I was thinking more about the relative merits of monarchies and republics and it seems to me that there is some force in the argument that monarchies, set within a democracy, have a great deal going for them: the nation is just about guaranteed a leader who will be well educated and who knows how to behave in an international setting. They might not always be the brightest or the most morally upright but monarchs are bound to a duty to which they are born; whereas every President has clawed his way to the top in the thirst for power and prestige. I know which I prefer. Moreover, having a monarchy means that the UK will never end up with some ghastly screwball as a head of state: President Mandelson or First Lady "Our Cherry" Blair.