I'd prefer an elected head of state.

please, but none of the proffered choices.

With my British passport, no one can stop me.

Elected, please. Just 'none of the above'.

I'll start the keep The Royals campaign going. As you were, as it were.

*sharpens pitchfork, lights torch, marches on Buckingham palace*

I'll abstain.

If the election for head of state wasn't run on party political lines then I might put in a vote for Clarkson :-)

1 - A republic and dissolution of the UK
2 - a written constitution/bill of rights

It's about time this country entered the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

A President along the lines of the Republic of Ireland who had the admirable Mary Robinson. Now they have Mary McAleese who I believe was born in Belfast. I'm sure she wouldn't view it like this but just so I can illustrate the point that she can become Head of State of a foreign country but not the one she was born in.

...the Massive is particularly representative of the population at large, mind.

Sorry, let me rephrase: I'm dead certain that the Massive is completely unrepresentative, in almost every way, of the population at large. :-D

puts me in the status quo camp.
My 21-year-old self would have me guillotined though.

have already been expressed elsewhere.

Current system works leave well alone.

keeping things as they are. It's not perfect but works well enough.

King Charles III can't.

*forms angry mob*

an Elected Head of State I'd prefer an Erected Shed Of State: a complete mess inside but at least once I've closed the door I'm King of all I survey.

that Baldrick tracked down, the one with a better claim to the throne than all these Germans? Ice cold beers on the NHS, public barbies where MacDonalds used to be, by Royal Proclamation? Bonzer.

How much will it cost to hold an election and pay this head of state every, say, 5 years in comparison to how much it costs to keep the queen in Corgis and kebabs?

Also, how much will it cost to change the currency etc. (when I was in Australia this was suggested to me that the expense of change was a key reason why some would vote for keeping her).

And: what would this head of state actually do? Do they basically go around opening hospitals and making speeches on chirstmas day? If so, is there any point in electing someone to do this?

I think I'm currently in favour of keeping what we've got, but I'm not feeling deeply attached to this position. Come waft this floating voter.

- a head of state doesn't need to have much power to act as a brake or counterweight to prime ministers. Germany/Italy are examples of this approach. Her Maj the Q is unusual in the full length of the monarchy's history in not being mad or noticeably corrupt or unable to speak English. If she were less tactful about the enormous albeit theoretical power she has, and were more like some of her Hanoverian or Stuart ancestors (never mind the Middle Ages crowd) I doubt there would be the same fuzzy warm glow towards her. Those limited freedoms we do have aren't enshrined in any statute, they are judge made and down to 'habit'.

I'd like to suggest a joint presidency to add 'checks and balances' - and I put forward the Troggs as my preferred candidates. Just so we can hear all their discussions under the FOI act.

Elected Head of State for me please.

Depends what the Elected HoS does - actual power or ceremonial? Party affiliated or independent.

Because based on what I've seen, I wouldn't want a direct election for a HoS. The political atmosphere over here is vitriolic, and the Government shuts down on a regular cycle just for elections.

I don't endorse the Royals, but I don't have a huge problem with them. I can't think of anyone who I would have as an elected HoS.

for me.

can they be trusted to vote for an Elected Head of State? That's my worry.

When I were a very young lad, the Monarchy, the Queen and the whole circus was taken worryingly seriously. Perched on your grandmothers mantlepiece alongside that funny looking carving of Jesus, you had the impression that it was about some kind of real hereditary power. Their detachment carefully and dishonestly protected. All about faith and unelected privilege, made you quite angry. Or at least it did me.

Luckily in my lifetime they have shown the world that they are nothing more than human. The welcome outcome of this, is that they are now nothing more than a kind of affectionately held cultural sideshow. With that in mind, I really don't see much harm in them. Not sure about the real economics, but we are reliably told it helps tourism. As long as no one is stupid enough to think that they actually have any power.

at improved results, they would be voted out after another financial crash. We'd bring in an expensive, experienced, foreign HOS who after a small change in fortunes would revert to 4-4-2 and end up being called the prat in the hat in The Sun. I've got my stories confused again haven't I, nurse, NURSE!!!

No I don't really but I would prefer an elected head of state.The concept that purely by dint of birth any person is granted such an elevated position in society is both ludicrous and repugnant.

But I thought making a small effort to improve it wherever we can is somehow incumbent upon us and preferable to just accepting the status quo.

I'd keep Liz von Gambelputty Saxe Coburg Windsor as she herself is rather wonderful..gawd bless her. It's Phil the Greek and brood who get up me nose.

Actually, you don't really need a Head Of State at all. Switzerland gets on fairly well without one.

Make no mistake, our hereditary monarchy is the last vestige of legal slavery in the UK. We own them from birth. Fated to live a life in an ever-brighter, ever more cruel spotlight for our tabloid entertainment.

Sure, they get the wealth. Does it make them happy? It would appear not, given their track record over the last few decades. And that shouldn't be surprising. Is their version of the Word printed on better paper than ours? And even if it was, would that make it an even better read?

In an age where most of us enjoy an unprecedented level of personal wealth and quality of life, the upside of fame just isn't that great. What sane person would sign up for such a mephistophelean deal? at least the Katie Prices of this world made a choice. Those born into our royal menagerie do not.

The monarchy should be abolished because it is cruel. Like badger-baiting and dog-fights, it beolngs to an earlier, less compassionate age. let's set them free.

What - like a president?
Isn't that pretty much how the Prime Minister is seen by the rest of the world anyway?

Monarchy - whilst not being pro-royal, frankly what harm does it do that we as a nation have got a symbolic Monarch