Do we need an alternative?

[amner]

One of the questions on the excellent Notes & Queries (http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/0,5753,,00.html) page of The Guardian website runs:

When abolition of the monarchy is mentioned, the discussion always turns to what we would replace it with (e.g. an elected president). Why not just get rid of the monarchy and replace it with...nothing?

I can't think of a better stance myself. What does everybody else think?

[Colyngbourne]

If/when this happens, I would agree that nothing should be put in its place. I'm not actually anti-monarchist but anything pretending to replace it would be a waste and probably cack-handed. I'd rather have nothing.

[John Self]

Don't we need a head of state though so we can be in the big club of Proper Countries?

[Colyngbourne]

In which case we just radically downsize the present royals and lessen their status and put up with Tone, or whoever, for the rest.

[skanky]

Not every country has a "head of state", though most new ones created create one first of all, followed by a flag, then an army, then a national airline. The army may not always be in that position as some are created from the spoils of war/rebellion.

I'd say that as long as you have a national airline, you can be considered a proper country.