I totally understand what you are saying. But have you ever been to D.C.? I live a few hours away and hate going there. Too much traffic. Very hard to get around and no where to park. Expensive hotels. It is just a huge pain in the butt.

But I'll do it if everyone else does.

Well, believe me, it is a big hassle going there. But I'll go if everyone else does.

You must be young. My Mom and Dad survived the depression.

And I already said I would do it if everyone else did it, didn't I? But I'm not going to go through all this hassle is only a handful of people do it.

You sound like a great guy! Like I said, if we can get a bunch of people to go, then I will be there!

But it will take more than just organizing here on reddit.

Unfortunately, most of us on here are not on facebook to spread the word that way.

Yes, I hate Facebook.

I'm down.

nice to see the repercussions of beating the british finally setting in

lol. uneducated overseas commentators, thinking royalty has any power over parliament lol

wise choice of username. the blindness shows

in comes the anger. first reaction of the educated, reasonable, logical thinker willing to debate. lol

please stop reciting fallacies

i bet you are not old enough to vote, whilst living at home with your parents

If the US didn't fund both sides of WWII, the English might not have had to worry about speaking German in the first place.

do you know, the british wanted the war, for nearly 7 years prior to it happening? are you aware of that?

I'm aware there were parties who wanted war and others that didn't, and that text books like to gloss over exactly where everyone's allegiances laid. I'm American, but I couldn't in good conscience allow OP to spread propaganda regarding the US role in the war.

Yes that would constitute propaganda. It's deliberately misleading information designed to appeal to the reader's emotions in order to support a given cause.

That user would most certainly not be speaking German right now if it weren't for your grandfather. The US was funding both sides of the war. Henry Ford had a plant in Germany that manufactured engines for German armor. One could argue if Germany won, it would not have been possible without the US.

Yes, the US played a big part in the European theater, but it would have perhaps been more damaging if we never supported Germany from the very start. Nazi headquarters were on Park Avenue in Manhattan at the time for goodness sake.

oh my god. go pick a book up you retard. the british royals were related to nazis. and russia won the war, not america

you just lost pearl harbour because the british refused to warn you lol, because of the bullshit you were pulling. ouch

oh nice. no response to prove me wrong, just insult. feisty little thang

oh my god. you really are as poorly educated, as i perceived. you have nothing credible, or verifiable to add, or counter with, so you use the most basic counter in the history of america. please enroll into college. or better yet, use the internet you your advantage, you absolute hillbilly

please. i read it. then i commented. then i battled you on your pathetic responses. either debate, or dont come into a place that is open for discussion. make a blog or something. where you can choose if people have interaction capabilities.

Umm I'm from the UK. You need to research the royal family some more. I'll give you somewhere to start.... Prince Charles letters to ministers.

its formality. not governing.

Royal Assent Although bills are created by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, they can’t become law without receiving royal assent from the Queen. This is where Her Majesty makes a trip to the Lords Chamber and approves (or denies) a specific bill.

Still, at this point royal assent has become little more than a formality. The last time a monarch went against parliament was in 1708, when Queen Anne withheld her support for a bill to restore the Scottish militia.

Commander-In-Chief All soldiers within the British Armed Forces are under the command of the Queen. In theory, this means that Her Majesty would be able to take a leading role in all military operations.

In practice, however, the Queen has little to do with how Britain defends herself at home or abroad. The royal prerogative allows her to offload this responsibility onto the prime minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, along with other officials.

And while she technically has the power to, say, order an air strike on the White House, in practice the UK government could (and would) prevent her from doing so.

Declaration of War The Queen is the only person in the UK with the power to officially declare war on other countries. Of course, this ability comes with some caveats. Noticing a pattern yet?

This rule only applies to all-out warfare, and was last enacted by King George VI during World War II.

However, the British Armed Forces are allowed to engage ground troops on foreign soil for combat missions. The most notable recent example of this was the UK’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Though this was an armed conflict, the government didn’t need the Queen’s permission.

"Royal Assent Although bills are created by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, they can’t become law without receiving royal assent from the Queen. This is where Her Majesty makes a trip to the Lords Chamber and approves (or denies) a specific bill."

Hence why Charles (and that's just what we know about) lobbies ministers writing the laws. Approving or denying the final bill means nothing if you can influence it's content before that stage. Same applies to military action.

Remember the senior politicians are members of the Privy council along with an appointed representative of the Royals and all are sworn by oath not to disclose what they talk about.

The Royals have a direct line to politicians the fact they have a say in the final thing is moot. They have far more say than people think and they should be abolished ASAP.

It is also not very wise to say royalty is no power.

the problem is and always has been that any movement that decides to march on Washington will be immediately co-opted and its message will be distorted and twisted by the media.

I'm down.

oh my god. go pick a book up you retard. the british royals were related to nazis. and russia won the war, not america

oh my god. you really are as poorly educated, as i perceived. you have nothing credible, or verifiable to add, or counter with, so you use the most basic counter in the history of america. please enroll into college. or better yet, use the internet you your advantage, you absolute hillbilly

"Royal Assent Although bills are created by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, they can’t become law without receiving royal assent from the Queen. This is where Her Majesty makes a trip to the Lords Chamber and approves (or denies) a specific bill."

Hence why Charles (and that's just what we know about) lobbies ministers writing the laws. Approving or denying the final bill means nothing if you can influence it's content before that stage. Same applies to military action.

Remember the senior politicians are members of the Privy council along with an appointed representative of the Royals and all are sworn by oath not to disclose what they talk about.

The Royals have a direct line to politicians the fact they have a say in the final thing is moot. They have far more say than people think and they should be abolished ASAP.