• A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    2 days ago

    Lmao okay so youā€™re implying that any State without a monarch is susceptible to someone claiming a nonexistent crown? Like its some sort of natural law like entropy?

    No fam weā€™ll just kill him

    • CherryBullets@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      2 days ago

      You donā€™t even have the guts to kill him as he says heā€™s a king currentlyā€¦ gtfoh. You ainā€™t as ballsy as the French.

        • CherryBullets@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I really donā€™t think so. Many of the countries you think of as more democratic have a Monarch as head of State, because itā€™s understood between the Monarch and the people that if the Monarch steps out of line, the people will recognize it as obvious and kill them.

          A dictator isnā€™t as obvious and as we see in the US, they change shit under your nose and their end goal isnā€™t as obvious as a Monarchā€™s, so many in the population donā€™t recognize their intentions as being a power grab (sound familiar?). A Monarch undermining democracy is obviously wanting power back, a dictator? Well they could just be ā€œDoing it for the good of the people šŸ¤Ŗā€. Most people arenā€™t stupid enough to fall for a Monarch saying they are grabbing power ā€œFor the good of the peopleā€, but are stupid enough to fall for a politician saying this, since they believe a politician is ā€œOne of themā€ (as they ignorantly believe all politicians come from their class; the peasantry). A Monarch was, is and never will be ā€œOne of usā€, they were obviously never peasants, so less people fall for the BS.