Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Americans do get confused about the Monarchy, Monarchs can be dumped, hell there was one in the thirties who wanted to marry an American which would never do, her being twice divorced may have had something to do with it.
If Americans do not recognise royalty (not the Queen ) what were they doing saluting Prince Harry out of uniform in New York?
I don't understand your post.
Are you referring to King Edward who abdicated his throne in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson?
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by Americans not recognizing royalty. Certainly we recognize royalty. Since it's a fact that the U.K. has royalty, how would we make it not so?
Perhaps you are referring to etiquette - it is not proper for Americans to bow or curtsy to royalty because we are not their subjects.
What your saying is basically that they do this so their children are born wealthy & powerful?
Is that a good thing for the average person in the UK who has to work?
Do what?
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the monarchy brings in a great deal of money to the UK. In fact, taxes would be higher if they weren't here. I'm not referring to an unprovable number of tourist tax dollars, either.
George III surrendered crown land income to Parliament in exchange for a covering of certain expenditures and a Civil List, which basically means a stipend for the royal family. The crown estates are worth roughly £7 bn, not to mention perpetual income such as rental and usage. All of that goes to Parliament as income which subsidizes government. A small fraction of that is sent back to the Royal Family as Civil List funds. A very small fraction.
If the government wanted to, they could simply stop providing the civil list. As these lands are privately owned, they would then be surrendered to the Royal Family(No longer royal). As these are freehold lands, the royal family would then become far, far wealthier than they are now.
Could you clarify what your position is? Do you believe that the government should simply steal private property, or did you have some other position I haven't divined?
Are you referring to King Edward who abdicated his throne in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson?
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by Americans not recognizing royalty. Certainly we recognize royalty. Since it's a fact that the U.K. has royalty, how would we make it not so?
Perhaps you are referring to etiquette - it is not proper for Americans to bow or curtsy to royalty because we are not their subjects.
Was there not a bit of a tiff around 1760 about the colonies leaving Britain and becoming a Republic where the holding of titles of nobility was banned ?
So do all HM's grandchildren get a salute thrown up for them in the USA ?
Salute any royal but no bow/curtsey for HM at Wimbleton from American players, interesting, European players even those from Republics believe it to be good manners.
Was there not a bit of a tiff around 1760 about the colonies leaving Britain and becoming a Republic where the holding of titles of nobility was banned ?
So do all HM's grandchildren get a salute thrown up for them in the USA ?
Salute any royal but no bow/curtsey for HM at Wimbleton from American players, interesting, European players even those from Republics believe it to be good manners.
It only becomes undemocratic when the people decide they no longer want a monarch as a head of state. If in the UK's case that were to occur, there would be no revolution or beheadings - it'd be ended via a referendum. Public support for the monarchy is a sort of vote in itself.
I don't understand that either. Britain is a democracy and people would have already brought down the monarchy if they wished so. They haven't and the monarchy remains highly popular, no matter how much it annoys certain people.
So how do you all feel about the Crown skipping a generation, and the possibility of William being the next monarch? Is that where things are headed? I think William would be a smash!
Not only that would be tremendously unfair on Prince Charles, it would open a very dangerous constitutional precedence when the law of succession bent down to public opinion pressure.
I don't understand that either. Britain is a democracy and people would have already brought down the monarchy if they wished so. They haven't and the monarchy remains highly popular, no matter how much it annoys certain people.
Oliver Cromwell tried and succeeded for 11 years, in which England was a republic, known as the Commonwealth of England, this was the flag:
Not only that would be tremendously unfair on Prince Charles, it would open a very dangerous constitutional precedence when the law of succession bent down to public opinion pressure.
wont happen...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
