42 million is in GBP; so its probably more like 100 million USD.

Anyways, the president actually does stuff, like sign bills and make decisions and stuff, so i can see where the cost is justified.

We sort of have a monarchy here; i.e. the Kennedys and all the rich WASPs in the north east.

But they are independantly wealthy and we don't really care about what they do.

I think the UK Royal Family should do the same; just live off their own wealth without sucking up public money.

I'm Australian and very pro-republic. I would be against a local monarch but having a foreign one is even more offensive.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Queen herself, she's been decent enough, but she's purely ceremonial as her representative is chosen by the Prime-minister anyway.

I simply cannot accept an un-elected head of state. I never will.

You are very out of touch with currencies ^^ It would probably be around 70m US$.  The Monarchs simply just 'being' brings the country money from tourism.

o_o I  hope he gets frequent flyer miles.

Aye, but that's more or less a fancy formality that isnt really necessary - the last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1708 (i think).

The Queen is just a figurehead of state, she is the one who can dissolve Parliament (PM has to ask her if he/she wants to call an election early).

i think i could be wrong, but meh. to the OP, i want an answer to that question too!

I have never cared about the royal family, and I have never met someone my age who does. I don't specifically have anything against it and I can't see it being abolished anytime soon.

It's an elegant method of ultimate separation of powers. The Queen has a lot of technical power but in practice is never used. Yet it could be used if it really came down to it. This allows for flexibility in the constitution. I'm not completely up to scratch on my history but I know that the monarch had to intervene to set up a government when there was a crisis about a century ago.

I also read an interesting article by a constitutional lawyer recently argueing that the Queen should have disolved parliament about a month ago amidst all the uproar of MP's expenses etc. If she had done, I think the people would have been behind it.

Without such a fail-safe getting through extreme parliamentary crises would be much harder. The monarchy also makes a lot more in tourism than we pay for it. that much is largely agreed upon. Whenever I talk to tourists around Buckingham Palace they seem to find the whole idea of a living Royal family directly descended from Alfred the Great somewhat mystical, which I suppose it is in a way. Not many countries can claim that kind of tradition.

The Queen also plays a subtle but important political role. She is constantly representing Britain to other countries, particularly in the commonwealth, and meeting with leaders. It makes the important social relations between leaders of state flow much more easily since she is politically neutral. I understand that she and Mrs Obama got on particularly well.

I could go on and on, but there are lots of benefits and basically no drawbacks. You get a few people who think the Monarchy should be gotten rid of just because of some general notion of democratic elections, but I think that really misses issue in the context of Britain's Constitutional Monarchy.

Then there's the fact that a lot of people in the UK just like the Royal Family and all the Pomp and Circumstance. I remember going to the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations in 2002 and it was pretty breathtaking. The site of the Mall jam-packed with people waving Union Jacks was a vision I'll never forget.

It unites a lot of people, in a good way. The British population is a lot more cynical about politics than the Americans. Having a head of state who isn't a politician just works for our culture. I can't explain exactly why, but it just does.

Sorry - I keep thinking of a couple more things I wanted to add. The OP was asking what exactly the Prince does. There was a documentary on the Prince of Wales recently celebrating his 50th Birthday. He basically uses his position to do an awful lot of charity work. the Princes Trust is involved with numerous initiatives, a lot of them to do with building up underprivileged communities and people from deprived backgrounds. It's like a full time job for him.

I met the Prince of Wales once, he's surprisingly charming and a lovely chap.

@JUG - none of thoose reasons are good enough to justify having an unelected head of state who gets taxpayer money for doing nothing

I don't know one way or the other, but this... isn't right, is it?

I mean, Norman Conquest, War of the Roses, Glorious Revolution and all, and the Windsors are direct descendents of Alfred?  Really?