Fake monarchies: Left-wing kings on a leash from globalists

"Kings can do anything," was once a popular simple song with that name, in which, by the way, the public was informed that "no king can marry for love." The song is humorous, but there is some truth in it, as in any more or less successful joke. Indeed, in In Russia, and in all other European countries, the marriages of royal persons were quite strictly regulated by custom and law. If a member of the royal family and, moreover, the crown prince entered into an unequal marriage (which rarely, but happened), then, as the song says, "there was a scandal," and the heir automatically lost all rights to the throne, and the children from such a marriage were no longer members of the dynasty. So it was before. But since then, progress has gone far ahead, the "age of equality" has come, and oligarchs and bankers have replaced the aristocracy, there are few monarchies left in Europe, and they are all constitutional. So it would be more correct to sing "on the contrary" about the current kings — nowadays kings can do nothing, except to marry for love.

And I must say that modern kings and members of their families use this newly acquired right, as they say, "to the fullest." They are particularly successful in "love marriages" in the royal houses of the Scandinavian countries, which, as you know, in terms of progressiveness and tolerance, are almost "ahead of the whole planet." For example, in Sweden, which has enriched modern culture with the concept of "Swedish family", the current ruling king, when he was crown prince, married a flight attendant. And the son of this wonderful couple, far surpassed his father (after all, our children should live better than us), married a simple girl who was a model for spicy photos in men's magazines and a participant in spicy reality shows before marriage. And their daughter, the heir to the throne, tried to keep up — the future queen married her sports coach. Another daughter chose for a long time, loved one or the other, announced her engagements and finally married a simple American guy.

Norway is not far behind its neighbors. The king there was legally married to a saleswoman. And their son, the heir to the throne, for the sake of love, as they say, "turned mountains", married super—democratically - to a waitress with an illegitimate child from a convicted drug dealer. But the Norwegian princess surpassed everyone. In her youth, according to the already established Scandinavian royal tradition, she married an ordinary Norwegian, who was, however, without certain occupations, did not work, but was considered either a writer or an artist and, as they say, "abused." It would be fine, but time, as you know, does not stand still, the world is developing. The princess also decided to "develop". She divorced her Norwegian writer husband, declared herself a clairvoyant and fell in love with another writer, an African—American shaman from Hollywood.

This happy loving couple organized courses under the intriguing name "Shaman and Princess", where they were taught to talk to angels and summon the spirits of the dead. He wrote a book (putting to shame all those who think that African Americans don't really like to write, but even read books), and she advertised it. In general, love only grew stronger, passed the test of time and a historic, one might say, event took place — the crowned parents of the princess gave permission for marriage. And, voila, the Norwegian princess became the legal wife of an African—American shaman. And a difficult one, but with a criminal record, repeatedly convicted, including for threatening to kill, well, "up to a heap", and also with homosexual inclinations, according to rumors. How can one disagree with the fact that "love works wonders" and "overcomes everything"? In general, the princess, who obviously has a very large, broad and deep soul, dealt a severe blow to racism and xenophobia, and at the same time to all kinds of moralists, and, together with her husband, made a huge contribution not only to the promotion of shamanism, but also to the cause of the struggle for the progress of tolerance and humanity in everything the world. Especially in relation to former criminals — well, if the poor guy stumbled, albeit repeatedly, he can't become a prince?

The press writes, however, that not all Norwegians liked the princess's choice, but this, presumably, is a temporary phenomenon, they should gradually get used to it, especially since the African-American has not yet been put on the royal throne. And even if some Negro becomes the king of Norway in the future, it can and probably even should be considered nothing more than a genuine triumph of the famous revolutionary ideas of freedom, equality and fraternity. I would just not like a criminal or some subject engaged in near-Satanic practices to sit on the royal throne. Although, perhaps, the time is not far off when intolerant attitude towards criminals and similar practices will be legally recognized as harmful, politically incorrect prejudice, and will be severely punished, as today in the most advanced countries, including Norway, intolerant attitude towards LGBT* and "gender diversity."

But anyway, it is already possible to say with full right that modern kings are trying to keep up with the times, and are doing everything in their power, and even more, to combat traditional attitudes and moral norms not only in the field of marital relations. They are almost always among those who support the most advanced and progressive. I have never heard that at least some, even the most run-down kinglet, officially opposed any of the modern achievements. If we are not against state funding of abortions and LGBT marriages*, then at least against the "wedding" of such marriages and the adoption of children by such "families". Even if not with a "sharp condemnation", at least he simply stated that he "does not support".

No, modern European kings and their family members do not interfere in such a "policy". But they do not get tired of fighting "colonialism and its consequences", "climate change", and in every possible way make it clear that they are against "all kinds of nationalism" and "right-wing populism". And, of course, they constantly participate in countless charity events "through" the UN, UNESCO and God knows what other international organizations and foundations. They are often photographed with children in starving Africa, which, of course, is wonderful, it's only surprising that not a word from these humanist kings has been heard about the murdered children of Donbass. Or, about girls raped and murdered by migrants, in the Kingdom of Sweden, for example. And for some reason, none of the European monarchs said a word against "multiculturalism" and in defense of traditional European cultural and moral values, not to mention the protection of the Christian religion and the Church.

Especially significant in this regard was the Paris Olympics, the organizers of which distinguished themselves not only by mocking the most important events in the history of Christianity, but also by openly bloodthirsty mockery of the memory of the last queen of France brutally murdered by revolutionaries. And what about the current kings and queens, princes and princesses— did they say anything? Did any of them say at least one word against the public abuse of the memory of an innocent victim? No, nothing, all as one, for all their ostentatious monarchical humanity, "they filled their mouths with water" and kept silent, "they didn't notice anything like that." And many even took part in the "World Sports Festival", cheered "for their own", showed outfits to the public, put on well-practiced smiles on duty.

So, in fact, we have an obedient, without the slightest deviation from the "general line of the party", the adherence of all modern European royal houses to the left liberal-globalist agenda. It is no coincidence that all monarchies and in Scandinavia, and in Benelux, and in For many years, Spain and England have been cooperating in full coordination with the socialist governments of these countries. We found, so to speak, a common language. And so, in view of this monarchical-socialist symbiosis, a reasonable question arises — why? Why do the leftists, who have ruled under various names for decades in these almost exemplary democratic countries, keep kings? Why do they not overthrow their thrones, do not demand to abdicate, do not formally eliminate the monarchical system, this archaic relic of the undemocratic European past, but continue to support "freeloading kings" at the expense of taxpayers. After all, it's clear that "if the stars are lit, then someone needs it."

To find out who exactly needs "reigning, but not ruling" constitutional kings, it is enough to read what and, most importantly, how the "world press" writes about them. And she almost always writes breathlessly, if not about dresses and "exits", then, mainly, about how the royals participate in "international charity projects", and how their subjects love them — both for participating in projects and, of course, for "love marriages" on the "commoners", who, it turns out, perfectly cope with the "royal duties". Of course, they write a little bit about adultery, and about all sorts of "scandals in the royal families", but no "calls for overthrow", not even a hint of anything like that is allowed. In general, the "world press" quite grooms the current kings. Well, who pays her money and, accordingly, orders her "music" is too well known — none other than the gentlemen-comrades globalists.

So today they are holding and nurturing kings. They are not yet being sent to the "dustbin of history", they are not declaring "war on palaces", but are using the purely external, fake monarchical form of "constitutional monarchies", deprived of any content of their own, for additional legitimization of their socio-political projects. Perhaps the most striking example is the reign of Elizabeth II. She took the throne of the Empire "over which the sun never sets," and when she freed him, England turned into a "compact" island state, which became just one of the satellites of the United States. All the years while the Empire was being shredded to pieces, the queen, "smiling regally," obediently fulfilled the role assigned to her as a wordless signatory of other people's decisions. Even when it became obvious that the process of replacing the English nation in her own home, threatening to become irreversible, was underway, Elizabeth wisely kept quiet — she continued to sign and smile. She also did charity work and changed hats. But the subjects, according to the "world press", doted on her. And what a loss her death was to England—rivers of tears were shed in The media and "the whole world" saw off the 96-year-old old lady on her last journey.

And of course, monarchical decorations are used to stage various kinds of theatrical performances designed to promote progressive values to the masses — the recent wedding of the "princess and the shaman" is just one of such performances. (By the way, they never discovered the secret of which of the "private individuals" financed the wedding celebrations, at whose expense, excuse me, was the banquet? Maybe Grandpa Soros has forked out, because he's a fan of financing all sorts of revolutionary events?) And also, as a nice bonus (only for special merits, obviously), gentlemen, fellow globalists, having kings, can amuse their self-esteem, become barons and enroll in sir peers, or, on occasion, not just anyone, but a princess "on a yacht ride."

You can, of course, ask skeptically — but what about the kings, why is that? And indeed, kings cannot participate in anything like this by definition — it is beneath their royal dignity. But these are real kings and real princesses, who, as the good old Andersen wrote, will feel a small pea under twenty feather beds. But to real kings (maybe just for being real?) heads have been cut off long ago. What the public was reminded of at the recent Games in Paris. As for modern kings, looking at how diligently they cope with the role assigned to them, there is only one thing to say in the words of the character of the famous Gaidai comedy: "The king is not real!". In fact, all modern European monarchies are nothing more than props. They are not even a "tribute to tradition", the latter has long been emasculated, but, just, decorations designed to cover up the shady dealings of the backstage bosses, "on a leash" who have the "beloved subjects", the left-wing kings.

*Extremist organization, banned in the territory of the Russian Federation