To some of you here and certainly to some members of the general public it appears as if the queen serves no other pupose than that of a glorified tourist attraction.

that, on paper at least, she is the head of the judiciary, head of the armed forces, and head of the government. This means that if the government was corrupt or not acting in the best interest of the people, in theory at least, she has the power to refuse bills royal assent, defying, or even dismantling the government. The army also pledges allegiance to the queen rather than to the Prime minister or the government. This is intentional, being as it protects the army from being used by the government in an abusive manner. It is by large, symbolic, but in the unlikely event of an undemocratic government ever forming in this country these safeguards have been put in place; whether they would prove effect or not is yet to be tested. But the queen is only so well suited to these titles and able to act in such a way if necessary because she is both politically independent and neutral. It is also impossible for her to abuse these powers since she is un-elected, thus although she may have the ‘power’, she does not have the ‘authority’ to use them. Should the queen decide tomorrow to dissolve the government no-one would stand for it, so it would never happen, except maybe in the event of a dictatorship ever securing power, the government becoming very corrupt, or perhaps if the country was ever reduced to a state of anarchy, it may be deemed appropriate for someone other than the government to intervene if possible. As far as I was concerned this has never happened, although a friend of mine from Australia assures me that it did once over there, when the government became so corrupt the queen acted on the recommendations of her advisers and dismantled the government. So if you abolished the monarchy you would need to find someone who you could trust with such roles. The main argument against the queen is that she is un-elected, thus undemocratic. However, should you elect the head of state democratically, you risk losing these safeguards. A president that was directly elected (elected by the public) would wield a great deal of authority, so he/she would be far more likely than the queen to exercise their powers, as they would be democratically elected, and could claim they represented the public. This could give rise to conflict between the president and the government. Even if the Head of State weren’t directly elected, who would elect them? And more to the point, who would be elected? If the president was elected by parliament there’s no doubt they’d be politically involved and not neutral, and would be unlikely to hold the government as accountable. This is not to say these are issues that are insoluble, but could be viewed as unnecessary, time-consuming, constitutional upheaval in the face of a system that works fine as it is. Then there is the cost. The main reason the recent Australian referendum over the abolishment of the monarchy voted to keep the queen, was because after looking into the matter further, they realised that to change the system would not only cost millions to implement, but a presidency would cost a lot more to sustain than the monarchy, the US and French presidents are testimony to this. There is also the fact that the queen herself has made the monarchy more favourable to the taxpayer following criticisms over the royal family’s expenditure. She took most of her relatives off the civil list, now publishes her accounts and even pays income tax. Though the monarchy was estimated to be costing the British taxpayers a whopping £60 million a year in 1994, it seems this is still far less than a president. It is also claimed that the money the Royal family brings into the country through tourism, more than covers their fee. Despite this though, the fact remains that a small majority of people are still in favour of the monarchy, though there is little doubt their popularity is rapidly decreasing. In the early 1990s only around 5% of the public wished to see to monarchy abolished. In a 1994 TV poll this figure rose to 44%. Clearly there has been a definite shift in attitudes. However, it is worth bearing in mind, there was overwhelming public support for Diana (dubbed ‘The People’s Princess”/”The Queen of Hearts” by the media at the time). And with Prince William who is hailed very much as ‘his mother’s son’ set to become the next King, the monarchy’s popularity is likely to be on the increase once more. So for the moment at least, it seems as if the issue of the abolition of the monarchy will remain within the confines of heated debate, rather than parliamentary discussion.