Is the present queen elizabeth the RIGHTFULL monarch of britain, as William of Orange was not the true king??
815632
Yes, she is "the rightful" Queen of England.  No one can lay claim to her throne.  No one in her own family can touch the throne because of her direct descent from Queen Victoria to her father King George VI.  During the Coronation, with all the major heads of the European and Asian nobility there, she was declared the Rightful and Just, true Queen of England, the United Kingdom, etc.  No one interjected or tried to usurp her throne which had been in her family since at least the early 1800's.  If they haven't done it in 200 years now, I think her jobs safe.  Not to mention she was related to everyone there.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom
800818
i would be happy being THE QUEEN and i would not change my apperance because  queen elizabeth II is good looking old woman- she is soo cute-she reminds me of my grandma- i love her little blue eyes:) and i would tell william he better get rid of kate middleton or else and i would dis-own camilla and charles and make them go in exile to another country:)
58076
Firstly, England hasn't had a Queen, or a King for that matter, since Queen Anne back in the 1700's.  The present Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland is also Queen of the Dominion of Canada.  She is not above the law.  There are a great many constraints on Her power.  Members of the Royal Family can be prosecuted if one is accused of a crime.  However, the public relations scandal of a Royal committing a crime prevents that from happening.
290610
Yes, it is considered a constituent country in Union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland(the United Kingdom).\n\nAn interesting note is that it was the SCOTTISH monarch (James VI) who ascended the English throne and United the two kingdoms of England & Scotland.\n\nFurther showing that Scotland is a country: It has it's own national anthem. It has it's own parliament which governs their own affairs. It has its own court system. It has its own currency (the Scottish pound is on par with the British Pound). And it competes in many sporting events separately (world cup soccer, Rugby, etc.)
370120
Basically they fulfil the same duties of a head of state, with ceremonial and the role as head of the military and the Church of England being important elements in the UK. The Queen also has to give her assent (nowadays a mere formality) to formally bring a law into force. As you may have seen on the recent BBC programmes, she also acts as a sort of confidential 'sounding board' to political leaders.\n\nI agree, I would like to see a Monarch with more power, although our constitution doesn't alas allow this (politicians are increasingly more interested in what's best for them and their popularity than in the country!) . I seriously think we should have an Executive Monarch, like the US has an executive President... and who knows, useless heads might really roll then! :-)
921765
The Monarchy serves as head of State in Great Britain (which includes England, Scotland and Wales), and Northern Ireland as well as several Commonwealth Countries, including Canada, Australia and several others.  Technically, the monarch is also the head of government as well (by constitution) but by tradition, it has evolved that the Prime Minister is head of government and the monarch is head of state.  The current monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, and she performs some of the same functions as the President of the United States as head of state (as opposed to head of government) which would include many ceremonial functions, as well as proclaiming bills into law.  It offers a different form of "checks and balances" that isn't available under the US system.  For instance, should a US President should fall as head of government, the head of state is also gone and government comes to a halt. In Britain, should the government fall, the monarch can come forward and ask another party to form government or call a general election.  If it is the former, then government can continue as before.  In countries like Canada (where I am), the monarch is represented  by the Governor General at the Federal Level, and the Lieutenant Governor at the Provincial Level (as opposed to a Lt Gov in the states, which is the state equivalent to a VP).  The person holding those offices perform the monarch's duties in its stead at the appropriate level of government.
24090
It is true that in Britain  the King was supreme sovereign from 1066 until Magna Carta (The Great Charter) . William’s conquering of England in 1066 established a feudalistic structure in which the single sovereign was the King with no responsibility to anyone.   However, prior to 1066 it was a different form of King which was responsible to the council and with real responsibility to those under him.  Old English Common Law ruled and its evolution clearly was rooted in Saxon Village law and prior to that going back at least into 1,000 BCE of Celtic culture.\n\nMagna Carta was a formal reinstitution of basic Common Law demonstrating that the cultural foundation from whence Common Law arose survived the 149 years between invasion and Magna Carta.\n\nThat Common Law continued to evolve resulting in multiple commitments of future Kings to subsequent documents similar to Magna Carta and others such as, The Petition of Right (1628), An Agreement of the Free People of England (1649), The Bill of Rights (1689).  Eventually this resulted in an ever evolving Parliamentarian system of government with an ever weakening Royal family.  However, as with the United States, it never became a democracy.
446334
Well, that's a pretty open question lol\n\nThe United Kingdom comprises of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The population is around 58 million, and the capital is London.\n\nThe inhabitants are more likely to identify as coming from their constituent countries, and England is the dominant country in the union. Despite this, England is the only member not to have it's own democratic process, and all English law is made by the Houses of Parliament along with law for the whole union.\n\nIt is a constitutional monarchy, currently led by Queen Elizabeth II. However, the real power rests with the democratically elected parliament with the Queen acting as a figurehead. Theoretically, all new acts of parliament still have to be approved by the queen before passing into law however, and it is the Queen who requests the leader of the political party to form "her government".\n\nOther major cities include Cardiff (capital of Wales), Edinburgh (capital of Scotland) and Belfast (capital of Northern Ireland). Within England the major cities include Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool.\n\nI could go on forever... I hope there are enough facts there though lol
1044366
The United States would go into chaos if we had a monarchy! Most people don't have a clue about how the royal families work, or Parliament, for that matter (if you are saying we should have royalty like the U.K.). To change our way way of existence as a nation to having a royal family would be a complete 180.\n\nWho would be our king and queen, anyway? Brangelina?
957316
The official residence of Queen Elizabeth II and her consort, Prince Philip, is Buckingham Palace in London, U.K.  In addition to Buckingham, the British Monarch also maintains official residence at Windsor Castle in Windsor and Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh; Hillsborough Castle in County Down, Northern Ireland, is also an official residence though it is primarily used by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.\n\nIn addition to the residences that are attached to the Monarchy, Elizabeth also owns Sandringham House in Norfolk and Balmoral Castle in Scotland.  Unlike the official residences, these are personal possessions and ownership is not a consequence of being Queen.
639301
Yes. They would find a lovely title for her and put her in with the addled Queen Mum. Charles would then ascend, unfortunately. I don't think he has the nads for it , frankly. Young William, yes.
514420
At the moment it is a democracy/constitutional monarchy, where the queen is the head of state but does not wield any power.\n\nPreviously Britain has been ruled by an absolute monarchy within a feudal system as well as having Oliver Cromwell, who, I guess, would be described as a president at a time when representational democracy did not really happen (1641?)
125237
ruled by a queen, Queen Elizabeth...What are u trying to ask nyway???
977628
The monarchy is larglely symbolic, so what does it matter if she is there or not?  As a matter of historical pride I don't think it would be a good thing to get rid of her.  They still have a democracy so what is the problem?
894586
The United Kingdom does not have a President.  It is a parliamentary democracy.  The head of government is Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.
224365
The most accurate place to look would be a current encyclopedia, like the Encyclopedia Britannica (it is written by experts, unlike Wikipedia which is written by common people who may not know what they are talking about).\n\nHere is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says:\n\n"British royal (b. Aug. 4, 1900, London, Eng.—d. March 30, 2002, Windsor, Berkshire, Eng.), in a life that spanned three centuries, was the daughter of a Scottish nobleman, the queen consort of King George VI, the mother of Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret, countess of Snowdon (q.v.), and an almost universally beloved symbol of British tradition and fortitude. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was the 9th child (of 10) of Claude George Bowes-Lyon, Lord Glamis and (from 1904) the 14th earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. On April 26, 1923, after a two-year courtship, she married Prince Albert, duke of York, the second son of King George V. When her shy husband was officially proclaimed King George VI on Dec. 11, 1936, following the abdication of his brother Edward VIII, she was thrust unexpectedly into the public eye. She proved to be an able consort, and her personal charm helped to cement public support for the monarchy, which had been badly damaged by the abdication. The new queen's refusal to leave London during World War II and her extensive wartime activities further endeared her to the nation, as did her reported response in September 1940 when Buckingham Palace was damaged in the Blitz: “I'm glad we've been bombed. It makes me feel I can look the East End in the face.” In 1952 the king died, and their daughter Elizabeth ascended the throne. Thereafter, the widowed Queen Mother served as an unofficial ambassador, traveling extensively until advancing age curtailed her movements. She continued to make public appearances, however, owned a string of thoroughbred racehorses, and survived several surgeries. She celebrated her 100th birthday in 2000 and attended her daughter Margaret's funeral six weeks before her own peaceful death."
462467
My great great grandfather was a count in Poland...and somewhere way, way, way back in the middle ages there was a Sir Lancelot in my family, that lived up near the scottish border...Found that out through my mom the geneology nazi...But I dont know if that makes me anywhere near the throne of england.\n\n\npeace