US interest in UK Festivities

[skooldem1]

No offense to any of our members who live in the UK, but I have to ask this question. What is it about the US media that they keep shoving Royal weddings, and festivities down our throats here in America? The only thing I could think of is that the "media" is trying to create a frenzy over here to sell magazines and air time. Just today, the first half hour of the Today show was about the Queens Jubilee. Nothing at all about the important election going on today- or anything else for that matter. I don't know anyone who gives a hoot about the royal family. It also seems as if they are trying to make the young bride a new Diana. If that isn't bad enough, they are trying to make her sister famous. Is it just a money and ratings thing?

[bobkayli]

No offense to any of our members who live in the UK, but I have to ask this question. What is it about the US media that they keep shoving Royal weddings, and festivities down our throats here in America? The only thing I could think of is that the "media" is trying to create a frenzy over here to sell magazines and air time. Just today, the first half hour of the Today show was about the Queens Jubilee. Nothing at all about the important election going on today- or anything else for that matter. I don't know anyone who gives a hoot about the royal family. It also seems as if they are trying to make the young bride a new Diana. If that isn't bad enough, they are trying to make her sister famous. Is it just a money and ratings thing?

I think this event has had worldwide coverage so don't believe the US is acting differently to most media. The coverage is even heavier here in UK as you can imagine. I have friends and work colleagues in many countries and the US who have been in contact interested in what's going on so to suggest there is no interest in the US is probably overstating it.
I'm not a strong royalist but have to say I have enjoyed the Jubilee celebrations. Last nights concert was great entertainment and from an SDF perspective having Stevie Wonder as a leading performer filled me with pride. What a long way he's come from being locked in the broom cupboard by James Jamerson in the Hitsville Studios back in the early 60s.
Elections are everyday events but this is a once in 60 years celebration so I can understand that maybe priorities get distorted. Besides Prince Philip's illness this has been a good news story and much nicer to hear about than many of the grim tales we are used to seeing on the news.

[ralpht]

I have no problem with this at all. I'm old enough to remember when the Queen ascended to the throne. All I can say is God bless her and may her reign continue for many years.

[westgrandboulevard]

It is true to say that there will be some here in the UK who,at one time or another, would be in some agreement with skooldem1's views [[and no offence taken) - yet would still be inclined to be more supportive of the Royal family at this time of celebration.

Many here are apt to wonder what the rest of the world may think of us. For example, do we really sit around, talking about the weather, sipping tea, and following the affairs of the Royal Family...LOL

The UK and the US do have a very special relationship. Many UK citizens admire the US, and take great interest in what is happening there, as it very often affects us over here. I expect very many could tell you exactly what they were doing when President Kennedy was shot, or when man walked on the Moon.

Or, more recently, when the Twin Towers were destroyed. Our eyes were upon you, our hearts with you.

It can't be denied that money is, of course, an inherent part of that relationship, as the UK does indeed receive great commercial benefit from US visitors.

However, there has to be far more to the UK/US relationship than just money and media promotion of the Royal Family.

It just can't be a coincidence that so many US visitors take such a positive view of the Monarchy [[informally known amongst themselves as 'The Firm') and wish to have as much first hand experience of it as possible, while visiting the UK.

[tamla617]

good question and no offence taken btw.

there is a lot of interest in the USA with anything to do with the royal family.i've been back and forward [[with gaps!)since 1970.people always talk about [[in order) 1 the queen,2 london and 3 scotland yard!it hasnt changed.in fact my dad has been doing the trip since 1958 and he says it hasnt changed.there are also a sizable british community in america. and 2nd and 3rd generation british there.i have 10 cousins there all american,my great uncle emigrated there in 1910.where he did good things for his "new home".they cant get enough of it when we get together.i always take them something to do with the royal family,last time i got some original official royal wedding programmes of the [[queen)princess elizabeth and prince phillips wedding in 47!and princess margrets wedding in 62 ish.they have pride of place in their houses.

there was a large american presence in london this diamond jubilee weekend too.so there is a place for an important uk event on your tv.but you cant please 300 odd million americans at anytime or 60+ million brits ever!


the queen was 26,think about it 26,when she came to the throne.she's seen 12 [[i think)US presidents from truman to obama [[who today sent the queen a special tv message very good too)and coincidentally 12 british prime ministers.she is the longest serving head of state anywhere.and only queen victoria 1837-1901 has served as monarch longer.she is a popular head of state with more than 80% of the uk.which says a lot.

[westgrandboulevard]

Perhaps it should also be added here that UK taxpayers are not required to pay out vast sums simply to maintain the Royal Household.

It's a very low figure, I believe - something like £1 per head of population, per year - ?

That figure must surely be repaid very many times over in terms of international prestige, due to the ambassadorial goodwill generated by the activities of the Royal family......

[robb_k]

I watched her coronation on The CBC. We had to change our singing from "God Save The King" to "God save The Queen". Thank goodness for the change to "O Canada". Down with The Monarchy, I say! No more being subjects of Royalty [[and you Brits even pay taxes to support them).

[bobkayli]

I watched her coronation on The CBC. We had to change our singing from "God Save The King" to "God save The Queen". Thank goodness for the change to "O Canada". Down with The Monarchy, I say! No more being subjects of Royalty [[and you Brits even pay taxes to support them).

Your comments on the monarchy made me smile! You'll be thrown into the dungeons at the Tower of London if you're not careful!

Every country has a head of state that is paid for by taxes. the cost of the Queen to the taxpayer is GBP 32m per annum compared to say France where ex-President Sarkozy ran up a bill of GBP 93m per annum. I don't know what Canada or US pay for their Head of State but I would be surprised if it was less than GBP 32m [[housing, security, representative costs and so on). In those terms the Queen is good value for money even before the many benefits the monarchy bring in terms of tourism and the like. Seeing people from many nationalities coming to London and joining in the celebrations this week-end for example will give a boost to the economy when it most needs it.

Having a Monarch as Head of State gives a good counterbalance to the power of politicians and engenders stability and some security against excess. Politicians are transitory and servants of the state. In the UK it would seem incongruous to allow them to be the Head of the State that they serve. UK has had a monarchy for over a thousand years and on the whole we are happy with it particularly since their power has also been limited to keep them in check.

The Queen is also Head of State of 16 countries including distant places such as Australia and New Zealand bringing some stability across many continents..

[theboyfromxtown]

Well said Bobkayli

I am happy to contribute to the cost of the Queen.

[roger]

Bobkayli ..

Queen Elizabeth II is also head of state in Canada!!

I'd read the following link or it could be you ending up in the tower!!

http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandco...da/canada.aspx

Roger

[snakepit]

I think that any UK anti- Royal feeling is actually misplaced. It should be the Media who are the targets of any criticism. They can, and do, go over the top. Similarly in sports, TV, music etc........it's the often the media coverage that irks people..not the actual event/person involved.

[motownmorph1]

I am happy to pay any tax to keep the Queen & keep a President Blair or President Cameron away from being our head of state!

morph

[Hotspurman]

I wondered all weekend what the international reaction to the Diamond Jubilee celebrations might be – my father, who emigrated to California, rang to say he was sitting down to watch the various processions. Whilst he might be expected too, as an Englishman, I gather the rest of the world took more than a passing interest too.

Like it or not, but the eyes of the world are on Britain for much of this year – the Royal Wedding, the Diamond Jubilee and The Olympics – all of which help the country’s tourism and trade. The Diamond Jubilee was, to my mind, an even better spectacle than the Royal Wedding, and I thought that was well done. Those of you who have visited Britain will appreciate that up and down the country, in cities, towns and villages, the residents got together to hold street parties, park parties and other celebrations in honour of Queen Elizabeth and her Diamond Jubilee. Judging by the flags that were being waved along the procession route yesterday, us Brits weren’t the only ones – there was a smattering of flags from around the world. It didn’t matter that the weather was atrocious on Sunday [[when my village Aston Clinton held its Party In The Park) or yesterday [[when I went to the next village, Marsworth, for their celebrations), or that welly wanging is unlikely to make it into the Olympic schedule [[we did have a tug of war, for which of course the United Kingdom is reigning the Olympic champions, having won it the last time it was contested in 1908) and several children cheated in the egg and spoon race, the last four days has been about Britons just enjoying themselves.

A special thanks to Stevie Wonder, who I thought stole the show on Monday – the subtle lyric changes in honour of the Diamond Jubilee were extremely well done.

[tamla617]

I watched her coronation on The CBC. We had to change our singing from "God Save The King" to "God save The Queen". Thank goodness for the change to "O Canada". Down with The Monarchy, I say! No more being subjects of Royalty [[and you Brits even pay taxes to support them).

and gladly paid robb.we have a real diamond.her father was only 57 or so when he died.she wasnt expected to be queen so young,and dont forget,her uncle edward viii,abdicated over problems marrying wallis simpson.elizabeth wasnt high in line for the throne until that abdication when she became No2.she hadnt been "trained" for the role of monarch.like prince william is at the moment and prince charles in the past.all in all she has been brilliant.and captivates where ever she goes.she's just pushed the anti royalist movement even further out the national focus after this weekend with out having to say a word!

she also loves the sound of merlins [[lancaster,spitfire and hurricane engines) her face lit up,ace!and she's right you cant beat 'em!

[Roberta75]

Her Majesty the Queen may not be my queen but a lot of Americans, including me, still respect and admire this gracious lady.

She has reigned victoriously for 60 years and hasn't got a blemish on her character. Queen Elizabeth is a church going woman who is guided by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. She often speaks of her deep faith in God and has my respect and admiration.

Yours, with every good wish.

Roberta

[144man]

I watched her coronation on The CBC. We had to change our singing from "God Save The King" to "God save The Queen". Thank goodness for the change to "O Canada". Down with The Monarchy, I say! No more being subjects of Royalty [[and you Brits even pay taxes to support them).

In theory, I suppose I should be an anti-monarchist, but I can't think of one politician who I'd rather have as head of state instead of the Queen, whose tireless dedication in fulfilling her constitutional duties is an example to us all.

The monarchy has the overwhelming support of the people, and it works effectively as an institution. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[tamla617]

144man
your last line said it all.

[roger]

In theory, I suppose I should be an anti-monarchist, but I can't think of one politician who I'd rather have as head of state instead of the Queen, whose tireless dedication in fulfilling her constitutional duties is an example to us all.

The monarchy has the overwhelming support of the people, and it works effectively as an institution. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Quite!!

No one, when they have tried, has yet to come up with a better alternative.

Roger

[144man]

Tony Parsons writing in the Daily Mirror:

"The British now have more faith in their Royal Family than they do in democracy. A hereditary monarchy gave us a wise, calm, modest woman who had devoted her life to this country. Democracy gave us Cameron and Clegg."

Enough said!

[tamla617]

and the blair/brown project,but tony parsons aint ever going to say it and specially not in the mirror.

[theboyfromxtown]

... and would Blair include the notable Mrs Blair who seriously challenged the Kinnocks and Thatchers for the title of all time sponger...!

[robb_k]

Bobkayli ..

Queen Elizabeth II is also head of state in Canada!!

I'd read the following link or it could be you ending up in the tower!!

http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandco...da/canada.aspx

Roger

That was precisely my point!!!

I don't particularly enjoy being considered a "subject" of the royalty. i want to be a citizen equal to ALL others. Royalty is considered to be "above" the rabble [[subjects).

[robb_k]

Tony Parsons writing in the Daily Mirror:

"The British now have more faith in their Royal Family than they do in democracy. A hereditary monarchy gave us a wise, calm, modest woman who had devoted her life to this country. Democracy gave us Cameron and Clegg."
Enough said!

No it didn't. The UK is NOT a democracy. Neither is USA. [[Neither is Canada, for that matter [[despite being somewhat more citizen friendly than USA). They are all [[so-called) representative governments [[who lately have been representing big money-rather than the bulk of their populations). True Democracy is a situation in which all citizens vote on every major issue and law and regulation. I doubt that there are even several [[if ANY) true democracies in today's World.

[soulster]

No offense to any of our members who live in the UK, but I have to ask this question. What is it about the US media that they keep shoving Royal weddings, and festivities down our throats here in America? The only thing I could think of is that the "media" is trying to create a frenzy over here to sell magazines and air time. Just today, the first half hour of the Today show was about the Queens Jubilee. Nothing at all about the important election going on today- or anything else for that matter. I don't know anyone who gives a hoot about the royal family. It also seems as if they are trying to make the young bride a new Diana. If that isn't bad enough, they are trying to make her sister famous. Is it just a money and ratings thing?

You and I don't agree on a lot, but i'm with you 100% on this one! It is indeed the media driving this stuff, but, most notably women, seem to like this too. I don't have the faintest idea of why people are so fascinated with royalty. I'd much rather watch news about election results that went on in several states, most notably Wisconsin and California. Well, we know how that all turned, but it's a lot more important to our lives than some royalty crap that none of the rest of us, here or in the U.K. can even begin to relate to.

Now, i'll read the rest of the thread.

[144man]

No it didn't. The UK is NOT a democracy. Neither is USA. [[Neither is Canada, for that matter [[despite being somewhat more citizen friendly than USA). They are all [[so-called) representative governments [[who lately have been representing big money-rather than the bulk of their populations). True Democracy is a situation in which all citizens vote on every major issue and law and regulation. I doubt that there are even several [[if ANY) true democracies in today's World.

That's just semantics, Robb, and no way diminishes the point that Tony Parsons is making.

[tamla617]

No it didn't. The UK is NOT a democracy. Neither is USA. [[Neither is Canada, for that matter [[despite being somewhat more citizen friendly than USA). They are all [[so-called) representative governments [[who lately have been representing big money-rather than the bulk of their populations). True Democracy is a situation in which all citizens vote on every major issue and law and regulation. I doubt that there are even several [[if ANY) true democracies in today's World.

which is fine by me.nothing would get thru' parliament.a bit like proportional rep.look at italy.

[westgrandboulevard]

Precisely, 144man.

I'd say that Robb has every right to an opinion based on his own personal experiences in life, but is only a 'subject' of anything if he considers himself to be.

However, there seems little point in him or anyone stating they wish to be 'a citizen equal to ALL others', when clearly he already is.

It's all to do with attitude.

Soulster is entitled to be most interested in the politics of Wisconsin and California, to the exclusion of all else if he so wishes, but using terms like 'royalty crap' to describe media coverage of UK Royal celebrations is unneccessarily negative.

How can anyone make themselves look good and have their views taken seriously, by putting someone else down, let alone a whole nation....?

Royalty may certainly be wealthier than many of us but I, for one, do not consider them as "above the rabble" - nor I to be part of any rabble.

They are an integral part of certainly the UK national heritage, at the very least, and remain a viable part of our society. That is the reality.

They have a duty to fulfill, and there is an obligation [[maybe sometimes a little unfairly) to conduct themselves in an exemplary manner.

The Royal family have their own role in life, while others have theirs.

It has nothing to do with UK citizens viewing the Royal family in awe and deference, and very much to do with mutual respect - as Roberta75, from an objective viewpoint, has also so succinctly and accurately stated.

[tamla617]

... and would Blair include the notable Mrs Blair who seriously challenged the Kinnocks and Thatchers for the title of all time sponger...!

oh MRS b.liar.what a peice of work she is.daughter of a left wing [[with money?!) bit actor.i bet she was sticking it to our tony before he could get some shut eye everynight.i wanna be a top judge mate dig!want more for the people who wont work dig!i want a load of houses so we can rent,borrow it from a friend who owes yo dig!make scotland sooooo special because the evil english stole that rock dig!i'm fed up with english,flood the country with illegals and give them the jobs dig!if you really love me tony?...........that was the crux of it.good ol' tone!

hope i dont sound bitter!

[soulster]

Soulster is entitled to be most interested in the politics of Wisconsin and California, to the exclusion of all else if he so wishes, but using terms like 'royalty crap' to describe media coverage of UK Royal celebrations is unneccessarily negative.

I'm sorry to have used such strong language, but the royalty celebrations really get in the way of the news media reporting the things that do affect our lives. It's nice to have the diversion, and lord knows many people enjoy it as a type of escapism or something, but it's all too much! 99.9% of the world cannot relate to royalty or it's trappings, so why does it get such a disproportional amount of time over other issues?

They are an integral part of certainly the UK national heritage, at the very least, and remain a viable part of our society. That is the reality.

They have a duty to fulfill, and there is an obligation [[maybe sometimes a little unfairly) to conduct themselves in an exemplary manner.

The Royal family have their own role in life, while others have theirs.

It has nothing to do with UK citizens viewing the Royal family in awe and deference, and very much to do with mutual respect - as Roberta75, from an objective viewpoint, has also so succinctly and accurately stated.

OK, I understand that they are important to the U.K. culture, but I do not understand how it is a "duty" to conduct themselves in a certain manner. I mean, why should anyone care? Shouldn't ALL people conduct themselves in that manner, and does anyone really need some monarchy to tell them how to act?

[westgrandboulevard]

soulster

No offence taken by your use of 'royalty crap'. Or perhaps I should say 'One is not offended'....lol

Oh yes, our media here in the UK certainly went into overdrive in the lead up to, and over last weekend.

Surely, it's only over a similar period that US media has given it so much attention? You're not normally bombarded with it in the US, are you? [[but if you are, I'd be in sympathy!)

Yes, it is of course escapism of a sort. An insight into a life that almost all of us won't experience and, in reality, would have no wish to do so. Having seen what happened with Diana brought both sides of the story into sharp, uncomfortable and tragic focus.

A lot of UK and US folks do seem to love tradition and history, and look to visit and gain insight into old houses [[National Trust), stately homes, the whole bit. I'm one of that number, I belong to the National Trust, but I appreciate what I feel to be good in the new, as well as the old.

There are some Royal fanatics [[groupies) who, where possible, will show up to every event attended by certain members of the Royal family. I find that slightly odd, but generally it's a harmless pastime. However, times have moved on. The members of the family will notice them, and sometimes will make a point of talking to them, but the security people are aware, and watchful.

Back in the days before instant media coverage, it was indeed an event, simply to be in a crowd and say you had seen The Queen, or a Prince, or a Princess.

These days, the world is more savvy, and less in awe but, generally, appreciate the part played by 'The Firm'.

In recent times, I have voted both for the Labour and Conservative parties. When it comes to the Royal Family, in principle, I do have reservations about some of the protocol - for example, standing in a long line, waiting to be introduced, speaking only when spoken to...but I can also see there are indeed practical reasons why it has to be that way.

It's great to be in the presence of famous people, previously seen on a TV screen, on a stage, or heard on a disc on the player.

However, being in the presence of royalty can be bizarre. Curiously uplifting, yet curiously ordinary. You sense the gulf, yet think "They seem just like me, or us..." . On the whole, it's easy to walk away feeling good about yourself.

As regards the 'duty' bit. Very complex to describe all the responsibilities but, for a start, The Queen is Supreme [[ just stopped myself there from typing that in the 'plural'...!) Governor of the Church of England. She has to be beyond reproach. Everything else follows on from there.....if she and her family don't earn respect from the public, by giving respect in all they do - carrying out the duties expected of them - then she and they will not receive wholehearted respect in return.

As an example, it's been noted that the Queen and Prince Philip both stood for about 4 hours during the Pageant last weekend. Between them, they have an average age of nearly 90. The story goes that the 'thrones' provided for them on the boat were considered by The Queen to give entirely the wrong impression, and were therefore disregarded on the day, apart from gently resting against them. To do that, at their ages,in order to respond to the many people who'd lined the river, waving and cheering them from across the waters is, in my book, more than fulfilling their duty on that particular day.

Yes, I do agree that all of us should carry out their own duties in their own lives and conduct themselves well and, of course, the vast majority do just that. We don't need telling, but observing an example set in front of us does no harm.

Don't know about you, but I'd rather learn by observing, learning and understanding at my own pace, and not just be told how I must do it.

On a day-to-day basis, most of the people here in the UK at least accept the existence of the Royal Family, and would not like to countenance this country without them, regarding them as an extension of their own family. 'Rich relatives' maybe, but 'ours', still.

Just in case you feel that undue reverence is extended, and that it's all taken too seriously,about twenty years back, we had a spoof TV soap opera called 'Pallas'. It featured actual footage of the Royal family, but with humorous dialogue dubbed.

And maybe you will have seen the 'Spitting Image' satirical puppet show? One of the very best clips was of "The Queen" performing new lyrics to "I Will Survive"....

[soulster]

soulster

No offence taken by your use of 'royalty crap'. Or perhaps I should say 'One is not offended'....lol

Thank you. I really do not like to offend people, but I wind up doing, anyway.

Oh yes, our media here in the UK certainly went into overdrive in the lead up to, and over last weekend.

Surely, it's only over a similar period that US media has given it so much attention? You're not normally bombarded with it in the US, are you? [[but if you are, I'd be in sympathy!)

Yes, our media goes crazy. I just can't tell you how bad it was this time around because I have a personal policy to not watch news on the weekend.

There are some Royal fanatics [[groupies) who, where possible, will show up to every event attended by certain members of the Royal family.

We do have our equivalent. Hollywood celebrities! I have the same disdain for the media obsession with them too. But, with Hollywood celebs, it's annoying to see those with the all the media attention and influence wasting their wealth and screwing up their lives with all the stupid stuff they do. Here, a lot of the obsession is with how many kids some third-rate actress has, what allegedly gay exploits one has had, or what some airhead did to his/her Porsche. And then we have the political obsessives and conspiracy theorists...

When it comes to the Royal Family, in principle, I do have reservations about some of the protocol - for example, standing in a long line, waiting to be introduced, speaking only when spoken to...but I can also see there are indeed practical reasons why it has to be that way.

There is a good reason the U.S. settlers broke from British rule!

It's great to be in the presence of famous people, previously seen on a TV screen, on a stage, or heard on a disc on the player.

They wipe their butt the same way everyone else does. We just don't pay as much for our toilet paper!

However, being in the presence of royalty can be bizarre. Curiously uplifting, yet curiously ordinary. You sense the gulf, yet think "They seem just like me, or us..." . On the whole, it's easy to walk away feeling good about yourself.

I don't see how.

As regards the 'duty' bit. Very complex to describe all the responsibilities but, for a start, The Queen is Supreme [[ just stopped myself there from typing that in the 'plural'...!) Governor of the Church of England. She has to be beyond reproach. Everything else follows on from there.....if she and her family don't earn respect from the public, by giving respect in all they do - carrying out the duties expected of them - then she and they will not receive wholehearted respect in return.

That's no way to live! No wonder the heirs misbehave!

As an example, it's been noted that the Queen and Prince Philip both stood for about 4 hours during the Pageant last weekend. Between them, they have an average age of nearly 90. The story goes that the 'thrones' provided for them on the boat were considered by The Queen to give entirely the wrong impression, and were therefore disregarded on the day, apart from gently resting against them. To do that, at their ages,in order to respond to the many people who'd lined the river, waving and cheering them from across the waters is, in my book, more than fulfilling their duty on that particular day.

No comment.

Yes, I do agree that all of us should carry out their own duties in their own lives and conduct themselves well and, of course, the vast majority do just that. We don't need telling, but observing an example set in front of us does no harm.

Don't know about you, but I'd rather learn by observing, learning and understanding at my own pace, and not just be told how I must do it.

My head is spinning.

On a day-to-day basis, most of the people here in the UK at least accept the existence of the Royal Family, and would not like to countenance this country without them, regarding them as an extension of their own family. 'Rich relatives' maybe, but 'ours', still.

Sigh!

Just in case you feel that undue reverence is extended, and that it's all taken too seriously,about twenty years back, we had a spoof TV soap opera called 'Pallas'. It featured actual footage of the Royal family, but with humorous dialogue dubbed.

OK...

And maybe you will have seen the 'Spitting Image' satirical puppet show? One of the very best clips was of "The Queen" performing new lyrics to "I Will Survive"....

We don't get stuff like that here. Sorry. We get "World's Dumbest Crimminals", the daily going's on in a Detroit pawn shop, and "1000 Ways to Die".

[robb_k]

I don't mind Canada being in The British Commonwealth of Nations. And I didn't mind my father fighting against The Axis Powers because Britain made an agreement to fight for Poland [[We'd have joined that war eventually, in any case). I DO resent paying taxpayer money for the 'pageantry" of her visits, and for The Governor General. I don't believe that The Queen opening Parliament, or The Governor General's residency have any effect on keeping Canadian Parliament members "in line". We changed our National Anthem, and our national flag. We should make the last symbolic change to independence : Acknowledge that The British Monarch has no claim upon Canada, and that we are a friendly member of The British Commonwealth due to common history, but are not subject to an ancient form of government that has no relevance to today's situation in North America.

[ralpht]

Robb,
I'm curious to know: Do most Canadians feel as you do in this matter?

[robb_k]

Robb,
I'm curious to know: Do most Canadians feel as you do in this matter?

I wonder about that, myself. I have no idea. My family is made up mainly of Jewish immigrants from The Netherlands, so we are very egalitarian, and abhor class distinctions [[that led to the European monarchies). But, we are very grateful to have had been allowed to come to Canada in 1939 to escape The Nazis, and so we appreciate that it is a very good country. I would guess that most Canadians don't have a problem with continuing to have a "Queen of Canada". But, I'd wonder if it came up to a vote to continue to put X tax dollars to fund it, or make an official break from The Monarchy [[but remain in The Commonwealth of Nations) their vote might surprise people. Not too many complained when we got rid of our flag with The Union Jack on it, or complained when we swapped "God Save The king" for "O Canada". I think we should have our OWN identity.

We should ask Jobete Rob, and any others on this forum what they think.

[ralpht]

Thanks for your response, Robb. I've always liked Canada and the Canadian people but have never really discussed politics with them.Might make an interesting thread.