William has said in the English press that he is going to be taking the current financial situation into consideration when planning the wedding so it might not be as lavish as everyone is expecting for a royal wedding which is a shame.

In Canada, the monarchy is all but ignored and the queen has no power whatsoever. In Britain, she scarcely has more. If you prefer, imagine that celebrities (apart from Drew Barrymore) came to the office by birth, rather than via Real Housewives. Then, you'd have a better understanding of what monarchy is in the British system. Elizabeth II is symbolic just as Sookie is symbolic. Mind you, the content of that symbolism is a touch different.

The American federal structure is currently flawed, rather heavily. Little is achieved due to small-minded partisanship and a greater interest in preventing the opponent's possible accomplishments than achieving any oneself. One of the most accomplished presidents of the last 50 years was Bush Jr., though likening his accomplishments to positive achievements will largely end in embarrassment. Obama, whatever his talents and honesty levels might (or might not) be, is currently stewing in the classic celebrity melt-down regarding his popularity. Bush would not have needed his team's tactics, nor would Obama be quite so hapless, if tabloid attention (or that of FOX) was being paid to someone who was merely symbolic and largely irrelevant. Then, Americans could be delighted at the beauty of each new royal child, and delighted at their own disgust when it is revealed as dastardly, perfidious, or poorly dressed. Perhaps, then, crises wouldn't be the prerequisite for genuine accomplishment.

@Blegharyd, I don't want this to transmute into a cross border smack down, but your standard issue Canuck put-downs of the US reflect the narrow-mindedness and isolationsm that are, sadly, reflective of the worst aspects of Canadian culture.

"Narrow-minded parochialness?" Really? Like, say, the Quebequois and their continuous, rather lunatic, blackmailing of the English-speaking remainder of Canada with constant threats to leave unless their ridiculous demands regarding street signs and language policy are adhered to? "Oh, don't leave me, j'taime..."

It is a fact that your head of state is the Queen (nothing wrong with that, really). Arguing that you 'don't take it seriously' either speaks to either a fundamental misunderstanding of your own constitution, or a complete lack of seriousness of your entire national project. I realize it may occassional be difficult to live in a country that is defined purely by being NOT the United States, but suggesting that your own institutions don't exist surely doesn't help you to be taken seriously.

So, please, don't presume to lecture us ignorant Americans about how flawed our civilization and our constitution is. It is actually working just fine, and we, at least, can be pretty sure our nation will last from year to year (which is unfortunately not the case North of the border).

Don't get me wrong, I love Canada, and Canadians. What I don't like is hearing a lot of anti-American nonsense from anyone, regardless of their national identity.

Please, Freetrader, don't misunderstand me. I have enormous respect for the structure of the American system, and in many regards, I would greatly prefer many of its features to the Canadian structure. For example, the Canadian system (which parrots the British system) has the serious flaw of collapsing during periods of minority government, which leads to large amounts of spending on subsequent election. As recently as 1979, a Prime Minister collapsed his own government within months by engaging a confidence vote, and was replaced. This is a stupid feature of the Canadian system, and in most respects, the American system is better. I was not throwing stones at the constitution (which is an excellent document)). My amusing claim was not that the American system of government should be replaced by the British/Canadian one (by any means). The claim was, rather, that there can be benefit to disengaging elected officials from a certain species of public interest. In this respect alone, the monarchy in the British style has its selling points.

However, the benefit of the American electoral system has been damaged by the two-party system and the current habits of Congressional politicians to vote with the party rather than with the best interests of their constituents at heart. Particularly, attacking a policy (even if one would hold it also, in reversed position) because of who is proposing it, as opposed to its content, is a dreadful weakness of Congress at this time. America should have the advantage of being able to use its version of minority government (having two or more parties each control different elements of government) to make decisions that people with multiple ideologies can accept. At the moment, it doesn't seem to have this advantage. This appears to be the case because elected officials are acting to impress (rather than to benefit) their electors. At the moment, the Glenn Becks and current crop of Pat Robertsons have the yell-threats-and-whine-at-the-public chair, but there is nothing painting that chair blue or red (or whatever colour Palin might favour).

Unfortunately, you seem to have a basic misunderstanding of how the Canadian system works. While the Queen is nominally head-of-state, she has no effective pwer in Canada. This has been true since 1981, which was the last time that the Constittution was revised. She has effectively had little power since 1931, in point of fact, due to a particular law passed in the UK called the Statute of Westminster. Prior to the statute, for example, Britain might wage war and Canada was automatically at war, also. The Queen's "representative" in Canadian government is called the governor genera. He has had the responsibility to sign bills into law (as the American president does). However, said governor general no longer has the authority (as the president does) to refuse to sign a bill into law. As such, he is effectively a rubber stamp in that respect. The GG has the power to close parliament (though not to dissolve it), but this can only happen, again, at the request of the prime minister (somewhere between president and Speaker of the House). In either case, the GG is not required, expected, or even entitled to ask the monarch for opinion or permission to engage any of these powers. Nor does the monarch have the ability to replace the governor general at will, do his job (such as it is) for him, or in any other way exert power over the government. She cannot declare war or prevent or change a passing law. She is cultural arm candy. This is not a bad thing.

Many Canadians complain about Quebec (if they are not Quebecois themselves). A few even complain that multiple languages are put onto signs. This is not a tragedy or a hindrance or a nuisance. It's a multilingual country (like Belgium or China). Quebec does not hold the country hostage, no matter what the press might have thought in 1984. Moreover, Quebec (or any other province) has the power to hold a referendum, vote, and secede from the country. It's unlikely that Quebec will do so soon (since it doesn't have a sufficiently diverse economy to do so effectively), but it could. So could Alberta, if it wanted to particularly. This is self-determination. Canada's economy would also be wrecked if Quebec (or Alberta, or Ontario) decided to leave. I suppose that something similar is what people were thinking in the north in the 1860s. However, that does not mean that Quebec holds a real trump card, and since one particular government left office in 1992, no one else has thought so, either.

America, Canada, or anyone else may think that Canada is only different from the U.S. because it says so. This is not a good or bad thing, and there's no reason for Canadians or Americans (including you) to sneer at each other for it. Both economies would effectively collapse if they stopped trading, given the enormous volume of trade. America's would recover at roughly 75% of its previous size, and Canada would look like North Korea afterward. Ugh.

More to the point, it is popular to imagine that a country will last forever. If we're free of history, this may well be true. However, there is nothing, apart from language, that makes the current borders objectively important in a temporal basis. In 500 years, Canada and America could be two countries, or one country, or seventeen countries. Countries might not even exist (as they have not for most of history). American stability looks fine at the moment, but that's only true given the current environment. All countries are potentially unstable, whether they wear it on-sleeve or off. May it never happen (or at least, not in our lifetimes).

Ah, the joys of cross-border amity!

Seriously, I'm actually very happy that you responded to my rather aggressive post with a very clear polite response (which, come to think of it, is another Canadian stereotype, albeit a positive one!).

I am aware that the Queen is only a figurehead (and one whom I like and who does no harm). Having lived in Australia for several years, I find the the whole 'head of state' question interesting, but you are correct that it is more of distraction than anything else. I agree that there are advantages, at times, to a parliamentary system - we can see them in the UK right now, where a minority government is pushing through some pretty tough austerity reforms. We could use a little of that in the US. Of course, having a government that is hard to steer is sort of the point of the US system, to avoid the tyranny of King and all, and we seem to keep muddling through.

In any case, it is to be hoped that the US and Canada can provide each other with some degree of positive tension; the US could benefit from some of Canada's prescription drug policies, while at least some Canadians benefit from the US's relatively open labo[u]r markets (since about 10% of Canadians actually live in the US).

In summary, the US and Canada are a couple of siblings that, hopefully, recognize that they need each other (even if, especially from the Canadian point of view, the relationship has a few irritants). As with any set of siblings, there is bound to be a bit of a love/hate relationship.

This article is perhaps the most illogical piece of journalism I have read in a while. It would be quite funny in that dry humor Brits do so well if it were in fact supposed to be a joke. However, I don't think Foreign Policy prints humor articles. And even if it does, this is not supposed to be one. Which just leads me to believe that whoever let this through to the presses is in need of some help. I mean really, I am far from the most unapologetically pro-American American. I realize the faults with our system. But this is almost offensive even to me. More than that though, it just shows how naive people (i.e. the author and anyone who legitimately agrees with this article's premise) are about the American system. Unless a dictator came to power in the US vis-a-vis a military coup de'etat, we will never accept a monarchy as our own. To propose such an idea throws all American constitutionalism out the window. And that according to me, is unacceptable journalism.

What? No love for the Québecois...

Britain is doing fine compared to the USA.

A Smarter population who can smell bullshit a mile away.

Longer life expectancy.

Lower unemployment figures.

Lower Crime.

Dont get me wrong massive immigration in the last 18 years has done some serious damage to our schools / hospital services / and local services in general and the working class population has suffered because of this.

But looks good at the moment that they current governed will fix this.

And dont get me started with Youtube videos :) i can show you probably a hundred American ones that would make you so embarrassed you wouldn't leave your house for a year =).

Anyway i love Americans and America , well i have to my wifes one.

God bless ya
Marcus

However, the claim the UK is doing better than the US remains to be proved a thousand times over.

Your immigration challenges of, as you say the past 18 years, are a grain of sand contrasted to the successful growing pains immigration experience of the United States over the past 400 years. Most immigrants to the US eagerly and voluntarily chose to leave your land and Europe especially to find a more egalitarian life in the New World of North America. The significant exception is the criminal blight of African slaves which finally is beginning a long striven for significant healing.

You folk in Britain have done well in your only very recent immigration matters given the fact that the British Isles haven't had any significant immigration experience since the Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived in your fair place 1500 years ago (discounting the Normans beginning in 1066, of whom Jack Straw famously said, "England is an old country, it was founded in 1066 by the French!").

Considering your acutely limited experience in immigration issues, you have adapted reasonably well to recent developments in this respect. Your colonial experience is extensive, your experience of being colonized by immigrants is rather new, so we here in the US of A are watching with interest.

The Brits have adapted throughout history and consequently have learned to be quick to respond to its ontology. Keep up the good work, bless ya mate.

You know, I will always have a respect for the UK. But it irks me to no end when people from small European countries attempt to compare their stats to ours. If you want to compare stats, then Maybe choose one of our many states. Simply comparing our country of 300,000,00 people to yours and claiming your is better based on statistics is the height of arrogance/ignorance. The USA is BY FAR the most difficult country to govern in the world, we have the most diverse population on the planet in both cultural and socio-economic terms. Trying to peg us as even being on a comparable level to a single euro-zone country is beyond misguided. Yeah, great, the netherlands and the UK have great schools, and a large educated population...so does Massachusetts. We are dealing on a bigger level here. Not one European country has graduated to the big leagues yet of becoming a true modern day global power (not sure they would want to either...it sucks). So I will accept comparisons of the USA to China, Russia, Brazil (soon), and maybe an India or something...but thats about all Logic allows me to do.

The four states of the UK become states 51-54 of the US. The United States increase the number of Senators to 108, and increase the number of representatives in the House proportionally by the UK's population, after overturning US Public Law 62-5. The US amends its constitution to include the British monarchy as our ceremonial head of state.

Possible ideas for the new country's name:

The United Kingdom of the United States
The Democratic Kingdom of the United States
The United States of America and the British Isles
The United States of the World

Manifest Destiny 2.0

awesome. that would be awesome. Honestly, that is the answer to alot of our problems though. Economic stability, military power, environmental protection, better education. Countries should join into one...like a Pangea type of nationalism. make it happen sir.

guy who wrote "Raise the Titanic" wrote a book about this exact topic. The premise of the book was that, during the darkest days of the First World War, the UK and the US signed a Treaty whereby under certain circumstances, the US and Canada would unite to form one nation. Unfortunately, both copies of the Treaty disappeared and the whole thing was hushed up.

In the book a super spy attempts to find one of the lost copies of the Treaty, which, under the somewhat ridiculous premise of the novel, force Canada to become one country with the US. So, the American hero has to battle Canadian, British, and Soviet (this was the Cold War) spies to win the day. While laughable, the book certainly raises an interesting premise for any American, although, as in the book, it is likely that every other country in the world, including Canada and the UK, would adamantly oppose a US Anschuss of Canada.

I am afraid we Americans will have to wait until "Son of Meech Lake" raises its ugly Quebecois head for the rest of Canada to fall willingly into our grateful arms.

Simple minded nonsense. However, as such and you aside, it provokes some serious discussion by serious people. (We just can't take ourselves too too seriously haha.)

A sober consideration and one of the complexities of a union of Canada incorporating into the republican United States of North America is the political balance of the United States Senate. To give an idea of the complexities, in the present US the District of Columbia can't become a state because it's a guarantee that DC voters decidedly would elect two Democrats to the Senate - a Republican Party candidate wouldn't stand a chance of being elected United States Senator from the overwhelmingly black and Democratic Party District of Columbia. This would provide the Democratic Party in the US Senate with an assurance of two additional Senators while the Republican Party would get no additional counterbalancing Senators.

Consequently and accordingly, when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union of the States, in 1959, it was unmistakably known, understood and accepted that Alaska would elect two Republican Party Senators and Hawaii would elect two Democratic Party Senators, thus canceling any advantage to either major political party of the United States in the Senate. Since being admitted to the Union of the States Alaska and Hawaii have voted true to well known form. Moreover, the same has been the case in respect to elections to the House from each state.

So in considering Canada being incorporated into the republican Union of the United States of North America, a central political consideration of government power is what the new political composition of the new entity would be. What of the Congress not to mention the election of the president. There is the question of a multiparty system in the USNA that likely, but not necessarily, would supersede the present USA two party system. There are a lot of "Democratic Party" type of voters (and philosophically beyond) in eastern Canada, a lot of rightist voters between Toronto and Vancouver. There also is a lot of oil west of Toronto, a lot of social conscience east of Toronto.

Could/should the US Constitution continue with its present three branches of government system or would it better have a radical reform to a multiparty parliamentary system (absent monarchy OF COURSE)? Or keep the present separation of powers system and Constitution but adapt it to allow for a multiparty system within the present framework of the checks and balances of three separate branches, i.e., the executive, legislative, judiciary? (Did I mention there OF COURSE would not be a monarch, that a monarchy is ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT QUESTION UNTHINKABLE IN THE USNA? Did I mention the fact? If I overlooked it, let me make absolutely clear here and now, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY MONARCHY POSSIBLE IN THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA!)

Just for a moment and for the fun of it (nothing more I assure you HRH Sire CHUCK06), how would US Senators two each from England, Wales, Scotland and N Ireland align in a new United States Senate of the United Kingdom of the World (or whatever) you in your wild delusions would envisage? Which among the eight would be Democrats, which would be Republicans; which would be Torries, which would be Labour, which would be Lib Dems; which would be Canadian Liberals, Canadian (New) Conservatives, Canadian New Democrats, Bloc Quebecois; the Tea Party, the NHL Party or whatever? Seriously.

There are many complexities to be worked through to achieve a new republican United States of North America, and surely they can be resolved because they must inevitably be realized, but Senators from the United Kingdom of the United States of America and the World under H/HRM the monarch DEFINITELY IS NOT ONE OF THEM. Next thing we'll know is that you'll be laying the groundwork by trying to make Brad Bitt king of the USA and Angela Jolie queen. (My gay friends anyway tell me the US has too many queens already.)

CT Senator Prescott Bush, his son President George Herbert Walker Bush, his son George Dumbya Bush, Dumbya's brother the year 2000 governor of FL Jeb Bush who threw the election to Dumbya.

This might be mitigated by Barbara Bush, wife of G.H.W. Bush and mother of Jeb and George who the other day said of Sara Palin that Sara loves Alaska so Barb hopes Sara stays there, but the mitigation in this respect does not outweigh the dynasty of the Bush family in US politics and government and their oblivious behaviors towards their mindless destruction of the Constitution.

Fortunately the Constitution of the United States is far stronger than the force of any single dynastic family. None of the Bushes moreover know the suffering of the Kennedys which makes their contribution to the experience of United States of even less value.

My comment was meant, in part, to be a compliment to the Kennedy family.

The Kennedys navigate the political landscape with grace and good fashion, the way the Royals do. Are they entitled? Certainly. Are the Bushes also entitled? Yes.

A frequent visitor to Canada, I share your observation but I demur to the plea for them (even in jest) that the Canadians shy from supporting their British sovereign. The country has strong ties with the UK through royal associations, infrequent and informal visits not covered in the press by the royal family, loyalist associations, loyalist magazines, other publications, and loyalist genealogical associations. Then there are the annual Royal Order of Canada awards in recognitions of Canadian achievers, community leaders, and politicians, bestowing titles on them; the Royal Mounted Police; and assorted Royal organizations in every province, including anti-monarchist Quebec. Besides the Governor General symbolically representing the British Queen as Canada's ruler,( not its governor), each province has a Lieutenant Governor (Lieutenant pronounced "Left tenant"), thus localizing the country's monarchial ties.

Images of Queen Elizabeth mark postage stamps, coins and Canada's currency. Prayers for the health of the Queen open parliamentary invocations, and as protector of the Anglican Church faithful, she symbolized the idea of the British Monarchy hold on Canadians, extending to even the curious religious designations of its public schools as Protestant or Catholic, an historical religious accommodation to British Anglican Church influence.

Americans find the idea of placing our Constitution abroad in the care of a British Sovereign and a nation that does not have a written Constitution. But Canada does just that The Canadian constitutional values are "Freedom, Justice and Order," whereas our Declaration of Independence aims for the establishment of a country which aims for "Freedom Justice and Equality."Canadians, in stark contrast, are quite comfortable with a link to a symbol of inherited rank, power, and privilege----a social and political state that our Constitution abhors. We've gotten along with the British and Canadian royalists for so long because our polity has been rather racially and culturally monochromatic and anglo-centric.

But when President Obama tossed out the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House oval office, to replace it with ones of Abraham Lincoln and symbols of Martin Luther King, Jr., we saw the faint beginnings of a cultural trend that can only become more pronounced as the country's demographics intensify nationalist belief in American political exceptionalism.

Indeed, royalist Canadians don't speak openly with those of us from the US of the many proactive royalist aspects, occasions, culture and traditions of their royalist society culture and civilization as you present for all here to see. Canadians do indeed shy from it; keep it in the closet within the borders of the (Royal) Canadian Federation.

Indeed, I'd estimate that fewer than 1% of the people of the United States know of the royalist structures, systems, culture, occasions; strong tendencies of which you speak. Certainly fewer than one tenth of one percent of the global population know of the royalism that permeates Canada as you pretty comprehensively describe it.

Canadians for their own closeted reasons don't project these royalist roots and manifestations to others outside of Canada, to the people of republican United States especially. It's a remarkable modesty, perhaps reserve, on the part of Canadians to be sure.

Keep in mind that that which the UK parliament giveth to their Canadian subjects the UK parliament also can taketh away. To include ultimately and arbitrarily as with any sovereign royal master in a distant land.