[Albert]

Oh I'm sure there already was some development in Russia. I can vaguely remember seeing historical GDP data where AH was trailing NW-Europe and Russia was trailing AH. The US was also steaming ahead and leaving Russia way behind in terms of GDP growth, but I think other European countries also had trouble keeping up with the US.

The other thing I remember is that literacy rates went from abysmally low at the turn of the century to more than 40% in 1914.

Wow, I never realized how abysmal Russian literacy rate was at the time. I guess it shows where the government failed in 19th century.

As far as I remember reading Russia is recognized to have entered industrialization in 1890s, this is when it had developed its own heavy industries hence becoming not reliant on foreign imports for steel in particular. This is usually recognized as essential element for industrialization. There was also heavy investment in Russian industry particularly from France, who's capital and trade drove development. At this time you as well begin to see manufacturing companies to be emerging.

[Zamuel]

Two wrong do not make a right, stop pooping on the party Boycey.

Off with his head !

Zam

[Zamuel]

The most successful economic nation in Europe got rid of their Kaiser and the biggest European military superpower got rid of their Tsar. So please explain how you can keep a straight face and say monarchies are better off than Republics again.

Rudyard Kipling, James Bond, The Beatles, and Austin Powers … Not to mention Great Beer. The Germans got what? Mercedes? and the beers not bad. Russia ? Haven't figured out how to make beer yet and Syria is their idea of Disneyland. "long live the queen."

Zam

[daf]

So many happy Americans at Royal Wedding

[B0ycey]

So many American Royalists, you have to question the war of independence.

[Rancid]

It's all part of a secret plot to install Trump as the King of the UK.

[Godstud]

In light of your tendency to propose uncivilized people for public office who masquerade as the leader of the world, and thus your tendency to elect completely incompetent Presidents who then want to rule the world when you cannot govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories except Arkansas, which she does not fancy and will confine the Clintons to its borders to spare the rest of the world from their shenanigans including their pretend charity that launders money for their escapades.

Your new Prime Minister, Theresa May, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections since you cannot manage to select suitable candidates in any event. Furthermore, Congress and the Senate will be disbanded in a fortnight and given bus passes for the ride home, for their private jet privileges will be revoked. Given they do nothing anyhow other than raise taxes, I terribly doubt that any of you will notice the change.

Whilst there will no longer be any need for any elections and your old slogan of “no taxation without representation” was a catchy phrase, your Congress never represented you anyway so that was a meaningless gesture with no substance confirming you are too foolish to govern yourselves no less the world. Your debt is beyond any capacity of being repaid and your politicians have no intention of ever paying off the debt anyway yet borrow year after year without explanation. Mr. Thomas Jefferson, who we tried to hang for treason but could not catch him to impose the king’s justice, was at least correct in saying that your debt forces people to be taxed for generations before and are thus subjected to “no taxation without representation” since they were not even alive.

Since your election has put forth a criminal and a vulgarian, you leave me no choice but to revoke your independence and reassert our right to manage our former colony. This is the international precedent of China with Tibet and Russia with Ukraine. Therefore, we are justified in this action forthwith given there is international precedence for this decree.

You will learn to now say “God save the Queen.”

Your Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II

House of Windsor

[fokker]

I think that in small countries like Austria or Czech republic it is really hard to find a person who would deserve the position of president. In bigger countries like USA there is much bigger competition and candidates are more qualified. But what is lost is very hard to restore as politicians have different interests. It would have been nice if Romania restored Michael I or Austria Otto Habsburg but they both died already.

[AFAIK]

Who is paying for all of this? Probably the British taxpayers

That's right, ZN. Britain is a sovereign nation capable of paying its own way. Of course there are those who need a little more help.

[Zionist Nationalist]

That's right, ZN. Britain is a sovereign nation capable of paying its own way. Of course there are those who need a little more help.

Its off topic.

also its primary the interest of the US that Israel will rely on its arm industry

[Politiks]

That's right, ZN. Britain is a sovereign nation capable of paying its own way. Of course there are those who need a little more help.

If you're going to talk USA aid to Israel at least tell the full story and not the half that interests the narrative you're pushing. USA uses the aid they give for several things , it's a revolving door of interests. The majority of that money by contract goes back to USA since is mandatory for Israel to buy USA military toys. Then we have the money laundry that goes into that scheme, which also benefits USA military complex. Not to mention USA manages to kill any dreams of becoming independent Israel might have. Obama manage to end the contract Israel did with India to sell weapons for them and made them buy from USA instead. Colombia is a big partner of Israel and as soon as they started buying more from Israel than USA Obama went over there to mess things up for Israel and Colombia.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

France have Macron. That alone means they are better off than the UK currently are with their tax dodgers. The most successful economic nation in Europe got rid of their Kaiser and the biggest European military superpower got rid of their Tsar. So please explain how you can keep a straight face and say monarchies are better off than Republics again.

Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are all monarchies. Canada, New Zealand and Australia are monarchies, while the USA is not.

[Politiks]

Honestly, it is beyond me why people think a ceremonial head of state who is elected is better and actually feel strongly about it. Especially in a European context how can you not come to the conclusion that constitutional monarchies are at least as good as or better than republics?

Additionally, it's pretty clear that a substantial part of the population loves their respective royals. I'd rather have them follow and be fascinated with them than the Kardashians or similar. Royals make far superior role models than pretty much any celebrity or pop star I can think of.

Then you have the history, continuity and tradition of the royal houses.

I think it was certainly a mistake to get rid of the Austrian royals or at least nothing was gained from it.

I agree with you into a certain extent. After working and studying foreign politics and economics for a long time what I came to conclude is Monarchy isn't for everyone, neither is Republicanism. Countries that were build from the start to be a Empire/Monarchy have a extremely harsh cultural transition to become a Presidential Republic. Monarchy gives a sense of continuous, of tradition and belonging.

Brazil and USA to me exemplifies the difference between countries made to be countries and countries made to be Monarchies/Empire. Brazil is the the perfect example of a country that the transition from Monarchy to Republic has affected the country negatively in more ways than not because was designed as a Empire with a Monarchy. Unlike any other European colony in the Americas or Africa , Brazil was build to be a Empire, carefully designed by the Monarchy. Portugal's Prince and rightful heir of Portugal's throne declared Brazil's independence and was crowned the King of Brazil leaving his Portuguese kingdom sucking their thumb. A continental country that saw the entire Spanish Empire break into pieces and remained with the same borders , speaking the same language. People from all over Europe, Asia, Middle East came here to form what is now the Brazilian. Unlike USA with entire neighborhoods or even cities known for this particular ethnicity, race, religion, Brazil manage to integrate all those cultures under one umbrella and that only happened because was a country build to be a "people", not just a country a "nation". When Napoleon was playing invasion in Europe the entire court and Royals came to Brazil. Until this day, Rio de Janeiro is the only city that was capital of a European Empire outside of Europe. Portuguese prince married a Austrian-German Princess and Brazil ended up with a Portuguese King and a Austrian Queen.

On the other hand, USA was build to be a extended version of England, never had a Monarchy, became a independent country early on (well, some may say USA is a corporation that belongs to the English Crown but I will stick to US official version). By the 18th century Brazil was richer than USA, had the second largest navy in the world after England.

The declaration of independence and Republic in USA created a country that became the superpower. The military coup Republicans did to Brazil's Monarchy to establish the Republic destroyed what was becoming a superpower. The coup in Brazil was financed by England by the way...

[Rich]

Absolutely amazing what Israel has achieved militarily with relatively small amounts of money. I'd be interested to compare Israel's military spending to Saudi Arabia to see what Muslims can achieve relative to their spending.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

France have Macron. That alone means they are better off than the UK currently are with their tax dodgers. The most successful economic nation in Europe got rid of their Kaiser and the biggest European military superpower got rid of their Tsar. So please explain how you can keep a straight face and say monarchies are better off than Republics again.

Considering your infatuation with Macron you should actually be able to relate to other people's admiration of royal families. Regarding Russia and Germany, how were their transitions into totalitarian states better than had they become constitutional monarchies? It's actually difficult to imagine much worse outcomes than the bolsheviks and nazis that followed the Tsar and the Kaiser.

To add to PC's list, Belgium and Spain (to cover the sunny beaches ) are also constitutional monarchies in Europe. On average these countries offer some of the best places to live even by European standards. Note that I'm not saying that constitutional monarchies are necessarily a cause for the high living standards, but that people who value continuity and stability will tend to keep their royal houses and are also more likely to be good places to live. The idea of changing the political system of a country when it clearly works very well just for the sake of it should be discredited by now.

It should also really tell us something that all republicans seem to have left is stirring resentment and their intellectually lazy appeals to costs and "tax dodgers".

I agree with you into a certain extent. After working and studying foreign politics and economics for a long time what I came to conclude is Monarchy isn't for everyone, neither is Republicanism. Countries that were build from the start to be a Empire/Monarchy have a extremely harsh cultural transition to become a Presidential Republic. Monarchy gives a sense of continuous, of tradition and belonging.

Brazil and USA to me exemplifies the difference between countries made to be countries and countries made to be Monarchies/Empire. Brazil is the the perfect example of a country that the transition from Monarchy to Republic has affected the country negatively in more ways than not because was designed as a Empire with a Monarchy. Unlike any other European colony in the Americas or Africa , Brazil was build to be a Empire, carefully designed by the Monarchy. Portugal's Prince and rightful heir of Portugal's throne declared Brazil's independence and was crowned the King of Brazil leaving his Portuguese kingdom sucking their thumb. A continental country that saw the entire Spanish Empire break into pieces and remained with the same borders , speaking the same language. People from all over Europe, Asia, Middle East came here to form what is now the Brazilian. Unlike USA with entire neighborhoods or even cities known for this particular ethnicity, race, religion, Brazil manage to integrate all those cultures under one umbrella and that only happened because was a country build to be a "people", not just a country a "nation". When Napoleon was playing invasion in Europe the entire court and Royals came to Brazil. Until this day, Rio de Janeiro is the only city that was capital of a European Empire outside of Europe. Portuguese prince married a Austrian-German Princess and Brazil ended up with a Portuguese King and a Austrian Queen.

On the other hand, USA was build to be a extended version of England, never had a Monarchy, became a independent country early on (well, some may say USA is a corporation that belongs to the English Crown but I will stick to US official version). By the 18th century Brazil was richer than USA, had the second largest navy in the world after England.

The declaration of independence and Republic in USA created a country that became the superpower. The military coup Republicans did to Brazil's Monarchy to establish the Republic destroyed what was becoming a superpower. The coup in Brazil was financed by England by the way...

Interesting perspective, Politiks. As mentioned above in my reply to B0ycey, I would not go as far as claiming that constitutional monarchies significantly alter the outcome of the countries which have chosen them as their political system. It seems more likely that whatever makes them good places to live also makes them avoid frivolous changes and political upheaval. I'd also like to think that they show that evolution should be preferred to revolution.

[Rugoz]

I don't know why the Brits still tolerate this shit.



Easy way to save half a billion a year.

[ThirdTerm]

I woke up in the morning and watched a replay of the royal wedding. I'm bored with this American pastor who was invited to the wedding and stole the show with his long sermon on love. I think he somehow ruined the happy event which was interrupted for 15 minutes. Chelsy Davy and Cressida Bonas were also invited. I think they were scared to become a member of the royal family, which was why they didn't marry with Harry. Both Davy and Bonas appear to be relatively friendly with Harry, friendly enough to be cool with showing up to his wedding.

American Bishop Michael Curry has captured the world's attention with a long and powerful address at the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

The Chicago-born bishop spoke passionately about the power of love, quoting Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

"There's power in love, don't underestimate it," he said. The wide-ranging and colourful speech was seen as a significant break from tradition.

The Most Reverend Michael Curry became the first black presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church - like the Church of England, part of the Anglican Communion - when he was appointed in 2015.

He has spoken out on social justice issues in the past, including LGBT rights and sexual abuse.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44180777

[daf]

Even the British Republicans were moved today

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Easy way to save half a billion a year.

Huh? Where does this number come from?

[Rugoz]

Huh? Where does this number come from?

In dollars using a generous exchange rate

https://www.republic.org.uk/sites/defau ... 2017_0.pdf