We fought a war to get rid of Kings!

[DonCoquixote]

Now, I can see some practical reasons to keep the monarchy. Tourism aside, the royals allow an outlet for the vanity of people, which means the Brits do not expect their politicians to be rock stars. Consider we yanks, that have rejected many good candidates because they are not "sexy". In 2004, we rejected John Kerry because he looked like "Herman Munster." (to quote Doonesbury.) There is a bit of maturity involved to admit that while our minds are wired for kings and queens, we need to give that an outlet and let the boring types get into the offices.

That being said, with all due respect, this is one of the days I am happy to be an American, because, despite some Yank saps, we are NOT part of this mess. And, as a Latino, I do look forward to the day when those wanting their royalty fix look elsewhere than London...

[geckosfeet]

1. What are you talking about? We have huge royalty. The upper 1% rule us.

Just because they do not wear crowns and capes in public doesn't mean they are not ruling us. The 1% and the piles of money that our society worships run the show Don. That's our version of royalty. That's what we idolize.

[deutsey]

2. Read Twain's "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"

It's an uneven work, but in general Twain's scathing critique of royalty in it was aimed at the "economic royalists" (as FDR called them) who rule America. The phrase "New Deal", in fact, was inspired by a passage in CT Yankee where Twain rails against the ruling class:

" . . here I was, in a country where a right to say how the country should be governed was restricted to six persons in each thousand of its population. . . I was become a stockholder in a corporation where nine hundred and ninety-four of the members furnished all the money and did all the work, and the other six elected themselves a permanent board of direction and took all the dividends. It seemed to me that what the nine hundred and ninety-four dupes needed was a new deal."

[Octafish]

22. +1

Thank-a-you, Dwayne!

[RKP5637]

5. Exactly!!! It's just invisible here for the most part, but a tiny part of this

country runs the entire country because of their extreme wealth and power leading lives invisible to most while they pull most of the strings of power in this country and control Obama, congress and most all of the gov.

Politicians come and go, but the real wealth and power remain and pull the strings. For the most part politicians are window dressing for the masses.

[jberryhill]

3. Well, they didn't...

The thing is, its not about the royals as people. As people, they are as ordinary as anyone else.

They serve the same role as the guy in the Mickey Mouse suit at Disneyland. Sure, he LOOKS like he runs the place, but it's just a guy in a suit.

The guy in the suit doesn't matter, but Mickey Mouse is a personal (well, mouse) symbol of the Magic Kingdom. He represents the entire Disney empire.

But in order to have Mickey Mouse, you need to put some guy in the suit.

[RKP5637]

7. +1, n/t

[hlthe2b]

4. No, we only turned it over to the Corporatist Kings

The mis-placed sanctimony being heard from this week astounds me. "Got rid of Royalty?" Hardly.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. "We" fought a war to get out from under one particular king.

The Revolutionary War was fought because the colonies wanted to be independent from the reign of King George III. But monarchies were the norm throughout the world at that time; legend has it that after the Revolution many people wanted George Washington to become the King of America. During debates on the writing of the Constitution in 1787 (3 years after the war was over), Alexander Hamilton actually argued in favor of an elective monarchy.

[Keith Bee]

8. K & FUCKING R!

[Odin2005]

9. We fought a war to get rid of a parliament that did not represent us.

British monarchs were mostly ceremonial since the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The bashing of the king was mostly clever propaganda.

[dflprincess]

32. And eventually wound up with a Congress that doesn't represent us

At least with a Parlimentary system we might have had the chance (assuming a "no confidence" vote was made) to replace it AND we wouldn't be so completely mired down with 2 parties - smaller parties would have a little more of a chance.

[DrDan]

10. they should be more like us - worshipping the likes of Michael Jackson and OJ

and Michael Vick and Charlie Sheen and winners on American Idol and Dancing with the Stars.

Yep - they have their priorities ALL screwed up.

[Rebubula]

11. Says...

...the poster with the Huskers Helmet as an icon.....


I agree with you - just wanted to bust your chops a little.

:fistbump:

[DrDan]

12. you got me . . . .

[xchrom]

13. We elect a new 'king' or someday - 'queen' every 4 years.

And do very very good at creating our own over the top pomp & circumstance.

We have oodles of our own fawning courtiers and I dare if any one of us got to meet the prez -
We would be giddy with excitement.

I simply think we don't like to think or ourselves like that.

[Javaman]

19. I dream of a day when a president is elected by the people and not corporations

where there is no inauguration nor multiple balls to show off wealth of his patrons.

I dream of that money going back to the people to help us.

I dream of a government that works for the people and their welfare.

But sadly, in this day in age, only dreams are what we the people have left.

[SoCalDem]

14. and we don't have them... but we do have Barons

Robber Barons:)

The UK has kept their monarchy partly because the pomp & circumstance that goes with it creates tourism.. Without the connection to their ancient history, the UK would just be a rainy-climated island nation...small & "concrete-y"...with not-so-great-food..not that much there o+f any consequence without the monarchy..

Countries that want tourism have to cash in on what they have:)

I have a feeling that we will not be seeing that much of William & Catherine until they have a child...and it will probably be DECADES before they are King & Queen..

[quaker bill]

15. Something that is missing here

is a sense of nobility. I don't mean this in the sense of status, but in the sense that it is noble to care for the less fortunate, protect the environment, and such. Having actual people that everyone recognizes as "noble" being of service in large and public ways could set an example, and likely does set some sort of example of what it means to "be British".

We have Presidents, but they do not serve this role. No one serves this role here.

We have no need for the "divine right of Kings", and it is in some sense good that no one is above reproach. But, that said, we could perhaps use some regular example of what it means to actually care in a larger sense.

[SidDithers]

16. How dare the British have a history different from yours!!...nt

Sid

[mmonk]

17. We traded kings for emperors. They aren't restricted by habeas corpus.

[themadstork]

18. Will we have to fight another to get rid of the plutocrats?

[L. Coyote]

20. Yeah, if we can liberate Libya and install democracy there, maybe we can do England next.

Free England, bomb them until the commit to true democracy :rofl:

[DonCoquixote]

30. wonderful segue

Because frankly, this "special relationship" we have between the Uk and the US tends to undermine both peoples, not that England and the US do not have a special relationship, but our reactionaries tend to use that as an excuse to tell the rest of the world to go to hell. Libya is a case in point: there would be no way in hell this war would be sold if the talking heads could not say "but the British support it!"

I realize that America is was, and will be a branch of Europe's cultural tree, but frankly, we need to do a lot of pruning, as well as begin to savor our real American identity, one which is NOT dependent on the idea of Empire nor Christendom itself. No, I do not hate/dislike/have evil pans to get Anglo people, if anything, once they drop certain toxic memes inherited from Empire , they will do better, as they stop doing things like believing that the only way to deal with brown people is to kill them, or, for that matter, be able to feed, house and educate their own people without the old Puritan idea that doing so goes against God's wishes.

[LeftinOH]

21. Britain abolished slavery (Empire-wide) in 1807 --without a civil war. There is much to

admire in British history and traditions, and the Royals are part of it.

[Poboy]

23. Off with their heads!

[Donnachaidh]

24. oh fer chrissakes, pull your panties out of your crack and calm down

it's a one day thing.

Honestly, if y'all got this excited about how corporations were f*cking with our rights, you'd be pulling down the homes of the big bank CEO's right now!

Deep breathing helps :eyes:

[WinkyDink]

25. Prawns? I thought you said WAR!

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. I'm actually amused because I've seen some folks (in my own life)...

who are pissing and moaning about the pomp and circumstance of a royal wedding but follow Michelle Obama's fashions with a vengeance bordering on obsession. I'm a conflicted anti-monarchist. I bristle at the idea of hereditary rule, but do appreciate a bit of pageantry and romance now and again.

[jberryhill]

27. Well that's what they are there for...

They don't really "rule" very much, but are simply a focal point for historical traditions - as if we had professional civil war re-enactors.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. That probably explains why you always lose at Poker.

Doesn't it.

[DonCoquixote]

29. Poker?

How the heck did Poker get into this?

[pokerfan]

31. I'm only guessing

[DonCoquixote]

33. ah

well, then, I would submit the idea: a pair of kings has power, but when you watch poker on tv, players lose with that hand a lot. To quote the Grateful dead, s"ometimes your cards ain't worth a damn, if you don't lay them down :)