Give it a rest -

unless of course Flinty is saying by inference that once the Monarchy becomes a liabiltiy we throw it out. But I suspect that is far from Davids mind.

And the Editors flatter this piece by tagging it as Political Philosphy - as with most of Davids dcribblings it more akin to Monarchical Sycophanthy than anything else - when all else fails tell us she's a good little earner.

I'm not too sure how this percption of profitability was derived but I am fairly sure if we took away all we pay each time some royal comes swanning over here - and Canada and elseewhere from the alleged profits - the argument might weaken - we then could also consider assesing the profitabiltiy of the properties - now claimed by the Queen - if they were in the hands of other private citizens - and see how those numbers stack up.

A money maker or not as nice as the old girl is, she should no longer have a place at our political table.

Disneyland makes a profit from tourism too but I don't think that Mickey Mouse should be made King of America.

(But then again....)

... I thought mickey was president...

Before I continue, I'd just point out that I'm in favour of a republic for Australia, though I voted against the miserable excuse that was presented to us last time.
(It kind of annoys me when monarchists pretend that the people have spoken, when in actual fact it was scuttled, but never mind that for now).

That being said, I think it would be foolish for the Britons to discard their Queen.
Like it or nor, the Royal family is a living example of their history.
Whether or not it makes a profit I don't know (I suspect this huge profit is largely due to property the royal family owns due to their royalty... therefore that argument is somewhat spurious) but it certainly does bring in the tourist dollar, and lets face it, what else has Britain really got to offer by way of tourism? Bad weather and stonehenge?

Abolishing the royal family would be foolish, and would ignore the many britons who do adore them, and value their signicance of the monarchy in British culture and history.

Let the British keep their Queen I say, but let her be THEIR queen.

And the point of Flinty's latest excursion into wishful thinking is what exactly?

I don't see any relevance for the Australian constitution - in fact every time the royals visit us, we, the Aussie taxpayer foot the bill - something Flinty omits.

He also omits that his claims of profit aren't entirely accurate.

See Guardian article on the cost of the royals at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1808472,00.html

"Buckingham Palace dug deep into its reserves of hubris yesterday to come up with a topical World Cup analogy for the Queen's cost to the nation.

In previous years, Alan Reid, the keeper of the privy purse, has compared the 80-year-old monarch to the price of a loaf of bread and two pints of milk. This time, issuing the Royal Public Finances annual report, he claimed that the purely notional annual cost of Her Majesty to her subjects was 62p a head, or a minute's worth of attendance at Saturday's England versus Portugal match.

Buckingham Palace dug deep into its reserves of hubris yesterday to come up with a topical World Cup analogy for the Queen's cost to the nation.

The bizarre comparison was made as the palace sought to gloss over the fact that the head of state's expenditure rose by 4.2% last year - nearly twice the rate of inflation - from £35.9m to £37.4m. Mr Reid insisted that the cost represented a decrease in real terms over the past five years and a 60% reduction since the royal finances came under greater scrutiny and audit in the early 1990s.........

......The Queen's accountant said: "The chief aim is not to achieve a low-cost monarchy but a high-quality, very efficient, very professional, value for money monarchy. We are spending taxpayers' money."

"Political Philisophy?" Pull the other one, OLO.

Dear post writers, David Flint is joking with this one. He will get a great tickle out of seeing that some take his piece seriously.
How can money taken from Brits, raised within Britain, then some given back to the government, be a profit? It is extraordinary that OnlineOp chose to let it be published under anything than cartoon, or humour.

So the monarch hands back the income from property stolen from the people many centuries ago to er... the people via the state and that is a bargain?

Yeah right, and this guy was a leader of sorts. Figures.

Go here for the truth... http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon11.html