reasons why the Queen is good for the UK

True, but Washington... politely declined.
In any case, general representation is pretty hard under a monarchy or related power structure.

Either way, the original point of my post, factual information disputed or not, is that the US doesn't need and arguably has no interest in establishing a monarchy.

Britain has a monarchy and representation, and has since the beginning of the Victorian era. Canadians and their other colonies eventually formed their own parliaments and still are subjects to the crown. Also, the fact that Washington declined only means that he didn't want a monarchy, not other Americans.

Either way, the original point of my post, factual information disputed or not, is that the US doesn't need and arguably has no interest in establishing a monarchy.[/quote]

I'm not saying they do, I'm debating the cause of the revolution.

The Articles of Confederation was an abomination and a disgrace.

Not very relevant but ok...

Well you seemed to be basing stuff off of the articles of confederation, which was just a complete disaster.

Representation that had never seen a speck of American dirt.

Either way, the Articles were set up in the manner to prevent a monarchy-like structure. I am very confident that shows that the people didn't really want such a system. And while some of the army wanted Washington to take the helm, I would have to see proof that the majority wanted it to assert the claim that the general population was fine with the idea. A small group of monarchal dissenters doesn't mean that everyone wanted it.

I was just pointing out that opposition to monarchy and related structures was part of representation and thus part of the revolution.

Either way, the point of my post stands: the general US population doesn't want or need a monarchy.

I am, and they were, but the Articles were the mindset of the US population during and immediately following the revolution, so I was using them as the "pure" idealism behind the revolution

I understand where you're coming from, but I would still say that an American monarchy would have representation in the form of a parliament or like minded institution. Also, the only reason a monarchy is beneficial to the UK, no matter how small that is, is because the royal family owns large tracts of land, while an American monarch probably wouldn't.

Oh, okay.

I donno.
You pointed out that, if they wanted a monarchy, Washington was the canidate for the position.
Washington WAS a landowner and a land surveyor to boot.
Keep in mind also that many of the representatives of the states were landowners as well.

I was referring to a more modern monarch but yeah, you're right, most of the southern representatives to Congress were land owners. I don't think the northern representatives were, at least not as much.

True, and Washington was a Southerner, though quite a few of the northerners were landowners.