not sure if you have remembered the territories of the United States.
This is classic whataboutism.
The topic of discussion is not the United States, it is the so-called royal family of the United Kingdom.
I could counter by asserting Russia is imperialist, but that too would be off topic.
By asserting others are imperialist you're tacitly admitting the UK is imperialist, so you're only weakening your point.
What bugs many is when the fact that the US became an 'imperial power' at the end of the 19th Century, is somehow not applicable in any discussion on the effects of imperialism, the status of occupants of some of the US overseas possessions, the ones with no power to vote in a Federal Election for example, sound remarkably similar to how it is for those in say the British Commonwealth.
Not just grabbing the remnants of the Spanish Empire but also not backward in getting in there as European nations put down in effect colonies in China.
Can you say, hand on heart, that if a US overseas territory, in particular one with strategic significance, wanted to be fully independent it would be a non issue, no action would be taken?
Because it is with members of the Commonwealth, in fact it's had recent voluntary additions in the past few decades, from a former Francophone/Belgium and Portuguese ex colony.
Bizarre but true. I don't get that either, still their choice to join and others to leave.
The Royals and Commonwealth was the source of the row that was leaked in 1986 between the Queen and then government of Thatcher, the Queen was apparently all for tightening sanctions on the racist regime in South Africa, in part to prevent an ugly split along the lines of race, (the UK was the first to embargo arms, 15 years before the UN got around to making it worldwide - which Israel broke), Thatcher not at all on further economic sanctions. She said such a thing would affect the poorest the most, not that their own people said that, they wanted the sanctions. Thatcher's husband a former director of an oil company with business interests there on the other hand.....
Apparently, the PM was shocked to see the Queen at Commonwealth meetings (which the PM hated), getting on very well with various African leaders in particular Kenneth Kaunda on the dance floor. Well she'd known them for many years in most cases, often been there for the independence hand overs.
Despite being PM, Thatcher could never quite leave her provincial, parochial small mindedness behind.
What a contrast to 25 years before, when another Tory PM, had told the South African Parliament that for White minority rule in Africa, the game was up.
I use this slice of fairly recent history to disentangle this whole narrative of the Royal Family being the sole link with the Imperial past, not when they've had no executive power for centuries.
Which also of course kills the idea that having even now a mere constitutional monarchy is always linked to imperial pasts, when the US has done imperialism themselves, what was the counter insurgency campaign the US fought in the Philippines in the early 20th century about?
The US Marines into Haiti not long after and there for many years? I won't link an infamous pic of a Haitian man lynched by them.