Nothing thread

Itt, people who do nothing.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Don't pish and shite on me with your Ruskie whores Comrade!

Oi! You think you're being funny shit postin' about our lovely Queen? Not cricket!

>Posting in do nothing thread because literally doing nothing.

God damnnit, not you again!

...

If drinking the blood of children is nothing.

There's a very logical reason for that. In 1689, in the immediate aftermath of the Glorious Revolution after the overthrow of the Catholic king King James II, a decree was passed by parliament in which they invited William III and Mary II, with ties to the English throne, to ""rule"" together (as puppets). They were forced to abide by the Bill of Rights 1689, which re-asserted certain rights and liberties that had been violated by King James II, but also limited the monarchs power massively. This is (along with the English Civil War 60 years earlier) the event in which parliament gained supremacy over the Crown (illegally). The Act of Settlement passed in 1701, 11 years later, eroded the Crown's powers further.

It was a slow process but we see the start of it in 1707 when Queen Anne attempted to refuse Royal Assent on the Scottish Militia Bill (Royal Assent = approval for law). This was met with outrage and threats from parliament, until eventually she caved in and passed Royal Assent. This was the final time in English history a monarch attempt to assert real political authority. The decline starts here at the beginning of the 18th century and ends with Queen Victoria, the first monarch to enter the Crown knowing she'd have no real political power.

Thus now, we have a monarch whose legal powers would theoretically allow her to dissolve parliament, fire the Prime Minister and rule independently, almost as a Dictator, but in reality if she even attempted to refuse Royal Assent, the Monarchy would likely end up dissolved (illegally, again).

...

Oh and I should mention, this is probably one of the reasons the UK is in shambles. The entire political system in Britain is what was referred to by Enlightenment era political philosophers as a "balanced constitution" in which all assemblies and offices check each others power. No monarch can rule through absolute terms (the last attempt was Charles' "12-Year Tyranny") and no parliament can assume absolute power for its self.

Only the latter is exactly what happened, since the Monarch is literally unable to refuse the will of parliament, thus we have an assembly which governs the UK without any logical restraints on their power that weren't thought up by themselves.

Like I said, in law, the Queen could make herself a dictator (theoretically). But in practice, even voicing her opinion on a controversial matter would further erode what little influence the Crown has left.

Why do we even need monarchies? Fuck'em all.... I miss our old king tho. He was the absolute coolest. That dude used to take the buss around Oslo and walk his dog in public and everybody loved the guy.

Oh how my country has changed since he died..

Pic of him taking the Oslo tube to Tryvann to go skiing with random people.

RIP the people's king

...

>Why do we even need monarchies?
Because it's the most natural form of rule to humans. Ignore politics. Almost everything, from companies to sport teams to the military to even social relationships amongst humans, are structured monarchically. The way in which Republican democracy is structured (the form of democracy every country today follows, not Greek democracy which went extinct 2000 years ago) is structured monarchically. Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the world.

There are individual cases. The British monarchy is unique in its history to say, the Spanish monarchy and there is not a chance in hell I'd let a, for example, anti-monarchist Spaniard influence opinion on the British monarchy. They're all massively different.

...

Let's say that the Queen did tell everyone to fuck off and wanted to rule. What would happen?

Don't the military swear allegiance to her, and therefore be on her side? Don't the British public like her too?

I can actually see this happen.

She isn't even the genuine monarch

LORD GRANT THAT MARSHALL WADE
MAY BY THY MIGHT AID
VICTORY BRING
MAY HE SEDITION HUSH
AND LIKE A TORRENT RUSH
REBELLIOUS YANKS TO CRUSH
GOD SAGE THIS THREAD

She drives tourism to the UK.

She does charity as well.

King Charles III storms Commons. Roundheads get out, REEEEEE!

youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo

>Let's say that the Queen did tell everyone to fuck off and wanted to rule.
I'm not so sure. It's legal, technically, but so was Queen Anne refusing Royal Assent 300 years ago and this was met with outrage. I think the monarch would be dissolved in an instance.

>Don't the military swear allegiance to her, and therefore be on her side?
They DO swear allegiance to her but symbolically. I was in the RLC for 6 years, I'm by no means a military expert, but most soldiers I've met swear allegiance to cheap alcohol and amphetamine.

>Don't the British public like her too?
They certainly do, she has very high approval ratings, but they like her as she is. If you asked whether they like Queen Elizabeth II the figurehead or Queen Elizabeth II the Dictator, that would be very different.

I honestly don't know. Your guess is as good as mine. Like I said, her dissolving parliament and not summoning it, therefore governing herself, is 100% legal but would it ever happen? 99.9% not. And if it did, it wouldn't end well.

>She isn't even the genuine monarch
How did you work this out?
Who fucking cares about tourism? The Monarch is the MOST important role in the history of Britain. It's the most essential part of our constitutional system. Her roles being overshadowed has led to a constitutional crisis that has lasted for over 2 centuries.

Tourism and charity is essentially nothing.

underrated

weed was promised to be legalized 3 years ago.

Weed is lega in Canada

the only thing this cunt does is spend my tax money

Yeah because you're ignorant to your own history and don't know why that is, why the monarch is important and any form of English political theory.

>monarchy
>2017
lul kys cuck

>literally "the current year as an argument"
>using the word cuck
Fuck off you 13 year old edgelord.

You aren't worthy of a seperate response. Read what I said here > Almost everything, from companies to sport teams to the military to even social relationships amongst humans, are structured monarchically. The way in which Republican democracy is structured (the form of democracy every country today follows, not Greek democracy which went extinct 2000 years ago) is structured monarchically. Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the world.