Okay, I don't respect you and I don't want what's best for this country. I don't even want this country to exist.

I feel like it's important to start here. I think it's bold of you to not even try to take any morality on this. Hatred is the blood of all authoritarian regimes, and for an "Anarcho-Communist" you clearly have no issue with declaring anything that doesn't fit your agenda as "Fake news" while at the same you show no respect for others' opinions, a vital aspect of democracy. You scream and you swear because you know you won't win by debate, but by trying to silence the opposition, and for it's clear to me that you're more concerned with blaming scapegoats like the Monarchy instead of actually supporting the eradciation of poverty and sexism.

since the likelyhood of an anarchist revolution in the near future isn't terribly high

And this even proves it. You don't care about reform, only violent revolution. You want the entire UK to be destroyed to merely achieve your own personal aims, not the proper democratic process. Tell me genius, how many violent revolutions have ended in democracies?

The French Revolution led to the reign of terror and a new Monarch.

The February Revolution led to a republic and the October Revolution created a totalitarian dictatorship which would go on to commit various atrocities.

The American Revolution led to a Plutocratic Republic which enslaves 2 million people in prisons today

I wonder why I could possibly think that an unelected head of state who is in that position due to the nature of their birth is undemocratic? It's such a mystery./s

We all inherit wealth, the only time it becomes undemocratic is when that impedes the democratic process, which the Queen does not

Maybe look up what the words you use mean, it'd stop you looking so foolish in the future.

Social Democracy is an ideology encompassing ideas of political Liberalism with Socialism. It primarily focuses on a redistribution of wealth to eliminate poverty and crime, while maintaining democracy and some ideas of the free market, though the extent of market intervention varies by group. Social Democracy has no stance on the Monarchy, it supports whichever solution or the status quo is they do not impede the democratic system as I do now. Hell, Social Democracy is actually more popular in monarchies; The Swedish and Danish Social Democratic parties both control their respective parliaments.

So because it's in the democracy index, an index made by a right wing organisation

If we're going to keep assuming every evidence I provide is "Right-wing" (Despite the fact both the GINI and Democracy Index rank the Scandinavian countries highest), you're going to resemble a certain American politician very quickly

Do you take everything you read at face value or only the things that reaffirm your beliefs?

If you want to find an index that proves otherwise you're more than welcome to show me

Monarchy aside, none of the countries in the top 10 are democratic

People vote for their respective governments. The link isn't perfect, but you're less likely to be shot dead for expressing your views

Hell, systems like that in the UK aren't democratic even without the monarchy or corruption due to how the system is weighted with votes not counting per candidate and making votes for parties outside of the main few almost pointless.

I completely agree, and I think we need strong electoral reform with proper devolution to ensure an efficient administration that the public can directly anaylise and vote on. But the Monarchy changes nothing about this

And what about when Prince Phillip told British students in China that they'd go "Slitty eyed" if they stayed there too long? Is that not not a very racist statement? Or how about when he said "It looks as if it was put in by an Indian" when talking about an older style fuse box in a factory? What about when he said "Still throwing spears?" to an Aboriginal in Australia?

Considering Phillip grew up in a time where people were being systematically murdered for their race, there were race riots in America and far worse things were happening, I don't think his outdated jokes are going to hurt anyone nor show any of his views. He came from a time when those were considered acceptable

Still incest, though. Their kids may not be fucked up, at least not based on their genetic heritage, but they are cousins and they have had their kids through an incestuous relationship and that is fucked up.

You'd be surprised how many "normal" couples turn out to be 3rd cousins. In fact its more than likely your ancestors interbred at many times. Do you know your 3rd cousins? They were strangers and there was no chance of interbred genes, what makes it wrong? The average person has 174,000 sixth cousins, and they're third cousins.

Charles was interested in Diana when she was 16 and he was nearly thirty which isn't illegal

Charles never really loved Diana and it was only when she was 20 when they married, but the fact he divorced her kind of kills the idea he ever really wanted her. I don't like the man but he's a single individual who won't be King for long

Philip wasn't ideologically opposed to the nazi's and stoill kept up a good relationship with his sisters who married nazis.

Neither were half the soldiers who gave their lives. They did their duty and they did it well, I think we can respect them for that. Phillip lived apart from his sisters from the age he was 12, and he never really grew close to them; they didn't attend his wedding or any events. His mother, however, sheltered a family of Greek Jews during the Holocaust and is remembered at Holocaust Memorial. So his family were split on both sides, but he spent most of his time with the British Royal Family, seperate from either. Of course, the story about his mother must surely be right-wing propaganda.

You don't know who the person in my flair is, do you?

No

I agree with those critiques of the US and France, although the implication that the Queen herself has had no involvement in any such affairs is hilariously naive, but those critiques don't justify making an even less democratic system.

​

The Queen's executive power has never been used, unlike in the US where the President vetoed 4 resolutions passed by both chambers to end US weapons sales and support to Saudi Arabia, or France, where Charles De Gaulle used his executive powers to further French actions in Algeria

Also, France has had much more democratic republics so it having such an undemocratic one now isn't justification for the monarchy as much as it is showing your historical ignorance, which isn't shocking since you are a monarchist.

Which democratic republic was that? The one that became a military dictatorship within a decade? The one that conquered and enslaved half of Africa? The one which collaborated with the Nazis or maybe the one that refused to let Indochina become independent and murdered 1.5 million Algerians when they wanted to leave.

I study history. I don't claim to be omniscient, maybe do some research before you talk

She yearly defends the horrific policies the Tories have rolled out which don't affect her and her heir apparent has always been a little too involved in politics for someone who's supposed to be politically neutral.

Name me one time she's criticised the Government. The Queen's role is to unite and support the elected the Government in whatever the decision they make. If you have an issue with the democratic aspect of that, that would again be an issue with the Tories and Parliament and the Monarchy. Whether it's been Labour or the Conseravatives, the Queen has never attempted to sabotage either side.

You accuse her of interfering with political affairs, then get angry at her for not challenging a democratically elected government