I will begin my comment by saying that Prince Charles should never be King, he has brought a great deal of shame to the Monarch as well as to the British people. With that said there is no reason what so ever to destroy a working system. Monarchs have through the ages proven to be not only great political systems but the best political system. How they are put into place and carried out can be debated but that they are effective cannot. Now before I go on let me answer the obvious objection "what about bad monarchs?". Well what about them? Does a mother who neglects her children prove that the institution of motherhood is unsound? or that a drunken father is a mark against fathers? NO! So to you who say what about the bad I reply "What about the good who out number the bad?". But let me not digress any further.

The Monarchy is a vital part of British life and order, and should be resorted to a more prominent place. The Monarchy is a pillar of strength and fortitude of the British people. Do we really want to mimic the French? things seem to be going quite well for them. I would love to ramble on for pages about the good of the Monarchy but anyone who spends 15 minutes learning about the Monarchy will discover its beauty and worthiness.

God save the Queen.

"It's quite interesting to see that there are quite a few successful monarchies in Europe, all of them in prosperous democratic countries"

"The parliamentary system is mostly European and takes a deep democratic society to thrive. I live in a country that was a republic since 1910 (Portugal) and, in that whole century, it was a democracy during only 40 years"

Here are two reasons to have a monarch. And dont tell me that having a monarchy doesnt have anything to do with being prosperous - of course it does. And dont tell me it has nothing to do with democracy either. Most of you atheist republicans hate democracy. Funny how Portugal has been a republic since 1910 (97 years) and only had democracy for 40 of them! That says it all.
Plus, the Queen is like a mother to most Englishmen. So mess with her at your peril you commie $#@!S!

Thanks C Arsenault - and sorry to hear about your song and breakdown. Have you considered re-launching the song? I once wrote some song lyrics and decided to try and sell them when finances were a bit desperate, so I wrote one that sounded suitable for Paul McCartney and sent it to his agent - I received a letter back saying, sorry but Paul only uses his own material. Shame! My lyrics were just as simplistic as his! Yes the pensions business is a political issue - but the point being - in England the political system is largely run by the aristocratic class, of whom the Royal Family is top dog - so it's all a bit insidious. You don't see aristocrats worrying about pensions (or MP's for that matter). They are quite happy being famous and deciding the laws for everybody else, whilst not needing to work or save. Your name and who you know are still the main route to success and Directorships in this country. Oh and when I was growing up in the RAF and our station had a royal visitor (the Queen), the grass was painted green in places if it wasn't up to scratch. On another occasion, Princess Margaret attended a 'dining-in night' - these events are male only (no wives allowed) - Princess Margaret only ever attended all male events and there was a rule that no one could eat or start a course until she did - they all went very hungry because she chain-smoked through most of the dinner, hardly eating anything and just taking the odd forkful of each course. Nothing has really changed for us plebs since the French got rid of Marie Antoinette. Basically, much as I would love to live in republic (was going to defect to France but it's about to be Sarkozyfied so not such a welcoming prospect - and anyway, I would just be an English person in France, still tied to the English state pension scheme, tax office, etc - not BORN in a republic and belonging). Anyway, as I was saying, much as I would love to live in a republic, England will not change - I can't see any way the whole aristocracy (including the Royal Family) will cease to exist, particularly when they have so much power to influence law-making. People in France have a confidence - they feel that they OWN their country - and they don't take any merde. We just take merde and put up with it - I would say we are pathetically apathetic but generally our positives outweight this negative aspect. Apologies for huge generalisations throughout but you get my drift.
Best wishes - Elaine - PS personally I don't consider myself a republican (or a monarchist), but a humanist - people are important.

I think this is an excellent topic to discuss. I think the "revolutionaries" should make it clear to the genocidists or uneducated mob (that may try to "help" with the revolution) that they only want to eliminate the monarchy and not the representative govt or the clan system or the other aspects of English society.

An illiterate royalty who only spoke Akkadian was one of the abuses of the French govt that was overthrown on Bastille Day in France, 1789.

There is only one person in Buckingham Palace who is semi-literate: Prince Charles can read the English phonetic alphabet. When he went to college, the books were big and it "took too long for him to transliterate the books to do the schoolwork." He was one of the dropouts of the 60s-era which hit Britain when they wanted to bring in socialized medicine.

The rest of them have to have translators into the "language of royalty" which is written in hieroglyphs.

I think it is important that a country's leader speak the language of the country in question and not have to have his words dubbed in, in photo shots by an English speaker.

Hello everybody :) just thought I would drop by to say how much I hate republic supporters, and according to the results of the "Greatest Briton" vote....looks like more people are loyal to Her Majesty then you all thought.So you can all have your sad little forums hahaha...because your rock bottom of society...and nobody cares!!!

Oh..And may I add...GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!

Your father had a breakdown? That is so sad. I had one too. It often happens when your expectations are too high, I guess. I wrote a hit song and never saw a penny. Very difficult to accept not being given credit for a job well done.
It means the pensions should be higher. It doesn't mean the Queen should go. And it doesn't make me a hypocrit either. I don't think you would like it if I called you that.

Your father had a breakdown? That is so sad. I had one too. It often happens when your expectations are too high, I guess. I wrote a hit song and never saw a penny. Very difficult to accept not being given credit for a job well done.
It means the pensions should be higher. It doesn't mean the Queen should go. And it doesn't make me a hypocrit either. I don't think you would like it if I called you that.

Your father had a breakdown? That is so sad. I had one too. It often happens when your expectations are too high, I guess. I wrote a hit song and never saw a penny. Very difficult to accept not being given credit for a job well done.
It means the pensions should be higher. It doesn't mean the Queen should go. And it doesn't make me a hypocrit either. I don't think you would like it if I called you that.

Your father had a breakdown? That is so sad. I had one too. It often happens when your expectations are too high, I guess. I wrote a hit song and never saw a penny. Very difficult to accept not being given credit for a job well done.
It means the pensions should be higher. It doesn't mean the Queen should go. And it doesn't make me a hypocrit either. I don't think you would like it if I called you that.

Dear True Englishman/Royalist - Thank you for that example of narrow-minded bigotism - of course we are all morons - even those of us who know our nation's history and are aware that the English Monarchy disappeared when we were invaded by William the Conquerer - ie the Normans, who were in fact Scandinavians who had settled in the North of France.

And those service people who fought for freedom in the second world war and were promised a state welfare system in old age, are the pensioners who are now on the streets demonstrating that they cannot afford to pay their council tax and that their pensions have not risen with inflation for many years - the current state pension is not enough for them to live on. These people now realise that they have been duped - their belief in loyalty and Monarchy was not repaid. Loyalty does not last when people are treated shoddily. Princess Diana would still be alive if she had been accorded the level of security she was entitled to before she was discarded.

As for a freedom hard-won, my Grandfather flew airships in the first world war - my Father was a pilot in the Royal Air Force - both were shafted - my grandfather died of worry, in debt - my Father had a nervous breakdown when he realised that his 48 years of service did not end up giving him the level of pension he had originally expected. Loyalty is taken but not repaid - we are manipulated into feelings of, not just deference, but loyalty to Queen and country, when actually, the country discards us when we are no longer useful - meanwhile the aristocrats sit back and milk the nation. This issue is not as simple as feelings of affection for a Monarch, but of the wider picture - the effects that a Monarchy and ruling aristocracy has on the freedom of a people. We do not own our country - we are serfs. It is not as simple as choosing between a Monarchy and a Republic - all the while there is an aristocracy there is not equality. Britain's history of Monarchy is good for our status as a world power, but not good for the people of the country who require a civilised, fair society - with equal chances in life. Not a society where the privileged look out for number one and believe that your place in life is destined by your birth. I am also willing to be hanged, drawn and quartered if it means showing that our traditions are those of breaking the freedom of others. William Wallace (Braveheart) was hanged drawn and quartered and became a martyr for Scotland - which, of course, went on to win its freedom for tyranny for a while - until we raped the country again by disempowering the native Scots and transporting them. This is why Scotland's landscape - beautiful as it is - is so empty - except for sheep, which were deemed to be a profitable agricultural use of the land for the UK government (and monarchy) in the 19th century. Less hypocrisy please.

The Monarchy is the UK, and the UK is Monarchy.

God Save the Queen, No Republic

We British probably appear to the rest of the world that we do not care one way or the other about our Monarchy.

This is just the British being British...we are taught from youth not to express strong opinions about anything, its a manners thing...remain inoffensive at all costs to everybody everyhwhere at all times.

Wheareas, if you try to take our Monarchy away, there would be a national outcry, we love them like our own families...they are what makes Britain 'Great'. I think other countries are jealous of our Monarchy.

Matthew said:Let the Windsors keep the money (after all, the USA allows all the m(b)illionaires who grew rich from government handouts of land and minerals and airwaves etc. to keep the fortunes they raised off the backs of the majority), but let's end their reign as constitutional parasites.

You are the only constitutional parasite I know, Matthew. The lack of deference to a nice monarch is a sign of the changing times, where the majority have big idiotic mouths, an education to express the opinions of a simplistic mind, absolutely no manners whatsoever, no respect for tradition or the customary common sense, a spoiled inappreciation for the freedom hard won by countrymen only a few generations ago: No wonder the end of the world is near for so many Jehovah's witnesses. As they say:"Reveillez-vous!"

I say the Queen should rule again.

Ajay said: That leaves the monarchy itself to do the sensible thing and quietly retire from the scene.
I said: The sensible thing for you to do is shut up because you aren't making any sense, maybe you should retire from making comments.
Anonymous, if you want a guillotine, I can find you one. You go first, just to make sure it works.

You look like an anachronism.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You morons should be hanged drawn and quartered for your traitorous ways.

Also re Royalist post - and would your sentiments be the same if the dear old lady popped her clogs and Charles inherited? Would you really toady to a man who doesn't even squeeze his own toothpaste on his toothbrush and cheated on his wife? Bless

Re Royalist post - give me a break - toadying is pathetic.

Ta very much Jim - at least there are two English people here who are not toeing the line of tradition, misplaced patriotism to inherited land, and who are not living in denial. And by the way, can anyone offer me a well-paid job - I am one of those educated, intelligent types who has fallen foul of our politics. Graduate of English Literature, excellent writer (except when on blogs and being colloquial), lots of brilliant ideas and determined, but left in the lurch and semi-homelessness causing problems, plus trapped in ridiculous bureaucracy of trying to claim benefits (I'd like to see the Royal Family trying to get a mortgage without an income, or living on £70 a week. Alternatively, a patron/funding would be rather lovely, so I can finish a book in the next 6 months. What's the point in being talented, witty and beautiful in a country where you are either too posh to be accepted - or not posh enough - hey ho.

Well if you didn't already know..The Queen costs each of her subjects 63p !!! is that to much to ask for the most important woman in the world??
All you stupid republic morons want us to end up with a system like the USA....What a joke that is!!! Get real....and be loyal to your Queen.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!!!!!!!!

The monarchy is blot on the democratic map of Great Britain. Although the Monarch has only limited powers as part of Parliament there is no justification for that post to be hereditary.

To make our country fully democratic the Head of State should be elected, we should have a "constitutional" president.

What Bill Emmott says is very true but nevertheless there is a need for a referendum to change this archaic part of our constitution.

Roll on full democracy in Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Abolish the monarchy - pension them off - being English is not about being duped while a handful of aristocracy do nothing and inherit the earth, being English is about having the freedom of our land (the majority of which is owned by a handful of aristocrats). Bill is right about our legacy of 'deference' (blinkered more like and manipulated). Our schools and institutions are still Victorian and the country is run by a bunch of misogynistic, bigoted bully-boys from public schools. Guillotine not allowed (or acceptable), the English people too down-trodden, subdued and apathetic to revolt ('I know my lot' attitude) - a French invasion is the only solution - and as that is unlikely, I hope and pray for an alien invasion (even less likely). Was about to defect to La Republique but unfortunately France, the last bastion of real humanity and civilisation, is about to be Sarkozyfied. To see what the monarchy (aristocracy) does for Britain, go to the City of Durham - half rich toffs, half starving unemployed.

The drunken Moses Story's is as sobering as the Drunken Noah story's!?

What's all this forelock-tugging bulldust? Is Canada a democracy? New Zealand? Australia? (Yup, yup and yup.)Would any of them be any more a democracy with a president as head of state? (Nup.)

The role of the Governor-General in Australia (and similarly in the other thirty or so countries of which the Queen is nominal head of state) is to represent Australia to all fellow-Australians and to the world and to be an impartial arbiter (an umpire) in constitutional/political crises. The only "power" a Governor-General has is to resign if s/he disagrees with the Prime Minister and government of the day, but this gives her/him considerable influence, as s/he is above politics.

Swap the parliamentary system of government, with a Governor-General who has reserve powers, for the "elected fixed-term dictatorship" of the U.S and similar presidential systems? You'd be a mug to do so!

Monte and Luke Magee have the right of it.

You Nut's do not know what you are talking about. Long Live the Queen.

Definitely

I am an immigrant/citizen of Canada. The Queen of England is the head of state of Canada. We have a national governor-general, a stand-in for the queen. Each of the ten provinces has its lieutenant-governor, who is a provincial stand-in for the queen. Queen Elizabeth's picture is on our currency. I am not a monarchist. I put up with all this; basically I try to ignore it.
Still, I see one major benefit to this foolishness. The queen and her stand-ins perform ceremonial functions on behalf of the people. They represent us in cultural causes and people-to-people events. We do not have to watch elected officials perform those duties and reap the applause for doing so.
Let politicians govern and take the consequesnces of their actions. Leave the ceremonial and cultural representation to heads of state.

The British Monarchy represents two things to many outsiders.

1. Colonial Exploitation - Not that I care, but if Britain ever wants to move away from the mistrust and negativity of their colonial mischiefs, they should sack their monarchy and institute a president. They could ease the pain for the current family by granting the presidency for the first 10 years and a purse for the first 25 years.

2. Class structure - It is rather sickening that in this day and age, the class structure and its "know your place in society" ramifications is entrenched, and this is perpetuated from the top by the monarchy. It is insulting to the human spirit that one (i.e. a Britisher) has bow and curtsy and show deference to people in power/class, if they are in those positions mainly due to their accidental birth and having nothing else (character and/or accomplishment) to command it. On the other hand, showing deference to an elected constitutional head is acceptable, since the people, in their infinite wisdom, put that person in that position, and can always rectify the next time around if they made a mistake. On a similar note, the House of Lords should be replaced with something more egalitarian.

Mike is totally correct. To queen or not to queen is not the question. Nations need a chief of state to represent the nation so that the chief of government can be seen for what he is: a mere political hack. We saw during the Vietnam war exactly what we see now with Iraq: an identification of the President with the nation, so that a criticism of the President and his failed policy is treated as an attack on the nation and therefore illegitimate. Watch question time on C-span and ask yourself: "Is there any way that Vietnam/Watergate Nixon or Iraq/Katrina Bush could survive having to answer real questions once per week?

However. the charge that the monarchy encourages class separations seems very telling. Look at how elitism and classsism do not exist in republican USA. Yeah, Right!

I am unclear if Emmott does not want to consider the Queen's role in tourism because he thinks it is unseemly or because he thinks you could attract tourism with an abolished monarchy. If the former, I can't disagree that constitutional issues should not be settled on the issue of money. In that case, I point to the need to separate cheif of state from chief of government, and anyone would agree that a traditional monarch has superior legitimacy to a created chief of state. If the latter, I would point out that his example of France ignores the historic glitter of the Sun King and the morbid appeal of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. I was struck in Scotland at the strong appeal of Mary Stuart. If she had just wasted away I doubt she would have the same appeal. If the English monarchy was abolished becasue of indifference, I doubt that it would hold the same attraction. It matters whether monarchy ends with a bang or a wimper.

1- The United Nations ranks countries as best to live in. Of the ones that usually make the top ten the majority are monarchies (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Spain, UK, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Canada) with a minority being republics (USA, Switzerland, France, Germany, Finland).
2- For the whole of the Queen's reign opinion polls have always shown at least 70% of the UK population to support her and the monarchy, even after Diana's death. Whereas the mighty Tony Blair in 1997 had only 40% of the vote and was seen as a landslide winner.
3- The Queen costs us about £50 million a year to fund when buildings and transport are included. This is similar to the cost of the Presidency of France and less than the Presidency of the USA. It is more than the monarchy of Sweden or the Presidency of Ireland but both are much smaller countries.
4- Each UK taxpayer paid £0.68 last year to fund the monarchy. This compares with £0.19 to fund the Commonwealth, £54 to fund the European Union and £3 to the United Nations. Therefore on a per capita basis the monarchy is peanuts.
5- When the Queen last visited South Korea she came a week after the then President Clinton of the USA. He drew a crowd of 50,000 Koreans. She drew a crowd of 250,000. Having such a well known Head of State is good for any PR offensive the UK happens to be running e.g. inviting the Olympic Commitee to tea at Buckingham Palace etc.
6- There are arguments against monarchy but 'anachronism' is a bad one. Law is old, family is old, literature is old. Does that make them bad?

Well I certainly do not want Chares and Camzilla as the next king and queen. the men who lomgs to be a tampon inside his misstresses nickers, is not fit to be a king. she was meant to be just that a mistress and not a wife. She is a bloody troolop, and he a egotistic pompos twit, who was too bsy running around England keeping Lady Kaga, Camilla P Balls, Janet Jenkins busy, instead of looking after his young wife, who needed a little time and tlc to adjust to a new life, as a princess, wife and mother.

An Englishman who says abolish the monarchy is not an Englishman.

Last year in august I was in london.I think one of the most impressing moments of my stay in london (of course next to its interesting museums)was the Buckingham Palace Gaurds parade .There were hundreds of tourists there.I think without Queen and royal family there wouldn't be any Buckingham palace neither parade.Well, you english men know how to save your lagacies.

The monarchy is a revenue generating cash cow and Bill Emmitt knows it. I think monarchy is useful because it irritates our political, academic and journalistic elites. That is as good a reason as any to keep it.

A refusal of comparison with continental monarchies sounds more like whig-imperial British exceptionalism than a convincing argument.

The idea that the British monarchy is "bloated" and too expensive is an exploded myth; various figures have been quoted here and elsewhere, and it's perfectly clear that a) the British monarchy costs the nation next to nothing, and b) any republican replacement would almost certainly cost more (e.g. the cost of the recent French presidential election alone came to more than 70p per capita).

The idea that the monarchy is tied to the House of Lords is a red herring, while the theory that the monarchy "maintains social distinctions" is simply an unproven and outdated assumption grounded in 19th century Liberal ideology - far more anachronistic than the institution of the monarchy itself.

I live in the west of Scotland, good ol' socialist part of the UK. Steel making, shipbuilding, heavy engineering were the traditional trades. We even had a communist councillor ! But with little pockets of affluence and conservative voting habits too. But decidedly not a royalist area.

One day, 1979 I think it was, The Queen arrived to open a new council office. Things were painted, flags were hung ... most of the menfolk said they couldn't care less whether she visited or not ...

But on the day of the visit itself the crowds were 10 deep lining the route just to get a glimpse of her. You've never heard such cheering in all your days. Apart from the local football team winning the Scottish Cup Final I've never seen so many local people of such diverse political opinions together at once and all cheering for the same thing.

Mr Emmott asserts that the Brits don't care ... yet they consistently turn out to see the Queen and sometimes in huge numbers too. Doesn't the evidence disprove Mr. Emmott's theories ?

Could Presidents Thatcher, Blair or Howard have united quite so many people ? I rather think not. They'd more likely be jeered than cheered. Because that's your alternative. Take your pick from that sorry bunch.

Does the Queen have a life of privilege ? Yeah sure. Like any other head of state. But has the Queen ever had a life of her own ? Maybe until the abdication crisis in the 1930's she did. But since then she's been serving her countries and has been public property. The institution is far from expensive, £0.70 per person per year ($1.40). What does that buy nowadays ? A loaf of bread ? It's hardly breaking the bank.

No-one can really justify a monarchy in the modern age. If we had to re-write the British & Commonwealth constitutions today a monarchy would be well down the list ... and us ordinary peeps don't need the former editor of The Economist magazine to tell us that. The whole system is an anachronism.

But Queen Elizabeth is genuinely liked for her hard work and the service she has given her countries over the last 50+ years. And the chances of getting a republic in any of her countries during her lifetime are absolutely zilch.

And to that extent this is nothing more than an academic debate. Re-visit this issue on her death. But give the Queen her due. She's done a really good job & you just can't take that away from her.

Comparisons of the British with other European monarchies fail in two key criteria. The continental monarchies are moderate in size/expenditure and are matched with fully functional parliaments. (The Swedes have even done away with male primogeniture: the eldest child inherits the throne whether male or female.) The real problems with the British monarchy -- why it seems to take so much and give so little -- are:

1) the institution of the monarchy is as bloated as when it was needed to represent Britain in the time of the Empire, in all four corners of the globe; it could be shrunk in size and effect quite easily.

2) the existence of the monarchy is tied to a further constitutional anachronism, specifically the House of Lords. While the upper house -- long since gutted of real power because of its unelected status -- has been subject of half-hearted reform under New Labour, it remains febrile. At the same time, the monarchy serves to maintain the social distinctions between nobles and commons and so denies Britons true social equality.

Also, it should be noted that the wealth of the Royal Family is a modern phenomenon. The agricultural depression following the end of the Napoleonic Wars led to the collapse of royal incomes, so that George IV or William IV (sorry, I forget which) negotiated an annual pension (the Civil List) in return for surrendering the royal estates. All of the Crown Lands (including all the parks in and around London) and other properties (e.g., the Crown Jewels) are therefore already state property. Victoria and her heirs rebuilt the monarch's private income.

Let the Windsors keep the money (after all, the USA allows all the m(b)illionaires who grew rich from government handouts of land and minerals and airwaves etc. to keep the fortunes they raised off the backs of the majority), but let's end their reign as constitutional parasites.

Intriguing. Most of this discussion appears to be from various parts of the increasingly disunited kingdom? Look, guys: Your royal family looks a great deal more like the rest of you (to those of us from other parts) than do your pols. One has the distinct sense that this is in part deliberately crafted; one has the equally distinct sense that it is not altogether without foundation in (very British Common Sense Theory) reality. You have a royal house, and it is actually rather industrious, taken altogether. Now, if only you could get your Church in order -- and all those lawyers who've been given life-peerages....

The British monarchy is like he Stately Homes of England which "We (we English) only keep them up for Americans to rent." It is now primarily a tourist attraction. But that,s no samll thing. Does anyone know how much money the plus royaliste que le roi (ou la reine) Americans bring in every year? Must be billions. So the Brits won't be abolishing the monarchy anytime soon. They can't afford to.

The British monarchy is such an anachronism--it is not even worth spending our time discussing about it. Those who want to hold onto such a relic of the past will find themselves ridiculed by more and more people.

I don't like the fact that the monarchy shores up what remains of a culture of deference in Britain (it certainly wasn't to the benefit of families like mine), but I'm wary of abolition. By accident or design Britain has ended up with an officially non-partisan head of state and with a potentially and historically healthy separation of the roles of head of state and chief of the executive.

Both French and American chief executives try to hide from criticism inside the role of head of state, wrapping themselves in a flag they hope is proof against attack, and the result is dire - si monumentum requiris, circumspice. Forcing the chief executive to face criticism is excellent for democratic accountability, sorely and disastrously lacking in the main presidential systems today when was the last time an American president was subjected to serious, public, un-stage-managed questioning by an informed group with their own independent powerbase (please don't say "the White House press lobby" - I'm trying to be serious)?

Blair has sought to become all-but-president (reducing his appearances in parliament, for instance, and having stage-managed press conferences instead) and Britain needs to work out how to shrink 10 Downing Street back down to size. That means that the existing constitutional arrangement certainly isn't perfect or able to withstand determined attempts to distort it. But, without any better ideas commanding assent, I'd prefer to try to repair the existing arrangement rather than throw it away as "not fit for purpose". The last few years have confirmed the utter recklessness of that kind of unthinking behavior.

To Angelo Martins -

An elected head of state isn't especially unusual in Europe, but as a model it has two drawbacks.

In the first place, as you point out, the legitimacy conferred by election can lead the head of state into conflict with the head of government (prime minister, chancellor, whatnot) or the legislature. The solution, as adopted by Portugal and most other European republics, is to ensure that the president is a powerless ceremonial figurehead. But in that case, why bother with an election? Monarchs are clearly better at ceremonial and symbolism, and moreover a longish reign will generate a more genuine identity between the sovereign-as-symbol-of-nation than the usual run of colorless ex-politicians who serve as surrogate monarchs in Europe's republics can ever hope to achieve.

The second drawback is simply practical - the only serious function (apart from some emergency constitutional powers by definition rarely used) for a ceremonial head of state is to provide a human face to the nation. I wouldn't recognise the president of Portugal, and I'll bet plenty of Portugese can't either. A forgettable figurehead is pointless.

Undoubtedly the duke of Braganza will never be king of Portugal, but there is every good argument for Europe's present monarchies to retain their monarchs. The counter-arguments are usually either lost in emotionally-driven romantic anachronism or purely specious.

Mr. Gardiner comment concerning Australia failed to point out why the debate about the way in which a President of Australia is selected is such a big deal. He makes it appear as if the problem could be solved if only the people would be allowed to elect a president rather than having one appointed by the parliament. The system of government would no doubt have to change from a parliamentary to a presidential form. A popularly elected president would not be content to be just a ceremonial one. After all, the offiice would have a popular mandate and would probably not wish to take the "advise" of the prime minister who is not elected by all the people. What you will have is a new competing power base. While it could be done but most are not aware of the implications and all that will be involved. If you want a popularly elected president, becoming a republic will prove to very difficult. Mr. Gardiner is wrong. It is a big issue, and a big headache.

It's quite interesting to see that there are quite a few successful monarchies in Europe, all of them in prosperous democratic countries.

The parliamentary system is mostly an European "oddity" (and Japan and a few highly successful ex-British colonies) and takes a deep democratic society to thrive. I live in a country that was a republic since 1910 (Portugal) and, in that whole century, it was a democracy during only 40 years.

We have a democratic republic since 1976 and, puzzling, the role of the directly elected president is becoming very much that of a monarch: mostly representative.

The practice of having an elected president quarreling with the prime minister and the parliament lead us to reduce the powers of the president. So, if you have a king and he is doing a good job, then why bother?

We lost our 800 years of monarchy and only a small minority of Portuguese people would like to have a king again (I not one of these...). So, we will have our monarch elected every 5 years.

Perhaps the British monarchy doesn't generate tourist revenues (although somehow I doubt that), but the royals do certainly generate revenues for somebody.

There was a time when you couldn't get out of a supermarket or drug store with seeing a Diana or a Charles or a Fergie or a Harry or a mum on a magazine rack.

The current Oscar winner for best actress won the award for portraying the queen, and movies, books, aticles, and TV specials on the life of Diana have been everywhere.

Articles on the current heirs and their paramours are always in vogue, and we've discussed here in the US the issue of sending one of the heirs into Iraq.

So I'm not sure how you reconcile the ubiquity of the British Monarchy in the world media with the alleged lack of interest in them as a tourist attraction.

And I don't understand how they could not be on the plus side of the revenues ledger for the UK when they are such a media staple and the object of such fascination, even if it's only in taxes generated from the media.

Examine the issue with your head and it is self evident that we have, in the last five centuries, neutered our Head of State.

Examine it with your heart and it is equally evident that our neutered Head of State has not lost one shred of privilege.

Privilege without status, power or responsibility. They gain something for noting. If I was cynical, I would say this was the very definition of 'parasite.'

But I am not cynical - not where the monarch is concerned. Politicians, yes. I do believe that they abuse their position far more than Brenda does. But as for Brenda herself, I think not. I think she gives us value for our national investment (not just money.)

I think that Brenda understands a fundamental something about our nation that politicians, with their amoral pursuit of meaning and status, just do not get.

Imagine America without whooping brainless athletes; imagine France without sneering philosophers; imagine Italy without short Casanovas seducing your wife; imagine Britain without a monarch showing us what we are.

Are there no guillotines?

Mr. Emmott is right: the British people may be quite indifferent to the fate or status of the monarchy and would probably consider a referendum on its future too much of a bother. That leaves the monarchy itself to do the sensible thing and quietly retire from the scene. But, alas, the royals are clearly incapable of embarrassment; they just go on playing the trasparently hollow role of the officially designated indolent family.

The reason something would need to take the place of the monarchy in that QE2 is the head of state. The Prime Minister is the head of government. All countries need to have a head of state. Simply passing it to the Prime Minister would be contrversial as would going for an elected President.

John Rennie is incorrect. Australians rejected only the form of republic offered by their federal politicians in the said referendum. The choice was to switch to a system where politicians choose a president as head of state. The wise Aussie voters rightly rejected this self-serving idea of the politicians -- because they want to directly elect presidents as head of state for themselves. In any future referendum offering this choice, the result would likely be very different.

Sorry to disappoint Bill Emmott and those who agree with him but it simply isn't true to say that most people (in Britain) don't care about the monarchy.
It is true that most people in the 'chattering classes' of the metropolitan media are anti-monarchy but in my experience most people in Britain actually do care - witness for example the huge numbers who turned out for the Queen Mother's funeral. British people have a strong sense of identity and history of which the monarchy is an important part. Monarchy is an anchor in an unstable and uncertain world.

I believe that I read recently that it costs each Briton 1 pound in taxes per year to maintain the monarchy. Obviously, J Andrews points out that that pound would be divided amongst several uses, some of which would not go away if the monarchy were to be abolished. Additionally, since there aren't as many taxpayers as there are Britons in total, the number is likely (and this is a guess, but you get the idea) about 1.50 pounds per taxpayer.

I'm not a Monarchist but then again I'm not a Republican. I believe in keeping the present system ticking over because change would represent a trauma that we can well do without. This is, I believe, what persuaded the Australians to vote for maintaining the Queen as their Head of State rather than going through the laborious and possibly bitter process of selecting a president. A republic just ain't worth the trouble.

The royal aristocrats are leechs on the society. Stop paying for their luxurious life style. Get rid of these *Royal* leechs.

But Bill..It's good for tourism.

AGB, you could try bringing a bit of history to your analysis; you'll find that it helps. I suggest starting with the "Domesday Book" and reading your way forward. Then it will be rather obvious where the Queen's money c0mes from.

'Anachronism from a past age of deference.....'
Yes, we do not defer to anyone or anything any more. Everyone has become their own moral universe and stands on inalienable rights that cannot, mind you, be based on eternal, divine principles because that would violate the separation of church of state. Oh, yes, this is so much better than before.........Now we have constituional checks and balances that protect the guilty more than the innocent and law abiding. What's my point? Seems to me we have more of a muddle in many respects now that we have 'grown' beyond the need for anachronisms. Perhaps I am just looking in all the wrong places or for the wrong people. Seems to me Mr. Emmett has nominated himself to figure it all out for us.

Are people in (Great?) Britain really indifferent about the monarchy, or just seemingly indifferent?...

Whence the compelling feeling that should it be abolished, something would need be put in its place?

Yes, the idea that tourism would suffer is a ridiculous myth. So is the idea that that the monarchy stands in the way of "proper constitutional checks and balances". If it is possible to argue that Versailles proves a monarchy is not necessary to induce tourists to visit a palace, it is equally possible to argue that Sweden proves a monarchy is no obstacle to constitutional reform. Any rational case for a British republic would need a better foundation that this.

However, isn't that very idea of constitutional reform an anachronism? The Blairite age is over, the reforms made for worse or better, and H.M. can hardly be said to have stood in their way. One must learn to check the habit of deference to the ingrained idea that constitutional reform is necessarily a Good Thing.

I could barely understand the above comment by J Andrews. It was so poorly written and inadequately described that after reading the whole thing, I still don't understand where the queen gets her money. It's sad to see that some people have such poor control of the English language that they can't even describe something as simple as this.

The finances of the Queen are quite transparent.

£37m was the cost for the ENTIRE Royal household last year.

The Civil List is £8m per year which is the only 'direct' cost of having the Royal Household.

£15m of the £37m was property maintenance which would remain without the Monarchy.

£8m was from the Queens own money The Privy Purse (anybody who argues that they shouldn't inherit wealth is welcome to exclude there own children in their will)

Travel was £6m which would be saved if there was no household.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4680.asp

However this does not reflect the true financials:

1) Royal parks, these are prime London real estate that should be owned by the Queen if fair payment was made.

2) Westminster etc, previous gifts or appropriation made without due consideration (or acceptance) to the owner would cost billions to repay.

3) "Royal" anything, payment for use of image on money, stamps, opening parliment etc would come to more than £8m p.a. which is currently gained from the civil list.

Looking at the family today I see them no different to the Rothschild's, Vanderbilt, or the future Blankfein's, Cohen's (Steve) and John Arnold's of the world.

At some point an inspired relative made good and the residual success is still in existence, may we all be so lucky.

Now if the Queen had real constitutional power, that would be a different tale.

I totally agree with Mr. Emmott. Monarchies have no place in today's societies. I grew up in Jordan where the government is modeled after the British government with the exception being now is having the king as the supreme actual leader of the country. Today, we should look at elected governments where no one is above the law and nobody has a special noble status. We should appreciate the French and to some extent the Turks for abandoning long history of Monarchies and Sultanates to replace them with modern justly elected governments.

In order to further the discussion, can anyone indicate roughly how many pounds sterling are spent per annum keeping the royalty going? In addition to its being an embarassing anachronism, the royalty is maintained, one imagines, at extraordinary opportunity cost.