Why not keep the Queen, just for tradition? After all, she's not suppressing anyone anymore, and she doesn't live in luxury at the expense of her people anymore. At least, the monarchy doesn't usually consume much more funding than a president. What is a president useful for anyway? In countries that also have a prime minister (or chancellor) this guy (or lady) is only good for nice speeches.
Somehow I think that abolishing a monarchy is like demolishing old buildings. People are sad about it afterwards, but there's no way back (only exception: Spain).
Our queen doesn't pay taxes, has a ridiculous amount of money and still receives more and more. If the queen orders goods from somewhere you're expected NOT to send a bill, that's not done. F that!
Presidents are useless too, but at least tHEy have to do something to become one!
Er...if she doesn't need to pay to "buy" things, why does she need a salary?
------------------ "I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three on the law become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!" --John Adams, "1776"
The queen mother here has apparently run up an overdraft of £4 million by spending ludicrous amounts of money maintaining palaces that she only lives in for about 3 weeks every year. I don't mind the monarchy, but they need to learn how to reduce their spending because the taxpayer won't be happy to pay for them to keep their lifestyles forever.
well...technically the point of having a constitutional monarchy is that the elected head of government is separate from the head of state.
This means that the head of state (monarch) is above all the name calling that goes on in election, caucus meetings, etc. But more importantly, if your elected head of government (read: Bill Clinton) makes an ass of him/herself, the head of state can still meet with important foreign people witout being laughed at.