reasons why the Queen is good for the UK

I don´t think there is a big deal about the abolishement of the constitutional monarchies, with the consequence of the formation of a republic. Republics are more democratic in theory, but still, as long as democracy is respected and the kings or queen have almost no power, I don´t give a dam. There is always more important issues then that.

I think, as a libertarian, the state shouldn´t be spending money to pay to the royal family and having a royal family is against equality before the law. So, I believe there should be changes, like ending with the royal protocol, stop spending money on them and let the Royal family work (in whatever they want to work), so that they can take care of themselfs, like any other citizen (while the king or queen have the job of Head of State, but with only very limited powers). But abolishing the monarchy could get a certain number of people angry. That is what I propose

I personally think the royal family should stay. How many examples can you name that are a living embodiment of over 400 years of history?

They have them,but they are selected in about every 4th year and they live in the white house.

The place where the Royal Family was beheaded could attract a lot of tourists too.

(lol?)

fixed.

That was just pretentious.

Yes, bceause coerccion has everything to do with liberty.

No, of course not.

The revolution was fought because the colonials were being taxed without having a say in the matter, not because there was a royal family.

And they set up the government that they won to do what?

Not have the ability to tax.

They specifically limited the powers of the president for what reason?

They believed in no taxation without representation. Not no taxation.

The Articles of Confederation did not have an executive branch, so there was no president.

The Articles of Confederation did not allow the Federal government to tax, although I suppose I was a bit unclear. The states could tax, but not the actual government that was formed out of the revolution.

The Constitution was written by much the same people and it DID have a president.
But that is besides the point.
The lack of an executive branch in the Articles of Confederation in fact punctuates my point even better than the limitations placed on the powers of the Presdient in the Constitution.

Perhaps I'm misreading your point, but to me it seems that you're saying that the revolution was fought primarily as an anti-monarchist revolution, when it was actually much more about taxation and representation.

I didn't mean primarily, but being out from under a single, overarching rule, I can easily put under the banner of representation.

Observe also that the men in charge of molding the new government were very much concerned about the rise of a single, all-powerful leader.

When I think of a royal family, I think more of an aristocracy as a whole, not an absolute monarch.

Neither were particularly appealling for the people of the US, no?

It was more about representation, not monarchy or aristocracy. The army offered to overthrow the republic and make Washington king, so it must not have been to near and dear to their hearts.