Birthright oughtn't to be a criterion let alone the sole one for Head of State of a 21st Century UK!

Self-explanatory

By Stanley Collymore

This has absolutely nothing at all
to do with envy or any form of
an impassioned disrespect
for one's own country. Since in fact, it is
unquestionably and clearly markedly a
state of mind that's wholly contrary, to
what sycophants literally like yourself
are risibly rather dimwittedly thinking
and personally enjoying; crucially the
term sycophant. For quite irrefutably
as any person who's unquestionably
clearly distinctively not intellectually
challenged most evidently distinctly
can see, quite obsequiously bowing
to and really ludicrously addressing
Charles Windsor essentially as Sire
or Your Majesty, while undoubtedly
actually instinctively, according the
very type, of subservient behaviour
to the rest of his quite distinctively
incestuously inbred family; such a
person, simply does actually need
to undeniably, get a grip on reality.

Obviously so, because these people
are no more special educationally
or talent wise than distinctively
the average everyday Briton, and frankly
that's not saying much really! Moreover
they're only where they are: undeniably,
essentially and obviously significantly,
due effectively not to any discernibly
remarkable, distinctively outstanding
or noticeable abilities simply on their
individual or collective parts but just
solely, and outrightly because of the
family they were generally born into.
And while possibly a basically quite
average intelligent person generally
could just perhaps understand why
the ordinary fawning Britons, along
with their similarly overseas global
and equally genocidal kin in places
like Terra nullius Australia, Canada,
New Zealand, the USA and fittingly
in tandem with, these remnants of
their like-minded, subservient sort
that actually still infect Zimbabwe
and South Africa clearly with their
racist presence could dimwittedly
defer in the past - psychologically
and physically - to those that very
significantly, and also collectively
evidently carried far bigger sticks
than they themselves simply had
and literally had no compunction
whatsoever, in rather mercilessly
utilizing them to rather bullyingly
get, what they were literally after.

Like getting these plebeian serfs
to do, and carry on doing so,
whatever these barbaric
bullies: undoubtedly perceived as more
knowledgeable, and essentially gallant
by these very distinctively subservient,
and undeniably also, crucially obliging
serfs - obviously simply insisted upon.
And, although clearly their techniques
may have very self-servingly changed
over the ensuing centuries the clearly
naturally belligerent, and self-entitled
philosophy of these quite undeniably
egregiously malevolent and toxically
verminous scum, hasn’t changed an
iota amongst any of them and most
irrefutably and unequivocally they're
discernibly, exactly the same now in
the 21st Century, as they've actually
very basically unquestionably been!

(C) Stanley V. Collymore
12 November 2023.


Author's Remarks:
Pompous virtue signalling is one thing but actual participatory combat is really a different matter. So when did the last British "royal" die on the battlefield in the defence of their country. It was on the 22 August 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth when Richard III led a mounted cavalry against Henry Tudor in an attempt to kill him, however it was Richard III who died when Henry Tudor's supporters surrounded and killed him. And in contemporary times, right up to the present British Royals and specifically their reigning or directly in line monarchs stay as far away from the battlefield and front line as it is humanly possible to do so. But nevertheless don't spare themselves the brave military uniforms and the risible surfeit of distinguished medals out of their toy boxes that they quite indulgent and fastidiously love to wear on these ceremonial occasions like Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday.

By while reluctant in actually defending their country these royals have no problem whatsoever in supporting war and famine; nor for that matter any difficulty in supportively, liberally arming dictators, while essentially paying only lip service to freedom and democracy and discernibly with meritocracy nowhere on their wish list!

Understandably therefore why they very readily supported the Iraq War when in essence literally millions died and quite similarly too millions more were quite drastically turned into both internal and external refugees; some of whom are so desperate that they even try to seek refuge in Britain, the country that quite barbarically with the USA and for their oil caused their calamity in the very first place. And a measure of the egregious and odiously malevolent manner in which they're still callously regarded by the British monarchy and the UK's sick establishment, is that distinctively one of the last things that Liz Windsor really did before she kicked the bucket was to honour War Criminal Tony Blair for his criminal exploits in Iraq!

Over 1 million British servicemen died in combat during World Wars 1and 2, and the figure is higher if those who died from the other causes of those wars are factored in. Similarly Empire military combatants lost significantly more in wars that had nothing to do with them; but war is profitable for the plethora of actually white led European countries among whom Britain is quite clearly a principal protagonist.

But what distinctively beats me, and I personally have no mental animosity against the UK being a monarchy - I voted against Brexit and accepted the result, narrow as it was, with equanimity - and would do the same if a majority of UK citizens, serfs and plebeians simply voted to retain the monarchy. But you cannot continue with this quite pathetic drivel of yours that "it's your history and is what every patriotic Britain wants." If so, you wouldn't have a problem as you will undoubtedly win! But like the quite fearful that he might be azoospermiac husband and purported father that all too well knows that his very adulterous wife has routinely cheated on him and in all probability he didn't, nor possibly could have sired any of the children she produced in their marriage, but is literally too s**t scared to both have himself and these brats DNA tested through a fear of having his nagging suspicions corroborated and his marriage substantiated for the farce it actually is, does nothing, while continuing to carry on living in his very pathetic dream world compounded by his entrenched state of denial relative to the reality that significantly encompasses himself but which he doggedly refuses to acknowledge, let alone do something constructive about it. A quandary that is quite relative really to the British monarchy.

Essentially either you very self-evidently inured sycophantic morons think that the Britain monarchy is thoroughly indispensable and will stand the test of time, or you know it isn't; and like someone who thinks he or she has contracted AIDS but is too petrified to go to the Sexual Health Clinic to ascertain what the real truth is; that's YOU! Likewise a genuine referendum on the British monarchy can either deem them as the best thing since sliced bread or else declare them to be as useless and as beneficial to contraception as a condom with holes in it!

Author's Note

As per my previous works.