Why didn't the British kill their monarchy?

cromwell wasn't incompetent. a little bit crazy and very anti-papist, but not incompetent.

his son was a disaster though

Ankh-Morpork's was better

>executing the mildest French monarch in its history, whose worst crime (aside from being terrible at fucking) was not being enough of a tyrant to stop the revolution in its tracks

revolutions: not even once

If he'd been an actual bad king then the revolution never would have had a chance. Better you depose a weak and fairly ineffectual king than wait for him to produce a more horrible successor.

Also I always find it funny that when the mob stormed the Bastille they found basically no one was inside it

It wasn't even his fault that he was bad at fucking though. I'm pretty sure he had some kind of penile condition, I can't remember what it was specifically, but it fuck up his shit.

They didn't they find some dude who thought he was Julius Caesar and a bunch of drunks or something?

Also that degenerate Marquis de Sade was in there.

I believe he had an extremely bad case of phimosis so it hurt for him to even get an erection

The other crime would be bankrupting France by supporting Yankee doodle independence right?

There's a theory that he had phimosis, and that it was corrected surgically years later, which resulted in them finally being able to have children. Buuut I don't think it's true, at least the surgery part. The dates that some historians propose he had this surgery, there is no break in his journal for hunting and physical activity, when he would have not been able to ride a horse for at least a few months afterwards. Also, Marie Antoinette wrote to her mother that physicians were being consulted and she wondered if surgery might be the result, but then wrote later that the physicians decided surgery wouldn't help. Also, there are a few times Marie Antoinette wrote to her mother suggesting that they had consummated the marriage in some form in the years of 1771-1775.

The other theory is that it was psychological and/or a lack of experience. Joseph II wrote about his visit to Versailles and he talked at length with both his sister and Louis XVI. Joseph II wrote that Louis XVI described their intercourse as Louis XVI sticking it in, staying there, and then pulling out. He didn't thrust to ejaculation, so pregnancy was impossible. After Joseph II's visit, Marie Antoinette wrote that things had finally improved, and finally she wrote that her marriage had been consummated "to the fullest degree." And a few times after that she wrote that Louis XVI was being particularly ardent and amorous.

>If he'd been an actual bad king then the revolution never would have had a chance.

Pretty much. He was obsessed with not being a tyrant to the point where it was a fault, at least in terms of his own (and the monarchy's) survival.

We didnt need to, we just reduced their power.

>Louis XIV
Louis XIV died in 1715

There were 7 randoms, none of them political prisoners. De Sade had been moved the month before

and now you pay them to do nothing

They pay for themselves many times over you ignorant slut

so defensive of your fancy leeches

;)

Ignorance offends me, i'm not even a brit

>i'm not even _____ fallacy

Yes, it was a mistake to trust the colonies to uphold their end of the agreement and pay Louis XVI back in a timely manner.

>your fancy leeches
>your

They arent mine

They run Freemasonry, so not exactly reduced in power.

he should of expected as much since they fought a revolution to avoid paying the Brits back for the 7 years war

Brit go home

the monarchy is the best thing to happen to the british tourist industry

in case anyone wanted to read a report about Louis XVI's dick

>In his marriage bed, he has strong erections, he inserts his member, remains there for perhaps two minutes without moving, withdraws without ejaculating, and while still erect, bids good night. It’s incomprehensible. He sometimes has nocturnal emissions but always while lying motionless. He’s satisfied, saying he does it only out of a sense of duty but has no desire for it. Ah, if only I could have been present once, I would have set him straight! He should be whipped until he discharges in anger like a donkey. My sister does not have the temperament for this and together they make an utterly inept couple.

It was less of a Revolution in the modern sense of the word, and it was more of a step towards limited monarchy and parliamentary government in England, which would later assist in fee market policies.
Was Cromwell a good guy? Subjective. Getting rid of the king was necessity though, since he was abusing the fuck out of royal powers.

Nah he was guilty of something much worse than abusing royal power. He was incompetent.

I've always wanted to read a report about Louis XVI's dick, user. Thank you.

glad to be of service!

They neutered it into impotence, which is just about the same

for the Irish

England was pretty well despite the "no fun allowed" thing

didn't need to

do the british people realize that the blood of Charles is on their hands and that they're all damned to hellfire?

apparently during the first years of cromwell's rule there was an upswing in crime

hey his son said "we're cool as long as I can re-execute Cromwell"

>being a republic
>ever

>Why didn't the British kill their monarchy?
They didn't have the stones for it

They did. They killed Charles I.

>called himself God's Executioner
>a little bit crazy

>the interregnum under Cromwell wasn't an absolute shit show that still causes problems in the modern day

What problems does it cause in the modern day?

>pay them
>royal family is a net contribution to the British economy via the taxes paid by the Duchy of Lancaster

>do nothing
>highly respected dignitaries, with the queen working 365 days a year

>implying that isn't the case
>implying they weren't salty at having to fund British regulars to guard the frontier
>implying the founding father's weren't buttmad that they lost out on land speculation when the king stopped further inland expansion
>implying Washington wasn't crying like a bitch when he didn't get a promotion for surrendering to the FRENCH

That whole "decades of Irish republican terrorism" thing.

Pretty the sure the Irish would still want independence after we allowed them to stave desu

Indeed, but before then, you have Cromwell sending the army to Ireland and fucking everything up.

We were fucking the Irish up well before Cromwell, granted cromwell went full nazi style but I doubt Anglo Irish relations would be much different now without him.

>commit treason
>gets hanged

>pay them
they cover their costs with the tourism they bring
>nothing
all of the royals are involved in humanitarian activities

t. richfag with noble ancestry
its always the same old story
one more time

Tfw the Brits got DUTCH'ed.

Too bad king Billy was a closet homosexual.

Why don't they kill the monarchy now?

>invaded

parliament literally invited william of orange in

>leeches
>Pays parliament over five times what they get back
Poor b8.

The Queen never stops working, she's a true feminist role model in my eyes. The Royal family bring in several times more money from tourism than they spend.

So brits are the most blue pilled people in the world.
The more you know.

because they're an essential part of civilisation

the famine likely wouldn't have happened, or at least nowhere near as badly
butterfly effects over 200 years would be pretty huge

Because they are somewhat civilized compared to the barbaric french.

We haven't got the opportunity.

Yet

Why did the mods delete that thread?
Probably because of your shitposting.

Fuck off Corbyn

Thanks for noticing.

Conservatives are the master of Bantz

Ali G is a fucking documentary.

youtube.com/watch?v=Hj6FIBLvNJg

The constitutional monarchy in Britain is the oldest form of government that has not been drastically restructured (its last time being when Cromwell took over), so something can be said for the stability of the monarchy in that form.

...

>all the foreigners acting shocked

Are they not allowed to ask their leader questions?

It's just unexpected, we don't get to grill our leaders like this in America.

>implying he was hanged
>implying it's treason to try to take back your country from violent extremists

...

That's because there were more crimes.

Maybe he was just a faggot and nobody told him he needed to pretend since he's the king, or something?

>Glorious
>Revolution
Fucking eternal Anglo

They're pussies

Has there ever been a state so based as the French First Republic?

>tourism

Except tourists don't get to hang out with the Queen and stuff like royal weddings only happen once in a blue moon, while all the castles and such (which is what tourists actually visit) would still be there if there was a royal family or not.

That said, I think royal families are nice thing to have around.

Rhodesia.
French Republic was shit.

Mary Queen of Scotts?

Not to mention that the palace of Versailles brings in massive tourism for France--no living royals needed!

that was Elizabeth I killing her, not the people

bump

why does every thread on Veeky Forums end up at Rhodesia?

White peoples favorite story about how awesome they / how shit blacks are.

/pol/ with dates minus the dates.

Wasted potential.

muh BLM. kys

>>dutch
>>invasion

Great tell that to OP who fucked up.

t. bystander