Sfdebris.net

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... SApp_Other

See, this is why I like France better than England (aside from the food). They know what to do with hereditary monarchs.

I can understand the reasoning as well as the human tendency to want leaders wealthy. It's an odd thing, see churches who pool their money of their own accord to buy their pastors a fancy car so their leadership figure can display a respectable degree of affluence. Still, would be nice for her to shave it down as much as could be done.

Yes, the history of France in the past 200 years is far more preferable to the most long term stable, evolutionary adaptable Western Great Power in history.

Let's see: One kingdom, two empires, five republics and a collaborationist regime with plenty of discord and slaughter spread throughout. Clearly better when compared to a country that had a Civil War almost 400 years ago (when it wasn't even the country it is today) and said "We're not gonna do this again" which then completely avoided things like the trouble in 1848.

A lot of times I can barely make out what you actually think and mean in the blur of your language. This is one of those times.

That may be a problem on the recieving end, instead of the sender. I got his message clearly.

Would you please translate for me?

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 9:28 pm Would you please translate for me?

France was pretty unstable over the period from 1789-1960 and Britain wasn't over the same period. On the other hand:
1) Britain was regionally unstable as recently as ~45 years before the period indicated, and more widely 100 years before
2) Most of France's later political instability was related to foreign invasion, which England avoided because it's an island
3) If William and Mary weren't available at the time of the Glorious Revolution, I imagine that situation would probably have resolved roughly the same way except there wouldn't be a replacement monarch (though it might have been bloodier).

Weren't there a lot more famous notorious French kings?

Thank you, TGLS. That helped.

The UK managed to reach a position where the monarch didn't have any real influence but wasn't shoved off completely to the side either, so managed to keep hold of the stabilising influences of tradition and pomp whilst discarding the parts of it that gave rise to things like revolutions. Ire at the system could then be directed at Parliament instead, who can get voted out, and that system was stable enough too that dodgy elections were never an issue (of course there were still huge issues with representation that took a lot longer to be resolved).

The end result something that most didn't want to break (don't underestimate the value of symbols - I imagine that's why what went on in the US Capitol raised hackles even amongst erstwhile supporters) and where bloody revolution didn't really have much of a target.

Still say that she should have choice to give up either the crown or the head it sits on. Christopher Eccleston was right.