Like a queen, king, prince, etc, etc.. ?
2007-04-14 02:51:43 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Well, no one likes President Bush.
2007-04-14 02:56:49 · update #1
Anything would be better than the current leadership. I've never heard of one leader getting so much bad press and unpopularity before.
2007-04-14 07:33:51 · answer #1 · answered by SB 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, actually. I think that Britain benefits from having its Head of State (the Queen) and head of government (the PM) as two different people. That way, all the notions of patriotism and national identity and so forth get thrust onto a non-political figure, while the PM is left as nothing more than a politician. People in Britain don't seem to forget that the Prime Minister is there to SERVE them, not to be seen as the embodiment of the nation.
In America, the Head of State and head of government are the same person. It really can create problems when a politician is revered as the embodiment of national pride this way - hence the rampant accusations of "being unpatriotic" when you criticize the President. We revere our President in place of royalty and this makes it too easy to forget that he's really there to SERVE us.
If you need proof of the difference, look at how differently media events (press conferences, town hall meetings, even government sessions) are handled in the two countries. Criticism is far more direct (sometimes brutal) in Britain - in America, there is always a barrier of reverence separating the President from the press, public, and other officials.
So even though royalty might be expensive, anachronistic, and inbred, it still has its use in diverting national reverence AWAY from politicians.
2007-04-14 10:57:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The US does have its forms of "royalty". The Kennedy family is considered to be a part of this. I live in the US and am an illegitimate descendant of King Henry VIII, but that doesn't make me a king.
There have been good and bad kings and queens. Just having royalty doesn't guarantee good government.
2007-04-14 09:57:27 · answer #3 · answered by Paul Hxyz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, i dont think so. The US is too big, fat and diplomatic for royalty, it needs a more powerful figure such as a president. I think that royal families seem better in smaller countries where they would get more recognition and respect from the citizens such as Japan and the UK.
2007-04-14 11:31:04 · answer #4 · answered by Auther 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be very interesting if the US had a royal family... very interesting....
2007-04-14 15:54:02 · answer #5 · answered by Sarah* 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's ridiculous waste of time.
2007-04-14 09:55:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no. we ran away from that remember. fourth of july
2007-04-14 09:57:09 · answer #7 · answered by swthrt474 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
interesting question... but no, the US would not be better. i don't know if it would be worse, but defintely not better.
2007-04-14 12:04:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
God no
2007-04-14 09:56:19 · answer #9 · answered by margherita 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO.NO. AND NO!
2007-04-14 12:43:51 · answer #10 · answered by heidi t 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋