Royal family and america

If America has helped countries get rid of their dictators: the leaders would say for moral reasons: does it have the same moral obligation to free the suppressed people of Britain who live under the dictatorship of the royal family. Let me make my case, we live in a constitutional monarchy, not a republic such as america. A republic is really the definition of a democracy. What we live in is partly democratic. Like staged elections in other countries, there are some officials we really cannot vote out: the royal family. It would also free the people of the commonwealth of a similar dictatorship. So should America and Obama free us. If not, then what reason better can their possibly be to free others in other countries.

reply to post by s12345


You really want the Americans to come and "liberate " us? Not sure that seems to be working out so well for the citizens in other countries.

I still don't know why they're there. People say tourism, and that's sorta true, but people visit for the buildings and history, the majority of tourist don't visit to actually meet the royal family. They're main job now is to just help represent the British people internationally isn't it? I think that's all they got now more or less. They're not really making much of a difference anymore. I really don't think we'll need a king either, if it ever gets to that stage. That would be the most annoying thing.

We should throw off our oppression. Other countries get liberated. Why not us.

The Royals have been buying property in the US supposedly.

So I am not sure thats what they had in mind.

What lands and properties do the Royals own?

In the UK and other countries.

They must collect much rents.

I understand they own lots of Canadian property.

The World's 15 Biggest Landowners

click the arrows to see more people.

#1 Queen Elizabeth II


Land: 6.6 billion acres of land worldwide including Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia and a few other spots here and there. Also, the all-important Falkland Islands.


Background: England's third (and most likely soon to be second) longest serving monarch, Elizabeth II retains royal title over The British Commonwealth and as such manages to keep her face on money throughout the globe.

With her 6.6 billion acres, Elizabeth II is far and away the world's largest landowner, with the closest runner-up (King Abdullah) holding control over a mere 547 million, or about 12% of the lands owned by Her Majesty, The Queen.

The enslaved people of the united kingdom and the commonwealth should be freed.

reply to post by s12345


Umm, despite what you are lead to believe, the Queen still owns America so Obama would have a bit of work to do at home first. Nobody has ever really succeeded in gaining Independence, it is just token Independence. Given that Obama was a flustered, blithering mess during Queeny's recent stop over in the US, I don't think he will be taking her on anytime soon.

Did you all notice how she suddenly came out of hibernation recently and has been dashing all over the world on offcent visits to Ireland, Australia, America..She made very few public appearances on any of these trips and was basically there to have a sit down with the countries.

Queeny is not happy and I think she decided to remind everyone who is running this show. .

' - Queeny is not happy and made all the how active she has been lately In the past six months she has made She wasn't visiting So first, Obama

I think that whatever happens we should get rid of all chavy ones, that would get rid of all the young royals. Convince all the royals around the world that we need to put them somewhere special for their protection, leave them thier and just tell them that everyone is doing as they are told. That could work with the queen most of the time without having people to do anything. After all balmoral is just a really big sheltered housing.

If America has helped countries get rid of their dictators

Thats a pretty big if, America has installed and supported more dictators than any other regime in modern history.

Whether a dictator needs removing seems to depend on whether they inherited the country or took control themselves. It comes down to what was said in Macevelli's the prince: people who have inherited a kingdom fond it much easier to hold onto than someone who got one themselves. There are two sets of morals; one for those that have inherited, and one for those that took. If Gadaffi had dies earlier and his sons inherited, no one would have attacked them. They would be a royal family.