Finally: why England support the Queen and the royal Family if they never would invite you to a cup of tea?
928329
i say we do away with them.
225781
i live in Canada, and i know i don't mind having a "queen".  she doesn't make any governmental decisions, so it doesn't affect much in the country. all she seems to do is make occasional visits and pose for our money.  i think i might actually like it more, at least she is a permanent figure head, our prime ministers seem to change every couple of years.
992395
I spent my first 25 years in England and the rest (33) over here and I don't know why they don't like us, but being a Brit from birth I can tell you that they are opinionated and a tough audience so don't take it personal. They have no reason to not like Americans. Could be envy couldn't it?
1137290
Charles is heir to throne and I don't think he'd abdicate.  I think its wrong to say that nobody likes him, so he's made a few mistakes in life, haven't we all!  In my opinion this should make it easier for the public to relate to him and make him the peoples monarch.  I can't blame him if he wants to be George after his coronation, Kings named Charles don't really have a good track record in this country!  I hope that the public do accept Camilla as Queen, she is so supportive to Charles and makes him look happy and relaxed, isn't this what a Queen should do for the King?  It annoys me that people go on about how she's not the prettiest woman alive but as long Charles and Camilla and happy it doesn't really matter and they have my support!
634353
Interesting question. Now, we know that Prince Charles has someone who puts his toothpaste on his toothbrush for him, and hold the cup he pees into when he has to provide a sample, so it does follow that Her Maj does have a royal bumwiper.\n\nMaybe they get a Grace and Favour apartment at Buckingham Palace, and have a title like The Lady of The Anal Cleanliness.\n\nOr, more likely, some squaddie from the Household Division who has offended his Sargeant pulls the duty for punishment.
654894
Nothing really.All it is another way to run another contry. Its a monarchy.Really I don't know what is so special about royalty.Their just normal people like us.
1136428
Monarchs exist to represent their country without the burden of having to court public opinion in order to get themselves re-elected. They embody inherent cultural values: not a responsibility that most of us would be able to live up to. All societies are based upon hierarchies. Money and democracy seem to be implicitly justified as premises for power. Modern monarchs do not attempt to justify their status. This is why they are not hypocrites like politicians. (Yes I do support my Queen.)
717169
Maybe in some respects , but i personally dis-agree !\nThe British are out-casts in the European Union, No Euro , still British passports .....\n\nHigh time they came out of Uncle Sam's shadows AND grew up on their own !\nElse ... god save the queen . . . .
876345
The Queen of England does in fact have more power than those of us here in America commonly believe.  And for those who believe it's Parliament who runs the country, I will remind you of this:  Before Parliament may begin their session, it is the QUEEN who grants them their power to do so, and there is a very great and large debate among scholars as to just what would happen should the Queen chose not to grant Parliament her ''ok.''\n\nAlso, for those narrow minded idiots who actually think the Queen has no power...here are just a few of her abilities:\n\nAmong the powers possessed by the monarch in the United Kingdom under the Royal Prerogative are:\n\n    * The appointment and dismissal of ministers;\n    * The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections;\n    * Clemency and pardon;\n    * The award of dignities and honours;\n    * The declaration of war;\n    * The declaration of an emergency;\n    * The grant of Charters of Incorporation;\n    * The collection of tolls;\n    * The minting of coinage;\n    * The issue and revocation of passports;\n    * The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;\n    * The creation of new common law courts;\n    * The creation of new universities;\n    * The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England;\n    * The printing of the authorised Church of England version of the Bible;\n    * The publication of all statutes, legislative instruments and Orders-in-Council;\n    * The exercise of jurisdiction over numerous Royal foundations of all kinds;\n    * The appointment of Royal Commissions and Officers for any purposes.\n    * The choice of the numbering of monarchs (See MacCormick v. Lord Advocate)\n\nThe queen is also immune from prosecution in the courts as she is present in all courts and acts as the prosecuting authority in most criminal cases, either directly or indirectly\n\nIt's also worth noting that before British involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a major break with precedent, sought parliamentary approval for British participation in the war. However Parliament's decision was in constitutional terms advisory as the actual decision would be taken by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.\n\nLastly, I'll mention that it is His Majesty's personal prerogatives are:\n\n   1. The refusal to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister. This was last reputedly done in 1910 (but George V later changed his mind);\n   2. To dissolve Parliament (and call a new general election) against the wishes of the Prime Minister;\n   3. To appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing. This was last done in Britain in 1963 when Elizabeth II appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister.\n   4. The dismissal of a Prime Minister and his Government. This was last done in Britain in 1834 by King William IV; and\n   5. The refusal of the Royal Assent, last exercised in 1708 by Queen Anne [1].
673863
well i am not a very big supporter of monarchy no matter whatever country it is in.\nbut you guys in britain should be glad that your royal family atleast doesnt messes with the government and its running.\n\nthough i agree with you that spending so much money on the royal family serves no purpose but sometimes somethings are just part of your history and you cant do away with them.\n\nmaybe you could try abolishing the monarchy after her death.
596076
I presume you are British, as I am. I believe in the Royal Family for one important reason; national pride.\n\nSure they don't do much, or even really have that much power any more. But the monarchy if what defines Britain and being British to a lot of people, especially those from abroad.\n\nBritain has sold out big time; there are maybe two truly British car companies left (Ariel and Noble, off the top of my head- even Morgan is powered by BMW!) when there were literally dozens in the post-war era. Our sports are dominated by foreign talent; how many of Manchester United's team are actually from Manchester- or even Britain at all?! The England team manager is foreign. A large percentage of British companies, from retail to technology, are owned by foreign interests.\n\nThe rates of immigration are soaring, although this in itself is a good thing as it promotes world knowledge and understanding to those who will isten. The English language is becoming saturated with slang derived from these foreign migrants and the old school virtues of chivalry and the good old British gentleman have been flushed down the pan.\n\nMy grandfathers, and thousands of others, fought for the British way of life, their 'King and Country', and we should honour them by upholding the traditional British values they lived and died by, whilst moving forward in to a new world with the rest of the globe.\n\nEven our patron Saint, George, was a Turk, and I am not oblivious to the fact that the British royal family were, in themselves, of Nazi stock. However, we must forgive (but not always forget) the blemishes of the past; living in a multi-cultural society has given us the opportunity to do just this whilst upholding our common values of decency and strength in the face of adversity.\n\nSo yes, I think we should keep the royal family even if, I admit, Prince Phillip has never ironed my shirt or made me a cup of tea. They are a bastion of British culture when few others remain. Ask anyone what the first things that come to mind are when you say 'Britain'- I'll bet the queen will be in there, along with Buckingham Palace. And bad teeth. Remember the monarchy also represents our kin in Canada, Australia and a few more places that I wil not list here. \n\nRule Brittania!\n\nAnd...breath...
1012596
"Australias head of state would support England."\n\nHow can Australia's head of state support England when, like YOU said, they don't have one!
913765
Honestly, the fact that you are asking the question in fear of offending only attests to the fact that the chances are slight that you WILL offend someone.  It's not that the Brits are anti-American, it's that they are anti-stupid-American.  They dislike arrogance, and are unused to people pouring out their life's story for anyone who will listen.  They are also very private, unlike American's, and do not appreciate invasive, private questions, i.e. about how much money one makes, etc.  In other words, etiquette that used to be considered commonplace here.  \n\nAnd as for the actual etiquette books, unless you are planning on having a number of parties, or will take tea with the queen, etiquette books are going to be useless.  As long as you can identify when someone else is uncomfortable, and you make an effort to rectify the situation, you will be fine.\n\nIt's very commendable that you are entering into a new culture with every intention to act correctly, and not offend anyone.  Oh, that everyone could feel as you do...
944469
I heard that Queen Victoria never made lesbianism illegal because she refused to believe it happened.  Not sure if that is true but it sounds good.
1131472
I have never attended an England game, probably because the tickets were out of my range.  However, I am a fan of the game particularly when England is playing.\nIt was always my belief, that if you attended games, you were a SUPPORTER (because you bought tickets) otherwise you were a FAN.  (No closet though)
1051068
America did have a royal family of its own. It was called the House of Hanover, and they fought a little something called the American Revolution to get rid of it. \nAre you seriously suggesting that you would like to have a royal family to sit around as nothing more than figureheads, and putting a tremendous drain on the public purse, or do you want them to be ruling royalty, and throw out the democratic process? \nI somehow don't think either of those options would be very popular.
886623
yes i too beleive they are brain washed....this really does irritates the brits...but they know its true...they wld like to get rid of the royals but dont have the balls to do so. when u ask them they say its for the tourism....give me a break...what abt those countries with no royals but get soo many tourists than england???....im looking for that day when i will wake up and find that they have removed them....they need to live this is 21st century not 1400!!!