|>>|| No. 26811
> Just because we've had monarchy for a very long time, that doesn't mean it's any use to us now.
Just type "Oliver Cromwell" into google and start reading lad, then we can discuss this properly.
> Anyway the only thing I have to say is that the only real argument I see from plebs on facebook about why the Royals should exist is because 'its gud 4 tourism" right,
No, it's because without an actual legitimate revolution and installation of a constitutional republic most of the land in the UK still belongs to the crown. George III essentially leased it to Parliament in return for his living costs and the arrangement has continued to this day, but that doesn't make the land any less theirs.
I'm honestly surprised this kind of thing isn't taught in school, no wonder every dolescum cunt from Paisley to Penzance thinks the royal family should just be shoed off somewhere like an Alzheimer-ridden nan who keeps dribbling tea down her front while they're trying to watch Jeremy Kyle of an afternoon - they've never been taught that a monarchy, until disposed, basically owns the entire country. That's what being a King (or Queen) has always been all about.
Now I'm no royalist and I'd much rather a proper constitutional republic with guaranteed rights and freedoms than the current "constitutional monarchy" clusterfuck of "whatever the current government wants to take from us they do" we have now - but saying things like "I think we should get rid of the monarchy" without stopping to consider what that actually means - things like how the crown lands and the crown estate would be divided up, who would write a constitution and how, what form of government we would end up with, whether we would end up with Richard Dawkins or Dappy on the £5 note etc just marks you out as either a loud mouthed teenlad or an uneducated bore. Or both.