Royal Family still in Poland?

Can QE2 go to the parliament and say: I want this refugee crap stopped today!!! What would these do-nothing parasites say to her?

Correct. That was an era of planned, legal and orderly migration for those who elected at their leisure to do so. There were regular and numerous passenger ships and immigration processing centers all set up to facilitate it. It wasn't something done in the dead of night or in response to a crisis.

Additionally, it was not uncommon for this era of immigrants to return to their homelands seasonally, for special occasions, or even permanently to retire or if things didn't work out. Hardly what anyone would regard as the actions of escapees fleeing tyrannical monarchies.

But you wouldn't know this because you only understand the world as it has been defined by your communist tainted education and as being a mere bystander to the sheer chaos of illegal 3rd world migration which Mad Cow Merkel and her EU minions created and presided over for well over a decade.

This is what we get when we combine communist education, fear of the Gestapo, and German obedience.

Absolutely. A cowed and ignorant population force fed a diet of lies in an environment of constant fear.

It's obvious that tourists from the Americas (many of whom are descendants of those same 18th and 19th century legal migrants) and even tourists from communist countries like China never go all the way to Europe to visit decaying communist buildings or the graves of communist tyrants which are ignored by the locals.

These paying travelers go to visit the many royal palaces or see the countless works of art or hear the inspirational music created and patroned during the reign of monarchs.

Quite. There's a big difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy.

NK though, is verging on a Theocracy with the Kim family almost deified.

...but your queen is still allowed to express her opinions on the more important issues than funeral flowers. Or is she?

What a constitutional monarch is 'allowed' to do and what they decide to do are far from the same thing.

Are you capable of answering a simple question like the one I asked?

An interesting article about Poland's elected monarchy and some of the more interesting characters involved:


culture.pl/en/article/6-unusual-people-who-were-offered-the-throne-of-poland

Interesting that Sikorski may have offered the throne to Prince George, Duke of Kent, a man who was famous for ******* anything that moved.

@jon357
#65
Which is called Despotism (there are rulers who either directly say out loud that they consider themselves divine or also/only demand to be treated as such or behaves as if they are without saying it)

Most known examples were the Pharaophs of old, Persian rulers to some extent and in modern times leaders of NK for instance. Lukashenka tries to become something similar but, truly he is too much of a joke to be considered as such. Even by his own population, one of the fights Christianity has is to fight despotic governments and despotic tendencies for obvious reasons.

Yes, completely so. It doesn't need to call itself monarchy either. The old 'divine right of Kings' is a step down from that, as is the Cult of Personality around some leaders. Xi is busy developing one in China.


'Lucky' Lukashenka is of course an opportunist. Nevertheless, he's grooming his youngest son (the older two are as thick as mince) for rule.

Poland (in modern and early modern times, anyway) never had that situation. The magnaty were completely vile however at least they played each other off and a strong monarchy (after August Mocny's time) never developed. If he'd not had diabetes the map of Europe may well have been different today.


If anything, it's more "had" than "has" nowadays.

All current kings and queens should be given 24 hours to abdicate. To assure compliance, a short movie about the 1917 events should be shown to those who don't understand what "get lost" means.

Fortunately, most (if not all) monarchies are not like Russia's.

Nor are the societies in which they thrive.

In Russia, czars ruled. Your queen is just a powerless puppet and a tourist attraction not better than Mickey Mouse in Florida.

A few minutes ago you were wibbling pointlessly about the end of their 'rule'.


Much more lucrative and popular.

Then again, you're just trying to troll.

Was the legitimacy of a ruler, bound by grace of God to adhere to the conduct set by the rest of the church. Having the responsibility and burden of decision making.

It's a anti-ego legitimacy compared to despotism which is egoism at it's peak. The problem began to form when rulers used it as an excuse rather then reason for their rule (tyrants abusing religious doctrine)

Thankfully it developed more and in the direction of having Jesus Christ as King in Poland, which is a reason for why Poland is administrated as a republic.

So I cannot imagine Piast returning for instance

It was certainly used to justify it.

There is a clear esoteric meaning of king/queenship, whatever the religious context may be.

@Poloniusz


I urge you to read an book by an actual historian about the waves of migration in the 19th century because then you would know how silly your entire post is.

Very little about this would look "orderly" to us today. Registration for instance was rudimentary at best and often non-existence. There was no need, since they were left to their own devives anyway, and interestingly often had to deal with similar sentiments muslims have to live nowadays.

And let us not start with your peculiar idea that there was not a significant of people fleeing the political realities at home... .

Your post in a nutshell. Your ignorance is so high that you don't really realize how laughable your claims are. You could avoid this by simply reading one or two books about this subject.

James Charles Bergquist's Daily Life in Immigrant America, 1820-1870: How the First Great Wave of Immigrants Made Their Way in America might be a good start.

Please educate yourself before you continue to make a completw fool out of yourself.


Look up how the Irish or Italians were treated. That they had the wrong religion (Catholics) was just the start.


There were thousands of Germans alone who fled after the failure of the 1848 revolution, many of whom ended up serving in the US army and fighting in the Civil War. The monarchies in Europe in the 18th and 19th century were incredibly opressive and caused many people to flee. Those are not comparable to the kind of monarchies we have today, which are de facto parliamentary democracies with some dynastic atavism.


I suppose anyone who does not agree with you is a Marxist?