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)