Why did bongs keep putting women on the throne? It's almost like they are responsible for feminism

Why did bongs keep putting women on the throne? It's almost like they are responsible for feminism.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because they're retarded.

Becuase only bong royalty could be stuck up their own ass enough to think their queens could rule.

>Why did bongs keep putting women on the throne?
queen bug in the bughive is always a woman

It prevented the civilisation ending shenanigans that happened on the Continent. Same reason why the man who marries a future Queen isn't automatically the King in the UK.

Simple, to stop foreigners from ruling them and it worked.

You can find this out the lazy way by looking at the very first thing wikipedia says. Also props for picking a monarch who held actual authority instead of some House of Windsor mong.

>Succession to the British throne is determined by descent, gender (for people born before October 2011), legitimacy, and religion. Under common law, the Crown is inherited by a sovereign's children or by a childless sovereign's nearest collateral line. The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, restrict succession to the throne to the legitimate Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover that are in "communion with the Church of England".[1] Spouses of Roman Catholics were disqualified from 1689 until the law was amended in 2015. Protestant descendants of those excluded for being Roman Catholics are eligible.

Because they have a matron deity behind their country that emphasizes goddess worship, this has been the main spiritual force in the west for some time and it can clearly be seen by the current social constructs put on society, - trans, lgbt, feminism, hostility towards masculinity, blurring of the genders,

Ever heard of Ishtar, Annana, Columbia and so on?

Your country invented feminism. Your country also elected a nigger Muslim president. Twice.

i agree that the majority of our queens (3/4) have been shit but liz the first was alright.

Your country is literally called Nigger Mountain.

>Nations are feminine because men fuck them
Makes sense

>It prevented the civilisation ending shenanigans that happened on the Continent. Same reason why the man who marries a future Queen isn't automatically the King in the UK.
Typical bong IQ. If you neanderthals didn't enter WWI, Germany would have won the war. Russia wouldn't have had the Bolshevik Revolution (or at least it would have been prolonged.) Germany, obtaining their national aspirations, would have never had the need for the Nazi Party, and there would have been no WWII. The Bongs fucked it up for Western Civilization.

No, it is called Цpнa Гopa memeflag.

3/4?
Lizzie no.1 was shit
Anne was shit
Vickie was alright until Albert died
Lizzie no.2 has been for the most part the only thing holding britain together.

Which would not have happened had your shitty country have been able to fight farmers with no military training, memeflag.

What has the today's queen done to prevent London becoming Londonistan?

>city of london corporation
because the country is a Roman outpost and the throne belongs to the Masonic Jew empire who happen to be satanists that believe they are god, no joke.
Having a women as a leader is a signal that the citizens are completely subdued (eg. Germany)

Are you missing brain cells mate?
>Lizzie no.1 was shit
The only real monarch on your list.
>Anne was shit
Absolutely astounding monarch with the odds against her. She was the last monarch, male or female, to attempt to stand up to parliament by refusing to pass Royal Assent on the Scottish Militia Bill. She became monarch at the absolute worst time to be an English monarch in history and that's when the 'English monarch' became the British Monarch and after a century involving three civil wars, the overthrow of a king and parliament claiming supremacy over the monarch.

>Vickie was alright until Albert died
Useless bitch. Fake monarch. Ceremonial in all aspects.

>Lizzie no.2 has been for the most part the only thing holding britain together.
Same as Vickie although even more useless. Doesn't even ceremonially approve law any more.

Probably all she can the modern monarchy has little to no power in political affairs. The last monarch to veto a bill was queen Anne.

> not to be rule by foreigners!

Current royal family of Windsor:
"The dynasty is of German paternal descent and was originally a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha"

yeah, mate. not ruled by foreigns at all.

>It's almost like they are responsible for feminism.

They are, user. They invented the concept of liberalism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

There's no way you hate the House of Windsor more than I do, but that's the stupidest argument to ever be uttered. It's been common place for royalty to marry other royalty since the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy and was only stopped by Edward VII if I recall correctly when royalty could marry English citizens of any birth.

I may be remembering that completely incorrectly and it could've been Edward VIII even, which would mean this change happened as early as the 30s.

>Your country invented feminism.

No we didn't, you uneducated retard. We were actually late to the game as far as women's suffrage is concerned. We've always been one step behind other Anglo nations as far as liberalism is concerned. All of our Founding Fathers were inspired by Bongs such as John Locke and other British and/or French enlightenment figureheads.

Liberalism in 17th century England was highly centered around limiting the power of monarchs in favour of parliaments. The absolute pinnacle and John Locke's wet dream would've been the American Revolution which made English liberalism of the 17th century look conservative in comparison.

Dumb shit.
The paternal line of both hanover and the saxe coburg and gotha lines were via marriage to a sitting female monarch.
Not foreigners they were born English keeping the father's name is the right thing to do. Philip got screwed

Salic law was best practice desu.

Women inherited when their were no men. Blame the sex determinate parent.

How did that work out for the rest of europe.

>implying I'm retarded for pointing out the fact that you literally invented the concept of liberalism

No one gives a fuck about your retarded semantics. He was the number 1 primary influence on our Founding Fathers.

So women

>implying i'm retarded for pointing out that 17th century English liberalism isn't the same as modern day feminism

Go read John Locke himself, the English civil wars, the overthrow of King James, the Bill of Rights 1689 or even your autistic Revolution which took its roots from people like John Locke. You're insane for thinking its any connection to what you call liberalism today.

Why hating on the house of Windsor which house would you prefer?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

For my uneducated bong friend ITT.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Retard.

Ah, all it takes is a small, mischievous nudge into the spleens of Her Majesty's loyal subjects in order to gaud them into spewing forth edifying and interesting information relevant to the topic. Well done, gentleman and - of course - mea culpa.

>Alternatively, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so. The central assertion of social contract approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but are instead human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means towards an end—the benefit of the individuals involved—and legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement. According to Hobbes (in whose view government is not a party to the original contract) citizens are not obligated to submit to the government when it is too weak to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest. According to other social contract theorists, when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interests of society (called the "general will" in Rousseau), citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey, or change the leadership through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence.

>Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority, and Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in the 19th century in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, and were revived in the 20th century, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls.[3]

>Two queens from the 1500s started feminism
>American education

Elizabeth I was based as fuck. Kys ignorant mutt.

She looks like a fucking demon

No monarch has held any true power since James got overthrown. Anne was the last one to try to do anything and this was after the Bill of Rights 1689 which made it virtually impossible. The House of Windsor did absolutely nothing to prevent it. Victoria sped it up by stopping the signing of Royal Assent, which was ceremonially by that point anyway, but they're just so fucking useless.

The irony is Liz probably holds more authority in Australia than in the UK just based off the fact her Governor Generals have some actual say in things. But even they act mostly independently.

What point are you trying to prove? Are you just trying to show you know this stuff?

>Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority, and Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in the 19th century in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, and were revived in the 20th century, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls.[3]

>What point are you trying to prove? Are you just trying to show you know this stuff?

That we took our cues from you, dipshit retard.

Feminism arose from Marxism, a German invention. And the most radical contemporary feminism is espoused on US college campuses

All of it has its roots in social contract theory.

America is a nation of bugmen. No history, no souls, no culture.

No shit. I said that word for word above there. Seriously, go read about Cromwell or the Roundheads during the English Civil War. They all make Locke's ideas on state look conservative.

The American Revolution was unprecedented though.

Naturally. Henry VIII was a giant in this regard.

No it doesn't. Social contract theory is just a theory.

Female Monarch power rankings

Undisputed no. 1:

Elizabeth I

2. Elizabeth II
3. Mary II
4. Anne
5. Victoria

*POWER GAP*

8999. Matilda
9000. Mary I

You forgot Lady Jane Grey at No. 9999999999

Wars of succession only broke out when salic law began to be abandoned and there was no male heirs left.

Natural rights superseding government control over the individual is as liberal as it gets, user. All this MUH FREEDOMZ bullshit that Europeans like to troll Americans was all inspired by that shit. You know this, too. Just man up and admit that you guys invented liberalism and were basically responsible for feminism later on when women wanted their muh freedoms and muh rights, too.

queens were figureheads for male coalitions.

Every "good" queen had a good man beside her making the decisions.

These queens didn't lead men into battle but men related to her or her husband did. She was backed by warriors... Shogun tier dudes.

We are in agreement then

t. retarded teenager

the Bolsheviks would have still taken over because the mass unrest of continued serfdom was still present. also the British impact on ww1 is negligible enough that it wouldn't have turned the tide as much as to let Germany win

>that Europeans like to troll Americans was all inspired by that shit.
Fuck off you mong. The French were trying to achieve what the English achieved in the 13th century all the way into the 18th century in regards to their monarch. If you can really call it an "achievement".

No one on here is denying 17th century English liberalism was a thing. American republicanism dwarfs even Cromwell though. As I said, it's Locke's wet dream.

>hurrr in my alternate history you shouldve bent over like cucks and betrayed your allies, then everything wouldve been fine!

How old are you?

Markle is really one of the final nails in their coffin. She seems to be being set up as the Diana of non-whites, rather than the more general working class. It's yet another assault on hierarchy.

>also the British impact on ww1 is negligible enough that it wouldn't have turned the tide as much as to let Germany win

I don't agree with the alternate history meme child but this is false

Mate Victoria would rek you and conquer your lands before she even had her morning tea. One of the best monarchs we've had.

Henry the 5th still my fav, spent his childhood killing lazy welsh then graduated to frogys

Let it all burn.

>Mate Victoria would rek you and conquer your lands before she even had her morning tea. One of the best monarchs we've had.
Bahahahaha. The woman who ruled 2 centuries into parliaments supreme reign would've conquered land?

You mean she would've ceremonially approved a bill already passed by parliament, that would pass with or without her approval and the Royal Navy would do the rest.

wasnt diana spencer a descendant of the stuarts?

I don't believe so. The Spencer family have aristocratic claims back to the 14th century though and right up until Churchill and Diana herself.

It's too bad his son was schizo, I liked the Plantagenets the best.

Nah gov. Gen. Is more ceremonial than the queen. Cunt holds no real power at all. I mean at least the queen is still the fucking queen the gov. General is more like the guy that pops his head in and say sorry the queen couldn't make it today. Fuck in the Senate the queen has never sat in her fucking throne. And the gov. Gen gets a plastic foldout in comparison.

I know shamefully little about what Governor Generals do. I'm just basing that off the 1975 constitutional crisis in Australia. All I know is Liz does fuck all.

>"James VII/II had six known illegitimate children. Four of these children were the offspring of Arabella Churchill, herself an ancestral aunt of the Spencers, and the other two were the children of Catherine Sedley. Of these six, Arabella Churchill’s daughter Henrietta Fitzjames became the wife of Henry Waldegrave, and their descendant Adelaide Seymour became the wife of the 4th Earl Spencer."
apparently she was

Good find. I didn't know that.

Yea the position took a hit after Kerr sacked whitlam.
The changed the rules and attempted to limit the power of the position. Constitution was changed after that limiting the power of the gov general.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Basically sums up the last 400 years of British history.

post your queenfu

You're stupid if you think it doesn't have a connection. Look at Mill for starters.

There Americans wouldn't have entered either. Face the music - England made a mistake. Furthermore, because of your intervention in WWI and the iminite WWII that followed, you destroyed your own Empire. Quit sad.

I'm 22 and very well read. I actually came on to this piece of alternative history in reading CoC. Unsure where exactly but I'm pretty sure it was in the prologue.

Go and read my posts again. I was the first to say there's a connection. You couldn't research 17th century England for five minutes without noticing some connection, especially when you look at the Bill of Rights. All I've claimed is that American republicanism dwarfs English liberalism.

I mean if we're calling John Locke's ideas on state 'liberal' then the Roundheads probably take the lead, or the parliamentarians in the glorious revolution and even they were constitutional monarchists.

The 17th century was a mistake.

Well aside from living on other sides of the globe were essentially the same culturally and politically. Things might've been different if we had a revolution like the yanks. But I hate the idea of a president, it has no grandeur no pomp no circumstance and just sounds dirty.

So was Canada. But we can't go back in time to fix it.

Australia was settled under better circumstances than the thirteen colonies were and also a lot closer in time which just makes you sand anglos. Thank heavens there was no revolution though this was long after the fuckery of the 17th and 18th century.

They take after their mother country then.

It was laying the foundations before shit got real in the 18th.

Is that somewhere in Lancashire? Looks comfy mate

I think it was Yorkshire. I can't find the original pic though.

Red rose would suggest Lancashire.

It's a Tudor rose.