ever increasing PC world, yea it is pretty fucking wild. His statements could easily be construed as sexist and racist by modern standards and somehow he is still more likeable by the far left than PC libshit future King Charles. Honestly the best thing about Charlie becoming king is he'll have to shit up.

Anglos love their beady rulers.

the republican model doesn't work everywhere, sometimes monarchy is objectively better.

The queen is a multi-trillionaire.

British Republicans are the most deluded fucktards on the planet. It couldn't and has never worked here.

Agreed,

Or at the very least call a snap election by denying royal assent being like a motion of no confidence.

I see no problem with the Queen giving a speech about poverty while sitting in her 24k gold Throne. Poverty is like rape, it's a social construct so it isn't real.

She will die on July 4th

>when you live in a shit country and you trash civilized cultures

It didn't work because you cunts were the first to try it since Rome, you were making it up as you went along.

All Brits die a little on 4 July.

How so burger what so special about July 4?

And we ended up reverting back to a monarchy, exactly like Rome, but in a much shorter time period. The Romans were making that shit up by 100 BC anyway.

Actually we eat lardtard food and theres celebrations held at George Washington's grandfathers home every year

>t. Paki

>king of england, northern ireland, wales, and scotland

Wrong desu, we're one united kingdom, not a set of united kingdoms

The whole movies a clusterfuck from what I've been told. That scene is pretty nice though.

imagine being the greatest race, and knowing that you are the greatest race on the earth, you just know you're the best

except there is one slightly better version of you right next door

they are smarter, funnier, more successful, and everybody seems to like them

that's how Germans feel about the British

She'll die this year, when? No one knows but I'm sure she hears the oh so low sound of the reapers blade against the grind stone.

Tbh the British system of government is severely outdated when compared to the system implemented in the colonies. And I dare say the reason the republic fell apart aside from the fact Cromwell wanted to be king in everything but name is because of the rotten boroughs. And these rotten boroughs still plague your government to this very day.

I'm sure you miss pronounce borough to an Aussie it looks like it should be pronounced Boh-rooo-gah not buruh

t. Aussie

But honestly what's so special about 4/7/17?

>didn't vote to let the shitskins in
>She is a mascot
>Figurehead monarchs

How can you people be so brainwashed? She is the real power in the country. Blue pilled normies don't know about the Rothschilds because they stay hidden. But the fucking Queen in her palace? Such overt power and you retards are completely blind.

>doesn't overthrow monarch
>doesn't understand why the monarch is still there

Monarchy is more real than ever today. People who own transnational banks are basically monarchs of this world, and their children inherit their power as well.

What is considered "american food" on July 4th?

Off yourself Chang

I fucking hate people like this, anti-monarchists are worse than Muslims, niggers and commies combined

No argument what so ever towards the British system being out dated. It wasn't adapted in one single document and there was no founding, it was largely just made up on the spot as a reaction to different parliamentary and royal crises.
Burgers, hotdogs, chips, that sort of stuff. I mean all of this is regularly served in Britain, but we put fancy sauce on and wave a few triangular American flags so its lard food.

>Every Nation needs some core device to protect their culture
>In the United Kingdom it's the King or Queen

Not only has your "device" failed, it has completely betrayed you. Your queen is a globalist pedophile that has sold out the country to muslims.

Andrew should be King 2bh

>If it has four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.” Said to a World Wildlife Fund meeting in 1986.

>“Well, you'll never fly in it, you're too fat to be an astronaut!” then later, “You could do with losing a little bit of weight.” To hopeful astronaut, 13-year-old Andrew Adams

>“I don't know how they are going to integrate in places like Glasgow and Sheffield.” After meeting students from Brunei coming to Britain to study in 1998.

>“Ah, so this is feminist corner then.” Joining a group of female Labour MPs, who were wearing name badges reading "Ms", at a Buckingham Palace drinks party in 2000.

>“It looks like the kind of thing my daughter would bring back from her school art lessons” On being shown “primitive” Ethiopian art in 1965.

>"Would I get arrested if I unzipped that dress?", after catching Hannah Jackson, 25, in an eyecatching dress

I will miss him when he gone.

That and a troubling thing I see is the lack of interest in the legislative branch of Republics. They end up focusing on who is the President rather than who actually goes and makes the laws.

With this system all eyes (of the politically illiterate) are on the legislation part of Government during elections. Which results in proper scrutiny during the election period rather than a popularity contest it devolves into in the United States.

Honestly I feel bad for them if you think about it. I dislike the lack of choice they have in who will be King/Queen. Since last time somebody flip flopped out of it caused a crisis that nearly blew up in our faces. Luckily George VI sorted his Monarchy out. Shame the chain smoking did him in.

Monarchies are cheaper to run than Democracies. So much of the taxpayer money in Democracies goes to corruption, bureaucracy, and the salaries of the bloated government employees.

Its not hypocritical for the Queen to give a speech about poverty. Monarchs are supposed to be a symbol of the people and care about the well-being of them.

Elected officials don't really give a damn about the people. GW Bush didn't care a bit about the poor in America- he just sent them to die in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'd like to speak to the Queen and find out her opinion on modern day Britain. I bet deep down inside she knows it's long gone. I think she truly does care but is essentially powerless both through law and old age.

i-is there more?

Actually british monarchs are a net positive for their economy. They get just a fraction of money they would normally do from all the land that belongs to the family. I would be all for richest family over here to pay most of their income back for a privlige of wearing a fancy hat but i doubt they would go for it.

You guess think Prince Charles will try and take her out soon. I mean the guy has been waiting a lifetime for his turn.

>Monarchies are cheaper to run than Democracies. So much of the taxpayer money in Democracies goes to corruption, bureaucracy, and the salaries of the bloated government employees.
>people actually unironically believe this

This is a problem with government, what the fuck do you think "nobles" are exactly? Just unelected bureaucrats sucking up all that money, at least we pick our unelected bureaucrats in a way where some actually competent people get through. Just look at the french revolution or even the tens of thousands of saudi royals sucking MILLIONS individually off the government tit today. If you think this problem comes from democracy you're a mong

No justification for nonces


telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/9584755/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-Prince-Charless-love-for-Saviles-ladies.html

I'm not even anti monarchy your argument was just painfully shit.

I mean besides from ministers which are assigned, and under circumstances where PMs can be assigned as opposed to elected (the US has the same system & has applied it e.g Gerald R. Ford), all officials are elected. The reason monarchs are not elected is hurr durr chosen by God, but more importantly they are meant to be raised for that role from an early age. It's meant to be their identity and in their blood.

...

Is London being rich as fuck any secret?

There's nothing more British than the house of saxe Coburg Gotha

It baffles me how the longest reigning monarch in history who has served as Queen of Britain for almost 3 quarters of a century can be accused of being foreign by inbreds who have done fuck all for Britain because European monarchs in history (and all aristocrats) married their sons/daughters off to other aristocrats.

Threads starting with "well pol?" Should be banned

Ain't broke don't fix it.

For commies in particular, it's not good to good on this route, communists are even worse.

This basicly happened in Norway in WW2. The King refused to recognize the Vidkun Quisling government as legitimate and thus many Norge refused to accept his government as the real government, and looked to Haakon VII as the real government.

I never understood it as well.

Also, the English system seems to make sure that the right member of the family ends up on the throne. That Elizabeth was viewed as highly suitable for the role of queen (and she proven it over decades) was one reason why Edward VIII didn't get much support and was pushed out, and I suspect that Charles might get pushed out in favor of William.

What is this from? This would so awesome if it happened.

Monarchy is preferable to democracy in the long run

Its from the movie King Charles III. Don't watch it. It's not what you think. He's not taking a stand against London being 50%. He isn't removing kebab. It's over some stupid premise where parliament try to pass a bill, King Charles disagrees, refuses it, parliament tries to remove his powers, he disbands parliament (its anti-monarch propaganda), then somehow Kate and William take over and get rid of Charles.

Also Harry's girlfriend is a nigress with a London accent.