Besides free healh service.
2006-11-16 02:51:20 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
I like the queen. Classy lady. But we Americans are far too zealous and alpha-type to tolerate a legitimate monarch. I don't see any real benefit, other than an upstanding example of good manners and breeding. Our "faux-royalty" is composed of inbred, dysfunctional political families and freakish entertainers. If it doesn't entertain, it doesn't get air time over here.
2006-11-16 10:31:06 · answer #1 · answered by Super G 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If the United States had not freed itself from the British Empire lord knows what type of mess we would have had today. To put it bluntly though, I really, REALLY, doubt that monarchy would even be around today. Our buddy George there really needed a good kick in the teeth about his un-enlightened ways and the Yanks gave it to him. After that he, his kids, and his parliamentarians all learned to be somewhat more understanding of their dispora's concerns and that is a big part of the reason the monarchy is still present in Canada, New Zealand, Australia etc. Everyone one of us Brit spin offs had at the very least a serious flirtation with violent revolt and lots of times it was just through sheer military force or stupid luck that the Crown hung on. Heck, you could even say the same holds true for jolly ole England herself. Had George not learned his lesson, it would have been someone else to fight back other than the Yanks and maybe, just maybe it could have been all the more disasterous.
2006-11-16 21:53:25 · answer #2 · answered by Johnny Canuck 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We would NOT have the problems we are having with our borders. Our government would actually make sure the citizens were looked after as far as having jobs to work at for a fair wage, there are 35,000,000 of us who can't put food on the table because of all the illegal worker driving down the wages . I am not saying that they are all from Mexico but that seems to be the route to the US most people are taking. Several people overstay their visa limits and work under the table. That would not be tolerated in UK and that is why I am wanting to move there. I want to live in a place where the government makes sure their citizens have jobs before opening up the flood gates like my beloved President is suggesting right now.
2006-11-16 10:47:59 · answer #3 · answered by Julia B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting, after much thought. I was thinking maybe America would be more like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Like have our own parliment and/or constitution but keep the Queen as our head of state. We would have her face on our money. And I don't think that we would be as vast or have as many states as we do know. Mostly because England only allowed the settlers to venture so far. Part of the reason was because Spain, France, and even Russia owned parts of our nation. I guess if you really think about it, there could've been a lot of possiblities. But I think the main reason we aren't under British isn't just the Revolutionary War we fought and won but from the beginning of the English settlement we were a very strong minded and rebellious bunch. Most of it was for religious freedom and most of us were set on not being part of the Anglican/Church of England. I think that's one of the reasons why American Anglicans go by the name, Episcopalians.
2006-11-16 15:31:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They would have a head of state with overall but nominal power, who could be the focus of identity. Therefore there would be no need for a president with the rather anomoulous tilte of 'Commander in Chief' (given his military record). As a result, presidents would not feel the need to act like they are some sort of commander and bomb places with brown people in them. Those countries whose head of state does not get directly involved in day-to-day polictics are much happier and less likely to blow other palces up.
2006-11-16 08:58:34 · answer #5 · answered by JZD 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A) The U.S.A would be known as the Commonwealth of America
B) The would have a Prime Minister, not a president
C) They would have lords, not senators (Lord of Mississippi, funny, yes?) and Members of Parliament, not congressmen/women
D) The would have an American house of Commons and a house of American lords as opposed to their current houses
E) They'd speak Uk English
F) They'd be in the Commonwealth games
That's about it really... oh, and no 4th July
2006-11-16 10:19:10 · answer #6 · answered by Pope Barley 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Better relations with the rest of the world. The royal family on the whole are worth their weight in gold for their diplomatic skills (even old Prince foot-in-the-mouth Phillip is highly regarded by other world leaders).
2006-11-16 02:57:05 · answer #7 · answered by huvgj 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you mean had they not won independence, by now it would have been granted to them. They would be like Canada, which would have some positives and negatives.
More seriously, if they had a Queen and prime minister they would be free of their reluctance to question their head of government because he is also head of state. No one ever says 'my prime minister, right or wrong'.
2006-11-16 05:01:24 · answer #8 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't you think the Queen has enough on her plate being the Queen of Australia without forcing that bunch on Her as well?
2006-11-16 08:52:27 · answer #9 · answered by Raymo 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean still? No queen was ever the head of the USA. And the benefits we enjoy not having one greatly outnumber having one. Long live the Revolution!!!!
2006-11-16 09:57:54 · answer #10 · answered by Ruthinia 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋