British lawmakers blast Trump, but oppose banning him

CSM ^ | 01/20/2016 | By Jill Lawless, Associated Press

[the scotsman]

We amassed troops?. YOU invaded Canada twice. And had war plans against the British Empire as late as the 1930s.

1776-1783 was a revolution/civil war. 1812-1815 was two sides spoiling for a fight, with no clear outcome.

[the scotsman]

I am a British citizen, that’s more than just name change. The Crown, since the English/British civil war of 1642-1651, thankfully does not have primacy in my country. The elected parliament does. The monarchy is a figurehead with little or no power. If you understand the British system and nation, I am no ‘serf’, I am no ‘subject’.

[Delta 21]

Typical British fashion. Much to do about nothing.

[Slambat]

“If you understand the British system”

Constitutional Monarchy. How can a citizen exist in a monarchy? Ok, so the queen is just a figurehead but she
does figuratively exist right. With little or no power.
This you would have to acknowledge and simply by
acknowledging that royalty exists even though it has
little or no power over you is still an act of serfdom.
The sad part is by allowing this the UK still gives legitimacy
to monarchs and royal blood lines.

And I’m not alone on this:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article 1 Section 9

They saw the problems of simply recognizing it, let alone
giving it any legitimacy what so ever. A true citizen
cannot exist if there is even a figurative existence
of a monarchy.

I will never recognize any one as royalty. And I will
ignore anyone that claims to be. How should I look at
the ones that do? I always thought that the best form of
government was a Benevolent Dictatorship but the problem
is Benevolent Dictatorship is an oxymoron.