Mort aux rois!

Nah, she's a good sheila really.

David says "Nor is the Queen paid as head of the Commonwealth, nor as Queen of Australia"

Not true. The Governor General, and the State Governors as representatives of Betty Windsor are paid from the public purse.

The actual role of the monarch however, cannot be understated (whether this role be performed by Betty or an elected polly is a another story). This role is primarily as constitutional protector of the people from outrageous governments and parliaments. It is ironic that a monarch is the last ditch defence in democratic principles.

Didn't read the article. Don't need or want to. When Davo writes it's a certainty that the comments will be better informed, more realistic, more objective, more interesting and more coherent than the article.

Estimates of the Queen’s wealth, income and expenditure are fraught. The royal family is exempt from FOI and the Public Accounts Committee of the Commons and the National Audit Office are forbidden from looking at how the family spend the money from the Civil List.

The Queen is funded from four British sources - the Civil List (tax-free); the Privy Purse (taxable subject to deductions for official expenditure); Grants-in-Aid (tax-free); and ‘private’ income (partly taxable).

The Civil List is taxpayer money covering official expenses. About 70% of this pays the salaries of 307 staff working directly for the Queen. Prince Philip is paid £359,000 a year. The Civil List also pays for the Queen’s catering, hospitality, administration, housekeeping, furnishings and ceremonies.

Annuities of other members of the Royal Family who ‘work’ on the Queen’s behalf are provided from the Privy Purse. Revenue for these (£8.3m in 2004-05) comes from property holdings and investment notably the inherited Duchy of Lancaster. Prince Charles derives most of his taxable income from the hereditary Duchy of Cornwall. In the 2004-05 year this gave him £13m to supplement his income of £2.7m in taxes.

The several Royal Palaces are funded by taxpayer funded grants-in-aid, amounting to £20.2m last year. In addition, various government departments contributed £5.5m for the administration of the honours system, ceremonies and overseas visits. Prince Charles billed taxpayers £970,000 for travel last year. Prince Andrew spent only £560,000.

The royal family’s wealth depends what is regarded as held on behalf of the nation and what is private property. Who ‘owns’ Royal Palaces, the Royal Art Collection, Crown Jewels, the Queen’s financial and property investments? The Queen considers she ‘owns’ Balmoral and Sandringham and other properties but democrats claim it is the property of the people of Britain. The Windsors have no more right to it than John Howard has to Kirribilli or The Lodge.

Monarchists say the cost of the monarchy is £37 million annually but democrats estimate the real cost to be £88m when you count the £30m for security for the numerous family members and their residences.

I don't think the price matters... Dieu et son Droit.

The problem with republics is that they confuse a very simple fact... we are not a bunch of people who have come together to make decisions, we are a bunch of people forced into community by the chance of birth, and to that community we thus owe everything, for without it life would be nasty, brutish and short. The bonds that the chance of birth creates should not be broken, those of hearth and home, kith and kin. What's more, they bind us in duty to honour and respect those before, and act for those to come, because we are just temporary sustainers of a state which will outlast us. No system of government more clearly expresses this condition constitutional monarchy, whereby the people are delegated power by representatives of those bonds which we can't choose to sustain it.

If you wonder why Canada isn't a republic, despite being a more liberal nation than us, one need look no futher than that nation to their south. Republicanism creates tensions which monarchies do not have, because there is competition over the idea of what the state is, rather than an acknowledgement of the condition of our birth, and therein lies the most potent argument against republicanism, not a fiscal balance.

We are born into a society for which our ancestors have shed their blood and bent their backs to the oars of labour, and there is no greater way to honour them than to uphold the institutions of the society they built, whilst guarding them and strengthening them for the next generation. To not do so would be shameful.

Republicanism won't solve questions and issues of our past, future, and the place of groups within our nation. The USA, South Africa, and other republics has those selfsame problems to a greater degree than we do. This is nothing more than constitutional viagra.

Unlike Australia, all private land in Queen Elizabeth's primary country is owned by the Crown and house 'owners' are no more than legally warranted tenants for a specified time.

Moreover, a vast amount of land which is 'the monarch's personally' generates revenue on which Queen Elizabeth pays a sum as if by way of tax. Why this land is hers as opposed to the State's is clear only to those who choose to believe strange stories about what Norman Dukes did on their beach holidays.