Should The British Monarchy End?

[Fahran]

Hey guys, remember how I said that I'd rather have stomach cancer than having to see another leftist in my field of view? Yeah, I still stick by that.

Hi. As a future oncologist, I would not recommend cancer as an alternative to being around people you disagree with politically.

I'm going mentally insane.

"Kalivyah hated Fahran because she told them the truth."

Yes, I used your pronouns to make that joke work better.

But monarchy, as an institution, provides at least some basis for the legitimacy of governments in the Gulf. Its absence in Iraq and Syria has put the political ideology and machinations of the Ba'ath Party in a similar position, but the problem is that many of the long-term aspirations of that ideology have failed since the 1970s. Yemen pretty much subsisted on tribal, military, and personal power-sharing arrangements and institutionalized political corruption, and fell apart as soon as the key kingmakers fell out of favor enough to warrant a realignment in the aforementioned power-sharing arrangements.

While that could theoretically happen in Saudi Arabia or Jordan, it's much less likely. It's why they largely weathered the Arab Spring as republics fell. It helps that Abdullah II is also magnanimous, competent, and popular in the case of Jordan and that Mohammed ibn Salman is competent in spite of being an evil authoritarian monster presiding over a massive democide in Yemen.

[The Aber]

Hey guys, remember how I said that I'd rather have stomach cancer than having to see another leftist in my field of view? Yeah, I still stick by that.

"Nooo!!!! People are complaining and rising up about problems which affect billions of people!!! Stop it!! GRRRR!!!"

"Nooo!!!! The mean capitalist pigs are insulting my Daddy Stalin and his flawless republic!!! сука блять!!!"

[Necroghastia]

"Nooo!!!! People are complaining and rising up about problems which affect billions of people!!! Stop it!! GRRRR!!!"

"Nooo!!!! The mean capitalist pigs are insulting my Daddy Stalin and his flawless republic!!! сука блять!!!"

do you like
seriously think every left leaning person has a stalin body pillow or something lmao

[Kalivyah]

"Nooo!!!! People are complaining and rising up about problems which affect billions of people!!! Stop it!! GRRRR!!!"

"Nooo!!!! The mean capitalist pigs are insulting my Daddy Stalin and his flawless republic!!! сука блять!!!"

Please consider reading past a 6th grade level.

[Kalivyah]

"Nooo!!!! The mean capitalist pigs are insulting my Daddy Stalin and his flawless republic!!! сука блять!!!"

do you like
seriously think every left leaning person has a stalin body pillow or something lmao

I do. I have a Lenin, Marx, Mao, and Ho Chin Minh body pillow too. This is a very true stereotype!

[Free Algerstonia]

"Nooo!!!! The mean capitalist pigs are insulting my Daddy Stalin and his flawless republic!!! сука блять!!!"

do you like
seriously think every left leaning person has a stalin body pillow or something lmao

he has a point tbh, im pretty sure that joseph stalin would support bernie if he could vote today

[Fahran]

"Nooo!!!! The mean capitalist pigs are insulting my Daddy Stalin and his flawless republic!!! сука блять!!!"

do you like
seriously think every left leaning person has a stalin body pillow or something lmao

Not gonna lie. Young Stalin was reasonably attractive. And it'd be better than the anime body pillow the Neo-Nazis have.

[Necroghastia]

do you like
seriously think every left leaning person has a stalin body pillow or something lmao

I do. I have a Lenin, Marx, Mao, and Ho Chin Minh body pillow too. This is a very true stereotype!

che-senpai is the only one i need <3

[The Aber]

"Nooo!!!! The mean capitalist pigs are insulting my Daddy Stalin and his flawless republic!!! сука блять!!!"

Please consider reading past a 6th grade level.

This is coming from a guy with elementary school-level ideas of peace and love on planet Earth, for a species that can't go a decade or so without some sort of armed conflict, it seems. But, as usual, your kind would either blame that either on capitalism, imperialism, or religion. And so far these days, it's always been pinned on religion, as if no one has been causing death and destruction before organized religion was even a thing. But alas, that's the leftist mindset.

[Veraguas]

Well, this, uh...got interesting.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

do you like
seriously think every left leaning person has a stalin body pillow or something lmao

Not gonna lie. Young Stalin was reasonably attractive. And it'd be better than the anime body pillow the Neo-Nazis have.

Such a shame young Stalin grew up to be...well. Stalin. His face was not bad.

Meanwhile, Charles

[Fahran]

Not gonna lie. Young Stalin was reasonably attractive. And it'd be better than the anime body pillow the Neo-Nazis have.

Such a shame young Stalin grew up to be...well. Stalin.

The Doctors' Plot and all the actually implemented genocides and purges do make him considerably less attractive admittedly, but, given he took to robbing trains fairly early on in life, I think it's questionable that he was a good or kind person after leaving seminary.

[Kalivyah]

Please consider reading past a 6th grade level.

This is coming from a guy with elementary school-level ideas of peace and love on planet Earth, for a species that can't go a decade or so without some sort of armed conflict, it seems. But, as usual, your kind would either blame that either on capitalism, imperialism, or religion. And so far these days, it's always been pinned on religion, as if no one has been causing death and destruction before organized religion was even a thing. But alas, that's the leftist mindset.

Hold on, let me just put on my glasses.

"Everyone should be fighting one-another and killing each-other for purely selfish reasons because 'it's human nature'."

There, I revealed your mindset. I am also not against religion or "organized religion" whatsoever- I see it as extremely vital to human culture and morality. Paganism though... not so much

[Perikuresu]

You know that meme where some guy with pizza walks into an apartment on fire and everyone bashing each other? Basically me when I click on this thread to see someone calling another person and idiot and getting a warning for flaming, someone who'd rather have stomach cancer than to see another leftist and overall the place is a shit flinging contest between conservatives and liberals and commies and monarchists. Y'all are making Free Algerstonia look reasonable rn lol.

[The Aber]

This is coming from a guy with elementary school-level ideas of peace and love on planet Earth, for a species that can't go a decade or so without some sort of armed conflict, it seems. But, as usual, your kind would either blame that either on capitalism, imperialism, or religion. And so far these days, it's always been pinned on religion, as if no one has been causing death and destruction before organized religion was even a thing. But alas, that's the leftist mindset.

Hold on, let me just put on my glasses.

"Everyone should be fighting one-another and killing each-other for purely selfish reasons because 'it's human nature'."

There, I revealed your mindset. I am also not against religion or "organized religion" whatsoever- I see it as extremely vital to human culture and morality. Paganism though... not so much

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.k075VRc1T19BfcOCWL4BzAHaE8?pid=ImgDet&rs=1
Y-yeah, uh-huh. A Marxist-Leninist completely tolerant of religion. Yeah, I believe you.

[Kalivyah]

You know that meme where some guy with pizza walks into an apartment on fire and everyone bashing each other? Basically me when I click on this thread to see someone calling another person and idiot and getting a warning for flaming, someone who'd rather have stomach cancer than to see another leftist and overall the place is a shit flinging contest between conservatives and liberals and commies and monarchists. Y'all are making Free Algerstonia look reasonable rn lol.

Oh, shit flinging contest? No, this is just an everyday political discussion. It's not even a debate yet, nobody's typing paragraphs here.

[Sordhau]

Such a shame young Stalin grew up to be...well. Stalin.

The Doctors' Plot and all the actually implemented genocides and purges do make him considerably less attractive admittedly, but, given he took to robbing trains fairly early on in life, I think it's questionable that he was a good or kind person after leaving seminary.

The trains deserved it tbh. They were Tsarist agents.

[Necroghastia]

You know that meme where some guy with pizza walks into an apartment on fire and everyone bashing each other? Basically me when I click on this thread to see someone calling another person and idiot and getting a warning for flaming, someone who'd rather have stomach cancer than to see another leftist and overall the place is a shit flinging contest between conservatives and liberals and commies and monarchists. Y'all are making Free Algerstonia look reasonable rn lol.

tbf those someones are the same person

[Kalivyah]

Hold on, let me just put on my glasses.

"Everyone should be fighting one-another and killing each-other for purely selfish reasons because 'it's human nature'."

There, I revealed your mindset. I am also not against religion or "organized religion" whatsoever- I see it as extremely vital to human culture and morality. Paganism though... not so much

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.k075VRc1T19BfcOCWL4BzAHaE8?pid=ImgDet&rs=1
Y-yeah, uh-huh. A Marxist-Leninist completely tolerant of religion. Yeah, I believe you.

? You don't have to believe me. I personally don't like atheists since most of them do not believe in atheism out of own self-belief but because they believe that they are higher than others for not organizing themselves in a culture because "uhm..... Magic space god?? fake??" so I wouldn't even remotely categorize me as one of them

But- you know... I'm a Marxist. That means I want to take away your iPhone and burn your church down.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

You know that meme where some guy with pizza walks into an apartment on fire and everyone bashing each other? Basically me when I click on this thread to see someone calling another person and idiot and getting a warning for flaming, someone who'd rather have stomach cancer than to see another leftist and overall the place is a shit flinging contest between conservatives and liberals and commies and monarchists. Y'all are making Free Algerstonia look reasonable rn lol.

I'm just here for the memes.

[Perikuresu]

Oh, shit flinging contest? No, this is just an everyday political discussion. It's not even a debate yet, nobody's typing paragraphs here.

Monarchism in general is indication of backwards cultural values and regressive social thinking that hold onto an instinctual adherence to tradition in defiance of practicality. A monarchist system, be it constitutional or absolute, is a parasitic institution that enshrines privileged rights into the hands of a handful of individuals who live lives of glamor and extravagance often at the expense of their people and usually without rhyme or reason for this preferential status. While the feudal warlords of old could justify their kingship through personal achievements such as conquest and the inner workings of their state apparatus the monarchs of today can only justify their reign by claiming divine right (something which cannot be proven) and blood lineage (a nepotistic means of succession that ignores ability and capability in favor of familiarity) which are both flimsy and superficial means of justifying one's right to rule.

Constitutional Monarchism, such as the kind that Britain practices, is definitely the worst form there is. While an Absolute Monarch is ultimately a tyrant they can still justify their position through the power of their position as the head of both state and government. Constitutional Monarchs, who are little more than national mascots and figureheads, have no justification for their existence whatsoever beyond mere "tradition"; but tradition alone is not a worthwhile excuse for a system of favoritism that pampers few with luxuries at the expense of the many's needs. There is not a single member of the Royal Family or indeed the entire British Aristocracy that is deserving of the wealth, titles, and privileges they possess. They did not earn them through merit or trial but through inheritance from those who did. It takes a very warped worldview to argue that elites should be allowed to prosper and profit off the legacy of their dead ancestors.

While Monarchists will howl about "British Tradition" as they claim dissolving the monarchy would bring about the unraveling of British culture they are merely exposing themselves as proponents for stagnation. Cultures necessarily go through radical and frequent changes throughout history, including drastic changes in government. This is not something to oppose but something to celebrate; cultures that resist change are the ones who fail to persist. Attempting to tie the British Crown to British Culture is a misguided move that will inevitably lead to the destruction of both. Monarchism is not a desirable nor efficient nor fair system. It's permanent erasure from the world is inevitable. When the day comes that British Republicanism triumphs the survival of Britain as a country will not be determined by the end of monarchy. This did not happen in Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, China, Mexico, or any other country formerly ruled by a monarch. If it happens in Britain it will happen purely because the British people lacked the imagination to perceive a British Republic absent of an entitled sovereign and their spoiled family, a position which would be formed out of pure ignorance - and ignorance is a choice. If Britons truly wish to preserve the UK then they should be fostering republicanism, not rejecting it, because keeping the monarchy on life support will only hit the country harder when it is finally toppled.

Why do idiots like the AU (GaulSoodman) think that leftist regimes always fail due to US and Western intervention? Like, no, dumbass, you treating like trash the people you swore an oath to make things better than the last regime is why you fail. Purposely withholding resources and food from your own people, of whom you convinced in the first place to help you rise to power (of which you craved to have for your own selfish reasons), is gonna bite you in the ass. Building megaprojects while the majority of your population is so malnourished that few even elect to eat the maggots off the literal shit of livestock is eventually gonna get you booted. Your scientists arrogantly ignoring the advice of their fellow workers in the midst of a possible catastrophic failure of a power plant (and the government immediately trying to cover up everything when said-plant does go up in smoke and irradiates much of Europe with various levels of radiation) will fuck the credibility of your regime up. Having your cronies pop your political allies in the head out of pure paranoia? NOT HELPING. It ain't some nonsense about "US Imperialism" or some other smooth-brained idiocy. It's karma, coming back to bite you in the ass, and those of anyone who manages to fall for the same exact schtick you've tried to pull for a century.

Now watch, some moderator is gonna warn me for "flamebaiting". No, flamebaiting is trolling and causing unnecessary drama for a possible group of people for shits and gigs. It's a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup, or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the "troll" (original poster provoking angry response) often has no real interest in and finds humor or entertainment in reactions. Nah, I'm my opinion, giving some bull-headed imp my two-sense due to their historical bias and ignorance is NOT flamebaiting.

Of course the monarchy should be abolished.

"But it's British tradition!"
- So was Catholicism, until Henry VIII disobeyed the Pope and divorced his wife
- So were witchcraft trials, until the Witchcraft Act of 1735
- So was slavery, until it was abolished in 1833

"But the Royals bring money to the UK through tourism!"
- Rome does not need its Emperors to attract visitors to the Colosseum, quite why some people think we need the Royals to attract visitors to Buckingham Palace or our other Royal-related attractions, I have no idea. It's a pretty bad indictment of the UK economy if you think we are so fragile as to be propped up by a handful of monarchist foreign tourists.

"But it's part of Britain's identity!"
- Reducing Britain's history and people down to a single family (who are mostly German at this stage), suggests a substantial undervaluation of our culture, and of the nation itself. When speaking to non-Brits I have no shortage of British culture and experiences to talk about. I have never once felt compelled to even mention the monarchy as a symbol of Britishness. They are not hugely relevant outside of the Home Counties.

At this stage, the monarchy is an archaic relic of a time when this country was worse than it is today. They can barely go 5 minutes without some scandal, and frankly are more fit to be on the Jeremy Kyle show than our currency. Hopefully we will see sense at some point and get rid of them, but I'm not holding my breath.

It makes me giggle you know. Virtually every communist/socialist regime barely lasted a century (failing due to their "dear leaders' own ignorance and insolence), but the monarchies (while yes, we had some pretty fucked-up kings), especially Britians', lasted almost a millennia.

The endurance of monarchies has less to do with them being a superior system and more to them having a monopoly over governance until the French and American Revolutions offered a better alternative.

Meanwhile the failure of Cold War states has very little bearing on the viability of Communism/Socialism because, as you ironically noted, they were hampered by poor leadership.

In other words this is not the own you think it is.

And the leftists hate that, how one of the very things they despise lasted longer than any leftist regime.

Even if the USSR was still alive today it still wouldn't be as old as the British Empire considering the British Empire had over a two century head start.

Again, this is not the own you think it is.

It's envy, jealousy.

Actually it's disgust.

The same type that has today's "revolutionaries" crying "Eat the Rich", not because of any "exploitation", but because many of those millionaires and billionaires worked their asses off to gain their wealth (making more cash from their inventions and economic knowledge than any leftist "liberator" on Earth), while the communist leaders needed some gullible twits to do their dirty work for them.

You've got it backwards, friend. For all the faults of the nomenklatura their origins were rather humble; miners, farmers, factory workers - all risen to power of their own volition.

There is not a single person on the Fortune 500 list who earned their wealthy through hard work. Most of them already came from wealthy backgrounds while the "self-made" types only succeeded with their business models because they had wealthy investors to back them - usually their relatives or friends. Actually poor, working class people like myself don't go anywhere in life; not without significant help or advantages.

Never mind that Leftists aren't out to get rich and pointing out that they never have is, again, not the own you seem to think it is.

Yes, I'm quite aware of some of the fucked-up shit some monarchies do, but when it comes to being dicks to the people who look up to you, the Left needs to have an electoral on that because they're VERY good at giving the bird to their supporters.

What you seem to fail to understand is that types like Lenin and Marx who came from privileged backgrounds weren't the norm, they were the exception. Most Leftist figures throughout history did not in fact come from the bourgeois or the aristocracy. This is especially true in Latin America and Africa. And, again, the nomenklatura at the end of the USSR all came from humble beginnings. In other words the Left tends to be led by the people it represents more often than not. Fancy that?

Why do idiots like the AU (GaulSoodman) think that leftist regimes always fail due to US and Western intervention?

That's not what they said.

Like, no, dumbass, you treating like trash the people you swore an oath to make things better than the last regime is why you fail.

Except for the fact that the Communist did make things better than last regime in most cases. Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Burkina Faso, Albania, Yugoslavia, Cuba, etc.

Purposely withholding resources and food from your own people, of whom you convinced in the first place to help you rise to power (of which you craved to have for your own selfish reasons), is gonna bite you in the ass.

While it indisputable that opportunists have often hijacked Left-wing uprisings for their own gain this wasn't really as common as you seem to suggest it was. But then again if you've displayed your ignorance on the topic of Communism several times now so I shouldn't be surprised that you don't actually understand the history of the movement or it's prominent figures - many of which were willing to risk their lives for their ideals, and many of which ended up losing them as a consequence.

Building megaprojects while the majority of your population is so malnourished that few even elect to eat the maggots off the literal shit of livestock is eventually gonna get you booted.

Megaprojects are very rarely wasteful money dumps, you do realize? Hospitals, dams, power plants, airports, bridges, etc. You know - things with a practical value.

And this is rather hypocritical coming from a defender of Monarchism and Capitalism; both of which are far more famous for expensive vanity projects that don't actually help people. It's funny how when people starve and have to eat trash out of the dumpster under Communism it's clearly the fault of Communist policies yet when it happens under Capitalism it's purely the fault of the people for being unemployed and homeless.

Your scientists arrogantly ignoring the advice of their fellow workers in the midst of a possible catastrophic failure of a power plant (and the government immediately trying to cover up everything when said-plant does go up in smoke and irradiates much of Europe with various levels of radiation) will fuck the credibility of your regime up.

How much of Europe do you think was affected by the Chornobyl disaster? It was almost entirely confined to the USSR, and 70% of it consolidated in the Byelorussian SSR - one of the smaller of the constituent republics, I might add. I wouldn't call that "much of Europe" lol.

Having your cronies pop your political allies in the head out of pure paranoia? NOT HELPING.

This may shock to you to learn but not every Communist leader was as paranoid as Stalin.

It ain't some nonsense about "US Imperialism" or some other smooth-brained idiocy. It's karma, coming back to bite you in the ass, and those of anyone who manages to fall for the same exact schtick you've tried to pull for a century.

If karma was real Jeff Bezos would've slipped in the shower by now.

Now watch, some moderator is gonna warn me for "flamebaiting". No, flamebaiting is trolling and causing unnecessary drama for a possible group of people for shits and gigs. It's a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup, or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the "troll" (original poster provoking angry response) often has no real interest in and finds humor or entertainment in reactions. Nah, I'm my opinion, giving some bull-headed imp my two-sense due to their historical bias and ignorance is NOT flamebaiting.

No, some moderator is going to warn you for flaming and that will entirely be your own fault for openly insulting other posters.

So... without a doubt, Elizabeth II was an important person - she may not have declared wars, chosen her own Prime Minister or did any other thing in the political realm other then reading a speech once a year, which was written for her by her government, and sign laws into effect, plus a few other governmental functions (like receiving visitors of state or visiting other nations).
By and large, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. had less of a political function and more of a social function: Being a unifying factor, the highest authority in the nation, the person who hands out medals and who represents the country abroad more then any other politician (albeit mostly without the power to do anything).
She was, as it is called, the Head of State. There is a fun little thing in many countries, which I feel some Americans have trouble wrapping their heads around, namely the separation of the offices of the Head of State (the guy who shakes hands) and Head of Government (the guy who does the actual work), in the UK, those are the King/Queen and the Prime Minister - in the US, that is the President in both offices.
In the end, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. did a good job, love her or her institution or not, one has to admit that. And yes, there have been good Kings and Queens, but there have also been bad ones - just like with Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chancellors, whatever you want to call them.

But - Queen Elizabeth II. is dead, now isn't she? So, as it is usual with monarchies, her son takes power as Charles III., nothing unusual... but before the old Queen is even buried, people already want to abolish the Crown.
Why? The Queen is dead, long live the Republic?
Yes, it is a British tradition, yes, it is part of history, yes, the British Royalty is a huge economic factor (by the way, very bad example, Pencil Sharpeners 2, you could have done better), and while those are the weaker reasons, in my opinion, a British King or Queen has the power to keep the country together, to represent it better then many others simply due to their standing, but there we are at the troublesome part - their standing.
The Queen had the position in the hearts and minds of the people because she was that old lady, who had been making radio addresses during the War, who has been there for the last seven decades, who had been taught her craft by some of her country's greatest politicians.
King Charles III., at least currently, lacks that standing. He is not an incompetent buffoon, as some people apparently like to think of him, but like everyone succeeding someone great, he simply won't be able to fill the shoes.
Should, therefore, the monarchy in the UK be abolished?
In my opinion, as a German, no. First of all, give that man a chance. Second of all, abolishing the monarchy would cause political upheaval and unrest, which is the last thing the UK needs right now. Third of all, who or what should replace it? Fourth, and maybe most importantly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we know might cease to exist soon, if all goes wrong consisting of Wales, England and a few islands Google Maps alone knows where, a time during which the UK (or K, as it will then be known as) will need every bit of unity and unifying factors one can find, which ties in perfectly with points two and three - unrest and who or what should replace the monarchy and, most importantly, does that replacement possess the ability to move people like the Monarch does?

[Fahran]

The trains deserved it tbh. They were Tsarist agents.

This is an improvement on "the kulaks deserved worse tbh" so I'll take it.

[The Aber]

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.k075VRc1T19BfcOCWL4BzAHaE8?pid=ImgDet&rs=1
Y-yeah, uh-huh. A Marxist-Leninist completely tolerant of religion. Yeah, I believe you.

? You don't have to believe me. I personally don't like atheists since most of them do not believe in atheism out of own self-belief but because they believe that they are higher than others for not organizing themselves in a culture because "uhm..... Magic space god?? fake??" so I wouldn't even remotely categorize me as one of them

But- you know... I'm a Marxist. That means I want to take away your iPhone and burn your church down.

"...I personally don't like atheists--"
Nah, that ain't how it works.

[Kalivyah]

Oh, shit flinging contest? No, this is just an everyday political discussion. It's not even a debate yet, nobody's typing paragraphs here.

Monarchism in general is indication of backwards cultural values and regressive social thinking that hold onto an instinctual adherence to tradition in defiance of practicality. A monarchist system, be it constitutional or absolute, is a parasitic institution that enshrines privileged rights into the hands of a handful of individuals who live lives of glamor and extravagance often at the expense of their people and usually without rhyme or reason for this preferential status. While the feudal warlords of old could justify their kingship through personal achievements such as conquest and the inner workings of their state apparatus the monarchs of today can only justify their reign by claiming divine right (something which cannot be proven) and blood lineage (a nepotistic means of succession that ignores ability and capability in favor of familiarity) which are both flimsy and superficial means of justifying one's right to rule.

Constitutional Monarchism, such as the kind that Britain practices, is definitely the worst form there is. While an Absolute Monarch is ultimately a tyrant they can still justify their position through the power of their position as the head of both state and government. Constitutional Monarchs, who are little more than national mascots and figureheads, have no justification for their existence whatsoever beyond mere "tradition"; but tradition alone is not a worthwhile excuse for a system of favoritism that pampers few with luxuries at the expense of the many's needs. There is not a single member of the Royal Family or indeed the entire British Aristocracy that is deserving of the wealth, titles, and privileges they possess. They did not earn them through merit or trial but through inheritance from those who did. It takes a very warped worldview to argue that elites should be allowed to prosper and profit off the legacy of their dead ancestors.

While Monarchists will howl about "British Tradition" as they claim dissolving the monarchy would bring about the unraveling of British culture they are merely exposing themselves as proponents for stagnation. Cultures necessarily go through radical and frequent changes throughout history, including drastic changes in government. This is not something to oppose but something to celebrate; cultures that resist change are the ones who fail to persist. Attempting to tie the British Crown to British Culture is a misguided move that will inevitably lead to the destruction of both. Monarchism is not a desirable nor efficient nor fair system. It's permanent erasure from the world is inevitable. When the day comes that British Republicanism triumphs the survival of Britain as a country will not be determined by the end of monarchy. This did not happen in Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, China, Mexico, or any other country formerly ruled by a monarch. If it happens in Britain it will happen purely because the British people lacked the imagination to perceive a British Republic absent of an entitled sovereign and their spoiled family, a position which would be formed out of pure ignorance - and ignorance is a choice. If Britons truly wish to preserve the UK then they should be fostering republicanism, not rejecting it, because keeping the monarchy on life support will only hit the country harder when it is finally toppled.

Why do idiots like the AU (GaulSoodman) think that leftist regimes always fail due to US and Western intervention? Like, no, dumbass, you treating like trash the people you swore an oath to make things better than the last regime is why you fail. Purposely withholding resources and food from your own people, of whom you convinced in the first place to help you rise to power (of which you craved to have for your own selfish reasons), is gonna bite you in the ass. Building megaprojects while the majority of your population is so malnourished that few even elect to eat the maggots off the literal shit of livestock is eventually gonna get you booted. Your scientists arrogantly ignoring the advice of their fellow workers in the midst of a possible catastrophic failure of a power plant (and the government immediately trying to cover up everything when said-plant does go up in smoke and irradiates much of Europe with various levels of radiation) will fuck the credibility of your regime up. Having your cronies pop your political allies in the head out of pure paranoia? NOT HELPING. It ain't some nonsense about "US Imperialism" or some other smooth-brained idiocy. It's karma, coming back to bite you in the ass, and those of anyone who manages to fall for the same exact schtick you've tried to pull for a century.

Now watch, some moderator is gonna warn me for "flamebaiting". No, flamebaiting is trolling and causing unnecessary drama for a possible group of people for shits and gigs. It's a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup, or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the "troll" (original poster provoking angry response) often has no real interest in and finds humor or entertainment in reactions. Nah, I'm my opinion, giving some bull-headed imp my two-sense due to their historical bias and ignorance is NOT flamebaiting.

Of course the monarchy should be abolished.

"But it's British tradition!"
- So was Catholicism, until Henry VIII disobeyed the Pope and divorced his wife
- So were witchcraft trials, until the Witchcraft Act of 1735
- So was slavery, until it was abolished in 1833

"But the Royals bring money to the UK through tourism!"
- Rome does not need its Emperors to attract visitors to the Colosseum, quite why some people think we need the Royals to attract visitors to Buckingham Palace or our other Royal-related attractions, I have no idea. It's a pretty bad indictment of the UK economy if you think we are so fragile as to be propped up by a handful of monarchist foreign tourists.

"But it's part of Britain's identity!"
- Reducing Britain's history and people down to a single family (who are mostly German at this stage), suggests a substantial undervaluation of our culture, and of the nation itself. When speaking to non-Brits I have no shortage of British culture and experiences to talk about. I have never once felt compelled to even mention the monarchy as a symbol of Britishness. They are not hugely relevant outside of the Home Counties.

At this stage, the monarchy is an archaic relic of a time when this country was worse than it is today. They can barely go 5 minutes without some scandal, and frankly are more fit to be on the Jeremy Kyle show than our currency. Hopefully we will see sense at some point and get rid of them, but I'm not holding my breath.

The endurance of monarchies has less to do with them being a superior system and more to them having a monopoly over governance until the French and American Revolutions offered a better alternative.

Meanwhile the failure of Cold War states has very little bearing on the viability of Communism/Socialism because, as you ironically noted, they were hampered by poor leadership.

In other words this is not the own you think it is.



Even if the USSR was still alive today it still wouldn't be as old as the British Empire considering the British Empire had over a two century head start.

Again, this is not the own you think it is.



Actually it's disgust.



You've got it backwards, friend. For all the faults of the nomenklatura their origins were rather humble; miners, farmers, factory workers - all risen to power of their own volition.

There is not a single person on the Fortune 500 list who earned their wealthy through hard work. Most of them already came from wealthy backgrounds while the "self-made" types only succeeded with their business models because they had wealthy investors to back them - usually their relatives or friends. Actually poor, working class people like myself don't go anywhere in life; not without significant help or advantages.

Never mind that Leftists aren't out to get rich and pointing out that they never have is, again, not the own you seem to think it is.



What you seem to fail to understand is that types like Lenin and Marx who came from privileged backgrounds weren't the norm, they were the exception. Most Leftist figures throughout history did not in fact come from the bourgeois or the aristocracy. This is especially true in Latin America and Africa. And, again, the nomenklatura at the end of the USSR all came from humble beginnings. In other words the Left tends to be led by the people it represents more often than not. Fancy that?



That's not what they said.



Except for the fact that the Communist did make things better than last regime in most cases. Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Burkina Faso, Albania, Yugoslavia, Cuba, etc.



While it indisputable that opportunists have often hijacked Left-wing uprisings for their own gain this wasn't really as common as you seem to suggest it was. But then again if you've displayed your ignorance on the topic of Communism several times now so I shouldn't be surprised that you don't actually understand the history of the movement or it's prominent figures - many of which were willing to risk their lives for their ideals, and many of which ended up losing them as a consequence.



Megaprojects are very rarely wasteful money dumps, you do realize? Hospitals, dams, power plants, airports, bridges, etc. You know - things with a practical value.

And this is rather hypocritical coming from a defender of Monarchism and Capitalism; both of which are far more famous for expensive vanity projects that don't actually help people. It's funny how when people starve and have to eat trash out of the dumpster under Communism it's clearly the fault of Communist policies yet when it happens under Capitalism it's purely the fault of the people for being unemployed and homeless.



How much of Europe do you think was affected by the Chornobyl disaster? It was almost entirely confined to the USSR, and 70% of it consolidated in the Byelorussian SSR - one of the smaller of the constituent republics, I might add. I wouldn't call that "much of Europe" lol.



This may shock to you to learn but not every Communist leader was as paranoid as Stalin.



If karma was real Jeff Bezos would've slipped in the shower by now.



No, some moderator is going to warn you for flaming and that will entirely be your own fault for openly insulting other posters.

So... without a doubt, Elizabeth II was an important person - she may not have declared wars, chosen her own Prime Minister or did any other thing in the political realm other then reading a speech once a year, which was written for her by her government, and sign laws into effect, plus a few other governmental functions (like receiving visitors of state or visiting other nations).
By and large, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. had less of a political function and more of a social function: Being a unifying factor, the highest authority in the nation, the person who hands out medals and who represents the country abroad more then any other politician (albeit mostly without the power to do anything).
She was, as it is called, the Head of State. There is a fun little thing in many countries, which I feel some Americans have trouble wrapping their heads around, namely the separation of the offices of the Head of State (the guy who shakes hands) and Head of Government (the guy who does the actual work), in the UK, those are the King/Queen and the Prime Minister - in the US, that is the President in both offices.
In the end, one could very well say, that Queen Elizabeth II. did a good job, love her or her institution or not, one has to admit that. And yes, there have been good Kings and Queens, but there have also been bad ones - just like with Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chancellors, whatever you want to call them.

But - Queen Elizabeth II. is dead, now isn't she? So, as it is usual with monarchies, her son takes power as Charles III., nothing unusual... but before the old Queen is even buried, people already want to abolish the Crown.
Why? The Queen is dead, long live the Republic?
Yes, it is a British tradition, yes, it is part of history, yes, the British Royalty is a huge economic factor (by the way, very bad example, Pencil Sharpeners 2, you could have done better), and while those are the weaker reasons, in my opinion, a British King or Queen has the power to keep the country together, to represent it better then many others simply due to their standing, but there we are at the troublesome part - their standing.
The Queen had the position in the hearts and minds of the people because she was that old lady, who had been making radio addresses during the War, who has been there for the last seven decades, who had been taught her craft by some of her country's greatest politicians.
King Charles III., at least currently, lacks that standing. He is not an incompetent buffoon, as some people apparently like to think of him, but like everyone succeeding someone great, he simply won't be able to fill the shoes.
Should, therefore, the monarchy in the UK be abolished?
In my opinion, as a German, no. First of all, give that man a chance. Second of all, abolishing the monarchy would cause political upheaval and unrest, which is the last thing the UK needs right now. Third of all, who or what should replace it? Fourth, and maybe most importantly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we know might cease to exist soon, if all goes wrong consisting of Wales, England and a few islands Google Maps alone knows where, a time during which the UK (or K, as it will then be known as) will need every bit of unity and unifying factors one can find, which ties in perfectly with points two and three - unrest and who or what should replace the monarchy and, most importantly, does that replacement possess the ability to move people like the Monarch does?

Sorry. I didn't read over 90% of the topic since it's back and forth between people who suck dick because "tradition" and people who suck dick because "I hate the mainstream".

[Necroghastia]

? You don't have to believe me. I personally don't like atheists since most of them do not believe in atheism out of own self-belief but because they believe that they are higher than others for not organizing themselves in a culture because "uhm..... Magic space god?? fake??" so I wouldn't even remotely categorize me as one of them

But- you know... I'm a Marxist. That means I want to take away your iPhone and burn your church down.

"...I personally don't like atheists--"
Nah, that ain't how it works.

so much for freedom of speech smh