/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>824

>most corrupt republic on the planet

Most belicose democracy, maybe, but not most corrupt. The US doesn't strike me as worse than most other countries.

I don't like calling the US a republic. It used to be one, but now it's just a democracy.

>specifically created out of a peasant revolt against the british crown

It was a war of the nobility against british rule per se, started by a tax that they regarded as illegitimate. It wasn't a war against the ancien regimé, and in fact some Founding Fathers tried to declare a Prussian prince their king.

>>824

About the only hope for the U.S. is a Restoration of the British crown.

>join the Monarchist Party of Russia?

Why the fuck not?

>>828

>some Founding Fathers tried to declare a Prussian prince their king.

Fucking linx plox. That sounds amazing.

>>829

Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on the German mediatization?

>>841

Here you go, fam: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_scheme

>>851

This is beautiful.

>>841

>Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on the German mediatization?

Not that extraordinary. It's a classical case of having a narrow spectrum in which a lively discourse is allowed while fringe opinions are never mentioned in the media. So no public discourse on monarchy or anarchy, no fundamentally questioning democracy, no talk of reducing the tax rate from 50 to 20% or reducing the considerable power of the unions…

>>872

I don't think he was referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatization_(media) but instead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_mediatization .

Commoners, really…

>TFW you live in the most corrupt republic on the planet specifically created out of a peasant revolt against the british crown,

Oh no, no. It was a rebellion led by the local elites due disagreements about taxation and representation. "No tax without representation" and all. Basically they wanted all the beneficts of being a british subject but not the fiscal burden.

Americans tend to lionize their rebellion, as some struggle for freedom against a tyranical regime, while it was all about taxes and political struggle between the colony and the metropolis.

> any legitimate American Monarchist organizations

Well, there was once the Constantian Society, and i found a site of a branch or something of the Monarchist League in US.

http://www.monarchyamerica.net/index.htm

>>886

Sorry, my bad. As I can see it, the thing had a bunch of negative effects: The delicate balance between religious and worldly authority was further upset by transfering ecclesiastical property to the government (as if Germany needed that after the Reformation). The government was more centralized, which is a bad thing in the vast majority of cases (unless the local governments are vastly more barbaric than the central one). And mediatisation is obviously inspired by the absolutist idea that all sovereignty is conferred from the top down. Ironically, this idea is what made democracy possible in the first place: Only when sovereignty is seen as something flowing down the political hierarchy instead of resting in each layer of it can there be any discussion of the people being sovereign instead of the king. Mediatization, then, was a step further in the direction of democracy, even if it wasn't a democratic policy in itself.

>>931

The fiscal burden was negligible. The American Revolution was about principles, not money. Hence why their slogan was "no taxation without representation", and not "lower taxes".

why were not luxembourg and liechtenstein mediatised?

>>980

>Luxembourg

Luxembourg was disputed between the Netherlands and German lands. Because of this dispute, it could not be part of German mediatisation if it was actually part of the Netherlands. To avoid this dispute, Luxembourg was given independence instead and thus avoided the mediatisation.

>Liechtenstein

No idea. From what I can read, it almost seems like a serendipitous event.

>>931

>Constantian Society

Their archive is pretty interesting, I think I might make a few posts in the reading thread about this…

http://www.monarchyamerica.net/archive.htm

>>1006

did not the netherlands want to incorporate luxembourg?

>>1024

They were in a personal union with the Netherlands. So, yes.

There's not going to be an establishing of a monarchy in the US.

The US royalist parties are all dead and the people seem to think that monarchy seems to equate to instant serfdom and the decimation of their irresponsibility. I would say that the US will probably be Nazi before it becomes monarchist.

By the looks of it, it seems Sweden and Spain have some chance of restoring their monarchs. So, I would say go there and try joining their Royalist parties.

I am Slavo-American but love the Legitimists because they were the closest to Action Francaise.

and didn't the French support our revolt?

>>1163

forgot to add my flag

>>1163

The ironic thing is that Action Francaise supports the Orleanist claimant.

>>1485

They do? Why?

>>1036

doesn't Spain already have a monarchy?

>>1509

Having a symbolic monarch who doesn't do shit doesn't count.

>>1509

>Guy in a suit who is a figurehead with no power

Burger King has more royalty than King of Spain at the moment The King™ has some form of regalia.

>>1517

funny that you have that flag

>>1525

Not before the day of the rope since (((certain groups))) made it very clear they want to destroy monarchy ideologically and physically and every western monarchy exists as a mockery

>>1527

Fuck off /pol/.

My fanfiction is Thomas Jefferson becoming King at the end of the Revolutionary War

>>824

>I myself am a Russian descendent from White Immigrants

Slavs are not white

>>1723

t, D&C, historical illiterate kike.

>not knowing how the opposition to reds was commonly called.

>>824

It's not too bad.

In my opinion, the republic was a pretty good idea with decent backing that turned out not to work, I still have respect for it from my /liberty/ days.

In terms of corruption, it's probably the least corrupt republic right now, that's not saying much though since it's still corrupt as shit.

>>1726

>In terms of corruption, it's probably the least corrupt republic right now, that's not saying much though since it's still corrupt as shit.

American cops might be among the worst in the western world. They might even be worse then cops from Eastern Europe. And the politicians, don't get me started. Besides half the country dropping dead in one election (in which, in all fairness, dead people voted), they also started several wars over false pretenses, and made torture and indefinite detention major tenets of their security policy. Whatever the US used to be, it's not a model state now. Not even by our current low standards.

>>1726

>the republic was a pretty good idea

What are you even doing here you cuck?

>>1728

It was a better idea than colonial rule by the Brits. What was a terrible idea was having one republic, not a loose confederation of republics. And rejecting the Prussian Scheme. Basically, everything could've gone better. I blame the Reformation.

>>1729

>It was a better idea than colonial rule by the Brits.

> What was a terrible idea was not having a loose confederation of republics

>And rejecting the Prussian Scheme

What are you even doing here you cuck?

>>1729

>I blame the Reformation

This guy gets it.

>I blame the jews

This guy gets it.

>>824

>join the Monarchist Party of Russia

You know, that's like the right-wing version of some delusional liberal moving to the middle east thinking it's such a nice and tolerant place for SJWs.

You're not a Russian, you're just another white-pilled burger ignorant about Russia (probably even Putin-cucked too), try living in Russia first before fucking with Russian politics from all the way from America.

>>1803

Two choices:

1 - BENEDICT ARNOLD DID NOTHING WRONG.

2 - Hamilton was right in wanting an American King.

>>1736

OP here-

Отвали, гомосексуальный коммунист. Я очень хорошо говорю по-русски.

>>1848

>They wanted their colonial charters restored, not to just make a whole bunch of money.

They rioted like literal niggers over being taxed, clearly they were unwilling to pay any *significant* burden. Everybody seems to agree they were some of the least taxed people in the entire Empire. At least we agree on one thing, which is that they were being extremely dishonest about the taxation. It wasn't the real issue.

>America was a nation in covenant with the English nation

The thirteen colonies were colonies established, protected and maintained by the British Empire. Even George Washington was educated and employed by the Empire and had aided in its defence.

>which covenant the latter repeatedly broke from 1766.

You mean, after the colonists began to betray their mother nation and use violence against its representatives, the government began to respond? Who could have seen that one coming?

In seriousness, if the cause for rebellion is the *response to previous rebellion*, its obvious that you would be just as happy not rebelling at all. All this 'concern trolling' is quite wearying.

>The only "traitors" were those tories who supported the violent invasion of their nation by a hostile foreign belligerent.

Loyalists are traitors, a motherland is a foreign nation to its colonies, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength…

>>1851

>They rioted like literal niggers over being taxed

They rioted over their rights being infringed

>At least we agree on one thing, which is that they were being extremely dishonest about the taxation. It wasn't the real issue

There were a number of "real issues", but taxation without representation was one of them. I didn't say they were dishonest about it, I said they weren't anti-taxation.

>The thirteen colonies were colonies established, protected and maintained by the British Empire. Even George Washington was educated and employed by the Empire and had aided in its defence.

What relevance does this have? How does it change what I said?

>You mean, after the colonists began to betray their mother nation and use violence against its representatives, the government began to respond? Who could have seen that one coming?

Do you think the war started in 1766? What happened in 1766 was the declatory act, which effectively dissolved the colonial assemblies (which was unconstitutional because these were granted by the king, not parliament) and declared parliamentary sovereignty over the colonies. This would probably be overlooked by most of the colonists if it wasn't for the taxation that followed.

>In seriousness, if the cause for rebellion is the *response to previous rebellion*, its obvious that you would be just as happy not rebelling at all

I don't know what you mean by this. Congress explained the cause for war when they formed the Continental Army:

"The general, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to 'declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supersede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial.' – His troops have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burnt Charlestown, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him. We have rceived certain intelligence, that general Carleton, the governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend, that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feel, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengeance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword and famine. We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. – The latter is our choice. – We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. – Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them."

>Loyalists are traitors

Those loyal to invaders of their country are traitors, yes

>a motherland is a foreign nation to its colonies

From the 4th of July, 1776 onward, the King of England and Scotland no longer held any right over the thirteen colonies, nor did the Parliament of Great Britain hold any authority over them. When independence was ratified by their appointed representatives, the Americans ceased to be subjects of the British Empire, and became citizens of the United States of America.

>>1852

>They rioted over their rights being infringed

It was over the taxes. Which rights are you referring to? Are you implying Parliament can't tax its subjects? There were hundreds of groups of British subjects with no representation.

>What relevance does this have? How does it change what I said?

You implied America was a separate nation as opposed to a series of colonies operated by another country. Just because they're not *living in Britain* doesn't mean they're traitors when they fight for that country.

>Do you think the war started in 1766?

No, I think the colonists began a campaign of violence beginning in 1766 then 'concern-trolled' over the response. I don't see what in the British Constitution prohibits Parliament from revoking a charter, you can't just invent it and pretend it's there. I was taught that Parliament can make or unmake any law it so desires.

>Congress explained the cause for war when they formed the Continental Army

Which seems to be a list of grievances completely ignoring context.

>From the 4th of July, 1776 onward, the King of England and Scotland no longer held any right over the thirteen colonies, nor did the Parliament of Great Britain hold any authority over them. When independence was ratified by their appointed representatives, the Americans ceased to be subjects of the British Empire, and became citizens of the United States of America.

You should have put this higher in your response. Essentially you're saying that somebody who has counted himself as a British subject from the day of his birth is a 'traitor' if he doesn't go along with an armed band of rebel Republicans. If they are traitors then they're the best kind of traitors; the kind that betray a wrongful cause that has no right to request their loyalty in the first place.

>>1853

>Which rights are you referring to?

The right to not be taxed without representation.

>Are you implying Parliament can't tax its subjects?

Not if they were without representation therein. The colonists were not serfs, they had rights, which parliament had no right to infringe upon.

>There were hundreds of groups of British subjects with no representation.

How many of them were guranteed the rights of Englishmen by British kings? How many of them were English by ancestry? How many of them had representation that was removed by parliament?

>You implied America was a separate nation

I thought I was quite explicit, but I'll clarify; America and England were separate and distinct nations bound together by national covenant in the colonial charters.

>a series of colonies operated by another country

You make it sound as though there weren't generations of colonists who never lived anywhere but the colonies.

>Just because they're not *living in Britain* doesn't mean they're traitors when they fight for that country.

No, what made them traitors was fighting for another country against their own country.

>No, I think the colonists began a campaign of violence beginning in 1766 then 'concern-trolled' over the response

So you think a bunch of mean colonists decided to bully poor innocent parliament for no reason? And the effective dissolution of the colonial charters was somehow retaliation?

>I was taught that Parliament can make or unmake any law it so desires.

Which was a novelty back then, one which happened to be in contradiction with natural law, since it arrogated to parliament the authority of God as final arbiter of what is or is not just. No governor, under any constitution of any nation in any time, is above the law.

>Essentially you're saying that somebody who has counted himself as a British subject from the day of his birth is a 'traitor' if he doesn't go along with an armed band of rebel Republicans

He is a traitor if he supports the invasion of his country by a foreign belligerent. They were British subjects from the day of their birth, yes, but from the day of the declaration they were no more British subjects but American citizens. Rebels? No, they were patriots.

>If they are traitors then they're the best kind of traitors; the kind that betray a wrongful cause that has no right to request their loyalty in the first place.

I suppose you believe the Spaniards were wrong to resist the invasion of Napoleon, and that the cause of rebellion against his rule over their country was was a wrongful one which had no right to request their loyalty in the first place.

>>1854

>The right to not be taxed without representation.

A completely fictional 'right'. Where in the British Constitution do you find it? How do you reconcile it with the fact that were thousands of groups with no representation?

You seem to imply that only 'serfs' were without representation, ie, the British constitution outlines a special category of 'serf' which is to be excluded; you must know nothing at all about the constitution. That's another invention. Cromwell and the like weren't trying to protect any kind of feudal nobility.

>You make it sound as though there weren't generations of colonists who never lived anywhere but the colonies.

Nope, it was operated by Britain over many generations. Do you have difficulty grasping this? People in Northern Ireland aren't traitors for their loyalty, when they fly the Union Jack, just because some generations have passed. The lack of loyalty in certain Americans doesn't make the loyalty of the British patriots any more suspect.

>So you think a bunch of mean colonists decided to bully poor innocent parliament for no reason?

Clearly because they didn't want to pay for their upkeep. It's not that complicated.

>Which was a novelty back then

Yet you seem to admit it was the case.

>one which happened to be in contradiction with natural law

I suppose you can imagine that the universe is naturally democratic and some sacred principle at stake. But Parliament had every constitutional power to tax its colonies.

>No, they were patriots.

To a country and flag that didn't even legally exist? No, they were rebels.

>I suppose you believe the Spaniards were wrong to resist the invasion of Napoleon

I think everybody has a duty to resist Napoleon to the best of his ability

>>1858

>Where in the British Constitution do you find it?

The 1689 bill of rights

>You seem to imply that only 'serfs' were without representation, ie, the British constitution outlines a special category of 'serf' which is to be excluded

No, I am refuting a claim that parliament had full right over the life, liberty and property of the colonists, as if they were serfs without rights.

>Nope, it was operated by Britain over many generations

The colonists were not 'Britain'.

>The lack of loyalty in certain Americans doesn't make the loyalty of the British patriots any more suspect.

Loyalty to a foreign belligerent is always treasonous.

>Clearly because they didn't want to pay for their upkeep

I repeat a question, do you think the colonies were untaxed before parliament decided to arrogate powers to itself?

>Yet you seem to admit it was the case.

In practice, but to invest sovereignty in a man or a group of men and not rather the God-given law is a violation of natural law.

>But Parliament had every constitutional power to tax its colonies.

Parliament did not have authority to violate their natural rights.

>To a country and flag that didn't even legally exist?

It legally existed starting on July 4th, 1776, a fact you have failed to rebut.

>I think everybody has a duty to resist Napoleon to the best of his ability

Inconsistency. If it is wrong for Americans to defend their country from a rampaging tyrant, the same applies to Spain.

>>1863

>The 1689 bill of rights

Where? How do you reconcile it with the fact that were thousands of groups with no representation? Total invention.

>The colonists were not 'Britain'.

How extremely vague. As I keep on saying, they were colonies established, protected and maintained by Britain; nobody is a traitor for being loyal to Britain. You have a flimsy 'taxation without representation' argument which is a total fantasy; your only argument against the obvious reality that the colonies were British and the rebels were traitors.

>I repeat a question, do you think the colonies were untaxed before parliament decided to arrogate powers to itself?

They were lightly taxed, far less than those living in the British Isles, and they resented an increase in taxes. You don't need much of a brain to figure this out.

>It legally existed starting on July 4th, 1776, a fact you have failed to rebut.

A fact' which I have challenged you to give any evidence for and which you have not done.

>>1867

>Where?

"That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament…is illegal". Also, if this was not recognized as a constitutional right by both sides, what was virtual representation all about?

>How do you reconcile it with the fact that were thousands of groups with no representation?

Just to clarify, are you in fact arguing, that since parliament was breaking the law all over, it was alright for them to do so here too?

>How extremely vague.

No less vague than your statement.

>As I keep on saying, they were colonies established, protected and maintained by Britain

And as I keep saying, America and England were different and distinct nations. An American owed loyalty first to America, and second to the Empire.

>the colonies were British

This is in one sense true, and in another sense absolutely false. It is true inasmuch as they were members of the British Empire, however, it is totally false to suppose that America and Great Britain (which is to say England) were the same country, seeing as all the relevant texts of the relevant time from both sides of the pond clearly testify the contrary.

>I have challenged

Where? I see no challenge or counter-argument, just a counter-assertion.

>give any evidence for

Oh I see, you request citation. Well, here it is

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp

>>1868

>>im gonna sit around and dream up a bajillion statutes of natural law' with no basis in tradition

Well, they did have basis in tradition, firstly, and secondly, natural law does not require the support of human traditions, since it is found in Holy Writ.

>>if anyone violates my made up statutes i get to go around promoting violent rebellion

It is better to engage in armed resistance than to submit to ungodly tyranny.

>my made up country

What is this ludicrous meme?

>>1869

>"That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament…is illegal"

That says that the crown can't create new taxes, what are you on about m8?

>Just to clarify, are you in fact arguing, that since parliament was breaking the law all over, it was alright for them to do so here too?

No I'm saying that universal sufferage clearly wasn't part of the British Constitution. I don't know you can misunderstand a very simple point.

>And as I keep saying, America and England were different and distinct nations.

Yes, you keep saying it and its not true. America existed as a nation only *after* the start of the civil war and *only* in reaction to completely legal actions of the British state. There is no reason why somebody born and educated in a British colony should suddenly have to betray Britain to join the cause of a fake rebel country just because he's going to be taxed (the way every Briton was) without suffrage (the way almost every Briton didn't have).

>It is better to engage in armed resistance than to submit to ungodly tyranny.

Is this the part where you define everything short of universal suffrage as tyranny, regardless of the justice or injustice of the action? Why do you pretend to be on the side of eternal justice / law / religion when you're nothing but a brainlet modernist Soros tier fagget?

>>1875

>That says that the crown can't create new taxes, what are you on about m8?

It applies to parliament too. The king can't dissolve parliament, declare himself parliament, raise taxes and still be in the bounds of the law. Parliament has a specific meaning, so this is to be understood as "no man is to be taxed without the consent of his representation", which obviously implies "no man is to be taxed without representation".

>America existed as a nation only *after* the start of the civil war

The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, which preceded the Battle of Concord and Lexington by several months, in its 4th resolution, referred to America and Great Britain as "both countries".

>and *only* in reaction to completely legal actions of the British state

So why do we find Englishmen attributing national titles to America in distinction with England? Are they reacting to the "completely legal actions of the British state" too? Like I said, there is ample proof to be found from both sides of the ocean, they did not see each other as the same nation.

>betray Britain to join the cause of a fake rebel country

This is assertion you have made several times, and have yet to offer an argument in favor of it

>just because he's going to be taxed (the way every Briton was) without suffrage (the way almost every Briton didn't have)

The colonial charters guranteed the colonists all the rights of Englishmen. Now, because rights are granted by God, independent of any monarch, this was not a grant of the rights of Englishmen, which the same power could later remove, but a passive recognition of what already was. Therefore, the colonists were entitled to not be taxed without representation, and the levying of taxes upon them by a parliament which did not represent them was not only illegal, but covenant breaking.

>>1876

>universal suffrage

This is not universal suffrage. First, that refers to voting rights. One need not vote to be represented, as women were represented by virtue of their husband's vote prior to women's suffrage. Second, it is tyranny for the rights of God to grant life, liberty and property to be arrogated to men, hence when parliament and the king pretended to be gods over America with the Americans to be their sworn slaves, it was nothing but tyranny to be resisted by any means necessary.

>>1879

>It applies to parliament too.

So Parliament can't create taxes without the consent of Parliament? Alright then.

>The king can't dissolve parliament, declare himself parliament, raise taxes and still be in the bounds of the law.

I'm sure he can't, but Parliament *can* create taxes. It is completely ridiculous to go from 'the King can't create taxes without the consent of Parliament' to 'nobody can be taxed without their consent'. This is a ridiculous argument and you should stop it.

You also still haven't explained the very many groups without suffrage. You never will.

>The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, which preceded the Battle of Concord and Lexington by several months, in its 4th resolution, referred to America and Great Britain as "both countries".

You mean, separatists at the start of their revolution, trying to begin and continue a rebellion, referred to themselves as a separate country.

>This is assertion you have made several times, and have yet to offer an argument in favor of it

I have offered my argument vast numerous of times and you ignore you fucking annoying cunt.

>>1880

>I'm sure he can't, but Parliament *can* create taxes

What is parliament?

>It is completely ridiculous to go from 'the King can't create taxes without the consent of Parliament' to 'nobody can be taxed without their consent'.

Well, I suppose because parliament somehow did not mean representatives, the king could declare his own person to be parliament and still be within the bounds of that law. That's the end of this logic

>You also still haven't explained the very many groups without suffrage

I pointed out that it is a non-argument, a red herring, and irrelevant. If parliament was breaking the law somewhere other than America, it did not justify breaking the law in America. If I were to murder a man, should I murder his wife too, just to ensure my actions are just?

But since we're on the topic of points that the other has ignored, how about the fact that parliament's retort to "no taxation without representation" was not "yes, you're right, you are being taxed without representation now fuck you pay me", but "we do represent you"?

>You mean, separatists at the start of their revolution, trying to begin and continue a rebellion, referred to themselves as a separate country

The same separatists who proclaimed at length their loyalty to the Empire and lack of desire for independence, who were asserting their rights as subjects of that Empire, who claimed their own disinterest in pursuing armed resistance at that point? Even in adopting this absurd stance you have already contradicted your claim that nobody believed it was a separate country until the war began. Clearly, this is just poor special pleading.

>I have offered my argument vast numerous of times

Point it out. The assertion of your position is not an argument for your position.

>>1882

>How can he represent himself and his wife with one vote?

One household one vote.

>>1883

>What is parliament?

A legislative house (elected by 3% of the population) which achieved supremacy after exiling the king.

>Well, I suppose because parliament somehow did not mean representatives, the king could declare his own person to be parliament and still be within the bounds of that law.

'If the King were the parliament he would be the parliament'. Wow, profound.

The King's powers were reduced by a Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean that colonies now need representation for Parliament to be able to tax them. You are a fucking idiot.

>f parliament was breaking the law somewhere other than America, it did not justify breaking the law in America

Deliberately not getting the point.

>The same separatists who proclaimed at length their loyalty to the Empire and lack of desire for independence, who were asserting their rights as subjects of that Empire, who claimed their own disinterest in pursuing armed resistance at that point?

The same who were gathered for the explicit point of asserting Parliament's lack of right to govern them. Of course they were asserting a different identity.

Elsewhere they chose to identify as 'Englishmen' to assert their 'rights' as Englishmen. Makes you think.

>Point it out.

No, fucking read my posts.

>One household one vote.

I don't see how she is 'represented' just by being part of a household.

What about unmarried women. What about the entire working class. What about entire towns and cities without the vote.

This is a fake principle which you have offered no evidence for. This discussion is absurd and should be ended.

>>1889

>A legislative house (elected by 3% of the population) which achieved supremacy after exiling the king

So is this legislature representative or oligarchic?

>You are a fucking idiot.

Great argument

>Deliberately not getting the point

There are two possibilities, either 1. these other groups are a legitimate parralel to the colonies, or 2. they aren't. If 2, they are irrelevant, if 1, parliament was breaking the law.

>The same who were gathered for the explicit point of asserting Parliament's lack of right to govern them. Of course they were asserting a different identity.

So they were just lying about their beliefs? That is rather offhand and casual for a lie.

>Elsewhere they chose to identify as 'Englishmen' to assert their 'rights' as Englishmen

No, not "elsewhere". The same document says "That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural- born subjects, within the realm of England. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy". You will also notice how this explains their claim to be Englishmen without contradiction. Also, note the description of colonization as 'emigration'.

>fucking read my posts

There's still no argument in them, dipshit

>I don't see how she is 'represented' just by being part of a household.

Well, that would be because you're fucking retarded

>This is a fake principle which you have offered no evidence for

I have shown a great deal of evidence for it none of which you have been able to refute and some of it you have completely ignored.

I feel 4 facts have been proven, from which proceeds a 5th.

1. America was a distinct nation from England, this is a fact which I have proven

2. America was in covenant with England, this is a fact which I have proven

3. England broke this covenant, this is a fact which I have proven

4. America, in accordance with natural law, elected to withdraw from this broken covenant, this is a fact which I have proven

Which means, therefore, that 5. the American cause in the war was the just one.

>>1803

I really want to move to Liechtenstein tbh.

>>1892

If you do then the fire marshal might declare it a fire hazard

>>1891

>So is this legislature representative or oligarchic?

Oligarchic, and it's impossible to deny the overwhelmingly oligarchic nature. They claimed the right to represent the entire British population *and* deny tons of groups the vote.

Yet you will pretend it to be otherwise.

> if 1, parliament was breaking the law

It clearly wasn't part of the law if they illegally oppressed 97% of the population for over a century with no one noticing.

But you will pretend that you know better based on a fragment of a phrase which simply asserted the diminished rights of the King.

>No, not "elsewhere".

Elsewhere, rebels claimed rights *as Englishmen* implying that they were English. Which is different than being from a country in covenant with England.

You will pretend there is no difference, there is no arguing with you.

>>1897

>Oligarchic

Wrong. Every member represented some particular group. It was not a ruling oligarchy representing nothing but its own interests.

>They claimed the right to represent the entire British population

In 1766, which was rejected by both colonist and Englishman alike.

>there is no arguing with you

Well, certainly not from you, since for me to have a real argument it requires an intelligent opponent.

>>1892

We should have a Hans Adam II thread or regarding the 2012 referendum and his book. His political theories are just plain good roadmaps for monarchists in the modern day IMO.

In fact…it's probably relevant to the original topic of this thread.

>>1929

In fact, let me add to that thought.

I'm probably bastardizing the Prince's idea, but it seems to be the following tit for tat: you give monarchism more power in exchange for the legitimization of secession (*). I would want to argue that the smaller the nationstate, the greater the likelihood for a natural leader and aristocratic class to form, and therefore the greater likelihood for the acceptance of a natural monarchy. That being said, if burgers want monarchism, they should really be arguing HARD for legitimization of secessionism.

(*) Let us call this, "The Princely Ploy."

>>1933

Luckily I’m both a monarchist and a Southerner, so I was on this boat already. Long Live Dixie.

>>1935

I am a southerner too (or a Texan if you want to say we aren't southerners)

I would give anything to change my ancestor's minds and not take that boat to the New World.

Pretty soon the Heir to the Throne of the House of Stuart will be the Prince of Liechtenstein I believe. (or the current Prince's son or grandson)

Anybody have a plan to move to a European Monarchy? Or just daydream about it? I spend too much time dreaming about it, really think I should try to make it happen some day.

>>1961

What is it like?

>>1961

>German clay

>>1965

In all seriousness, politically speaking, it's worrying. You have Jean-Claude Juncker who on the one hand is probably the sole reason the country continues to have any prominence at all without having being subsumed into either Belgian, French, or German politics–yet at the same reason is acting like the latest Napoleon of Europe and is the main reason that the individual identities of Europe including Luxembourg itself is dying. Meanwhile, the prime minister just continues the same and acts as his second-fiddle while the language continues to die and the country is so flooded with Portuguese and Arabian refugees that the national language has become functionally extinct with almost no native speakers anymore (including my generation, and unfortunately myself). It's the old argument of, "We have millenia of history, language, and roots here, and I'm worried it's going to die away through immigration." Although, really, the moment you leave the capital things get a lot better.

The only person with any backbone at all was probably the stunt HRH pulled off in 2008. Reading about that stupid little moment really influenced me and was what made me a monarchist at all, I suppose. Because it was inconsequential enough of a law politically speaking that it meant that the only reason a stunt like that got pulled off was because it seriously bothered His moral compass, and that He wasn't in it for overt political power because HRH accepted the consequences of losing that power. I guess everything I'm saying is completely ridiculous now, but after that moment I really feel like the Grand Duke went from acting like a political compass to probably the much more important moral one while at the same time it became apparent to me just how much Jean-Claude really lusted for power. Another consequence of this is I have a lot of respect for the principle behind "nolo episcopari," and it's why the argument that "In democracies those who want power become leaders, while at least in a monarchy you might have a chance that that's not the case" is really impactful for me.

>>824

>Peasant revolt

Is that what you call the richest landowners of the 13 colonies?

>>1527

>(((certain groups)))

You mean enlightenment theorists like Lock and Rousseau? The founding fathers? Simon Bolivar? The industrialists that overtook the old estates? The burgers?

Stop being a brainlet and read a fucking book.

>>1722

You'd more than just that to end liberalism in America. Forms of government are dependent on the modes of production that replicate them. Manorialism, serfdom, vassalage, etc. were vital to maintain both the institutions of monarchy and aristocracy.

To elaborate on that: Before the rise of capitalism as dominant mode of production in Europe, following the 14th century, wealth flowed to the landed estates. Who also had clear obligations to their subjects.

When the (urban) merchant class began to surpass the estates (both church and nobility) they grew in comparative power, commanding increasingly more assets than their landed peers. Before eventually surpassing them during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Changes in sovereignty will require changes to the dominant economic system.

>>1726

>US

>Least corrupt republic

A good look at lobbyist and corporate campaign spending in the US should cure of you of that notion. Not that elite affairs aren't by definition conspiratorial and corrupt. It's primarily liberal idealists that think otherwise.

>>2038

>You mean

I think he is refering to the jews who by proxy are at fault for the people you mention because they recruit for their satanic causes with organisations like the freemasons or by promoting homosexuality.

>>2040

I know what he meant. And he's wrong.

The greatest opposition didn't come from jews, but from white Europeans. From philosophers, plantation owners in the new world, from the rising industrialists and liberal politicians. Even at times aristocrats.

It was the Rothschilds that were enobled, the Sassoons that enabled the British empire, jews like Ferdinand Lassalle (one of the founders of international socialism) that spoke in favor of monarchy.

These brainlets - most of them MAGA-tard americlaps - will have you believe that it was the 'juice!!!' all along. When reality it was a complex chain of events and economic developments that eventually supplanted monarchy and aristocracy. True, a few among them were jewish. But most weren't. The problem lays much deeper and is much more systematic, and cannot be merely addressed by liquidating the jews.

It's not just that though. This hysterical shrieking about kikes was one of the calling-cards of the 19th and 20th century petite-bourgeoisie, who were among the the most fanatical enemies of the ancien régime and aristocracy.

These people don't actually see a problem with the status quo, they just want to get rid of the hooknoses and "smelly niggers". Just look how they collectively salivate over constitutionalism, populism, democracy, capitalism, etc. Both /pol/s today are filled with the same trash.

These pseudo-reactionaries, these crypto-liberals, these worthless creatures are the cancer that has been killing the west for centuries.

And they're not going to get off so easily by just pointing their fingers at someone else.

>Muh satanic faggot freemasons

No. While it's true that freemasons were initially prominent among liberal revolutionaries and Jacobins. This would decline during the 20th century.

>>2047

>And he's wrong.

He's not though. You are just not looking for the jew properly.

>The greatest opposition didn't come from jews, but from white Europeans. From philosophers, plantation owners in the new world, from the rising industrialists and liberal politicians. Even at times aristocrats

There were many 'white' Europeans that did propose such harmful liberal (read: destructive) policies. But it did not originate here. If you pay close attention you spot the jew, the jew who is not the bulk of the jihadi soldiers invading, but who poisons the well and opens the gate.

> When reality it was a complex chain of events and economic developments that eventually supplanted monarchy and aristocracy.

There was a complex chain of events and economic development that did not have to lead to the annihilation of christendom. Pre WWII Japan went through the same stuff, yet it retained its social cohesion and culture. Because there were no subversive elements within.

>This hysterical shrieking about kikes was one of the calling-cards of the 19th and 20th century petite-bourgeoisie

It was actually quite common among all the classes because people were still sane. There were even kings that adhered to it, who for sure wouldn't qualify as petites-bourgoisies

>No. While it's true that freemasons were initially prominent among liberal revolutionaries and Jacobins. This would decline during the 20th century.

Fact: Most high ranking socialists are in freemasonic lodges to this very day.

Any burgers moving to another country that is potentially more favourable to monarchy?

(Britain, Spain, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, maybe even Brazil? Or another European country? Even Switzerland is more likely to put in a monarchy than America in my opinion

>>2060

Even if Americans "woke up" to what is going on around the world they would never allow America to become a monarchy. The only other option is to balkanize or white flight. Balkanization could end with a Monarchy but I don't think it's likely. Europe may be cucked when it comes to socialism, but they are also a white country.

>>2060

You are aware that essentially everywhere where the BASED MURRICANS did not abolish it 'for' us against our will there is still a monarchy? You are not? Oh you are an uneducated American, that explains a lot.

>>2064

is there still monarchy in poland?

>>2084

Poland was ruled by monarchies (Austria, Prussia, Russia) until the Americans overturned those monarchies.

lol freedom

>>2058

OP here, as stated in the OP, I am planning on immigrating to the Russian Federation (I can speak the language and am currently in training for TESOL certification). It's not a monarchy yet, but there is a sizable movement there in support of a Romanov Restoration.

Although I think the Romanovs lost their "mandate of heaven", so to speak. We should restore the Rurikids to power

My ancestry is German itself anon, so I lean more towards a Fourth Reich kind of setting as the ideal, but, holy deuce, having a decent king would be infinitely better than what we have now, that way people wouldn't be killing each other every four years during election times and then be rabble roused against whoever was elected the rest of the time.

>>2102

>My ancestry is German

Let me guess, 56% at that?

>>2111

55%…oh wait, more immigrants, make that 52%.

–oops, now it's 49%, oh, sorry, make that 45%. Oh, I forgot the Kurdish refugees, now it's 43%. Uh-oh, more Syrians, make that 40%. Oh, Merkel just allowed more Somalians, now it's 33%…

>>2114

Even if the current rate should continue it will take Germany decades to rech up to the USA, GB, or France in terms of diversity.

If you're comparing yourself to U.S., France, and the U.K., you have already lost.

>>2201

>are they still a democracy

We can only hope they are not.

>>2202

I was asking because I was thinking of Moving to Poland later in life. I already know the Polish people are BASED af and currently rallying other (Eastern) European Nations agianst the EU.

>Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth when?

>>2205

Eastern Europe is one of the major advocates for the EU. Because it is the foremost profiteer thereof. They are only opposed to muslim immigration for quite obvious reasons.

Poles hate Lithuanians and vice versa btw. Both have respective minorities within their country and discriminate against them. The only reason the Baltics were allowed to join is trolling Putin. There are also major russian minorities in all Baltic states who are second class citizens. But when it's about russians the EU does not seem too concerned about minority rights.

>>2205

only korwin and me are based, the rest are cucks

>>2207

>Eastern Europe is one of the major advocates for the EU.

That's wrong. Eastern Europe is a hostage of EU, due to all their economies becoming export-based after the fall of USSR (and due to the nature of EU's market laws) and having their only market be the EU, due to EU's sanctions on Russia. The EU donations aren't even important – they are all stolen immediately, since it's easy as shit to steal them, and the country itself doesn't benefit much from them. Their only effect is the politicians in power lining their pockets. The real issue is that for eastern europe, leaving EU is the equivalent of an economic suicide, which is why they aren't leaving despite being increasingly unhappy with it.

If you want an American monarchy, you will need faith and hope.

Monarchy will have to be a cultural force before it can engage the American public. Your best bet is convincing the minds of thousands with songs, music, poetry, and art. Politics comes second, because politics only inspires division. You'll need to start with re-introducing the idea of liberty, because Americans live for liberty; talk about the Crown of Liberty and do not attack the Constitution for which it stands. The Constitution will have to be reinforced. The Executive Branch will need restructure. The other branches of government will have to find a harmony with the new monarchy, but it can be done much like the 2nd German Empire. The United States has striking similarities to that government because both are federations and both dealt with different bodies of government… it is just one had a monarchy and a strong heritage for it. For this reason, you need a cultural force to build a heritage around the idea of the monarchy. It has always been present in America, but it never surfaced so often especially after becoming a republic.

Justification? Speak on behalf of liberty, and speak on the injustice before King George III. This is the biggest obstacle. The Declaration of Independence challenges a monarch to begin with and speaks of crimes. Your best bet is to speak on behalf of justice always and no better way to go back to King Charles I who died unjustly. But the biggest injustice will have to come from the actual government itself, the republic and the virtues for which it stands, one nation, under God, and indivisible with liberty and justice for all. You see, there is the republic, and then there is the virtues it stands for.

There is the Constitution. The obstacle needs to sync the Crown with the Constitution. The monarch would have to take a title as "Defender of the Constitution" and the Crown would have to become like a beacon of liberty, a so-called "Crown of Liberty". The proclamation of the Crown should be just like the Constitution; the goal would be making the Constitution and the Crown inseparable and one body, perhaps the hardest obstacle of the monarchy itself regarding ceremony. The coronation itself would have to incorporate the traditions of the United States office and that would include revising the Oath of Office with the hand on the Bible. This would need a very symbol rehashing with the coronation event.

To better acquaint the American people with the monarchy, I would recommend a Bonapartist-style monarchy as seen across the continent, but it would have to be distinctly American. It would have to incorporate elements of the British monarchy, being the cultural ancestor of the United States, with the ideals of liberty. I recommend something as seen after the French Revolution with certain monarchs incorporating the ideas into the monarchy… like King Philippe I or Emperor Napoleon I or Napoleon III.

Honestly, despite all I said, you ought not to worry and simply hope. If you insist on becoming a politically active member, I recommend becoming an advocacy group but NOT a political party. Disdain political parties. Your best bet are actually non-political aims like becoming a better member of service on behalf of the government, like a soldier, a politician… or becoming something cultural like a writer or anything but your average politician.

>whose only claimants is British "hag" and Hawaii

You don't know the first thing about honor and respect. Fix that.

This dependence and hope on the ideals of political parties bringing back monarchy disgusts me so much. How could you depend on such a structure? There is no reason for the system itself to implement monarchy… it is so far out of reach if you're hoping to appeal through political parties.

It is no secret: I hate partisanship and most of all political parties.

To have the monarch, there are a few options:

#1: Invite a royal to accept the Crown from overseas.

#2: Someone so powerful will take it upon himself.

#3: Another power will absorb our sovereignty.

3 is the least likely option, but it could be like with Hawaii and their royal. There are very small remnants of a sort of American pro-monarchy heritage dispersed around the country's history.

>>2587

>#1: Invite a royal to accept the Crown from overseas.

Unfortunately, the whole emoluments clause was made explicitly to stop this. :/

Then again, the U.S. constitution is a dead letter anyways.

>>2709

>he believes he'll re-establish monarchy by playing into the hands of republicans

Okay, good luck with that. I'm sure the republican government will allow this. A political party is an instrument of the republican government, so it is very self-defeating to take the role of partisan and be pro-monarchy. Only in countries without a monarchy is this a possible way to re-establish it because it would be the only means outside of someone with power inviting the royals back.

I don't hate government or monarchy, I hate partisanship.

Being a royalist partisan is a contradictory term. Your best bet is being an advocate, whatever it takes to separate yourself from the name of partisan. There are few royalist parties like Action Française.

>>828

>democracy, not republic

How?

>>931

No, the idea is that they claimed they were not being treated like British subjects despite being British subjects, as of the Bill of Rights (1689).

>>3102

*not that they didn't want any fiscal responsibility, but they felt they were being taxed unfairly

>>2711

How?

>>2038

>Changes in sovereignty will require changes to the dominant economic system.

This.

>Russian descendent from White Immigrants (grandfather was a minor noble who fought for Monarchists

Leave USA before your bloodline gets pozzed beyond salvage.

>>3112

Is this "Black Storm" an actual organization? Do they have a website?

>>3156

It is an actual organization. If you're interested let me know.

>>3164

I'm definitely interested. Legitimate Monarchist organizations are extremely hard to find in the US.

>>3165

Ok then, it's a small one, but so far it's the only legitimate Monarchist organization here.

uCSMtt

>>3168

>uCSMtt

What is that a discord invite?

>>3210

Yeah. If you're interested, let me know.

>>3112

You're proposing cultural marxist hegemony?

>>3214

Quite the opposite- we are a small, but growing, American Monarchist group that advocates for National Traditionalism. However, what makes us different from past monarchist groups in the US is that we do not seek to make the British Royal Family the heads of state- but rather a direct descendent of George Washington (we have pinpointed a living, rightful Monarch going by Britain's succession system). This is due to the fact that George Washington was of noble birth himself (unlike other presidents) and the fact that we seek to maintain America as a independent World Power- albeit with a much different foreign policy that what Neocons and Neoliberals push for now.

>>3216

What's the successor doing at the moment? If I might ask.

And yeah, I'd appreciate the invite, though I'm not too active on Discord at the moment.

>>3247

Right now the living succesor is a young man living an average life in Texas.

Here you go: GNavjy

This thread is very autistic and OP is a faggot.

>>3276

Yes, anon. It would. The more states are separated, the more likely one could become a monarchy in the future. But it is no bet: the United States has less foundation for it, but history could permit it to happen.

>you'll never live in a burger space monarchy where you scramble with Russia and other world powers to colonize the solar system

>>824

I don't. America doesn't have the tradition for it and it's quite antiquated as far as organization goes, and finally there's no clear line of royalty in the U.S that wouldn't also make us a dominion under Britain instead of our own nation. You're not even technically allowed to accept titles such as knighthood from a foreign monarchy while you're an American citizen but that seems to have lessened overtime.

>>3276

>when America isn't the exact governmental and social system you want

<A CIVIL WAR WILL FIX THIS!

I know this feel, but we cant rely on fellow burgers killing themselves to do something actually right; at least not in year of our Lord 2019, when the most like cause of civil war is the supply of burgers running out.

>>7233

A civil war would be our only chance. We would have to install a monarch once the established powers are toppled.

>>7240

You'll just get the American version of the Russian Civil War and end up with a leftist regime even less restrained than the one before. Don't start a fight unless you're sure you'll win.

>>7252

And never assume you'll win just because "the right has all the guns." That's not how these things work.

jacobitemag.com/2017/06/14/political-violence-is-a-game-the-right-cant-win/

>>7240

You'd basically need something like communists overthrowing the government, and then the monarchists defeating the communists. Americans aren't going to accept some jackass with a crown stepping into a power vacuum.

>>7201

This idea that you can only draw from existing royal blood is relatively recent propaganda. Each of those bloodlines was started by someone.

>>3267

Lmao at that pic, I think if the british monarchy continues the way it's going right now, there will be no british monarchy.

>>7371

Honestly, there's no good candidates for monarch, and not enough for other positions of nobility.

>>7393

As I said, I don't think there's anywhere near enough good options to fill out the lower levels of the nobility. Any competition would inevitably have to be formulated by bureaucrats or run the risk of devolving into the very kind of civil conflict you're talking about avoiding.

Reposting question from another thread:

>>7879

What should be done with America? In an ideal world.

Would you have a Kingdom of America? What religion or culture would the monarch be from? Would it be a centralized realm or very decentralized like the HRE? Elective monarchy or hereditary? Would it have to be cut into multiple kingdoms? (Say Kingdom of Dixie, Kingdom of California, Kingdom of Texas… some ideas maybe).

How do you deal with the clusterfuck of religions, races, and ethnicities on this continent basically? Or do you just nuke it from orbit? Have fun with this thought experiment.

>>7879

>>7891

Depends on what you mean by ideal. On a certain level, an American monarchy would have existed pretty much from the country's independence.

>Would you have a Kingdom of America? What religion or culture would the monarch be from? Would it be a centralized realm or very decentralized like the HRE?

Who to make monarch is by far one of the biggest issues of modern American monarchism. Regarding culture, an American monarch is non-negotiable. As for the rest, a hereditary monarch reigning from DC over a union of American Principalities would be ideal. Some of the bigger and more populated states should probably be broken up, but otherwise the states are probably fine as the Principalities. Maybe a bit of merging of the really tiny ones on the east coast, but they tend to be much more densely populated so maybe not.