I'm sick of hearing about the Queen of England. Incidentally, she's Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland, as we haven't had a Queen Elizabeth before.
2006-06-09 02:29:28 · 16 answers · asked by Patchouli Pammy 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
I think it doesn't really matter since, no disrespect intended, she's little more than a figurehead. Interesting tidbit about her being Queen of Scotland, I'd not heard that before.
2006-06-09 02:32:49 · answer #1 · answered by irishharpist 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Too true. We are not amused.
At the same time, this begs the question of why those not subjected to your particular monarch should know anything at all about her august majesty. After all, what do you know, British subjects, about the following royal houses in other countries that have also inexplicably preserved the feudal custom of monarchy?:
--The House of Saud (who have much more of the trappings of traditional monarchy than the House of Windsor--after all, they can still have people killed by the thousands at a whim, and without that kind of fiat, what kind of monarchy is it really?)
--The Thai kingdom (what is the name, British subjects who shall never be slaves, of the current King of Thailand?)
--The Japanese Imperial House (two generations from a man upon whom the public could not look with bare eyes and escape incineration, what can you say about the current Emperor?)
For my own part, I am also a non-British subject, a citizen of the American Republic, and when I think of your monarch, it is not as the Queen of England, but as Mrs. Liz Windsor, a much more tasteful European answer to Paris Hilton--in that her principal life accomplishment was being born from the right womb to grant her a lifetime of wealth, influence, adulation, prestige, and comforts at the expense of others and without any actual labor or talent on her own part.
With all of the wonderful things that the U.K. can boast of, the fixation on your archaic monarchy is inexplicable. It's like bragging about your contributions to world cuisine. It's selling yourself to the world on your weakest areas. Why not talk about your real coups and triumphs, which are numerous?
2006-06-09 03:21:05 · answer #2 · answered by snowbaal 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
She is the daughter of a Queen called Elizabeth as well
2006-06-09 02:41:21 · answer #3 · answered by djoldgeezer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ever since their independance in the 18th century, the Americans have attempted to portray the monarchy as a foreign autocratic regime that people had to get rid off to achieve freedom and independance. For that reason, it is often portrayed as "English", the English being the repositories of everything cruel, brutal and downward oppressive. Although this definitely contains undeniable elements of truth, Vision of the monarchic system varied a lot from country to country and it is hard to believe that the British Empire and the Commonwealth could have lasted for such a long time without strong public support. The crown is, de facto a part of the parliement and has little function, official or otherwise, apart from opening hoospitals, orphanages, shopping centres, you name it, as well as to represent the unity of the people of the Commonwealth.
Regarded the number issue, I believe that sovereigns get to keep thei highest number as an official titles, a bit like at uni when they only count your highest grades....
For those who are looking for examples of great achievements of the monarchy, we can name the moral and huge financial support during both world wars, to name but the two most recent ones. One of my personal favourite is helping repell the American invasion of Canada in 1812. The monarchy not only helped budding Canadians keep their lands which would otherwise have been confiscated and redistributed among the American militia and also provided a safe haven to many African Americans and naitves who would otherwise have met a pretty abominable fate. This is without even mentioning American farmers in Upper Canada (up to 1/3rd of the population of Ontario at the time) who would have been treated as little more than traitors and been dealt with a switness and brutality that would offend even us, moderns. It is hence the parliamentary sytem to which many have remained faithful ever since as it allowed them to remain, up until nowadays, as the saying goes, True Strong and Free...
2006-06-09 06:09:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well she's not she's just there to make England look good. But princes Charles and Harry aren't doing too good a job of that. You always hear that Harry is in the middle of some scandle (involving drugs, girls, etc.). At least William is trying.
2006-06-09 02:36:49 · answer #5 · answered by . 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't worry about it. And don't fuss about what Americans think of her. In fact, I doubt they are even sure who she is. No, I think the greater concern is what happens when she's gone. Will we really have to face King Charles and Queen Camilla? Say it isn't so...
2006-06-09 06:42:13 · answer #6 · answered by old lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we wish we could be royality anywhere expessally little girls here we dream about wearing tiaras and so on its all a fanticy. and for your ? we here dont know that we live in usa all we hear is people in england call her the queen of england so yell at the english
2006-06-09 02:33:51 · answer #7 · answered by jettalady 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I recently found out she is also the queen of Canada and the queen of Australia.
2006-06-09 02:51:04 · answer #8 · answered by x34986 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
don't let it get to you, Americans cant tell the difference between England and Britain
2006-06-09 02:32:48 · answer #9 · answered by fiona_webby 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sure .. we think of her as The Queen of England .... we think it is silly .. but we do think of her.
2006-06-09 02:33:14 · answer #10 · answered by sam21462 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋