Monarchy

I support Monarchy but Elizabeth II and the rest of the House of Windsor have let this country down.

Satanist Scumbags, the lot of them. Reptilian Demons, posing as Humans. One of the Ringleaders of the Luciferian NWO.

Will be utterly exterminated in the Great War of 2020.

Good riddance.

favorable view of monarchy itself but this royal family is shit-tier.

Serve him right.

I think if we moved to presidency, Tony Blair would somehow weasel his way into the position of president, so I support monarchy. This might change if Charlie takes the throne; his two favourite things are islam and homeopathy.

Royalty in democracy is pointless. Idiot Dutchfags say that they're good for muhh tourism, but when asked why exactly they're good for tourism they can never say anything.
Some manage to say
but the palace that tourists visit is never the same as the one the royalty actually lives in and anyone with half a brain can realize that.

I say all royalty everywhere be either dethroned or executed as soon as politically possible.

They're lizards.

how ya doin eddgy mcedge?

Degenerated pawns of jewry.

The monarchy has been held by crypto kikes ever since the daughter of James II and VII betrayed him for that usurper William of Orange in the so called "glorious revolution"
The rightful heir to the throne is Duke Franz von Bayern of Bavaria.

how am I edgy for wanting to remove parasites that leech off of my tax money?

ITT yanks and poles on the dole

britcuck go home.

They do sort of serve as a cultural time capsule. Little reminder of where the nation came from and that it once believed God putting humans in charge of things was a good idea.

This.
The kikes from Netherlands did a coup with William to get the rightful monarchs and install a jewish puppet.
And it has been like that ever since.
Ever wondered where England got so much capital to fuel the industrial revolution AND fight Napoleon all by themselves for 40 years with 6 million coalitions?
The British Empire might as well be renamed the Rothschild Empire after the God-Emperor banishes them to Madagascar.

As a brit who occasionally lurks Holla Forums fuck /britpol/ and any of the cucks that affiliate with it
My patriotism leaves me with a soft spot for the royals, even if they are pretty interbred, powerless in the important matters of state and more of a trophy than anything.

I would give anything for giving power to a royal but only if they were an intelligent and charismatic leader who would remove the jew and fix this failing country. Atleast BREXIT and Farage have been a good step forward for the country recently even if most faggots my age are brainwashed libcucks who form their political beliefs from facebook and BBC are making me lose hope

I try to redpill anyone I can and find myself spending more time visiting my rather repectable grandparents than my pozzed family and friends now

they're a bunch of degenerated useless pawns used to sell some more shitty tabloids and give the illusion of sovereignty

in fairness for every £1 spent on the royals the uk gets £14 back. It's great revenue raising

Also

BASED PRINCE GEORGE

Canadafag, here. I'd like to see Canada ruled by Prince Harry instead of Dildeau. And yes, I know all about his suspect pedigree. I don't care. Better a bastard than a faggot.

1. They are not the rightful monarchs of the UK. The House of Oranje, the same people who govern the Netherlands are.

2. (They) She is the equivalent of what Micky Mouse represents to Disneyland.

Yes, and so do books. They can hang and the money can go to places where it is needed.

Yeah, because a white sovereign leech is much worse than a hidden juden one.

I didn't imply that you stupid nigger. All leeches need to be cut down, hidden or not.

Fuck off Corgi

Please, give us an argument as to why a "ceremonial" monarch who literally has her own speech written for her by Jews is a good thing. the last Brit monarch who had principles and admired AH, they stripped him on his crown and shipped him off the the Caribbean.

If they had any sort of power and were using it for good…they don't. There was a "rumour" that the Queen was asking her dinner guests for "3 good reasons to stay in the EJew." That was the best they good do.
And she's been there 60 years so has some gravitas. Imagine when Charles, would be "Defender of Faith" (not THE faith) takes over? The Jews are going to have their hand up his ass like a talking puppet.
the next one in line, Bald Billy, whose mother was a race-mixing whore who couldn't get enough paki cock? Jesus christ, they are worse than a US reality TV show. And people pretend to respect these motherfcukers?

the house that sold England to the Rothschilds?
fuck the house of oranje
if you want to get technical theres been no legitimate King of Britain since Vortigen
and to get Really technical the last true king of all Britain was Caratacus

We need an Anglo-Saxon monarch to lead our people. The Normans took the throne in a fair way, in the way that the old Kings ascended; by killing the previous King. Such an act showed ambition and strength, and necessitated charisma and the ability to lead; for no mere assassin would ever be accepted the King of the people.

A hereditary Monarch is not necessarily a bad thing; acting in the best interests of one's family means keeping the nation as strong, happy and prosperous as possible so as to minimise the chance of public disapproval or foreign invasion. The problem with the current lines is that they are all intermingled with other foreign blood, and thus feel they have a claim to numerous other areas. This is why the Normans were bad for England as a whole, even though many have done great things as individuals.

A Monarch should marry into the aristocracy of their own tribe, both for purity reasons, and because it keeps them loyal to 'their people' as opposed to a mongrelised monarchy that feels the whole of Europe is its rightful claim; and thus has no true loyalty to any tribe of people.

Bring back an Anglo-Saxon monarch, and make a rule that the monarch must only marry within the native tribe. That more or less solves all potential problems that a Monarch could have. Though it should be noted that even with such problems, a Monarch is largely superior to a government which is difficult to blame for anything (Tories blame Labour, Labour blames Tories, Lib Dems blame white people, no one held accountable). The individuals are also difficult to keep tabs on, so it is much harder to stop any attempts at subversion or deals with foreign/hostile powers.

A Monarchy must be accompanied by an Oligarchic group that keeps tabs on them, with the group being under the supervision of a select group of commoners to make sure they stay within their bounds. The Constitutional Monarchy is by far the best form of rule that has ever been created; it is a shame that it no longer exists. The commons should be the commons, the lords are the business creators, and the monarch is a largely hereditary position. The monarch, lords and commons balance each other's differing desires out; lords stopping commons from passing welfare measures, monarch stopping lords from selling out the nation to the highest bidder, commons stopping the lords from instituting oppressive levels of slavery, and them all being able to balance out the other groups powers.

So who's stopping you?

Powerless figurheads

FBI please

Charles is a pacifist, William is a muppet and the Queens been ignoring the people by and large because thats what her neurotic wreck of a father told her to do
Consider the devolution the monarchy in Britain has suffered when comparing it to the current monarchies of Europe
nearly all the Scandinavian and the Dutch royal families are neutral on politics and have no power
The Spanish monarchy survived thanks to fascism but the German monarchy was dissolved because of it
The Russian monarchy was outright murdered by socialism and the Romanian one lived in exile for decades because of it

There will always be leeches. I'm just tired of them not being white.

A monarchy is only useful if the monarch actually has political power, which isn't the case for the royal families in Europe which is why I don't support it. Right now they are pretty much just very rich welfare leeches, they sit on their asses and don't have to do anything except smile for the camera and for doing that they earn millions every month.

german monarchy got the death blow because hitler himself got scared of their power when prince wilhelm was killed in battle and had 50,000 people show up to his funeral. not saying it was a bad move by the fuhrer but in my opinion it made him look weak.

What you are describing there is basically what the early roman did after they got rid of their elected monarchs because one cunt didn't want to let the throne go out of his family.

The plebs and the patricians were always at the throat of each others for everything which almost caused the lost of the city plenty of times.

Do you actually think that either 'Vortigern' or Caratacus held anything resembing pan-brythonic authority. The Celts are/were fucking horrible at unity. Even after more than 100 years under roman rule the celts quickly devolved into warring tribal territiories after it was clear that Rome wasn't coming back. The idea that there was any centralized or co-ordinated defense against the 'barbarian conspiracy' is at best implied in the Mabinogion but all available historical evidence suggests the Britons were as busy fighting each other as they were fighting the Picts, scottii Irish or Germanics.

>>>/pdfs/911

Because they didn't have a King to moderate and act in the best interest of the state.

Not the user you were replying to but it seems the obvious rebuttal to your point.

That said the Roman conception of the state is fairly different from ours. Part of the difficulty in ousting the kings in ancient Rome was that the King, and all appointed positions of authority, were also religious positions. So a change government required a reformulation of religious doctrine. Many of the duties were passed to the Consul, Pontifex Maximus or the Censor, but conceptually it was the people collectively, Patrician and Plebian, that held the fundamentally divine authority formerly embodied by the king.

All these Republicucks ITT are embarrassing.

Brit here, I love the monarchy. Even though they've no power left, they still put on nice pageantry and events. I dream of a return to an absolute monarchy.

It was the House of Oranje that sold us out. Things would've been better if we'd stuck with the Stuarts. The Royals to this day are owned by the Rothschilds, which is sad. Elizabeth is a good Queen though. She cares about her people, but can't do anything because she can't express political opinions. Charles is a piece of work though. William's better, but not great. George, if his recent cucking of Trudeau is anything to go by, shall be a great King. Absolute monarchies are really the only go, or failing that, Fascism.

>>>Holla Forums

It's all about natural hierarchy, incentives and consequences vs. ideals.

God is a king; the king of kings in fact. I feel this is a very valuable reference point to hold monarchs to.

Go away burger

In Hell there is Democracy, in Heaven there is a Kingdom.
-Saint John of Kronstadt

GO BACK TO CUCKCHAN

They partake in pedophile cults with the Jews and the Vatican, sacrificing children to Moloch

no, go gas yourself

I think you mean BY JEWS. there's a paper on this topic from the 70s actually written by a Jew. Why would a small, historically despised minority have their hands so deep in blood for something that would haunt them for centuries?
>2 of the 3 signatures on death warrant are Jews (Lenin not counted, though was 1/4th Jew and married to a Jewess)
And this by a people who made up less than one half of 1 percent of the Russian population. The Jews have still never faced the music for what they did, both to the Russian royal family and to the Slavic people as a whole.

I'm Orthodox, and I will forever hate what they did the Tsar and his family. They killed the Third Rome. They will burn in Hell.

Looking back at your post history, you're either wrong or retarded. kys

From what I've read in the news it seems like Harry could be the saviour Britain needs.
Also I've seen a bunch of pricks trying to push the "abolish the monarchy once the Queen dies" sick fuckery.
Here's hoping if it leads to civil war when the monarchists win the crown goes to Harry.

SAGE AND REPORT FOR ZERO EFFORT.

fair

Caratacus was King of the Britons and had pan-brythonic authority, similar to how the high kings of Ireland had their authority
his father and grandfather had spent years subjugating tribes and forging alliances
Caratacus wasn't defeated in open battle he was betrayed by a woman who had sworn allegiance to him to Rome
Queen Cartimunda was oathbound to supply Caratacus with warriors and provisions and instead she betrayed him for the promise that Britain would belong to her and she would rule as a subject of Rome
of course this didnt happen and her own tribe rebelled against her twice for being a traitorous cunt
the celts of Britain were under Roman rule for the better part of 300 years and they didnt devolve into warring tribal territories as soon as the Western Roman Empire collapsed
Germanic mercenaries in Britain brought there by the Romans rebelled in the early 5th century AD because the Roman coin stopped coming and sacked most of south-east England
the Northern, Western and Southern regions remained largely held together in a pale imitation of the Roman system supported by the Celtic tribal chiefs resorting to an elective monarchy to replace the now absent Roman governors
Vortigen was one such elected monarch when he invited the Angles and Saxons over to England

That other user is embarrassing, it's like he hasn't even read Our Island Story.

I didnt know that I just thought they were commies
Every fucking time

I always find it weird that due to circumstance the Romanovs were the legitimate successors to the throne of Constantinople but its true isnt it

I think i've missed that one myself too tbh

...

Of all the things the Jews have done, killing the Romanovs is the worst. And then they raped the bodies. Fucking animals.

I was joking a bit if I'm honest. I do remember a brief bit in it about Vortigern inviting the Saxons over though.

Any idea how this would play out?

I just checked it myself and its disturbing
Vortigern attempted to make the Angles and Saxons sign a treaty of foedarati like the Romans would and he was also accompanied by a council formed of civitates or the representatives of each city in Britain
I'd say they tried to continue their Roman system since it would have been all they had known for the better part of 150 years

Harry is based tbh, but it won't happen. There's always a minority calling for abolishing the monarchy, but they're still hugely popular. At the height of unpopularity in '97 after Lady Di died, it was still only 25% against the monarchy, which is the absolute peak. The question is how much of that is down to Elizabeth's personal popularity. No one likes Charles, but I doubt there'd be a civil war.

Harry being King would be brilliant though. He'd take on more power, have the military on his side, and could clean up shop if he wanted to.

The Tsars also had their court Jews. Peter the Great brought in Jan Acosta from Amsterdam in 1714 as his favorite court Jew. The same Jews from Netherlands as the ones behind Oranje in England. Acosta was from the Mendes da Costa family, one Moses da Costa is described in older sources as the director of the Bank of England in the 1700s: jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4688-costa-anthony-da
The first police general of St. Petersburg was a Dutch Jew, Anton de Vieira.

Mostly taigs, scots too thick to know its their monarchy too and english republicans like (((Russel fucking Brand)))
theres a larger republican movement in england than there is in wales for christs sake
there'd be apathy which in a sense is worse
Harry would definitely spur a renewed sense of patriotic fervour amongst the plebs though
our very own modern Henry V I dream of it

>Prince Charles dies…

Mass immigration does its job yet again. It's like lefties don't even know history. But then, of course they don't.

Peter the Great was Jewed, but the Tsars seemed to broken free of the influence by the mid 1800's.

theres a larger republican movement in england than there is in wales for christs sake
Pretty much.

I want civil war. Because we'd win. One look at your average leftist makes me very confident.

our very own modern Henry V I dream of it
If only he'd been born first instead of Wills.
What if William, Kate, George, and Charlotte and had a horrible accident…

The dream is alive, my friend.

I think you mean Grand Marshal of the Realm, Lord High Executioner and Warden of Britain

you are deluding yourself user. People think he's some sort of "military hero." When the cameras followed him around, they didn't show the 4 body guards he had with him at all times.

how much do you think they cost? So basically for royal Pr purposes, they gave away the place of an apache pilot to someone who might have actually been effective.

Also, he is almost certainly the son of that redheaded cunt whose name escapes me. Also, he's 34 and still not married? Part of me wonders if he isn't a secret fag.
but the larger issue, he wouldn't pluck a hair on his ass to do anything that might cost him his status and shekels. Every time I scroll through the Daily Mail, I see an article on him and some sort of nigger "charity."
LITTLE KNOWN FACT- Dr. Scheuer says his bimbo mother and her "anti-mine" bullshit is the reason bin laden wasn't killed a decade earlier. The Us wasn't allowed to mine all the routes into Pakistan thanks to his race-mixing mother causing big international bullshit.
Whether bin laden was protected by the Jews or not, probably the only "known figure" I trust is Dr. Scheuer, since he was there, he names the Jew, on the Jews and 9/11 he says "I'd never put anything past the Israelis.."
(if you are on this site and not familiar with Dr. Scheuer, stop whatever you are doing and go watch some of his interviews).

...

Reality soon, comrade.

Of course.

It's better than any of the alternatives.

did they?

I think they have more power than people think. Ambassadors to the world whilst countless PMs have come and gone. The Queen meets with the PM regularly. If she didnt agree with something they would have to think about it.

which at this point could be achieved by popping open a canister of VX gas in Parliament during the session where they discuss the annual organisation of the MP pension fund

lel that is true…
…
Now I'm sad.

Biggest welfare queens in the northern hemisphere

what is Scotland
what is Malmo in Sweden

Britkikes, the most retarded people on earth. The royal family isn't even of British blood

Organic monarch, or the corporate "crown" of the City?

Look into the channel islands lads. This will be rectified.

Fuck off Jerrycuck. The Shitish royal family isn't even Shitish.

Harry isn't a lizard, IIRC.

this looks to me like a CTR handbook gone wrong

Isn't this the flag of Acadia user?

CANADAis just another company like The Bay. Very easy for this to do.

Oui.

better a drunkard than a man who has more in common with the myth of Nero than he should

Monarchy is outdated and getting useless.

And that's exactly why it's good. Triggers leftists even more than fascism or racial realism.

I see being pro-monarchy as being pro-museum. A reminder that there is a figure representing the past and that people like that enjoy it, and therefore, hate "progress".

those who believe in progress believe they can achieve Utopia
I prefer Arcadia myself tbh, Utopia is a fantasy for the naive

Greenpill hates monarchy.

The Queen stands idle where her country is filled with formerly colonized natives.

I've got your utopia right here! What could go wrong?

They're a vital part of how the UK government works.

Our system runs on the idea of division of power.
No one element of our government has all the cards and better yet all those ones who are holding cards are in direct opposition to each other and thus unable to cooperate much.

What this means is that at times things can be a bit squiffy but overall our system remains stable. No one part of it can go full retard.
Parliament must be ever fearful of the crown, civil service and military. While the others must also live in fear of the others.

Oh just about everything really

WORDS HAVE MEANING!
SPOONS HAVE EDGES!

Still wonder what my life might be like today if the Brits had not forcibly removed ancestors from there. I think probably the first example in history of one christian group of Western euros actually "genociding" another (over half of the 14,000 removed died in passage. Rest ended up as indentured servants in colonies or were thrown into prisons in France.)

Nigga wut?

except the division of power shifted last century
Parliament reigns almost supreme now
the Queen has let them do as they wish for the better part of 50 years
hell in 1999 the commie labour government disbanded the rights of the hereditary landed nobles of Britain to vote in the House of Lords
now the House of Lords is full of puppets and foreigners the House of Commons appoints so the House of Commons can get any law they want passed without interference from the aristocracy or the monarch
the only power the Queen has anymore is that she can dissolve Parliament and remove all the current MP's from power
if it doesnt go her way though she can technically be tried for treason against herself by Parliament
the burghers have more power than they should and look at the mess they've made of Britain in a few short decades

Don't fear the future.

only did it because your militias were pro-autocratic French and kept raiding British supply lines
and it doesnt say the frog settlers of Acadia were 'genocided'
the Cajun population in Louisiana has a significant portion of Acadian descent since you were all relocated there after the French and Indian war
tell that to the Cathars m8, or the Arians of Germany

Name 1 (one) single thing that is stopping her from firstly expressing political opinions and secondly naming the jew.

gib Brahman and Kshatriya pls

tabloids and cronies
access to a camera or videofeed
also if they thought she'd do that

lacking spiritual character tbh

Precisely. As says, thats quite an efficient and productive investment. Provides jobs for squaddies and bear hats protecting them. Total service costs equal less than revenue raised by all accounts.

David Icke covered his redpills with insane imagery so he didnt get suicided.
Whilst true that they are relics of the past (heritage - fuck you new speak), I thought we were traditionalists? Why remove what works for the sake of "progress" (muh current year)?
Tl;dr: anons ITT LARP as cultural marxists.

This is the surest sign of decadent beyond repair society. Our heroes aren't even fictional, so their morals and aspirations had worth in their own context, they are people who pretend to be our heroes for pay.

Yeah, that surely stopped
Basically every single anti-establishment politician in history.

So the whole royal family is full of cowards and traitors then? Not only her?
Yeah, that surely worked 50 years ago when she spoke against the jew .
Oh wait, she didnt.

all those men you've just listed could leave the front door of the house they lived in whenever they wanted and not have it booked ahead of schedule and also to be escorted by and shadowed by armed security personnel wherever you go

Try harder Moshe.

Times change and so do monarchs. If the people of a country tend to degenerate themselves, the royals will reflect this. Look at Prince Charles or Princess Diane. For fucks sake I saw Harry wearing tattered jeans in one picture. This was unthinkable even 30 years ago.

This. The whole idea is that there is a third party to always keep the balance.

In various ways the 'Lords' (modern day business owners/ corporate elite) and the 'Commons' (your every day worker) would be at each others throat; the Monarch would mediate to maintain fairness, though each would have a position of power to stop themselves from getting abused.
At other times the Monarch might desire to make the Commons into a vast army; the Lords would be against such an act as it would destroy their profits. The Commons might wish to have mass welfare and benefits, the Monarch would of course side with the Lords as it would bankrupt the nation.

They all keep each other in check so long as they all act in their own best interests which will happen the majority of the time. The biggest problems are social mobility and the press; social mobility allowing for a pseudo-Lord class of 'commons' to arise who share in none of the interests of the 'real' commons, and the Press convincing people that things are in their best interests when they are not.

You cannot make a perfect system, but having three parties means that people are not always at one-another's throats and that the 'best path' is usually followed. Basically the Monarch is concerned in 'long-term' prosperity and peace(so as to maintain their families power and keep them safe from threats), which keeps in check any plays for power by either the commons (who might seek 'welfare') or the lords (who might seek to use immigration as a means of bolstering their revenue). The Roman comparison fails as there was really just two factions who were opposed to each other with no mediator to keep things 'fair'.

first two shot by rabid nutters and lone gunman and they were healthy men
I doubt a 90 yo woman can survive a sniper round through the head
besides why are you referring to Mandela a nigger that killed white women and children in South Africa, and Lenin the kike that murdered half of Russia and the final descendants of the Roman Empire in the same context as Hitler?

What is this spirit you speak of? Can it be described as a consistent constant affecting individuals and populations alike? Can it be measured, quantified?

"Of course not!" You will say. "Such things are beyond your feeble understanding, heretic!"

For a more realistic appreciation of reality, the boxers that cross themselves before the fight will lose.

...

Just like the Hittite Empire and the your post reminds me of the monologues of Solon
The Roman system devolved in so many ways it was ridiculous looking at you Tetrarchy

At least the Windsors a symbol for the nation. It's a less chaotic environment when the nominal head of state doesn't change based on elections.

...

also when the head of state is also the head of your native church and supposedly the supreme head of your nations state religion
also when that head practices said religion
there are still seats in the House of Lords for the Archbishops I wonder whose idea it was to ensure they had no say in the matters of state

cryptokikes

Wew lad

FTFY

Keep it up, you're learning fast!

...

Working class man plays football, learns truth about TPTB, realises that people who rock the boat get suicided, proceeds to speak out in thinly veiled redpills rather than hide away. Doesnt seem very shilly to me m8.

...

The Vatican (non-Christians) now rules France because Christian men were being promoted higher and higher in Louis XVI's court and the Vatican didn't want to risk lose control of the country. So, they stirred up a revolution. Republics are much weaker states than are monarchies with aristocracies, user.

Let's do away with both.

Say hello to the Reptile overlords for me.

They did nothing to save your country from becoming a multi-cultural mudslime shit hole so I suggest you hang them. Also please cut all funding of their propaganda machine abroad. There is no reason I need to hear about "the royals" new jewbelee or 3rd brat on American television. Our autistic cat ladies are very susceptible to this kind of propaganda and will undoubtedly vote to make them the new rulers of the US.

No, because I'd like to live in a place that has a state that is more stable, which means stronger in some areas.

You want to be comfy. I understand, user.

No, because like I've been writing, the monarchical model is more stable. Republics are free-fall degeneracy.

You don't sound convinced, though, user.

He's an obvious shill that makes a living out of shilling. It surprises me how there are still people on Holla Forums who listen to him or other looneys like him.

She can do nothing except dissolve parliment. Dissolving one parliment would fix nothing. Dissolving multiple parliments will lead to more chaos. What should she do, lead a charge on the city, on her horse, waving a sword?

You're a bile-spitting mocker. Worthless as can be.

...

I'm a good carpenter.

Meant
The commercial policy that led to the Navigation Act in October 1651 made Oliver Cromwell want to attract the rich Jews of Amsterdam to London so that they might transfer their important trade interests with the Spanish Main from the Netherlands to England.
h ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resettlement_of_the_Jews_in_England

Says the anonymous poster. Well, I've had enough riddles, thank you…

Why are republicanists so obviously the mob… Every time, the decision is such an obvious one because of it…

Transcendental concepts like "duty", "beauty", "loyalty", "virtue", "heritage/inheritance". If it's lacking you have callous economic reductionism and bleak utilitarianism.

besides if she dissolves parliament and parliament decides they dont want to be dissolved they can imprison the monarch for treason against the state
its a killswitch for the nation

the US has been controlled by kikes well before even Lincoln
the UK got subverted after the traitor Cromwell invited them back in and the Dutch jew invader king let the Rothschilds establish the bank of england
Britians history doesnt begin at the Union act moron

And in case anyone thinks "hurr Cromwell was a republican kings are great", from the same kikepedia link:
William III is reported to have been assisted in his ascent to the English throne by a loan of 2,000,000 guilders from Antonio Lopez Suasso and later Baron Avernes de Gras. William did not interfere when in 1689 some of the chief Jewish merchants of London were forced to pay the duty levied on the goods of aliens, but he refused a petition from Jamaica to expel the Jews. William's reign brought about a closer connection between the predominantly Sephardic communities of London and Amsterdam; this aided in the transfer of the European finance centre from the Dutch capital to the English capital.

Charles II, on his return, to avoid taking any action on the petition of the merchants of London asking him to revoke Cromwell's concession. He had been assisted by several Jews of royalist sympathies, such as Mendes da Costa and Augustine Coronel-Chacon, during his exile.

And what are you doing, besides earning pittance ruining my browsing experience? You cunt.

all he does is make serious people who talk about issues such as jewish influence, lose credibility and sounding like a looney like David Kike…
And you guys fall for it.

What? I dont understand the implications of what you have just posted in reference to me. Do explain.
You want to know how I know you are paid to post?

We're talking about the Royal family who brings in £14 for every £1 spent, not the jews

...

Go back to work
Eye of the beholder, go back to work
To whom? GO BACK TO WORK ANT MAN
Please, make a soul searching journey on some Tibetan mountaintop and rake stones or something ffs
Why do you conflate these distinct terms? BACK TO THE DICTIONARY WITH YOU, BARNACLE

What is this, a kindly prognosis by a doctor of abstractions?

WEW LAD

How sad.

No, though the left do indeed use that tactic to great effect. Icke is not comparable to Jones in that respect, he is the fringe guy that bridges the gap between ayy lmaos and rootless international cliques.
I see your point of view though. He could be construed as a raving diversion, but Id like to see your proof, or at least hear your argument.

Top man.

TOO BAD. SAD!

Says the anonymous poster. Well, I've had enough riddles, thank you…

Why are republicanists so obviously the mob… Every time, the decision is such an obvious one because of it…

If you have no soul of any description you belong in a certain place friend
>>>leftypol

It was for the other poster; I'm going to have to use coloured I.D.s again…

Oh.

Jews play both sides. We all know this. I think those who call Cromwell a traitor are overly harsh and largely ignorant of history though. Cromwell made a mistake in regards to the jew, as he believed the bigger threat was in the form of the papacy regaining power over England; but from the records of him (and many are not particularly kind, many mocking his eccentricities) I do not think he had any love for the jews and had he known what they were up to would have purged them with a puritanical zeal.

Your life must be hell. Already in life you have no concept of the Divine. I truly pity you, unless we actually have demons shilling and shitposting on Holla Forums now. Wouldn't surprise me tbh.

like banning Christmas, music of any description, alcohol of any description and the import and export of luxury furniture
he was a loon, he put his faith before the nation and caused unwarranted suffering for Britain in the centuries after his rule

It´s going quite swell tbh lad

Exactly my point. He was a puritan, utterly opposed to things like usury or idolatry. If he had any idea what the jews were actually up to I do not hesitate for a second to believe he would have fanatically purged them.

You may not like the man, but I feel that to mark him as a 'traitor' is unfair and false.

Aye.

If only they had power

but what else do you call a regicide?
how could he a christian man murder his king, supposedly ordained by god to rule over him
I could understand imprisoning him in the tower of london like others had done before but outright slaughtering him and placing yourself as the supreme military dictator of the nation for the next 40 years does not sound like the rationale of a simple puritan parliamentarian who believes his nation was at the risk of falling under the power of Rome once again

...

I meant traitor in regards to jew-symapthiser, which is the common argument leveled against the man (on Holla Forums anyway). In regards to the monarch; yes it could be called treachery, although it was ordained by parliament so I'm not entirely sure how it all adds up. Laws changed so much back then that it may well have been the King who had first been a traitor to the people; I should probably know a bit more about the general legislative background of the period; instead I just know the historical points of intrigue.

Whether or not he was insane; I think he clearly believed he was doing the will of God. The large periods of inaction giving credence to his story of waiting for God to instruct him on what to do next. The initial reason for the civil war I think was about an overwhelming fear of Papist expansionism; largely because much of society at the time is recorded as having such fears, and it'd only make sense that a puritanical zealot (sane or otherwise) would share such sentiments (especially when many documents outline him as one of the people who 'spread the fear' as it were).

I think I probably agree with everything you're saying; I just do not believe he sympathised with the jews, and believe that his dealings with them seems to me obviously born of naivete and a need for cash, as opposed to collusion or a desire to subject Britons to the curse of international jewry.

Now which denomination is more in the habit of excluding people from literacy?

Remember that to Protestants jews are the synagogue of satan, but Roman Catholicism is the whore of babylon. Both are to be reviled; jews however were not seen as a threat back then (sadly), whilst the tentacles of the Papacy did seem to be reaching back into England due to its Catholic monarch.

shut the fuck up

Nice shit postin' lad. Filtered.

I'm honoured.

...

...

It must be and only literacy can do this. Otherwise slavery will be reinstated.

I'm kinda disspointed in Holla Forums for not shutting this faggot down/completely ignoring him. He's clearly not here to address anyone's arguments or present his own, he's only interested in starting a flame war over an old form of government. Same goes for

It's not really worth responding to people who are so invested so I'm not going to read or respond.

But faggot you just did

Thank you for comfirming everything i assumed about you.

fd3b4e , you are filtered, but not giving you a yo(u), so posting this way instead.

Monarchy, supported by aristocracy is far and away the most civilised. Let the mobs bark outside the gates, that's right outside the gates…

Enjoy your safe space

I'm a Jacobite.

The English civil war was a religious as well as political war; Monarchy and High church( Traditional Catholics, High Anglicism, etc) vs Parliament and Low Church. Charles(and his father James) believed in no Bishop no King and as such the only way to keep the King was through high church, many in the middle class parliament were low church.

...

Kill yourself

...