Bob Hobden wrote:
[...]

True, you are not alone. However the alternative of a Monarch, a
President, fills me with dread not least because he/she would cost us
all much more (we would need a new Presidential Palace etc for a
start) and result in more short term ideas/policies as they are only
in a position of power and influence for say 5 years, not a lifetime
with little power. Would they have the ordinary average Englishman's
future it mind or might it just be their rich friends they worried
about so they had another job to go to afterwards. Indeed it can be
argued that our Monarchy cost us nothing if offset with the tourism
it brings in. A visit to Windsor or Buck House will prove that point.
Our Monarchy system is also envied by many in this world, unlike our
newspapers.
Whilst on that point, if , like me, you refuse to buy/read a British
(who owns them?) Newspaper you get a completely different view of a
lot of topics and Charlie is just one.

I'm actually cautiously (I say again, /cautiously/) republican,
especially for my native Australia. It needn't cost any more, and there
should be absolutely no question of giving a president any political
power: it works very well for Ireland.

Nevertheless, what I always say to American friends who don't understand
the monarchy is "We have a hereditary president, while you have an
elected king." Back in 1858, Walter Bagehot was pointing out that one of
the functions of the British monarchy was to disguise from the public
that they lived in a republic; it was characteristically amusing, but he
wasn't joking.

--
Mike.