Part of their job description is to do charitable work. They do tons of this. They do have other duties and some small authority. The British monarchs also carry out heads of state duties. They welcome and host foreign dignitaries, attend funerals of other heads of state etc. The Queen also actually retains the right to appoint the Prime Minister. As head of the privy council they also have official duties that deal mainly with overseas territories. One of the more important jobs they have is not unlike the President in that they provide morale to the nation. For a practical example of how this is useful look at what Queen Elizabeth did during WWII. They also do generate huge amounts of tourism and dollars in that manner.
I don't think I've ever met a single American who wishes they were still under the British rule. Its quite the contrary. Many Americans scoff at the British and see them as the 51st state. Maybe you are mistaking how many liberals wish we had the socialistic views of Europe.
Clearly the number of people you know is good enough to support your idea that Americans are obsessed with the family...
Capitalist culture gone awry. The money, power, prestige gives the lower classes something to daydream about as huge disparities in wealth and income continuously occur, and they shift upwards under their very noses in legislatures around the country. Throw in the female crowd from various income brackets who obsess over weddings - celebrity weddings even more - and you get this fascination with watching this all day on Friday. I typed in "ro" and Google already has the royal wedding as its fifth instant search result suggestion. I still remember teachers and girls in my high school crying all week when Diana died... SMH.
Though it's not a majority, there are a number of Americans who are following this event. And if they aren't, the media is anyway. There are more important things to talk about than this wedding. [BBC] "U.S. news coverage of the wedding will be enormous. CNN alone is sending 50 reporters from its U.S. bureau and 75 reporters from its London bureau to cover it – plus the network will have additional correspondents in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Canada. ABC is devoting 23 hours to the event, while CBS is sending Katie Couric to start reporting on it two days early and broadcasting an three hour-long special called The Royal Wedding: Modern Majesty."
You're reading too much into my post. I am talking about how there seem to be many Americans who wish we had a royal family considering how much attention is paid to the British Royal family. Consider how much coverage is given to the doings of the British Royal family especially the non-stop coverage and handwringing when Princess Di died. Ironically I've also met many several Brits who wishes they didn't have a royal family.
What do they do? <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Bp2tQ75pTD0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<a target='_blank' href='http://img849.imageshack.us/i/royals.jpg/'><img src='http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/9026/royals.jpg' border='0'/></a> </a>
1. What percentage of those dollars are used to support the Royals? 2. How much would they actually loose with no Royals since the Tower of London is the biggest attraction anyway. They could still keep things like changing of the guard etc... for tourist attractions with out giving money to the Royals. 3. How much extra money would UK bring in if instead of paying the Queens family they pay nothing and keep all of the tourist revenue for the country and not the Royals.
A little education. The War of 1812 didn't end in Washington. When I was in Canada, that myth was propogated everywhere. I think the Canadian history books start with, "In the War of 1812, when Canada kicked the United States' ass by burning the White House..." The truth is that the Canadians did well, but their British teammates let them down in the rest of the war. Claiming victory in the War of 1812 is like getting a point for losing a game in overtime.
Because he isn't from the royal line of succession from England. It's the same reason the queen mother was just the queen mother for so long and not the actual Queen even though she was Elizabeth's mother.
