[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070506" target="_blank">Britain\'s Children</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> May 06, 2007

It may be surprising to hear me admit it, but I have quite enjoyed the coverage of Queen Elizabeth\'s visit to the United States. The Queen has gotten an overwhelmingly warm reception form the American people and their political leaders, while media the coverage has been excited and respectful. <br> <br>What I like about this visit is how genuine the support is. When the Queen visits Canada, or some other Commonwealth realm, the visit is always infused with so much political subtext. The republic vs. monarchy debate overshadows all the festivities and everyone is continuously asked for an opinion on the matter. When our politicians show support for Elizabeth they do so with phony, gritted smiles, knowing full well that they are making a controversial constitutional statement by doing so. <br> <br>The United States has moved beyond all this, however. When the Queen comes to visit the US she does so as a symbol of America\'s past, but also as a representative of America\'s contemporary, mature relationship with the United Kingdom. There is no irate republican outrage or gushing apologism from monarchists. It is just a nice visit from a special lady.

[Rhoffman]

heh.... man, you can tell that I've been busy for the past week, then. I wasn't even aware that she was in the U.S. until I read J.J.'s strip.

Nice to hear she got a good welcome, though.

[Dryhad]

Heh, I totally agree. I'm a republican and I'm completely baffled at the republican response to royal visits in Australia. Surely from a republican perspective she's just a regular person, so why are we the ones making a political scene?

Some might be inclined to say, however, that America's reaction to this is due to republicans having won their own argument so long ago. They no longer see themselves as republicans (many probably see themselves as Democrats ) and they don't see her as a threat (whether anyone should is another point to consider). I wonder if it's less a sign of maturity and more a sign of having largely forgotten the conflict.

[dog77_1999]

Dryhad wrote:

Heh, I totally agree. I'm a republican and I'm completely baffled at the republican response to royal visits in Australia. Surely from a republican perspective she's just a regular person, so why are we the ones making a political scene?

Some might be inclined to say, however, that America's reaction to this is due to republicans having won their own argument so long ago. They no longer see themselves as republicans (many probably see themselves as Democrats ) and they don't see her as a threat (whether anyone should is another point to consider). I wonder if it's less a sign of maturity and more a sign of having largely forgotten the conflict.

I think it is because America was the only one that went to war for our independence. In a way, I think because of that, we know that she has no power over us. On the other hand, countries that were peacefully created may feel apprehensive because there wasn't that initial breakage. You don't know if it is still the same relationship or not, and alot of people will act hostile to make their independence clear.

[Psudo]

I like dog77_1999's theory.

[Jabrwock]

The US has no need to debate the monarchy issue, because to them, she's just the head of state of another country. They solved that question hundreds of years ago.

Quote:

On the other hand, countries that were peacefully created may feel apprehensive because there wasn't that initial breakage.

Not so much apprehensive, but just unsure. Pretty much every country that split from England through legislation, didn't really address the monarchy issue. They gained independence from the English legislative bodies, but since the Queen wasn't really in charge of them anymore either, she could be safely kept as a no-power figurehead to appease those who wanted to keep close ties with the UK, but without being ruled over by them.

Call them traditionalists I guess.

America just replaced her with others (the Kennedy's, the Reagan's, the Hilton's, etc)

[Clogeroo]

Quote:

It may be surprising to hear me admit it, but I have quite enjoyed the coverage of Queen Elizabeth\'s visit to the United States. The Queen has gotten an overwhelmingly warm reception form the American people and their political leaders, while media the coverage has been excited and respectful.

What I like about this visit is how genuine the support is. When the Queen visits Canada, or some other Commonwealth realm, the visit is always infused with so much political subtext. The republic vs. monarchy debate overshadows all the festivities and everyone is continuously asked for an opinion on the matter. When our politicians show support for Elizabeth they do so with phony, gritted smiles, knowing full well that they are making a controversial constitutional statement by doing so.

The United States has moved beyond all this, however. When the Queen comes to visit the US she does so as a symbol of America\'s past, but also as a representative of America\'s contemporary, mature relationship with the United Kingdom. There is no irate republican outrage or gushing apologism from monarchists. It is just a nice visit from a special lady.

What are you talking about? I have never seen any controversy with the Queen visiting Canada and she always has been welcomed here. Well except for a few times in Quebec since they hate their own history. Most of the papers and media post little titbits about her and talk about her day plan and what she does. Not much different than what the American media is doing themselves. Only here you see even bigger crowds come out to greet her and welcome her back home. The monarchy is a non-issue in Canada and the only people who try to make it one are demented people such as yourself.

[hurley_108]

Clogeroo wrote:

Quote:

It may be surprising to hear me admit it, but I have quite enjoyed the coverage of Queen Elizabeth\'s visit to the United States. The Queen has gotten an overwhelmingly warm reception form the American people and their political leaders, while media the coverage has been excited and respectful.

What I like about this visit is how genuine the support is. When the Queen visits Canada, or some other Commonwealth realm, the visit is always infused with so much political subtext. The republic vs. monarchy debate overshadows all the festivities and everyone is continuously asked for an opinion on the matter. When our politicians show support for Elizabeth they do so with phony, gritted smiles, knowing full well that they are making a controversial constitutional statement by doing so.

The United States has moved beyond all this, however. When the Queen comes to visit the US she does so as a symbol of America\'s past, but also as a representative of America\'s contemporary, mature relationship with the United Kingdom. There is no irate republican outrage or gushing apologism from monarchists. It is just a nice visit from a special lady.

What are you talking about? I have never seen any controversy with the Queen visiting Canada and she always has been welcomed here. Well except for a few times in Quebec since they hate their own history. Most of the papers and media post little titbits about her and talk about her day plan and what she does. Not much different than what the American media is doing themselves. Only here you see even bigger crowds come out to greet her and welcome her back home. The monarchy is a non-issue in Canada and the only people who try to make it one are demented people such as yourself.

I thought you were willing to die fighting for the monarchy.

[camerontech]

Clog the monarchy is an issue here, don't lie to yourself. I can think of quite a few CKA members who are against the crown here.

[Jabrwock]

hurley_108 wrote:

I thought you were willing to die fighting for the monarchy.

See, that's part of the confusion. We pledge allegiance to Canada, with the Queen as it's "leader", even though she technically isn't.

But really, would you want to pledge allegiance to someone like Harper or Dion?

The US just shifted the allegiance to their flag (and the republic for which it stands, etc.) instead.

I don't really understand the big beef some have with the monarchy. We don't pay her any monies, don't owe her any allegiance other than in spirit, she's a figurehead without any power, and there really is no valid reason to waste the millions to change all the paperwork and laws in order to take away power and titles she doesn't have anyway.

[hurley_108]

Jabrwock wrote:

hurley_108 wrote:

I thought you were willing to die fighting for the monarchy.

See, that's part of the confusion. We pledge allegiance to Canada, with the Queen as it's "leader", even though she technically isn't.

But really, would you want to pledge allegiance to someone like Harper or Dion?

The US just shifted the allegiance to their flag (and the republic for which it stands, etc.) instead.

I don't really understand the big beef some have with the monarchy. We don't pay her any monies, don't owe her any allegiance other than in spirit, she's a figurehead without any power, and there really is no valid reason to waste the millions to change all the paperwork and laws in order to take away power and titles she doesn't have anyway.

Exactly how I feel. It's just in another thread I said if the Queen did try to exercise some power and tell the Governor General to interfere in Canada's matters somehow, the Monarchy would suddenly become very relevant, and I don't think Canadians would stand for it. Clog said he'd actively fight to defend his precious Queen from us uppity Canucks should that happen.

[GreatBriton]

Quote:

I think it is because America was the only one that went to war for our independence

What about Ireland?

Anyway, it's been known for years that millions of Americans are fascinated by the British monarchy.

And remember that the Queen is more loved around the world that Bush (that's one reason why I'm a monarchist, as Royals are more respected and revered around the world than any President will ever be).

A few years ago, when Shrub visited Britain, he got nothing but jeers, abuse and anti-war protesters.

However, when our Head of State visits the US she has so many well-wishers wanting to see her that in Richmond, Virginia they had to set up a lottery to pick the people who could watch the Queen arrive, as there were too many wanting to see her.

There's hardly any demostrations against the Queen whenever she visits the US.

A couple of days ago she fulfilled a lifetime ambition by going to the Kentucky derby. Several female racegoers, knowing that the Queen would be there, even dressed up like her.

Americans are obsessed by the British Royal Family.

And as for the Monarchy being "outdated" then remember this: Britain's constitutional monarchy only dates back to around 1660 when the Monarchy was restored with much merriment throughout the land. England was a Republic from 1649-1660, which ended up becoming nothing more than a military dictatorship 9probably a major factor why only 18% of Brits, according to a 2006 MORI poll, want Britain to become a Republic again). When Charles II came to the Throne in 1660, getting rid of the brief Republic, parties were held by the people. He was the first Constitutional Monarch (the last Absolute Monarch was Charles I, who lost his head).

Whereas there were republics in the world as far back as Rome and Ancient Greece.

As a form of governance, you can't get more ancient than the republic. Plato even wrote books about it. Yet many republican anti-monarchists seem to think of it as some new-fangled thing.

[WDHIII]

GreatBriton wrote:

Quote:

I think it is because America was the only one that went to war for our independence

What about Ireland?

IT SPEAKS!



I wouldnt bother answering GB cause Lord knows he wont be back to respond.

[Clogeroo]

Quote:

Clog said he'd actively fight to defend his precious Queen from us uppity Canucks should that happen.

Absolutely.

[GreatBriton]

WDHIII wrote:

GreatBriton wrote:

Quote:

I think it is because America was the only one that went to war for our independence

What about Ireland?

IT SPEAKS!



I wouldnt bother answering GB cause Lord knows he wont be back to respond.

Is your response just because I made a very good comment?

All this American romanticism that they were the only ones who stood up to the British Empire is rubbish.

The Irish fought the British Empire, as did the Boers in South Africa and the Indians for a fair length of time in the 19th century and again in the 1940s.

There was a minor skirmish against the British called "The Indian Rebellion" in 1857, leading to the British executing many of them by strapping them to the front of cannon or hanging them. There there was Mahatma Gandhi in the 1940s, who gained Indian independence from Britain in 1948.

The Irish fought for their independence and gained it in 1922.