Ed, It seems to me we have two choices for a head of state. There is the republican model where a washed out politician who has been on the public gravy train pretty much all of his adult life, is appointed by other politicians who look forward to similar treatment when they are dismissed. Or we have a hereditary monarch who is rarely seen, who lives on the other side of the world, and who is paid for by another country. Given that the titular “head of state” performs no useful function at all, a simple cost benefit analysis suggest the Monarchy is by far the better option. Ian Saunders, Maclean