Why not let the Queen rule us?

If the Queen promised on oath to be just and fair why not just let her rule the UK? None of the recent Prime Ministers have done overly well.

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/queen-asks-guests-to-give-her-3-reasons-why-britain-should-remai/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Fuck no, a king.

The problem with a monarchy is that it's as much of a lottery as rolling for a good PM except if you get a shit one you're potentially stuck with it for 90 years.

I say this as a bong user, there's a reason we moved towards parliamentary democracy.

Ok, which one?

Because she's too wealthy to be beholden to special interests so she can't be allowed any power at all. She's not even allowed to talk about politics in public without (((parliament)))'s approval.

As we've learned this year from America, there's nothing a jew hates and fears more than a rich person who doesn't want their money.

If any of you fuckers don't choose Harry you need to GTFO of Holla Forums

Well yeah, we'd have to have some sort of rules in place so no mad monarch could rule (they have a long history if madness, mental and physical disability due to inbreeding). But for the most part they don't inbreed anymore. So they still have to work within certain moral and legal guidelines.

But look at all the fucking MP's and PM's that have quangos etc. Nearly all of them are corrupt. At least a monarch has enough money to not have to worry about fraud and backhanded tactics to get money. Kind of like Trump.

I'd choose Harry, he seems like a down to earth man that has a sense of humour and he's actually worked for a living previously.

G-d save the queen of Israel!

That just proves she has influential and powerful contacts, which is a good thing. Plus name one PM that did not have shady friends and donors?

Royalty and masonry go hand in hand.

Whole different conspiracy, user.

You're misinformed.
Freemasonry uses the pentagram. It's not exclusive to judaism.

...

...

Nah, if any royal's going to take back control of their kingdom, it should be Harry. He's the only one who would gladly purge Londonistan of the brown horde.

...

Honestly she has been a terrible monarch, she is a weak little woman who has let her country slide into the abyss quietly accepting her role as a tourist figurehead. What you need is a man, an alpha male King to play the game and start interfering in politics again, gaining back some of his rightful authority and leading the british people.

HAIL KING HARRY

It is but the ultimate redpill pol will eventually have to swallow.

A dictatorship is a system bound to failure. It can only be temporary.

A dictatorship rises with violence, and however good its rule may be, it will end once the dictator dies.

Monarchy is the ultimate form of govern as long as it comes with lasting responsability.
Who better to rule than someone who's been bred and upbrought specifically to rule? The fate of a monarch is cruel, but one that needs to be shouldered either way.

It makes you wonder how much power she has though I mean, would she have more influence in Masonry than Rothschild himself? I thought women were barred from membership? He basically owns the House of Saud, and those who he doesn't are cryptos anyway.


This is what they want you to believe goy; Rothschild owns Masonry.

The Brits are a german tribe and part of the original Arthurian legend is he is going to subjugate or drive out all the saxons dogs

It could have worked, but the Queen unfortunately had her oaths broken.

...

Reminder that this will be the King once the Queen finally runs out of Virgin sacrifices to keep going.

The Britons are Celtic, the English are Saxon migrants

How about dragging Arthur out of his slumber already? The country has gone to shit for a long time.

captcha: gxeukb

if i remember correctly women can't be members of masonry, am i right?

I think the joke is that the House of Windsor is a Branch of House Saxe-Coburg, making the British Monarchy essentially germans.

You only want to rejoin Britain because they had the balls to say no to the globalists.

If the US had the balls to do something drastic like rejoin the Empire, it would also have the balls to say no to the globalists. Good on them, but either way we don't need Britain.

We're so different culturally you wouldn't really want to submit to their rule anyway. You want them imposing their anti-weapon culture on us?

Hitler would like a word with you.

angle germans

angle land

angland

england

That's correct. They can be members of the Order of the Eastern Star, but they use entirely different symbols. Like an inverted rainbow pentagram. That would freak Holla Forums the fuck out for sure.

Fine with me but people went insane about the country "moving backwards" just over brexit. Imagine that times 100, plus all the politicians chimping out from losing their power. It would never happen.

But history proves you wrong. The number of exceptional or at least capable monarchs is much lower than the number of fucking retards. Most Kings that are considered good by history had delegated resposibility to a competent bureaucracy.

I'm monarchist but i must say that the brazilian military dictatorship was very interesting and maybe its build to last.

Not in my watch motherfucker

Yes, in the Mein Kampf he said that the seizure of power through legitimate channels should be strived for. I think it was to show to the regular citizen that they were the legitimate government.

Unless King Harry invokes "Right to Rule" and temporarily holds power (let's say 20-30 years to clean up the mess) and transfers over power to an interim leader to transition into a form of democracy.

I wouldn't agree to it.

Autocracies aren't a good long term solution for a country.

GOD AND MY RIGHT

the english royalty stepped down to avoid being assassinated like the tzar and his family, it was the only way to avoid death by the jews

At least she'd last longer than Bernie Sanders.

I would happily have the nation return to a land of Kings

Elizabeth Alexandra Mary the sovereign, or (((HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN)))?

I am loyal to the Duke of Guernsey, not some City corporation.

Harry.

Have some periodic vote for the monarch and if they have a continuous bad record require a replacement with someone else from the royal family.

I'd go for that.

*Duke of Normandy.

At least get yer legal fictions right m8.

I'd be happy with HRH Charles to take the reigns for the next 15-20 years.

Strong traditionalist.

How about instead we have civilization (society ruled by civilians).

Our lord high admiral lizzy is a military officer.

The Royal family has Jewish blood, they're in bed with the globalists and even a random burger like me has more claim to the throne by right of succession than any of them.

Think before you post, OP.

Only if his sons are not the heirs. Otherwise hopefully Charlie will pop off before Liz which would change the succession and stop that bint Diana's questionable lineage from ruling the kingdom.

Isn't your current queen rather pro-establishment, Britain? Last I heard, she was anti-Brexit.

...

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/queen-asks-guests-to-give-her-3-reasons-why-britain-should-remai/

(how do i archive?)

And if you had balls, you wouldn't be calling the kikes "globalists", Mr Jones.

Half the globalists are kikes. Sadly the other half are sociopathic gentiles.

Better than letting the bureaucracy rule alone.