From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!esquire!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!hogpc!houxq!bis Newsgroups: net.politics Title: Re: Monarchies today Article-I.D.: houxq.315 Posted: Tue Mar 8 20:35:07 1983 Received: Thu Mar 10 01:55:28 1983 References: sbcs.219 Without being sure, I am under the impression that, in the case of England: 1) The monarchy is "free" - the royal family assigns all its private revenues to the state and then lives on a state allowance, the latter costing the country less than the assigned income. 2) The monarchy generates more tourist dollars than are consumed by its maintenance. 3) The English just *love* the royal family and have no desire at all to do away with them. You could also make a fairly good case on behalf of the practical benefits of having the head of state embodied in a different individual than the head of the government. As one example: gifts of state made to the head of state are just that; they are not personal gifts made to the head of the government. In the United States it is possible that the President may interpret a diamond whatever given by the Wadis of Nifertu as a personal gift and take it away with him when he leaves office (declaring it on his income tax, of course). In reality, of course, the jewels belong to the country. Andrew Shaw ABIHO x4715 houxq!bis (possible) hocpc!ams (unlikely)