To the Guillotine.

Nah actually I support the idea of a monarchy, although I do agree they don't belong in a democracy.

Are the Australians paying taxes for british queen or only the Brits pay for queen, her family, her court and her palaces?

Dont you think that in the future United Europe (if there ever will be somthing like that, i think the chance that all the members will accept current project of constitutional treaty is very low) all the titles should be abolished? That those kings and queens should live for their monay (they wont be even forced to work because collected enough capital even for future generations) and that they should be treated in the same way as any other european citisen?

In my opinion monarchy is nothing more but relic of feudalism and in our times it is just an anachronism. Maybe im biased because im coming from the country where most of kings were elective and didnt enjoy much respect from their subjects (who were even refusing to call themselves subjcets and prefered word "citisen") but i dont think im so far from the viev's of majority of Europeans.

Is there anyone who belive that is worse than for example king of Spain or queen of England or Holland because he is not noble born? Is there such who think that some people should be more privilaged than others only because were born in the so called royal famillies? Or even that whole society should pay for them because they are so cool bastards or legitimate children of Lady D?

Most British Prime Ministers are very pro keeping the Queen. This is because at the moment when Tony Blair visits Holland he has to meet the Dutch PM but not the Dutch queen, that's our queens job. However when the French President vists the UK he must visit both Tony Blair and the Queen spending a few booring hour in Buck Palace sipping tea and discussing the weather.

So keeping the Queen is a good thing, if only for the fact it will annoy the French and Americans.

Former Labour leader Neil Kinnock came up with a perfect solution. A National Queen Lotrtery. We boot out Frau Windsor, Zorba, Charlie and co and each week put the name of all old age pensioners in the country into a barrel and draw out one name. That person becomes king or queen for a week!

I would prefer anything over monarchy, communism, a dictator, anarchy, the system nomatter how balanced of  someone being fit to rule based on their bloodline may be natural for many people but its sooooo stupid and nepotistic, and your garunteed to get many incapable rulers for each good one.

  Here´s some ideas about what to do with the monarchy:

Styrbiorn is true a dictator is a monarch, so the opposite would be an anarch........actually that's a very interesting word lets see what it means.....

An anarchy leader, WTF!??!

      what to do with them?  hmmm....sexually arouse them i think would be a great idea....better if done with a grin... ..

He,ha! Exactly. The two words contradict one another. An-Archy means exactly: an: without - Arche: leadeship, ruler

So Anarchy is a society without rulers (but ofcourse with principles and ethics). A little reading of Bakunin or Kropotkin will clarify things on the issue  (or even Malatesta)

Anarchy, Monarchy and Republic can exist together. In fact it is system which was practiced in Poland in the end of XVII and whole XVIII century. And the law in such system might be stronger than anything else, for example so called "golden freedom's" in Poland that time.

As for monarchy it can exist together with democracy, just like in United Kingdom. The main rule in democracy is equality in the face of law. Monarchy doesnt violate this rule because monarch and his/her familly are not citisens who have better rights than other citisens but they are rather some kind of institution (for sure monarch, its harder to say it about his familly).