What does Jow Forums think of constitutional monarchy?

what does Jow Forums think of constitutional monarchy?
I think it's great

Attached: vuh kween and her shag.jpg (940x1406, 614K)

>what does Jow Forums think of constitutional monarchy?
only tolerable if I get to be part of the upper echelon of the ruling class

Attached: 1568512329111.png (1010x1200, 793K)

Of YOUR constitutional "monarchy"? Its a fucking joke. The queen and lords have no power whatsoever and just piss away money for tourisms sake. Meanwhile the UK is run by people who have no business being in the UK in the first place.
Im Polish. I like the concept of elected kings. We should bring that back. Along with a patrician/plebian system.

We've got a frenchman as king and a german as queen who do nothing but talk horseshit, eat taxes and get talked about incessantly whenever one of them gives birth, has a birthday or dies. Were they at least swedes I might be okay with keeping them around, but right now they're just a waste of time and resources. Then again, money spent on the royal family is money not spent on feeding niggers, so maybe they do serve one purpose at least.

Well it's just a decorative thing

>what does Jow Forums think of constitutional monarchy?
once upon a time it worked, but that was before jews infiltrated my homeland

>it's great
Dude, London.

> constitutional

Better than a republic or democracy, but not by much.

Ginger cunt and nog wife. Yeah great.

lol. Old farts thank the plebs for their tax money. And remember: It's God's will.

Cromwell did nothing wrong.

Which one?

Ah yes, because your royality has so much to say.

Attached: 1533550619898.jpg (830x594, 67K)

I used to look up to him. She's turned him into a right woofter with all this eco rubbish and such.

Attached: 1453749692798.jpg (252x255, 21K)

any new pictures of the little mongrel?

Constitutional Monarchism is a meme. Either the monarch is the ruler of the country and it's a monarchy or he's not and it's something else.

The only form of governance that can work.

Attached: 1568993430702.jpg (1000x1000, 237K)

Your King should be elected like popes: only by a unanimous vote by the House of Lords. That would keep your country from stagnating. Otherwise, it’s a pretty good system.

Oh yeah? Ever live in one?

Looks Satanic.

theyre actually look past each other, charles is not 5"5. he's standing about a meter behind him in perspective and he's pointing at something behind charles

only good when the monarch actually acts
also, monarchies should only be in agnatic succession

Attached: file.png (773x1034, 2.25M)

>It's God's will.
well, considering how monarchies always prosper and democracies are always theft-systems, we can easily conclude what system is the one God stands behind.

Gay. Not even their wifes are fuckable. Who wants to be associated with this degenerate inbred pleb?

Literally the fucking same as a democracy. Pic related looks very freemason.


Attached: guard.jpg (600x450, 95K)

Kek, you're right muhammad. Haha

>Well it's just a decorative thing

Just like democracy in Russia

>their heads are about the same size
>Evelyn de Rothschild is 6 ft 2 (1.88m)
>Evelyn's finger is partly behind Charles' jacket
>Charles' tie seems to be dent at exactly the spot where Evelyn's finger is
No, that photo is exactly what it looks like. Charles is definitely not standing a meter further away from the camera than Evelyn does.

Enjoy your future king when he marries a muslim male refugee in 2042.

Attached: file.png (590x1000, 1.06M)

yes mocking a child

id expect no less from a hosted kike

no its not your dumb cunt
its been reposted a million times you fucking nonce

Aren't you sad the red army won and raped your country mercilessly? I belive the world of today would have been a better one if the whites would have won.

If they actually prospered they would be the most common regime these days. Wilhelm not only started WWI (no, it was not some poorfag shooter in Austria) he also laid down the precursor events to WW2. Thats how hard they fuck up.

How has Britain faired in the last 100 years?
Have they got more or less powerful?

>german as queen
Half german and half brazilian.
Her father was pretty based though, a propper Nazi.

>Enjoy your future king when he marries a muslim male refugee in 2042.
I think I will enjoy that, when I'm his husband.

>If they actually prospered they would be the most common regime these days
Yes, because as we know prosperity lasts forever
You can try replying to me after you raise your IQ points by at least 10 points

It’s something that only works if it’s already there. You can’t create it out of nothing, but it is nice when they are figureheads that symbolize the nation without the power to fuck shit up for personal gain.

arent you sad your people abandoned the Kaiser?

I think you live in a fantasy world

If your the King I imagine its pretty fucking awesome.

>proper nazi
>fathers a child with a brazilian
So she is a mongrel, and her children too. What a clusterfuck.

In a monarchy there is no way to evade responsibility. There is no press to influence change through democracy or votes.
If something goes wrong, you know exactly who is responsible for it. The enemy will be known to all

What are you a cuck?

Attached: Kaiserreich best reich.jpg (759x1148, 133K)

Her mothers family was portuguese, who lived in Brazil.
But yeah, our royal famliy is a clusterfuck.
Jean Baptiste Bernadotte is still regarded as a traitor in France, he also was a tattooed degenerate, one tattoo was "death to kings".

Of course I am.
Would things have gone a little bit differently and there was a peace with honor for all sides in WW1 the world would look different today.
Monarchy would have proven that it wasn't compleately obsolete yet and could stand on its own. A germany with kaiser also would have not let the red army win since all nobility was already related enough and such a revolt was of course also a danger for nobility in other countries, so whites would have gotten more support. No communism and all the proxy wars from them, no red china shit and so on.
Things would have looked differently in the colonies and protectorates all around the world and I can imagine there would be less tenseions as there are today, especially in the middle east. Japen and germany might have squabbled a bit over the pacific islands, but frmo what I can gather both countires respected each other before the war so I think it would not have been very serious.

All in all things owuld have been better I guess.

Attached: 1551818172145.jpg (753x707, 331K)

>he queen and lords have no power whatsoever and just piss away money for tourisms sake
(and thats a good thing)
London would not be much better off if we were a republic
he's 6th in line, not a big deal
thats the magic of constitution monarchy. It works in practice but not in theory.
that's completely out of the Monarch's control. s/he can't just magically make the USA or Germany less powerful

Lmao you all see the jesuit cross they wear? It's so funny that pol ignores this but is always saying DA JOOOS.

Attached: The vatican trinity.jpg (728x964, 210K)

Absolute (including Absolute monarchs with constitutions) is better

Still the most stylish head of state with the most tradition

Fascism also has plenty going for it

Attached: 1544686851558.jpg (869x1024, 174K)

> common regime
You do know its a one way ticket once you removed monarchy.

I have personal and irrepressible loyalty to the Queen of Canada, but I must say it no longer gives me pride to know that she is also the British monarch.

Yeah, let's all import Germans to rule over us and pretend that they are a fairy tale princess. At least get an English family, or a Scottish or Welch for that matter. The presidents of the United States have a better claim to the throne than your lot.

Rewarding the living for the deeds of the dead is death worship

You can see Rothschild's finger clearly disappearing behind The Transylvanian prince's lapel.

Agree. Constitutional monarchy is a very stable form of democracy. The wise monarch exercises power only to sack a dud government and then there are only limited reasons to sack the government. Much better system than a republic with an executive president - too much power in one pair of hands.

>Cromwell did nothing wrong.
t. Hates the sound of children laughing.

It's absolutely horrible

>The queen and lords have no power w
Wrong. They just don't use the power.

What do Kings actually do to get all those medals? Modern Kings haven't set foot on a battlefield since the 1800s.

puppets, them and you. It's really a shame being a subject in the XXI century

medals do not equal battlefield, my mutt friend
you can get a medal for anything

Double checked.
>the unwritten constitution says the can't wield their inherited power

So in the King's case nothing really valuable outside of being a king. Awesome. I love praising people's cult of personality for not actually achieving anything.

I'd be down for a non-hereditary dictatorship or an oligarchic council of uberchads, but plain old hereditary monarchies are lame.

>The queen and lords have no power

Complete myth. They just stopped using it around the 18th century when republicanism spread through Europe and threatened their position. Their rights have been pretty much the same since the 1600s.

>mass migration, divorce, single parent families, rape gangs, faggot marriage, moral collapse
She sleep.
>Scotland toys with the idea of leaving the UK

Then it's even more embarrassing for them that they haven't lifted a finger to stop Britain from turning into the meme island it is today.

>So in the King's case nothing really valuable outside of being a king
Yea, they are just the leader and most important and revered figure in the country

And what did they do to get there? Just existing?

Exactly. She does have power and public support to wield it. And yet, at every important juncture in history, she's actually sided with those who have destroyed us, or let them do what they wish as long as they don't take away her money or land. She could have not signed the race acts or the commonwealth migration acts in the 50s and 60s, thus preventing the rape of our her subjects 30 years later, but did nothing. She could have no signed the faggot marriage bill. She could have not signed all thos equality acts. But she did, and in many cases, agreed with them.

She is the worst monarch we have ever had, with the best public relations team. A cancer, truly terrible.

I didn't ask if the nations around the world are more or less powerful.
I asked if Britain is more or less powerful than it was 100 years ago.

>And what did they do to get there?
They shape the history and culture just by existing, the King represents our people more than anything else.
If they were nobodies, they would never have become kings in the first place.

>a non-hereditary dictatorship or an oligarchic council of uberchads,
That's called a technocracy and it's the evil plan that's being put into place currently.

What's the point of having a constitution when your Queen can disband it whenever she wants. You understand the only purpose of Parliament is to do the Queens job so she can sit around and do nothing, right? She disbanded Parliament last week because they're not doing their job efficiently. There will come a time when one of her Heirs, probably Charles, will reestablish Royal rule, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Britain is not and has not been a Constitutional Monarchy in years.

It is supposed to work thus.
Power is split three ways and two of the three groups must agree to get anything done.
The Lords(Corporate elite, CEOs, business owning men in non-feudal world) desire prosperity at all costs.
The Commons(working class, people who work in shops, factories, construction or own small artisan businesses) desire stability at all costs, stability meaning they have enough for a comfortable life.
It is in the Monarch's best interest to want both stability and prosperity. If they do not keep the Commons happy they risk revolution; if they do not allow the Lords to maintain and grow their wealth they will simply see them leave for more accomodating foreign shores - which diminishes their wealth and power. Thus they help strike a balance by keeping the nation relatively prosperous, but not so much that the commons are enslaved; and relatively comfortable with plenty, but not so much that it destroys businesses like welfare states do.

Britain has not been this for a long, long, long time. The Monarch has no power in modern Britain. The Lords have little power. The Commons are also Lords and have all the power. Britain is ruled by Lords, AKA its an oligarchy.

It's not unwritten, and they can wield it. They just don't, due to other clauses in the constitution. Clauses which should have been done away with over a century ago.

They indicate rank mostly. Only the (previous) active service members like the Windsors have meritorious ones.

Because they can't. They have plenty of executive power, but it's predicated on support. And right now, support it automatically perceived to be with the ""elected"" (((parliament))).

gosh i love tanya so much

How so? Any nobody could become king by just having the right father. Meanwhile a soldier under a king has to go through hell and eat dirt to get ten percent of the medals some larpy monarch gets for just breathing. It's not a good representative of a people to reward certain people for doing nothing outside of existing. Second Reich was a big gay, Third Reich is where it was at.

She's the last decent monarch, once she's dead we should move on and get rid of the parasitic cunts

The power of nations is always relative to other nations
Modern Britain would BTFO 1880 Britain in a war but that doesn't mean anything. Modern Britain is less powerful because other countries like America, China and Germany are way more powerful than they used to be and Britain got pushed to the side.

Okay, still no excuse for sitting on their money while Muhammad globalhomo and the loicense officer are a walking free just outside of their gated estate.

>Any nobody could become king by just having the right father.
Then they're not a nobody, are they? They're someone who has the most invested in their nation, and are best prepared to govern it.
>Third Reich is where it was at.
Yea? How'd that work out? Is it still going strong?

How is it not? The people chose that fate.

Don't forget, she inherited an empire, not a country. The last Czar of Russia was the lesson they needed to hide their power level behind a facade of democracy.

Attached: image.jpg (548x1024, 134K)

>Any nobody could become king by just having the right father
Look how deranged your worldview is
This is literal commie arguments
you and your father are one, you don't happen to be someone's son by chance
you are the fate of your father's existence
everything he has built he gives to his children
and this is the monarchical principle, because the monarchy is what your father built when he was a king, and if he hadn't given his life for that purpose someone else would be the king of the land.

Its fake monarchy in my opinion.
Only viable monarchy is an absolute monarchy, everything else is communism / leftist ideologies.

there are good monarchs and bad monarchs, but there is only bad democracies, because democracy is an evil form of government itself. A king get things done and try his best to make the country better. Hell even evil monarchs still wanted to make his country a global superpower. In democracy the rulers make an active effort to fuck up the country by bringing brown people and letting the banks rules us all if that means they can get a good life in the political elite

Spanyardbro gets it

>Any nobody could become king
Sometimes for the best.

Attached: image.jpg (900x900, 169K)

Well relatively 100 years ago Britain was as strong as anyone in the world?
Now they have to beg Europe to let them make their own decisions?
How is that not relatively weaker?

Willhelm II was a huge nobody with a big ego. He fired the biggest genius in his nation's history because he was being a little bitchboy. What did that man actually achieve outside of muh king

in napoleon's case it was for Europe's worst
napoleon is the proof alone that you can't have anyone as king if he has no rightful claim

>It's not unwritten
Citation needed

lol, Napoleon was a bigger genius than anyone with a claim at his time.

okay, two things with that pic.
1. What the fuck, why did they think that?
2. How the fuck did I not know about this? I have two degrees in History.

Capability, is the rightful claim

Attached: image.jpg (500x568, 93K)

Terrible leftwing regime run by oligarchs

If he had remained chill and managed his troops better, he could have remained as Emperor until he died, and never met Richard Sharpe.
Holding the throne is the only claim one needs.

Start with the Magna Carta and work your way forward.

>If he had remained chill and managed his troops better, he could have remained as Emperor until he died
That would be even worse