About the royals though -
UK has a monarchy, tradition and all that, and it is no lie to say that they generate an immeasurable amount of tourist income and more importantly - diplomacy.
The republicans like to say the tourists would still come - many would. They like to say the monarchy costs money - well like a presidency would be free
Something they don't say - and in all fairness they probably don't realise - is that removing the monarchy would be one of the most mammoth tasks the country could ever want to achieve. This is simply because every law, every constitution, every facet of government is tied in to this monarchy. It would need the whole countries structure to be re-written, and it's been said it would be a lot easier for Scottish independence than for removal of the monarch (maybe one reason the Scots nationalists don't want rid of her).
It could of course be done, but who would pay for it? It would be unnecessary - as no-one in their right mind doubts the real top-dog is the current prime minister. The queen does not reign over us, she is an impartial head of state, above politics and keeps well out (her son by all accounts does stick his nose in a lot).
Deep down, I think the idea of a non-elected head of state is a little bit - wrong - but in this case, it works, very well, as I said before, her influence as an ambassador for the country is something money can not buy, and really - would all those people be waving flags for president Cameron? The only thing I would be waving at him would be a pitchfork and flaming torch!
