Monarchism

1. Country
2. Monarchist or republican

Other urls found in this thread:

koninklijkhuis.nl/documenten/toespraken/2015/12/25/kersttoespraak-van-zijne-majesteit-de-koning-25-december-2015
nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Jan_de_Geer
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Republicans here are almost exclusively edgy separatists, so definitely monarchist

My very state is the birthplace of republicanism in this country, so definitely republican.

1. Netherlands
2. Monarchist.
I'd rather want to have a monarch as head of state who is born in his function than a president who hasn't experienced the faults of his predecessor.

1. Flag
2. Monarchist

The King is another check in our democracy. He can keep (other) dictators from grabbing power. He's also a stable factor in our democracy and can advice leaders that come and go. He has proven to be a good diplomat. Plus he's a symbol of national unity.

I'm not against republics. But the current system works well. So no need to break it.

Why did France have Saint-Michel on her Standard?

I'm a monarchist but hate our current royal family

...

1. Canada
2. Monarchy

Republicanism, obviously.
The head of a republic (with republics taking on a wide variety of forms) is generally selected on his merits. A monarch is selected on the merit of a long dead ancestor, that's not guaranteed to have been passed on to himself.

>I'm a monarchist but hate our current royal family
This is exactly the problem with monarchism: it only works out if you like the king. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a process to select a king, and to boot him out of office if it turns out he's worse than he appeared at first glance?

1. US
2. The US has built itself up based on Republicanism, and as such Monarchists are pretty much non-existent.

>boot him out of office if it turns out he's worse than he appeared at first glance?
Wouldn't be the first time lol

We have the most based king ever. How can you hate him?

1. Norway
2. Monarchist, I prefer a political neutral head of state

Saint-Michel was the holy patron of France until 1638 when Mary became the patroness of France under Louis XIII during the famous "Vow of Louis XIII" (pic related).
What you see on the standard is the Order of Saint Michael, a chivalric order founded by Louis XI in the XVth century

Republican

1. Sbain
2. Monarchist
i like the idea of the republic but my problem here is that much of the pro-republic spaniards are communist, separatist or people butthurt by the civil war and most of them will call me facha.

2. Republican, but with strong opinions on how we should select our head of state and what their function should be
Disagreements about what our President/G-G would look like and how we would select them are the main reason why we didn't become a republic in 1999.

1.Flag
2.Republican

Your monarchy has a reason for existing and that is for licking up falangist tears

Because he is a traitorous cuck

1. flag
2. Monarchist

God save the Queen, niggers

Is it bad that I actually like Louis XI? I have heard he hasn't been the best king of France...

>Is it bad that I actually like Louis XI?
Nigger, you'd better have switched that I and X around on accident.

Well, I like him too. He was count of Artois at the same time when my family lived in Artois;-)

>Is it bad that I actually like Louis XI?
What ? Of course not. He was a very good king, I really like him too

>I have heard he hasn't been the best king of France...
Maybe not the best but he was definitely very competent. He was hated though because he had a lot of ennemies (a bit like Richelieu or Mazarin later)

Canada
Monarchist

Faggot

Calm down Ahmed, do you know the story about the horse born in the stable ?

French sycophants...my apologies, monachists... try to depict the revolution as a big mistake that tragically reversed everything and destroyed the monarchy. Of course, to push this narrative, they have to disregard the fact that France gave the Bourbons THREE chances to get their shit together, and THREE times they fucked up.

The first time was 1789. The bourgeois was sick of the nobility's shit, stormed the Bastille, de facto abolished the nobility and invoked a 'one man one vote' system that made all equal before the law, as well as drafting a constitution that still gave considerable power to the king. The king did not like this and fled to Austria to ask his father-in-law to invade his own fucking country. The flight to Varennes combined with the documents of the armoire de fer, is why Louis XVI had to pay with his life.

But did this end the monarchy for good? No. After Napoleon the Bourbons were restored to power, but under the 1815 constitution that attempted to appeal to republicans and bonaparts alike (through liberal reforms and keeping most of the meritocratic Napoleonic elite in power). All was well.. until Charles X fucked up by ripping that constitution in two and demanding a return to the pre-Bastille situation.

Then came Louis-Philippe, the son of Philippe Égalité. He reintroduced the tricolore, brought Napoleon's corpse back to France and declared himself "citizen king", not crowned but inaugurated by the grace of the Constitution. What could possibly go wrong? Ever read Les Misérables? A lot can go wrong, that's fucking what.

But wait, there's more! Unbeknowst to most the Bourbons got a FOURTH chance to "right the wrongs". After 1871 and the fall of the Second Empire, the provisional government offered the Comte de Chambord the crown of France. He refused because he didn't want the tricolore. Even a compromise to make the flag of the monarchy his personal standard was rejected. He refused the crown OVER A FUCKING FLAG.

>tfw, I love the Comte de Chambord now!

Just a nice pic of our king to keep this thread alive;-)

>The Netherlands has been a republic ever since its founding
>The British plant a puppet king here as part of the reactionary Concert of Europe
>Willem I the tyrant ensures Belgian independence through anti-enlightened, anti-Catholic and francophobic policies
>He also keeps the Netherlands from industrializing, allowing us to fall behind FUCKING BELGIUM
>In 1848 the monarchy has its wings clipped
>Prince Claus' dubious ties to Nazi Germany almost destroyed the Dutch monarchy... almost
>There are cucks in this country who celebrate this monarchy that's both unneccessary and ineffective
>Especially with the moron in charge right now

good post

i prefer monarchy but seeing how monarchs are these days makes me say republic, what kind of a king lets his country go to ruin like belgium, sweden and the uk? Aren't kings basically life time presidents? Maybe it's my ignorance but has the king of sweden ever addressed the issue of rape and migrant violence? the same for the belgium king?

1. USA
2. Republican. There hasn't really been any monarchist sentiment in America since Washington rejected the crown.

With the obvious exception of his imperial majesty Joshua Abraham Norton the first, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico.

Monarchists are massive faggots
BOW TO THE KING XD

>the same for the belgium king?
The only thing I remember is that the Belgian king (being deeply Catholic) refused to sign an abortion law some years ago (meaning it technically couldn't become law). He signs every law because he doesn't really have a choice, but he refused to sign that one due to religious convictions. A law backed by the majority of the people's representatives in a supposed democracy wouldn't fly well, so I think the constitution was temporarily lifted so the law could pass without the kings autograph.

That's as far as the king went to defend his country's values. Molenbeek being an Islamic settlement doesn't interest him.

And then there's our king, the one cucks love to elevate like he's some kind of god-emperor. His reaction to what happened in Paris in his Christmas speech? Some vague whining about religious freedom and solidarity.
koninklijkhuis.nl/documenten/toespraken/2015/12/25/kersttoespraak-van-zijne-majesteit-de-koning-25-december-2015

As for Lizzie, she was vocally in favor of Brexit (perhaps a factor in why the "leave" camp won, if she says "jump" the British 'citizens' ask "how high?") but not a word about London no longer being a British city.

1. flag
2. Absolute monarchy

that only makes think more about how royalty is a waste of money as of now, kings should be more vocal, its like they know they could drop at any time so they just play it cool so everyone forgets them except on their birthday, which I assume it's the national day or something.

Best island colony. Much prettier than Iceland
Historically countries have revolted against their kings and picked a dane to rule them. Especially common in Scandinavia but it has happened other places.
Best ally

flag
Monarchist for at the very least the next generation (too soon to say anything about our Crown Prince's firstborn).

It always makes me sad that they put all that republican tradition to waste

Well, if they lose enough of it, they can switch to republican dictatorship for those sick morale bonuses.

nice reference my friend

Isn't it funny how France's greatest successes are under a monarchy and some of the worst failures are as a republic?
>be monarchy and/or empire
>Louis XIV's based absolutism
>Napoléon conquest of Europe
>Napoléon II regaining stability
>be republic
>create revolution that's completely hypocritical
>send populace into mass poverty
>silence dissent through mass murder
>bring political instability
>surrender to Germany
>import millions of migrants

They're just le born in wrong generashun supreme gentlemen

>create revolution that's completely hypocritical
Care to explain?

>send populace into mass poverty
You know that some of the greatest famines France has ever seen were under Louis XIV, right?

>silence dissent through mass murder
This never happened in monarchies, of course.
Also
>"Dissent"
>Not literal royalist uprisings like in the Vendée, Lyon (or was it Dijon?) and Toulon

>bring political instability
And yet (as I described earlier) the monarchy never regained its footing after the revolution (with the exception of the bonapartes, who were closer to Roman style dictators than Ancien Regime monarchs) while the Third and Fifth republics were/are lasting

>surrender to Germany
>I've never heard of WW1
>I don't know of Père Victoire

>import millions of migrants
Because the Bourbons would totally prevent that. Did you google translate the Dutch king's speech I posted earlier? Or what about our beloved queen, who ten years ago stated that the "real Dutchman" doesn't exist, and that Dutch culture is giving guests only one cookie with their coffee?

It's funny how a selective reading of history yields selective results.

>5th republic

Il y a n'est la république, c'est l'1st califat de france.

Because the monarchy helped so well, right? London and Rotterdam are less white than the Greater Paris Area, and Molenbeek (Belgium) is pretty much the breeding ground where all 'French' islamists come from. Yeah, those monarchs sure did us a favor!

The Kingdom of the Swedes
Monarchist, of course. I'm neither retarded nor a traitor.

Isn't it funny how Americans love to rewrite history?

You only say the failure of the republics.

WW1 was under the third French republic, for example.
Well, what should we expect from the USA?

Good post

France got fucking trounced in WWI despite being on the defencive in a defence-favouring war and having the brits to back them up against the Germans who were also fighting Russia. An odd choice to bring that up as a pro-republican argument.

>France got fucking trounced in WWI
It got "trounced" from the start of the war until the Marne, which was the moment Von Moltke declared the war lost.

USA, Monarchist.

And after that point they still lost something like three men for every two German casualties they caused.

What is even your point? "Muh k/d ratio" like it's some fucking counterstrike game?

Canada

Monarchist

I hate the American and French Revolutions with a passion.

My point is that the republican forces sucked ass compared to the royalist forces they faced.

Yeah, those royalist forces were so great at keeping the country together. And don't even get me started on the anachronisms that were Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire, none of which survived WW1.

>The war that saw the end of Europe's reactionary empires somehow proves the value of reactionary ideology
>inb4 "b-but Germany would've won if [radical change to history that would've ended out in Germany's favor]"
Yeah, and [nation] would've won [conflict it lost hard] if [radical change to history that favors [nation] severely] too. Perhaps that proves monarchies are shit at diplomacy? And considering war is just diplomacy through force of arms...

Well Bernadotte is his ancester so I guess it just runs in the family.

Apathetic at this point. Tyrants should all die no matter the label.

Monarchism but only under her rule

Please kill yourself, folkförrädare.

>retaining the monarchy
>reactionary ideology

Except that monarchism wasn't reactionary in most of Europe during WW1.

Reactionaries wish to return to the status quo ante. Monarchism was the status quo back then. WW1 is what ended monarchism, isn't a war fought 'for it'.

un-American trash

>un-American
That's pretty high praise for someone you go on to call "trash".

1. Flag
2. Republican
But it's such a non-issue here that I don't really care one way or the other. Though given the choice I'd pick republic over monarchy.

I wish they would execute the republican edgelords.

>I wish they would execute the republican edgelords.

>meanwhile in republicanland
>can't make a decision about anything ever due to petty regionalism as there is no national unity
>the writers of the American constitution use the Dutch republic as an example how things should NOT be done
>spend decades on silly quests like destroying france (geeh that worked out well)
>during WW2 our ministers didn't even want to defend our country and churchil said our queen was more of a man then all of the rest combined

>Queen Wilhelmina enjoyed esteem and respect from the Allies. Sir Winston Churchill on one occasion referred to her as 'the only true man in the Dutch Government'.
top koek

Flagg
Monarchism

Lenge leve kongen

You know one of our ministers defected during WW2.

1. Flag
2. Doesn't matter, we will get fucked over either way

In WW2 our elected Prime Minister had been convicted for dessertion. And replaced by someone else.

nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Jan_de_Geer

I'd pick a King over that any day of the week.

Before the war he refused to build up a proper military.
During the war he refused to go to Indonesia to ask for military aid.
Then instructed the people on how to cooperate with the Germans.
Then he went to Nazi occupied Netherlands supporting the Nazi's.

>Queen Wilhelmina enjoyed esteem and respect from the Allies. Sir Winston Churchill on one occasion referred to her as 'the only true man in the Dutch Government'.
And yet, unlike the king of Denmark, she wasn't man enough to stick around with her people.

It's not hard to be manly when you can say everything and your ministers, not you, are responsible for all the dumb shit you pull.

>convicted
You can't do that with a monarch, who's constitutionally infallible. Imagine the monarch having total control, or even any kind of power, and pulling retarded shit (s)he can't even be held responsible for. Welcome to the reality of a monarchy.

UK
Monarchist
Our Liz is a good lass, Charles will be a bit of a dick and I hope he immediately abdicates or at least abdicates within a decade, Will & Kate will be good

The main role of the King is to watch over the ministers.
WW2 showed that pretty clearly. By removing unfit ministers in a time when the parliament was unable to do so.

>be norway
>finally be free after hundreds of years of danish and swedish oppression
>begs danish price related to the swedish king to become king of norway