yeah i dunno about that either, really makes FA of a difference anyway, there lineage aint the issue

The queen is a direct descendant actually. But not in the simple way (i.e. eldest born child all the way undisturbed). Whenever there was a "break" in the chain there was a swift marriage to rectify the problem. For example William the conqueror married Matilda of Flanders, a direct descendant of Alfred, and his son also married another Matilda who was also a direct descendant, ddoubly re-enforcing the lineage. The result is that Elizabeth II's lineage is, believe it or not, direct (i.e. parent to offspring) from Alfred the Great. See this tree:

http://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.htm

*Shrugs* Well, as a UK citizen myself I disagree. That's my opinion. The unelected thing doesn't bother me so long as they do a good job (I mean, our current Prime Minister is unelected for Pete's sake!) and she doesn't do nothing, she has to do stuff all the time. Taxpayer money is wasted on many more things that do far less for this country than the Monarchy.

Do any of you guys play Smash? I've been trying to get in touch with some more UK players for my friends list. Maybe we can settle this issue with an online bout - I'll restrict myself to playing a Royal character for good measure. How about it?

Why does the UK have a monarchy?

Because it has worked for a long time and the vast majority of us want to keep it.

so no reasons then, just that you want to keep them, do you even know why you want to keep them?

Because it has worked very well for a very long time.

I want to keep the Monarch so that we continue to have someone above politics as the head of the nation. I don't want the Army swearing allegiance to a politician. I want someone who only has the nation's interest (not some politician's career) at heart. I want all the power in the land vested in the Monarch so that the nation is safeguarded against a hostile government, similar to the reason why the US has the right to bear arms (I want that too).

........ and I want Her Majesty to have her train back...and the QE2......and a plane too.

You don't happen to be Scottish or Welsh do you?

Really?  *Has* the monarchy "worked very well for a long time"?

With apologies: I'm American, so many my understanding of British history is just off... but it's always seemed to me that the development of British politics, from the Magna Carta on (when was that... 1211 or something like that?) has been the whittling away of the powers of the monarchy.

If the monarchy is such a great institution, then why has it been stripped of almost all power?  I think that the only reason the British allow the monarchy to survive is *because* it does nothing.  Assuming Elizabeth II ever dies and Charles takes over, were he to suddenly start utilizing whatever powers remain to the throne in a very pro-active way... well, I think that would endanger the monarchy more than anything else.

I think SciFiBoy's on the right side of this one.  Again, maybe it's just my American bias, but I tend to believe that free people don't bow down to unelected "royalty"; that power and "nobility" are not birthrights, but are things that must be earned.

I would never bow down to a "nobleman", I would bow down before the head of my nation.

If Charles takes over and starts involving himself unduly in politics, then he is clearly not up to the job and we'll sack him and give William a chance.

As to your American bias, it's misplaced. It was the UK government that acted unjustly towards those English settlers not the Monarch. Granted, the Monarch didn't help much like his oath commands but he was crazy after all.

what makes the monarchy worth £40m a year and what makes them worthy of power when they have won no election?

Do you really think the Queen is in it for the money?

The support of the people makes them worthy of power regardless of any election.