250 years ago: Male Preference or Agnatic Primogeniture

>current year
>still have a royal family

Could you europlebs be any more delusional?

>muh trudishun

No hope in the proles

Thank you for your tourism bucks - that's why the royal family is kept around btw.

The Age of Enlightenment!: Or, How I Learned to Love Genocide!

Guy who broke into the queen's bedroom:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fagan_incident

the enlightenment was a mistake

>Veeky Forums

>Today: Monarchs marry commoners with manual laborers for parents
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Michael_Francis_Middleton
>Michael's family has both wealth and ties to British aristocracy.

>he thinks I'm ever visiting his shitty flyover country much less giving his cuntrag monarch any tourist shekels

Where I come from, they exist as a sort of center of national pride. A living example of our rich history.

Biggest mistake was getting rid of agnatic primogeniture
Like wtf is this
You expect me to think a woman can be head of state as well as a man?

>250 years ago: cucked by monarchy
>Today: freedom

The Queen actually has a lot of power. Our government runs purely on convention and Elizabeth II has been a particularly passive monarch.

It'll be interesting to see how her grandchildren handle being monarch, what role they'll play.

If the concept of primogeniture for rulers was what primarily dismounted Monarchy from the throne, then I am glad to say it happened. The citizens of a country should be expected to work for their worth in this world, not handed it with a silver spoon. That's the point of why some economists like J.S. Mill harped fervently against the concept of inheritance.

Now I wouldn't lie a Monarchy or Aristocracy would be an enjoyable system of government, just not one based on genealogical or despotic hierarchies.

>hard work shapes a man

found the beta

We realised monarchs weren't some heavenly superbeings and we took the wool away from our eyes.

It's almost like people realized it wasn't a good idea to hand over absolute political power to an inbred with a superiority complex.

>wanting to be ruled by a roll of the dice
No, monarchism is stupid if some countries want to keep their figureheads that's fine but I'd rather choose which idiot is the one to rule.

>Today: Monarchs marry commoners with manual laborers for parents
Monarchs have always done that. Commoners = non-royals. So in many cases, marrying a duchess could still mean marrying a commoner.

And how parliament has caged them?

Yea, declaring everyone equal and giving them [even alleged] equal say is much more productive.

Insults and misunderstandings aside, how is that not a good idea?

They're still people man, maybe she just likes that wine, it's not like more expensive wines taste any better anyaway.

>The Queen actually has a lot of power.

Only technically. If she actually decided to declare war or something it would mean the end of the monarchy.

Only The identity of elites changed, but monarchs are sure as hell still marrying into the elite of our world, not taking rare exceptions to this into account. But instead of the duke of X, they marry the son/daughter of business magnate Y

how are Kate Middleton's parents manual labourers? They're rich aristocrats

Are you a murican?

Do you know that Rotschilds and Rockefellers have been ruling your country since the 19th century?

How are they not a royalty?

>We
>as a species

No, we didn't.
What YOU did was make a really bad post, however.

The fact that they still exist is more than they deserve in the first place.

>What happened?
monarchy ended