(Follow-up on this quote)
1. Incorrect. The nations I listed above had continent-spanning trade routes, walled cities, complex legal codes, and diplomatic channels. If Rome was an advanced civilization, so were they.
2. None of these reasons are rational, especially the idea that America is culturally Anglo-Saxon, therefore you must work to enact the rightful king of England and grant him absolute power, but not extend his throne to America despite their cultural linkage. Once again, and I want to stress I'm not meming here, this comes off as an autistic fixation.
Genuine question: do you understand the difference between legal, moral, and socially tolerable?
1. But they did not have a system of writing before the English colonists came. And their system of government was still at the tribal level because they had chiefs instead of kings.
2. It makes sense not to extend his throne to America because America was never territory of England during the time period that the legitimate kings ruled England. The true king therefore only has a claim to the territory that England had back in 1399 when Richard II was overthrown.
3. I understand the different definitions but they often go hand in hand. It is a moral duty to obey the law. And what is socially tolerable changes throughout history. While absolute monarchy is socially intolerable in England today, it was socially tolerable back in medieval England and it will become socially tolerable again, when England enters a golden age of prosperity and the education system will teach children to be loyal to the king.
1. Actually, the chiefdom was an electoral position in most of the "civilized" tribes (Algonquin, Iroquois, Cherokee): decisions were made by a council of respected community members, with the "peace chief" (the word used would be better translated as "respected elder") acting as a mediator. In times of war, the "war chief" (once again, the word would better translate as "mighty man" or "great man") would suspend ordinary council operations until the war was over. You may realize this bears a striking resemblance to a republican system: specifically, the senators and dictator of the Roman Republic. Indeed, the "Great Law of Peace" of the Iroquois Nation was used alongside Roman Republican philosophy in inspiring the Constitution. So, in essence, you're saying they were illegitimate because they didn't write things down (because they didn't need to, because they had a deep oral tradition kept by the priesthood, much like the early Angles from whom the entire institution of the "king of England" extends). But not only did the "illegitimate" government of England recognize them as legitimate states, but the "legitimate" governments of France, Holland, Portugal, and Spain as well.
3. And why would this happen? And saying "because the True King will be on the throne" isn't an answer: the belief that a True King can cure dropsy with a touch and will make all right by the mere presence of his arse on the throne is based in Catholic religious beliefs that you no longer hold.
1. Well those tribes were within the established borders of the United States and previously within the established territories of the other colonial powers, so they were nations within a nation. The US later expanded it's territory out west with treaties such the Louisiana Purchase. And when the Anglo Saxons came to England, they already had a writing system called runes which were replaced by the Latin Alphabet by the 9th century.
2. The true king will bring prosperity by implementing a full Brexit, making England fully economically independent and not burdened by European Union regulations. There will also be economic protectionism in foreign trade to protect England's industries. There will be an end to usury since usury was illegal in medieval England. And as I said, there will be an end to open borders to stop Muslims from bringing in terrorism and sharia law, and England's demographic will be saved through traditional family values, and the encouragement of procreation.