Lady Amelia Windsor (age 22)

Quote: Wizard

The whole royal family is ridiculous.

We only think that because they
aren't our royalty. The average
Brit may scoff at them, but they
wouldn't give them up for anything.
It's their heritage and it goes back
too far. How many countries can
boast a monarchy with an unbroken
line going back to the 11th century.
It just screams 'civilized'.

Quote: Wizard

The whole royal family is ridiculous. They accomplish nothing except showing up to ceremonial functions. What difference does it make what age the king/queen is?

I think the first thing you have to decide if the whole European system of having one person be the "head of state" and another be the "head of government" is ridiculous. But a big part of being the head of state is showing up to ceremonial functions. Even British Republicans don't want an Western Hemisphere style President who combines both functions. Europeans tend to seem the two functions as incompatible. They would create the office of a President who would be more like the Irish Taoiseach or the German President.

State	Head of State	Head of Government
United Kingdom	Queen – Elizabeth II	Prime Minister – Theresa May
Australia	Queen – Elizabeth II	Prime Minister – Malcolm Turnbull
Canada	Queen – Elizabeth II	Prime Minister – Justin Trudeau
New Zealand	Queen – Elizabeth II	Prime Minister – Jacinda Ardern
Denmark	Queen – Margrethe II	Prime Minister – Lars Løkke Rasmussen
Sweden	King – Carl XVI Gustaf	Prime Minister – Stefan Löfven
Norway	King – Harald V	Prime Minister – Erna Solberg
Belgium	King – Philippe	Prime Minister – Charles Michel
Netherlands	King – Willem-Alexander	Prime Minister – Mark Rutte
Spain	King – Felipe VI	President of the Government – Mariano Rajoy
Luxembourg	Grand Duke – Henri	Prime Minister – Xavier Bettel
Liechtenstein	Prince Regnant – Hans-Adam II	Head of Government – Adrian Hasler
Austria	President – Alexander Van der Bellen	Chancellor – Sebastian Kurz
Germany	President – Frank-Walter Steinmeier	Chancellor – Angela Merkel
Ireland	President – Michael D. Higgins	Taoiseach – Leo Varadkar
Italy	President – Sergio Mattarella	President of the Council of Ministers – Paolo Gentiloni
Belarus	President – Alexander Lukashenko	Prime Minister – Andrei Kobyakov
Slovakia	President – Andrej Kiska	Prime Minister – Peter Pellegrini
Poland	President – Andrzej Duda	Prime Minister – Mateusz Morawiecki
Slovenia	President – Borut Pahor	Prime Minister – Miro Cerar
Lithuania	President – Dalia Grybauskaitė	Prime Minister – Saulius Skvernelis
France	President – Emmanuel Macron	Prime Minister – Édouard Philippe
Iceland	President – Guðni Th. Jóhannesson	Prime Minister – Katrín Jakobsdóttir
Hungary	President – János Áder	Prime Minister – Viktor Orbán
Romania	President – Klaus Iohannis	Prime Minister – Viorica Dăncilă
Portugal	President – Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa	Prime Minister – António Costa
Malta	President – Marie Louise Coleiro Preca	Prime Minister – Joseph Muscat
Czech Republic	President – Miloš Zeman	Prime Minister – Andrej Babiš
Ukraine	President – Petro Poroshenko	Prime Minister – Volodymyr Groysman
Greece	President – Prokopis Pavlopoulos	Prime Minister – Alexis Tsipras
Latvia	President – Raimonds Vējonis	Prime Minister – Māris Kučinskis
Turkey	President – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan	Prime Minister – Binali Yıldırım
Finland	President – Sauli Niinistö	Prime Minister – Juha Sipilä
Russia	President – Vladimir Putin	Prime Minister – Dmitry Medvedev

Quote: Wizard

The whole royal family is ridiculous. They accomplish nothing except showing up to ceremonial functions. What difference does it make what age the king/queen is?

If you call promoting and being heavily involved in countless charitable causes all over the world accomplishing nothing then yes, you’re correct.

Quote: Aussie

If you call promoting and being heavily involved in countless charitable causes all over the world accomplishing nothing then yes, you’re correct.

I'll give the royal family credit that they do help with fund raising for noble causes. I give more credit to the people that donate, but who cares who I give credit to.

Quote: Pacomartin

Canada would have thrown the balance even more towards slave states.

Am I reading this wrong or am I missing something? Canada was free lands IIRC.

Quote: Aussie

No, I get the joke. But as far as I’m aware the saying is not “in like flint”, it’s “in like Flynn”. Its probably like when people say “for all intensive purposes” when the actual saying is “for all intents and purposes”. All good, a common mistake. :)

I assume he is talking about Flint, MI. A city that has been a total mess for years and made famous by Michael Moore and its bad water.

Quote: AZDuffman

I assume he is talking about Flint, MI.

Good god, I was referring to the
movie In Like Flint, which was a
take off on the phrase 'in like Flynn'.

Jokes are so much fun when you
have to explain them to foreigners.

Quote: Evenbob

Good god, I was referring to the
movie In Like Flint, which was a
take off on the phrase 'in like Flynn'.

Jokes are so much fun when you
have to explain them to foreigners.

So you substituted the actual phrase for the title of a movie which was a take off of the phrase which obviously then makes no sense. No, I think I’ll stick to the real explanation which is you simply mistook the wording. All good, many people make such mistakes with a variety of different sayings. Nothing to be ashamed of that’s for sure :)

Quote: Aussie

So you substituted the actual phrase for the title of a movie which was a take off of the phrase )

YES! Oh my god, pulling teeth is easier
than this. Maybe if I speak slower and
enunciate my words better..

Quote: AZDuffman

Am I reading this wrong or am I missing something? Canada was free lands IIRC.

No, I typed it backwards. Canada would have thrown the balance even more against the slave states. The conquest of Mexico would was perceived by the North as throwing the balance towards the slave states. That's a big reason that Northern politicians, like a young Abraham Lincoln was against the Mexican American war.

The balance between slave and free state was never off equilibrium by more than 2 states until it reached 15 free vs 15 slave. On September 9, 1850 California was brought in as a free state (#31st state) and the South began to believe that the balance would forevermore tip towards free states. The idea of succession became much stronger after this point

Quote: Pacomartin

No, I typed it backwards. Canada would have thrown the balance even more against the slave states. The conquest of Mexico would was perceived by the North as throwing the balance towards the slave states. That's a big reason that Northern politicians, like a young Abraham Lincoln was against the Mexican American war.

The balance between slave and free state was never off equilibrium by more than 2 states until it reached 15 free vs 15 slave. On September 9, 1850 California was brought in as a free state (#31st state) and the South began to believe that the balance would forevermore tip towards free states. The idea of succession became much stronger after this point

I thought something seemed wrong. I agree on taking all of Mexico would have tipped towards slave states, though there were plenty of other reasons not to take it. Main one was what to do with the incompatible Mexican population. With there already being the issue of dealing with the Indian Tribes, another foreign population may have been too much to handle.

Not taking Canada probably saved the Great Lakes from total destruction. Might have prevented WWIII as with almost all the neighbor land the USA and USSR would have made more push to the North Pole. A USA that took Canada and Mexico might have kept going to Panama.