Many readers of the conservative Spectator and Sunday Telegraph might foam at the mouth in agreement with Peter Oborne's complaint that the Blairs show no respect for the Queen. His wife, Cherie, does not curtsey to the Queen? Outrageous! Tony says that Her Majesty enjoys weekly audiences with him, not the reverse? What a bounder!

But then, why should we demand fawning formality, ask some, when Britain's monarchy is a weird anachronism, and too many Royals are self-obsessed freeloaders?

The truth is that the fawning is repulsive, but the formality has a certain importance. The Queen is not just some random player on the political stage, like the BBC's Jeremy Paxman, any more than the Stars & Stripes is just a piece of cloth. The monarch symbolizes Britain, just as the flag symbolizes the United States. Burn one, or forget the other, (like Blair talking about 'my' armed forces or the Foreign Secretary describing him as 'head of state') and it shows contempt for the constitution and the people.

Whatever one might think of the holder of the office, we should be glad that politicians are required to show formal respect for it, and the nation that it represents. For example, the idea of the Queen being the titular head of the police, courts and military is to show that they are there to serve the nation, not some demagogue. When a Prime Minister starts talking about 'my' army or imagining himself as 'head of state', it is time to tell him to take his hands off the constitutional safeguards of our liberty.

So we do not demand that people fawn towards some pathetic and outdated aristocracy. But politicians must be reminded that power is ultimately ours, not theirs, and obliged to demonstrate their acceptance of the conditions under which we allow them to wield it.