Spot On!

[dales]

Monarchies are parasites.

[Guinevere]

Well, I suppose I'm one of those with strong views, as I find the concepts of monarchy and aristocracy viscerally revolting. And it's precisely because I'm an American.

I know you'll find it hard to believe, but it's true, *I"m* the princess in this partnership - Sue just doesn't look as good in a tiara as I do

That being said, I'm a pretty down-to-earth princess. I think they are interesting as a historical artifact, but should have an even lesser role than they currently do.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Just like gays/lesbians marrying, the monarchy does not affect me one bit.
you do know it's all about me

[Gob]

I think they are interesting as a historical artifact, but should have an even lesser role than they currently do.

What should they drop Guin?

[Andrew D]

Double (almost) posting.

[Andrew D]

I'm an American with strong views on the abolition of The British Monarchy...

I'm strongly opposed to abolishing it.

When the issue was whether the British monarchy should continue to rule 13 of its American colonies, many strong supporters of the British monarchy did the fledgling U.S.A. a great service.

They became Canadians.

[Andrew D]

In a diverse and pluralistic society at least ostensively devoted to the freedom of religion, what is the merit in having a Head of State who is sworn to “uphold the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law and reserve the settlement of the Church of England”?

[Elizabeth II's] son and heir apparent, Prince Charles, has said he's planning a symbolic change if and when he becomes king by taking the title "Defender of Faith" or "Defender of the Faiths" to reflect Britain’s multicultural and multifaith society.

That change would mean Charles would be the first monarch to not be the standard-bearer for Protestantism for the first time since Henry VIII famously broke from Rome to start his own church.

Well, it's a start ....

[TPFKA@W]

It always tickles me that so many Americans have such strong views on the abition of the monarchy. Much stronger than many of the Queen's subjects.

Does anybody know why this is?

I think if you really dug into it you would find that most Americans don't give a rats rear end about nor think about it at all in general. The press here is what keeps any discussion going about it. For the most part the UK could disappear in a cloud of dust and not many would take much notice.

It's our way.

[Gob]

We love you too.

[TPFKA@W]

I was insulting us not you Glob. A coworker asked me a very stupid question about Boston yesterday and if they can't show a working knowledge for things near things further have no chance.

[Gob]

No worries, I wasn't insulted, I found your comment really amusing and apt.

[Lord Jim]

I've been meaning to comment on this:

It always tickles me that so many Americans have such strong views on the abition of the monarchy.

I have to say that the participation of our non-American members on this board about the US form of government, has not exactly been distinguished by their reluctance to comment on it...*










*thought I'd use a bit of that famous "British Understatement" there....

[Lord Jim]

Speaking of Abdications....

I thought this one was handled rather well...

[Gob]

I have to say that the participation of our non-American members on this board about the US form of government, has not exactly been distinguished by their reluctance to comment on it...*

The royal family is not our government Jim, it affects your well being not., However the actions and policies of the President and Whitehouse do have far reaching implications world wide. not to mention they are a bunch of fucking fruitcakes.

[Long Run]

The royal family is not our government Jim, it affects your well being not.

The end of the royal family could spell the end of the tabloid industry, which could be the end of surplus, last second store sales, which could be the end of stores, which would mean a lot of people would go hungry. Are you actually advocating for Americans to go hungry on a mass scale?

[Gob]

ROTFLMFFAO!!!

[Scooter]

Well, I suppose I'm one of those with strong views, as I find the concepts of monarchy and aristocracy viscerally revolting. And it's precisely because I'm an American.

Just because they are not titled doesn't make the U.S. devoid of its own aristocracy.

[Lord Jim]

The royal family is not our government Jim,

Oh come on...

It is certainly a part of it...

The Monarch is the Head of State...

And The Monarch has two very specific important powers granted under the UK's Constitutional Monarchy:

The Queen has two individual powers that could cause a political crisis if they were ever exercised. She may refuse a government's request to dissolve parliament and call an election, if she believes a government can legitimately be formed. She also has the right to choose the prime minister: a formality in the case of a clear majority, but potentially controversial after an inconclusive general election. This almost happened in February 1974, when Labour failed to win an overall majority but the Conservatives considered power-sharing with the Liberals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/ma ... da.jubilee

Look, I've made very clear that personally I'm a huge fan of The Monarchy, and would not want to see it abolished...

But I think it's kind of silly to argue that a Head Of State, with those powers, has no relationship whatsoever to a country's government...

I disagree with my some of my fellow compatriots on this board regarding their negative attitude towards The Monarchy, but they are expressing a view about how the Brits order their political affairs...

Which seems like fair game to me, even though I disagree with many of the arguments being made...

Given the fact that you lot have never been the slightest bit shy about expressing your opinions on how we order our political affairs, it seems entirely fair that those on this side of The Pond should do the same...

(I believe that none other than your own good self has characterized our system of governance as "insane" on more than one occasion...Indeed, if I were to perform an advanced search for your handle with key words linking your posts about our form of government with words like, "crazy", "insane", "nuts" and "lunacy", I suspect I would be able to produce a goodly number of references... )

Sauce, goose, gander....

[Gob]

Not really Jim, the monarchy has all but abandoned its governance role, and in fact, were it to try to exercise political power it would bring about its own demise.

When were those two powers last used?

Oh, and I would never deny that I think, and have stated, that I find your system of government insane. 'Cos it is.

[Econoline]

In a diverse and pluralistic society at least ostensively devoted to the freedom of religion, what is the merit in having a Head of State who is sworn to “uphold the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law and reserve the settlement of the Church of England”?

[Elizabeth II's] son and heir apparent, Prince Charles, has said he's planning a symbolic change if and when he becomes king by taking the title "Defender of Faith" or "Defender of the Faiths" to reflect Britain’s multicultural and multifaith society.

That change would mean Charles would be the first monarch to not be the standard-bearer for Protestantism for the first time since Henry VIII famously broke from Rome to start his own church.

Well, it's a start ....

That's actually the only thing that I object to about the British monarchy. Get rid of their religious role and it's simply a waste of (British) taxpayers' money, which doesn't bother me at all.

ETA: as Long Run pointed out, the royal family might have a positive effect on the economies of several nations!