Someone calls me 'a royalist above. To clarify, I am not doctrinairely so: rather a 'let·it·be·for·fear·of·something·worse'-ist, a 'don't·fix·if·not·bust'-ist. And it isn't bust. The present incumbent sets a fine dignified example imo; and after years of perhaps too laid-back a refusal to commit publicly to much, recently in Olympic Opening revealed a hitherto much unexpected aspect of personality. As for setting examples, as urged by Owen ~ George IV? Edward VII? Come now. Re expense: do presidency-upkeeps not cost the public purse as much as any monarchy? Are presidents immune from immoralities & sex scandals ~~ like Clinton & that present Eyetie incumbent? Oh, come on again. There have been some dire members of our royalty, to be sure, like our present Gracious Lady's horrible late sister Margaret, snobbish & vain, whose best friends were required to call her Ma'am at all times (I often wonder whether Armstrong-Jones, Earl Snowdon, had to say "Knees a little more raised, if it so graciously please you Ma'am" while begetting Lord Lynley); but they are mostly much better than her.

As to Young Harry: agree with Eliza that a little more thought, even when not at work, to expectations and appearances would not hurt ~~ he is 27, not 17. But, as my late mother-in-law used to say, "It is hardly a hanging matter", surely? Lighten up for crying out loud, some of you.

~M~