Monarchies would not have been better. We know it for a fact.
Look up all the European countries that still do have a more or less figurehead monarch, or just the scions of the royal families.
All of these are democracies.
You said it yourself. "Figurehead monarch".
But when monarch has no real power, power is always with the oligarchy/plutocracy, and in modern day that means international capital. Which means woke.
You can usually find out what said monarch thinks of the migration related politics...
I wonder how many you can find that are any better than the elected politicians on this.
Surprise surprise, titles and heritage do not make one immune to cultural and political trends among the elites.
True. But monarchs today are simply just rich people with titles.
Monarchies simply didn't care much about the nationality of their subjects as far as that was even a thing back then, but at their time importing masses of people from exotic parts of the world would be pointless considering Europe's population dynamics at the time.
Whenever that wasn't true though, foreign settlement with king's approval
did happen, though usually with less exotic and more locally available foreigners.
True. But the "population dynamics" are not the reason why Europe is importing masses of foreigners. Politics are, and specifically the elites' need to cause conflict within their own populations.
And a lot of that has to do with power relations in democracies, or at least the appearance of power relations. I know I am often cynical about the "power of the people", but people's opinions and votes
do matter, even when they can be suppressed. So what is happening is that the Left is basically genociding their own people simply for the sake of importing more voters (though it is not the
only reason). Monarch has no need for voters, and thus no need for mass immigration. Which doesn't mean they
won't do it for other reasons, but at least it makes it somewhat less likely.
If you want people to take your position seriously, don't say deluded things like this.
It would not be unreasonable to say that the French involvement made them the 'midwife' of America's birth, but they certainly didn't create our nation, and their own revolution had next to nothing to do with ours. Not literally nothing, because there was some degree of 'hey, it worked for the Americans, why not for us?' going on, but their revolution was literally based on rejection of most of the things the American revolution was in embrace of.
It is not deluded, you just have no clue about history.
France provided basically all of the naval power, vast majority of finance and significant portion of land power for the United States during the American Revolution, including some of the best commanders US had (especially on the naval side). It also engaged UK in what was fundamentally a global war.
Without France, American Revolution will have been crushed in its infancy, and very definitely will not have actually won independence. That is just a fact.
As for the second part, French Revolution had everything to do with the United States. Not solely the American Revolution, that is true - though it is also a fact that the French Revolutionaries had drawn inspiration from the success of the American Revolution. But France had played a decisive role in the American Revolution, and in the process, it had bled itself dry. That in turn caused a number of rather unpopular moves - particularly taxes - to be made, and combined with new ideas about liberty etc coming from the newly independent United States (again, a
massive number of French soldiers had fought and bled to secure the independence of the United States), it created a fertile ground for a new revolution to occur.
