Me, Myself and I Agree

....no, that was a monarchy.

"REPUBLIC!" is the answer, not the question.

It very much was not the answer in this situation. Cromwell was something of a trauma on Britain's experience with republics and it lasted less than ten years before people wanted to switch back to monarchy.

America begs to differ. Republic in effect from May 12, 1784 - that's 226 years longer than your example.

He's not American.

Neither were America's founding fathers, they were British subjects - until they weren't.

Well, that's very very not at all the case with the guy in the OP. He very much stayed a monarchist until they cut his head off. For being. A. Literal. Monarch.

Oh, I thought you were referring to Hugh Jackman - who could still become a US citizen.

OK, so nonsense it is then. Garble barble flip floo.

Ah the beauty of a Constitutional Republic and not a Socialist Democracy.

Y'all don't know who that is, do you?

? Its Charles King of England who abolished the Monarchy in the attempt to create a republic - which failed and reverted.

OK! So it's your knowledge of what actually happened that's f**king ridiculous, not your ability to recognize faces.

In fact, I'm going to snapshot this and frame it on my wall. This is pretty special.

Go for it! You must not have a lot of shit on your walls.. pretty embarrassing. I can't say I am too familiar with his history - but this:

"The monarchy was abolished and the Commonwealth of England was established as a republic. The monarchy would be restored to Charles's son, Charles II, in 1660. "

Would you like me to explain where you went wrong? I'll be happy to. But if you're going to write crap like that so smugly like you got this right, we'll just all laugh at you without explanation, that's fine with me.

Please, enlighten me with your extensive knowledge of Charles' I "Monarchy" - the one sources claim that he abolished and in which his son restored.

Yeah, no, that's not what happened at all.

Charles Stuart was very much a monarch infamous for believing in the Divine Right of Kings, meaning that he not only believed there should be a King, and that it should be him, but that he should have unlimited power because his position was backed by God. If you can name something about monarchy that you would find tyrranical, Charles I did it. Seized wealth for the crown from private merchants with no legal basis. Abolished the legilature so that he alone could write and rewrite laws. Corrupt cronies in office. Tyrranical executions. He wasn't just pro-monarchy - he was THE king to abuse monarchial power.

It took a brutal 9 year civil war to remove him from power and behead him. DID I SAY THAT CLEARLY? THEY HAD TO CUT HIS HEAD OFF TO ABOLISH THE MONARCHY. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING HE DID, IT WAS SOMETHING DONE TO HIM. And in the power struggle that followed, the man who took over was Oliver Cromwell, Britain's only dictator in history. Charles II would restore the monarchy in 1660 following Cromwell's death and people were king of glad to just have a bit of normalcy back, since it was Cromwell in all this who was the one that y'all would consider to be a bit socialisty (although he was more technically a Puritanical theocrat).

Neither Charles I nor Oliver Cromwell were particularly Democracy friendly. Cromwell's dictatorship was a republic but again, you would have absolutely hated him in every way; Britain pretty much turned into a police state in the name of national security under his dictatorship.

What an Charles' I historian we have here. Not quite worth all of that to be honest - but a pleasant read none the less.

You sure seem to be.

But do keep on having a hissy fit to disprove you ain't having one.

You are

? Whatever you care to believe. But believe me, I am far from "triggered". Again, its not my problem that you interpreted my text in a particular way. That must be embedded into your snowflake DNA. Perhaps you should look into that.

So why you crying?

I'm not? Why am I falling for this liberal troll bait. Have a good one!

Kid, relax, it's only a meme site.

I saw what you said, that's what I replied to. You got pompous with your ignorance, dared someone to fill you in on the facts, and you got schooled - something you've clearly not attended.
If you're this easily triggered, then that's on you.

- and that also makes me smile.

Lol who's triggered, exactly? Why would you tell me to 'relax' when I simply responded to your post? I was 'schooled' in a topic I claimed to be unfamiliar with in my second post? You really told me off.. hah

Because the one line over-simplified-to-the-point-of-misleading synopsis copypasted by you was so much betterer?

Hey, I didn't know didly about Charles I or that (significant) era either, but that was quite the worthwhile read, plus someone put some elbow grease into it, and are we here just to shake our delicate ego enforcing opinions like paper mache clubs or can't we just sit back and smile while we learn something once in a while?

Never said that at all - I actually claimed to not know much about it, only that who he was and some shit I found online quickly. If you failed to see that - it isn't my problem. You seem to be getting aroused over this subject for no reason. Why not read what I said again. If you have concerns about HOW I said something, it seems you may need to try to be less sensitive to text. Otherwise, I said it was a pleasant read.. so what is your problem exactly?

So where are you at? Any insight with the information I had found on the internet with a quick Google search?