I just want to point out that the British Monarchy was purely ceremonial by the American Revolution.

[Odin2005]

Several posters spewed vitriol at the royal wedding by saying that "we revolted again these people" and similar things, that may be popular national mythology, but it's wrong. We revolted again the oppressive policies of the British Parliament and their refusing to give us seats in Parliament. King George III was a convenient target for pro-revolt propaganda, but he had little power and was insane because of a blood disorder half the time, anyway. The real person in charge at the time was the Prime Minister, who was William Pitt the Younger at the time, IIRC (Pittsburgh is named for his father).

[meegbear]

1. Next meetup, when I see WilliamPitt, he's going down!!

[Odin2005]

2. LOL, I'm sure there is no relation, but it would be cool if he was related.

[Renew Deal]

13. Probably not in the way you mean.

:yoiks:

[meegbear]

15. Oh SNAP!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. That's true. And I'd like to point out as well,

that notwithstanding all the sniffing and snorting we've been seeing on DU about the evils of monarchies, the eminently democratic and delightfully socialist Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) are also monarchies, as is the Netherlands. These are constitutional monarchies in which, like Britain, the monarch has very little power and holds only a ceremonial position. Nevertheless, these folks have kings and queens and universal health care...

[Odin2005]

5. Yup. In fact when Norway became independent in 1903 Norwegians voted to have a ceremonial monarch.

They wanted an apolitical head of state, so they dragged in a Danish prince to be their king.

[blondeatlast]

4. Offered my kudos in that thread and happy to offer them here as well. Big kick and rec

for a much needed gentl reminder.

:thumbsup:

[Odin2005]

6. Thanks!

[onager]

7. More mythology...

"No taxation without representation" - we were offered representation in Parliament, repeatedly. The Founders knew it was a trap and wanted no part of it. American representatives in Parliament would have always been outnumbered, and therefore useless. But the Founders also knew that "no taxation without etc." was a very powerful rallying cry...and propaganda tool.

Some irony I've always appreciated - one of America's biggest supporters in the House of Lords was Gen. Charles Cornwallis, who eventually surrendered the British army at Yorktown. Cornwallis believed the Parliamentary acts against America were wrong-headed and he consistently worked against them.

[Odin2005]

8. And one of our staunchest supporters was none other than Edmund Burke.

The so-called "Father of Conservatism". He saw Parliament as trampling on the traditional rights of the colonists.

[joshcryer]

17. "Taxation without representation" refers to the fact that parliment at the time was "virtual."

"Virtual representation" was decried by the Republicans (as in Republicanism not "GOPers") at the time, less than 5% of the population could vote for parliament, and they found this "unrepresentative."

Get some http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/">Common Sense why don't ya? :hi:

[provis99]

9. the founding Fathers were full of lies and propaganda.

The Declaration of Independence is a bunch of nonsense, blaming the King for stuff he either didn't do, had no control of, or things that didn't actually happen.

[joshcryer]

18. This is pure revisionism, the founding fathers may have been elitists, but they were...

...against the bullshit 5% representation that the parliament of the monarchy represented. They were Republicans. Republicanism is http://republic.org.uk">alive and well in the UK.

[Posteritatis]

10. I don't get people who invoke centuries-old wars as some sort of contemporary grudge

People hating Britain because of the revolutionary period (okay, that through 1815) strike me in a similar way to, say, Italians being pissed at Tunisia over Hannibal instead of Ben Ali.

[FiveGoodMen]

11. I doubt that anyone here is 'hating Britain'

Most of us are sick of the hero worship lauded (especially by Americans) upon any celebrities and particularly those whose main claim to fame is their ancestry.

Whether George III was really in charge or not, this country deliberately eschewed monarchy.

And it's mighty disappointing to see how many US citizens seem to long for royalty.

[Posteritatis]

12. Nah, there's plenty of "we defeated Those People in war so they suck!" on the site today. (nt)

[FiveGoodMen]

14. Well, I've said "we fought to get away from monarchy"

but that's not the same as hating on the current -- or past -- people of Britain.

[Odin2005]

21. No, we fought because people were pissed at having laws imposed on them...

...without them having any say in the matter. The founders were fearful of a strong central federal government for that same reason.

Between the Glorious Revolution and the 7-Years War the colonies were treated with a light hand. But Britain faced budget issues after the 7-Years War and sought to impose taxation and more centralized control over the colonies to increase revenue. This pissed us off, the anger then merged with Enlightenment political thought and political "consciousness-raising" by folks like Tom Paine and the result was rebellion.

The term "American Revolution" is a bit of a misnomer, it was really a secession, and a coherent national government was only created several years AFTER secession had succeeded.

[joshcryer]

16. I just want to point out that your historical revisionism is hilarious at best.

[Odin2005]

19. Decrying nationalistic mythology we are indoctrinated with in school is "hilarious"?

The stuff I am saying is found in any decent college US History textbook.

[xchrom]

20. Thank you. Nt