Only John Paul Jones was a “pirate:” he was a member of the Royal Navy but killed a man and escaped to the colonies. None of the Founders were corrupt officials (most of them were lawyers, doctors, or plantation owners) or fallen nobles.

fallen nobility is corrupt officials silly

??? Those two are not interchangeable, nor do they mean close to the same thing. Nobility and officials are two very different terms.

nobility were lords who were in a sense officials of the king or queen at the time or they were lords which again makes then an official

I’m still confused on what you’re trying to argue. None of the Founders were nobles. And while there were plenty of nobles in the British Empire, most of them fought on the side of the Crown during the Revolutionary War. And the nobles lost. So…

technically they didn't lose as the actual standing army never attacked it was mostly loyalists who attacked

also the war of 1812 the British won as they held canada

This is blatantly false as most of the battles of the Revolutionary War were fought by British regulars, along with German mercenaries and a few loyalists. The Siege of Boston, the Battle of Bunker Hill, Battle of Saratoga, Battle of Yorktown, and numerous other smaller battles were all fought with British regulars. To not know this and come in here while making incorrect claims confidently... I majored in history and legal studies in college. This area is my specific focus of study, and American history was the center of focus during my studies. I took numerous courses on the British Empire as well, including about the British Empire during this period.

The War of 1812 was a stalemate. America failed to conquer Canada, but the British did not gain any concessions from the U.S. Also, that wasn't the goal of the War of 1812. The War of 1812 was to stop the impressment of American sailors by the Royal Navy due to their manpower shortage due to their ongoing commitments in the Napoleonic Wars...

Also, monarchies are not inherently better nor are they more stable than democratic republics. If monarchies are stable, then why did so many kingdoms and empires collapse? Why are most countries in the world republics, or some variant of a republic? The Russian Empire, the Qing Empire, the French Empire (and Kingdom), the German Empire, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the Italian Kingdom, the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese Kingdom, the Bulgarian Empire, the Mughal Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and many more were all monarchies that collapsed in the 19th and 20th centuries alone. They are not more stable, nor are they 'better' in any regards. In the end, each nation has a specific government type that suits them the best. No two nations should have the same exact government structure, due to cultural, ideological, religious, and many other differences between even the most similar nations such as Canada and the United States.

it's due to the popular of democracy which has been proven more corrupt

And monarchs and nobles aren't corrupt? Have you seen how much the British Royal Family spends per year? How about the corruption of nobles and nobles exploiting peasants that led to revolutions in France, Spain, Romania, Russia, Portugal, etc.?

first of all look up how much the British rf bring in and pay in taxes every year voluntarily as well as donating to over 5000 thousand charities worldwide also its been proven monarchies are harder to corrupt now due to the fact of having a single leader for longer which has lead to the unity the UK has currently they also don't have school shootings or crowds stampeding the capital

Russia wants it tsar/czar back according to polls so I don't want to hear it my guy

What’s going on here the discussion is absolutely fascinating.

just a rando obsessed with a corrupt democracy an sourcing sites that aren't valid

Ironic, since most of America's democracy was based on British traditions and colonial rule (self-governance before the Seven Years War). Also... You do realize that Britain is a constitutional monarchy, right? Parliament has all the power in Britain; the monarch is a mere figurehead. Just like in Japan and other developed countries.

the queen still has a lot of power still like able to start a war without parliament, replace the prime minister with a new person , and various other powers

chief, your writings are fine, Sacred here is just a diehard lover of Hapsburg cleftchins. please disregard his opinions, keep up the good works.