Why are people happy to be ruled by Kings and Queens from FOREIGN countries?

originally posted by: Psynic
1/6 of the planet belongs to Her Royal Highmess.

She does not own any land in Australia - care to list the actual property you claim she owns?
Same with New Zealand, and Canada etc.

a reply to: ThinkingHuman

Some of us aren't, some of us have no love for the Sachs-Kobergs.

I have heard that if we get independence, there's a call for us to get our own Monarchy within 2 years, a man can dream...

a reply to: hellobruce

Liz doesn't actually own much land in the UK either, as has been pointed out several times previously in this thread.
Unfortunately some people choose to ignore evidence and testament presented to them as it is contrary to their pre-conceived viewpoint.

a reply to: djz3ro

I have heard that if we get independence, there's a call for us to get our own Monarchy within 2 years,....

King Alex does have a certain ring to it.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: ThinkingHuman

They're great for tourism

They make NO difference to tourism.

People do not visit the UK becasue there is a Queen.

The Queen is head of the Commonwealth

Commonwealth is an embarrassing reminder of the "Great British Empire". No authority.

Great historical heritage

Most of the Heritage is made up. Its pure PR. What exactly is trooping the colour about?

Can you imagine President David Cameron as an alternative

Yes, but he would be an accountable president. The UK would also have a constitution.

a reply to: ispyed

Not going to happen a president would cost more than the royals do and people on ATS can bleat all they like they are in the minority of people whom want a republic in the UK.
The french president costs over three times what the royals cost us.
We have a working way of government which is a constitutional monarchy...not gonna change for many generations.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I tend to agree with you mate.
Personally I'm pretty much apathetic towards the Royal Family etc, they cost very little and serve as a focal point for our national heritage and culture etc.......however, much more of this and I would sharp change my mind and do everything to see that they are removed.
www.bbc.co.uk...

The Royal Family must stay out of politics and cease trying to influence government policy.

a reply to: Freeborn

I agree they need to remember what we did with the last lot whom tried to have ultimate power.

the monarchy doesn't do much ruling. besides, british are germanic people as well.

a reply to: ThinkingHuman

The average person needs to be led and have decisions made on their behalf. The more lavish and iconic the decision maker is, the more they want it. I think there are several reasons why people need to be led, but one that is most fundamental, is the lack of education and political will to organize cohesively. While on the other side, elites are well educated and poised to exercise the economic powers handed down by tradition, enjoying the profitable labor-fruits of the submissive masses.

a reply to: Thorneblood

The British Royal Family costs the tax payer 36p per year, but Her Majesty The Queen provides the country with a maternal figure, separated from the political mess that seems to have engulfed the world. She is the one we turn to in times of crisis and the one we join with in times of celebration.

Generationally yes the family has German ancestors, but then all the European Royal families are related anyway. I love having a constitutional monarchy, it works for the European countries that have them, Sweden, Norway, Holland they all have very special relationships with their royal houses.

a reply to: Freeborn

Surely the royal family are the best people to talk about government policy, they have no political aspirations, the Politicians are always thinking of one thing......... Getting re-elected, I feel this taints what they attempt to do, sometimes it takes hard choices, some we may not like in order to get the country back on it's feet.

As long as the royalty doesn't actually rule. But then again, the USA has a "monarchy" of sorts. 300 million people and yet a father and son both become president and another son is looking to run.

not to mention the other prominent bushes. this is far worse than a monarchy.

originally posted by: LMThomas
not to mention the other prominent bushes. this is far worse than a monarchy.

Couple that with there cooperation based arostocracy.

Just because someone dosnt have lord or duke in front of there name doesnt mean these people are not oppressing you!

Take mayor bloomberg, new york is basicaly his private feifdom,

a reply to: ThinkingHuman

Didn't anyone give you the correct answer yet? Here it is.

People are (or rather, were) content to be ruled by foreign monarchs because they were used to it. That's the way it had happened in Europe since the time of the Franks. Royalty could only marry royalty — or nobility, but to take one of their own nobles' hand in marriage would be to give dangerous power to that person's family. So, most of the time, kings were forced to marry abroad. Actually, this is older than Europe or the Franks: it's universal. Why do you think royalty always calls one another 'cousin'?

Take, for example, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. His aunt, Catherine of Aragon, was married to the English king, Henry VIII, whose forebears were Welsh. Charles and his aunt were Flemish (Belgian, more or less), but Charles was also Burgundian (on his father's side) and was king of Castile, in Spain. He was also heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary.

That sort of thing was very common. Queen Victoria's children passed haemophilia on to most of the royal houses of Europe (her husband Prince Albert had the mutant gene).

Oh, and that thing with the British and Germans? It's because English royalty after the Glorious Revolution couldn't marry Catholics without causing all hell to break loose in England. That limited the field a bit: you had some Germans and the House of Orange, and that was pretty much it. So it was basically Germans or nothing.

Real history is a lot more interesting than conspiracies.

a reply to: Astyanax

So true. Conspiracies seem to obfuscate the deeper truth.

Good question for the Chileans and Argentinians, who enjoyed the ruling of the current queen of the netherlans and young helper of Videla and other south american dictators in the art of disappearing people. Maybe some help here and there from prince Charles of the Uk