[SolarCross]

I thought the monarchy was restored in 1660 or there abouts. Wasn't Scottish independence (as a realm) restored at the same time? Mayne I'm just getting confused. I don't think it was ever restored in France, maybe they just forgot.

The French monarchy was restored several times since the French revolution but they kept losing it again. Following the French Revolution the French republic only lasted 12 years before Napoleon made himself emperor, the first of House Bonaparte.

When Napoleon's military adventures resulted in his total defeat House Bourbon was restored to the monarchy.

The Bourbons were replace by House Orléans in a revolution is 1830. House Orléans was then overthrown in 1848 giving way to the second French republic.

That republic lasted all of 4 years before a relation of Napoleon Bonaparte restored himself and the Bonaparte name to the monarchy. This second Bonaparte regime lasted 18 years before France became a republic again. I don't believe there have been any restorations since then.

[Libertarian353]

I don't think you want the monarchy anymore. Prince William child is Mischling and Harry is marrying a Black. So, better stock up on these:

[SolarCross]

I don't think you want the monarchy anymore. Prince William child is Mischling and Harry is marrying a Black. So, better stock up on these.

According to the experts at Jew or not Jew, Kate Middleton is not a jew. Not that that matters really.

Also Meghan Markle is dusky rather than full black. Though that also doesn't matter.

[Libertarian353]

According to the experts at Jew or not Jew, Kate Middleton is not a jew. Not that that matters really.

Yes, cause they have Ancesty23 and know Kate genetics?

[Victoribus Spolia]

According to the experts at Jew or not Jew, Kate Middleton is not a jew. Not that that matters really.

Also Meghan Markle is dusky rather than full black. Though that also doesn't matter.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Victoribus Spolia]

@SolarCross,

Also, when are you going to answer my last question(s) to you I made earlier?

That may be our only hope at keeping this oddly controversial thread on track....

[hartmut]

@SolarCross,
...
Like I said, I am of the opinion that there will be a Caesarian move in the west, ....

Didn't you notice, that this "move" is all ready in full swing?
A most interesting publication points out exactly that.
http://www.the-postillon.com/2017/06/queen.html

[Victoribus Spolia]

Didn't you notice, that this "move" is all ready in full swing?
A most interesting publication points out exactly that.
http://www.the-postillon.com/2017/06/queen.html

That was pretty good. lol

[B0ycey]

@Victoribus Spolia, lets pretend that the Royal families so called powers are actually functional/useable and William could wrestle control back from Parliament. Do you honesty see that pansy William actually fulfilling your prophecy? Do you think the Army would listen to him or that the UK public would accept their democratic rights to become void? Under such conditions I would expect a full revolution. How did the Romonovs do when they ruled by an iron fist by the way?

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Victoribus Spolia, lets pretend that the Royal families so called powers are actually functional/useable and William could wrestle control back from Parliament. Do you honesty see that pansy William actually fulfilling your prophecy? Do you think the Army would listen to him or that the UK public would accept their democratic rights to become void? Under such conditions I would expect a full revolution. How did the Romonovs do when they ruled by an iron fist by the way?

Well, the Romonovs were very unpopular and had made some very bad decisions that lead to their demise. My scenario presents conditions that are favorable to the monarchy not unfavorable as in the case of the Bolshevik Revolution. That is, unlike Russia in 1917, We are talking about a monarchy that is popular, a parliament that is unpopular and ineffective, a general mood in the UK towards independence and the restrictions of immigration, and a general mood in America and Europe towards "strong men" type governments where a strong-man runs a powerful centralized state out of a public desire to restore a throw-back era of a more traditional nation-state. All of these are currents that are occurring RIGHT NOW, but that is not including mass public sympathy caused by a heinous act against the royal family which is included in my hypothetical as a catalyst.

As for how William would react? Its hard to say, the kindest and most timid man can be fierce and relentless when his family is threatened or when a sense of duty calls, not to mention both at the same time.

[B0ycey]

That is, unlike Russia in 1917, We are talking about a monarchy that is popular, a parliament that is unpopular and ineffective, a general mood in the UK towards independence and the restrictions of immigration, and a general mood in America and Europe towards "strong men" type governments where a strong-man runs a powerful centralized state out of a public desire to restore a throw-back era of a more traditional nation-state. All of these are currents that are occurring RIGHT NOW, but that is not including mass public sympathy caused by a heinous act against the royal family which is included in my hypothetical as a catalyst.

The popularity of the Royal Family tends to differ depending on what your generation is. I suspect a referendum on whether they could keep their privileges would result in a victory for them today, but I would argue that they aren't as loved by the younger generation as you might assume so I doubt this notion of yours would continue as time goes by. As for the UK wanting a strong leader, the UK (like America) is very divided today. Brexit has ruined Westminsters credibility and whatever move May plays today means half the country will hate her for it. Brexit is a poisonous chalice. If William wants any part of power he would learn very quickly that he couldn't win under todays climate. After all, Westminster isn't unpopular because of democracy or the laws that have passed, it is unpopular because the country is divided on very important decisions. William couldn't do anything to stop this occuring. In fact, him seizing power would only make the political climate worse. So perhaps comparing the Romonovs to the Windsors is unfair, but don't think there aren't any lessons to learn from them. Even a popular monarchy can lose its popularity over night with bad decisions.

As for how William would react? Its hard to say, the kindest and most timid man can be fierce and relentless when his family is threatened or when a sense of duty calls, not to mention both at the same time.

Perhaps that is true. But do you believe he alone could overthrow a government over such vengeance? Perhaps Google has given you a warpped perception of his power. He might have it on paper, but not in practice. Westminster has been removing the Royal families power for around 350 years now and any power trip from William would eliminate these ceremonial/traditional powers within a hastly created law change ASAP. Perhaps your hypothetical scenario is more wishful thinking rather than being realistically plausable.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So perhaps comparing the Romonovs to the Windsors is unfair, but don't think there aren't any lessons to learn from them. Even a popular monarchy can lose its popularity over night with bad decisions.

Thats fair.

Perhaps that is true. But do you believe he alone could overthrow a government over such vengeance? Perhaps Google has given you a warpped perception of his power. He might have it on paper, but not in practice. Westminster has been removing the Royal families power for around 350 years now and any power trip from William would eliminate these ceremonial/traditional powers within a hastly created law change ASAP. Perhaps your hypothetical scenario is more wishful thinking rather than being realistically plausable.

I don't think its "wishful," I don't think I would wish violence against any family in such a way as a my scenario envisions, but that the Monarchy does retain its powers as actual power is not a fiction or a fantasy. The monarchy has intentionally laid low during a time when monarchies were unpopular (the 20th century), but the move towards nationalism in Europe and America as well as disillusionment with democratic institutions and multiculturalism make the political environment increasingly fertile for absolutist movements and the monarchy could easily take advantage of such conditions.

This is the point really, I believe the pattern of history dictates a Caesarian shift, so its not a matter of if, but from where, will this absolutist revolution take place. I am putting it out there that the monarchy should not be ruled out as a possibility for reasons I think are legit.

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross,

Also, when are you going to answer my last question(s) to you I made earlier?

That may be our only hope at keeping this oddly controversial thread on track....

You have an incredibly low bar for controversy.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@Victoribus Spolia,
Oh no! I've been pointed at in a picture! Whatever will I do!

The point of me replying to this shite thread was to point out not just that your "hypothetical" scenario is a series of stupid suggestions, but that you were trying to equate leaving the EU with opposition to Islamic terrorism. That was the "interesting" bit - that you are playing the fool to get people to think a bit like you, even if that's a load of bollocks.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Prosthetic Conscience,

I don't think that opinion is as "unheard of" as you would seem to indicate, Merkel and EU leaders out of Brussels have excoriated Poland and other states who have refused to admit predominantly Islamic refugees which have been correlated with upticks in sexual assault and acts of domestic terrorism (according to Poland). The EU's stockholm programme is an openly multicultural and almost open-borders with its international goals, and there has been a clear connection between EU membership and excessive immigration in the minds of many. This has even been acknowledged by Slate which is pretty straight-forwardly leftist:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... d_the.html

You may argue that this is more about perception than reality, but i am only arguing about perception in my hypothetical. The conditions of my scenario are based largely on public sentiment, so I think you are overreacting a bit.

But, imagine we could have a bet without doxxing each other. I would be willing to wager that if there is increased Islamic terrorism in Britain, the British favor-ability towards remaining in the EU would decrease as a correlative. I guarantee it. Why? Because the average Joe who is pro-brexit will view EU membership as related to their current woes with Islamic terrorism and cultural displacement, whether such is hyped-up or not (which is not the topic of this discussion), I mean, they can see what is happening in Germany and Sweden and generally they do not like it.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The government reportedly suppressed a secret document showing Brexit would make Britain more vulnerable to terrorism

(there was no mention in your article of terrorism. It's about jobs, and welfare, and the article is about immigrants from the rest of Europe, hardly any of whom are Islamic, as your bogeyman was)

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Prosthetic Conscience,

I never said it was. But give me your honest belief, do you think those who are pro-brexit believe that being part of the EU is in part responsible for any increase in Islamic terrorism Britain has experienced in the past couple of years, yes or no?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

No.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Prosthetic Conscience,



Well, the voice of the Brexit movement, Nigel Farage, would like disagree with you on this:

“There is a direct link and relationship between the number of people you let in from different religions and different cultures and the number of terror attacks,” Farage said.

He said the ISIS terror attacks have not occurred in Central and Eastern Europe because countries such as Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia refuse to indulge European Union quotas of migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean.

The countries from this region of Europe who have lived under Nazism and Communism within living memory, he said, won’t buckle under the pressure to allow “Islamic migration.”

Farage also noted that Brexit was about protection and safety: not about being anti-Islam but rather leaving the EU and controlling immigration.

“We actually want to control our borders, not because we dislike anybody, but because we believe firstly in sensible border controls,” he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/17 ... urope.html

Likewise, this article cites worries over the EU's handling of the refugee crisis as part of the motivation behind the brexit:

The world is enjoying a populist moment. Like all such moments, there is a mob quality to the Brexiteers, Trumpistas and others, but their sentiments rest on real complaints. If national leaders are committed to addressing the real problems that lie beneath the populism — a growing underclass, tides of refugees, and anger at government

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ics-213990

This article also argues that nationalist and anti-immigration and anti-islamic sentiment was huge in Brexiteer motivations in their vote.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... nostalgia/

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

I, unlike most people on this thread, would be fine with a British monarchy. If there was one thing that improved in the Middle East is that Europe isn't an issue anymore! You guys could become whatever you wish and I'll cheer you guys on for it as long as it doesn't effect anything in the MidEast.