Hello all,

I've read through this thread and to answer the question posed I would say that no, the existance of a monarch or not, would not make any difference to me visiting Great Britain if I were an American, the common links between the two countries are as long as they are durable.

To Fionn, on this and other threads, the impression I get is that no matter the question or topic of discussion - the only thing you seem capable of, or are interested in, is "Brit Bashing". In content, your input is consistantly destructive and subjective. I am extremely pleased that I do not share your "doom and gloom", vindictive, spiteful and bitter out-look on life. For once I would love to read something from you that is 1) Relevant; 2) Constructive, and 3) Objective.

There also seems to me to be some misconception as to what the Royal Family actually own and how they acquired it. As far as I know Sandringham is the Queen's home and possibly Balmoral. I say possibly about Balmoral because I think the Queen gifted that to the nation but I'm not sure. When George the First became King of England, the family were far from wealthy, as Elector of Hanover he arrived in England to provide the nation with a stable and acceptable head of state as a constitutional monarch (He wasn't all that acceptable to the deposed Stuarts, but then that was natural as they'd just recently been sacked). Queen Victoria married one Albert Saxe-Coburg who, although extremely capable, was not really permitted by the establishment of the day to do very much. He turned his attention to looking after his family. To this task he brought considerable energy, skill and a great deal of common sense. He bought Sandringham and developed it from a run down country estate into an enterprise that thrived, he did the same with Balmoral. It wasn't given to him, he didn't steal it, he worked at it.

The money voted for the Civil List by Parliament to cover the expenses of being Head of State would not alter a jot if the monarchy were abolished - it would go to someone else - and should the new head of state be elected by the people of the United Kingdom today we would probably end up with "Posh & Becks". I know which I'd prefer to represent the nation - the present "Royal Family" wins hands down.

Looking from the outside the differences between America and the United Kingdom with respect to heads of state and government I note the following.

America : Head of State is the President who is elected (max duration, two terms of four years). Once elected he puts in place his/her administration - who can come from anywhere (i.e. not elected, but some posts/all posts have to be agreed by the Senate/House of Representatives?) The President may be Democratic, Republican or Independent (although I cannot ever recall there ever having been an Independent President in office). The President and his administration then govern the country with the Senate and House of Representatives providing the checks and balances. The President obviously has an easier time if he is Republican and the Republican Party has the majority of seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and he holds the nuclear trigger.

United Kingdom : Head of State is the reigning Monarch, it is a life time job from point of succession and has extremely limited powers and is strictly non-political. The government of the United Kingdom is formed by the political party that wins a free and democratic election. The head of government is the Prime Minister who is elected by his political party the Monarch has no say in the matter. The United Kingdom's head of state fulfils no military role other than on ceremonial occasions and has no say on whether the armed forces are committed to armed conflict, or not (Note during the Falklands War the present Queen's son was a serving as a helicopter pilot in the Royal Navy - she no doubt, could have pulled a few strings to remove him from danger, which would have been quite natural for a mother to do, but she did not). Under the British system checks and balances to the government of the day are provided by the opposition in the House of Commons and by the House of Lords.

Conclusion : The American head of state is a powerfull political office with fearsome responsibilitïes. It is politically motivated through the system of party politics in the United States of America. If that Party or that President gets it wrong the potential for major disaster exists. The United Kingdom's head of state provides impartial continuity without interference with the elected representatives of the people. I would say the system in the UK is more directly hands on and a bit nearer to the electorate - my opinion only so not worth a damn.

The United Kingdom has a long and significant history, our monarchy is a link with that history, some may say relic and they are fully entitled to hold that opinion. I believe that they perform their required duties and many others well. Of the Royal family I have met, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Queen Mother, Prince Charles and Princess Anne. Speaking from personal experience, and I generally take people as I find them, I find no difficulty at all in being a "subject" as opposed to being a "citizen" - it wouldn't one one whit of difference to my life if that status were to change tomorrow. I would hate to see the monarchy abolished, but again that is only my opinion.