Heretics at the train station

[Jacob Harrison]

You know what's even more unpatriotic and a general giant middle finger to everything America (supposedly) stands for? Kings. Aristocracy. Neo-feudalism in general. Forget not gesturing at a piece of cloth, your royalist beliefs are every bit as un-American as communism.

But the difference is that America was founded as a Republic, while England was founded as a monarchy. The American system of government does not apply to England.

No America was a colony and then they rebelled against their Lawful British Sovereign.

But King George III was not the legitimate King as shown by my research on the true heirs, so rebelling against him was just.

[davedan]

You know what's even more unpatriotic and a general giant middle finger to everything America (supposedly) stands for? Kings. Aristocracy. Neo-feudalism in general. Forget not gesturing at a piece of cloth, your royalist beliefs are every bit as un-American as communism.

But the difference is that America was founded as a Republic, while England was founded as a monarchy. The American system of government does not apply to England.

No America was a colony and then they rebelled against their Lawful British Sovereign.

But King George III was not the legitimate King as shown by my research on the true heirs, so rebelling against him was just.

But only to install the true heir, rather than establishing a Regicidal Republic.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Citation needed, chapter and verse.

[davedan]

Citation needed, chapter and verse.

Are you asking me Tol? I'm just trying to work within his own framework. Otherwise it would be perfectly just for the UK to become a republic.

[dpareja]

Citation needed, chapter and verse.

Are you asking me Tol? I'm just trying to work within his own framework. Otherwise it would be perfectly just for the UK to become a republic.

Which it would be, if they voted for it.

[Jacob Harrison]

You know what's even more unpatriotic and a general giant middle finger to everything America (supposedly) stands for? Kings. Aristocracy. Neo-feudalism in general. Forget not gesturing at a piece of cloth, your royalist beliefs are every bit as un-American as communism.

But the difference is that America was founded as a Republic, while England was founded as a monarchy. The American system of government does not apply to England.

No America was a colony and then they rebelled against their Lawful British Sovereign.

But King George III was not the legitimate King as shown by my research on the true heirs, so rebelling against him was just.

But only to install the true heir, rather than establishing a Regicidal Republic.

The legitimate monarchs of England never ruled at the time that the American colonies were established, so the American colonists didn’t need to install the true heir as their leader.

[davedan]

You know what's even more unpatriotic and a general giant middle finger to everything America (supposedly) stands for? Kings. Aristocracy. Neo-feudalism in general. Forget not gesturing at a piece of cloth, your royalist beliefs are every bit as un-American as communism.

But the difference is that America was founded as a Republic, while England was founded as a monarchy. The American system of government does not apply to England.

No America was a colony and then they rebelled against their Lawful British Sovereign.

But King George III was not the legitimate King as shown by my research on the true heirs, so rebelling against him was just.

But only to install the true heir, rather than establishing a Regicidal Republic.

The legitimate monarchs of England never ruled at the time that the American colonies were established, so the American colonists didn’t need to install the true heir as their leader.

Yet according to you William the Conqueror was not the legitimate heir, so there was no legitimate Heir ever for England, or Britain. At most you're talking about the legitimate heir of Wessex. Why aren't the colonies also subject to the legitimate heir of Wessex

[Jacob Harrison]

You know what's even more unpatriotic and a general giant middle finger to everything America (supposedly) stands for? Kings. Aristocracy. Neo-feudalism in general. Forget not gesturing at a piece of cloth, your royalist beliefs are every bit as un-American as communism.

But the difference is that America was founded as a Republic, while England was founded as a monarchy. The American system of government does not apply to England.

No America was a colony and then they rebelled against their Lawful British Sovereign.

But King George III was not the legitimate King as shown by my research on the true heirs, so rebelling against him was just.

But only to install the true heir, rather than establishing a Regicidal Republic.

The legitimate monarchs of England never ruled at the time that the American colonies were established, so the American colonists didn’t need to install the true heir as their leader.

Yet according to you William the Conqueror was not the legitimate heir, so there was no legitimate Heir ever for England, or Britain. At most you're talking about the legitimate heir of Wessex. Why aren't the colonies also subject to the legitimate heir of Wessex

In my post I made today called Something Niam should know, I corrected my mistake because I found new information that indicated that William was the rightful King. Anyway, the colonies are not subject to the legitimate heir, because the legitimate monarchs never ruled the colonies.

[davedan]

You know what's even more unpatriotic and a general giant middle finger to everything America (supposedly) stands for? Kings. Aristocracy. Neo-feudalism in general. Forget not gesturing at a piece of cloth, your royalist beliefs are every bit as un-American as communism.

But the difference is that America was founded as a Republic, while England was founded as a monarchy. The American system of government does not apply to England.

No America was a colony and then they rebelled against their Lawful British Sovereign.

But King George III was not the legitimate King as shown by my research on the true heirs, so rebelling against him was just.

But only to install the true heir, rather than establishing a Regicidal Republic.

The legitimate monarchs of England never ruled at the time that the American colonies were established, so the American colonists didn’t need to install the true heir as their leader.

Yet according to you William the Conqueror was not the legitimate heir, so there was no legitimate Heir ever for England, or Britain. At most you're talking about the legitimate heir of Wessex. Why aren't the colonies also subject to the legitimate heir of Wessex

In my post I made today called Something Niam should know, I corrected my mistake because I found new information that indicated that William was the rightful King. Anyway, the colonies are not subject to the legitimate heir, because the legitimate monarchs never ruled the colonies.

They were as subject to the legitimate heirs as the UK was. If the US isn't subject to the legitimate heir then neither is the UK, so that we can accept the house of windsor pull out some denim jeans and celebrate with some serious self abuse.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Citation needed, chapter and verse.

Are you asking me Tol? I'm just trying to work within his own framework. Otherwise it would be perfectly just for the UK to become a republic.

No, I was asking the twit but if you ever run a Sunday school-put that shit on YouTube!

[Jacob Harrison]

You know what's even more unpatriotic and a general giant middle finger to everything America (supposedly) stands for? Kings. Aristocracy. Neo-feudalism in general. Forget not gesturing at a piece of cloth, your royalist beliefs are every bit as un-American as communism.

But the difference is that America was founded as a Republic, while England was founded as a monarchy. The American system of government does not apply to England.

No America was a colony and then they rebelled against their Lawful British Sovereign.

But King George III was not the legitimate King as shown by my research on the true heirs, so rebelling against him was just.

But only to install the true heir, rather than establishing a Regicidal Republic.

The legitimate monarchs of England never ruled at the time that the American colonies were established, so the American colonists didn’t need to install the true heir as their leader.

Yet according to you William the Conqueror was not the legitimate heir, so there was no legitimate Heir ever for England, or Britain. At most you're talking about the legitimate heir of Wessex. Why aren't the colonies also subject to the legitimate heir of Wessex

In my post I made today called Something Niam should know, I corrected my mistake because I found new information that indicated that William was the rightful King. Anyway, the colonies are not subject to the legitimate heir, because the legitimate monarchs never ruled the colonies.

They were as subject to the legitimate heirs as the UK was. If the US isn't subject to the legitimate heir then neither is the UK, so that we can accept the house of windsor pull out some denim jeans and celebrate with some serious self abuse.

The difference between the U.K. and the Colonies is that England was ruled by the legitimate monarchs while the colonies never were.

[dpareja]

Yes they were, once Parliament passed the Act of Settlement the heirs of Sophia of Hanover became the sole legitimate heirs.

[Skybison]

America is founded upon the ideals of democracy and freedom of belief.  Your love of monarchy is unpatriotic. 

Why do you hate America?

[Jacob Harrison]

America is founded upon the ideals of democracy and freedom of belief.  Your love of monarchy is unpatriotic. 

Why do you hate America?

I support democracy in the United States because it was founded as such. However England was founded as a monarchy.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

America is founded upon the ideals of democracy and freedom of belief.  Your love of monarchy is unpatriotic. 

Why do you hate America?

I support democracy in the United States because it was founded as such. However England was founded as a monarchy.

Meaning you don't support democracy in principle. If supporting hoary old claims is all you give a shit about why support the US at all? The American revolution was an insurrection specifically designed to deprive the British crown of its assets.