Buckingham Palace

• I SUPPOSE that the CNJ would want to print both sides of the debate regarding royalty versus a republic but I still find it distasteful that while people were still watching and reflecting on recent events, such as the funeral procession, the service and lying in state of the late queen, people like Graham Smith have to jump in with their nasty and sarcastic views pushing for a republic, (In time we’ll be rid of the monarchy, September 15).

A very large proportion of the population, not necessarily royalists, admired and respected Elizabeth II not because of what she was but who she was; hard-working, kind, considerate, very aware of what was happening around the world.

It was not her wish to be head of state but it was forced upon her by circumstance and she did her best (and succeeded) in commanding respect of everyone who met her, worldwide.

Because of her position she was unable to air her views in public but no doubt gave shrewd advice in private meetings with the many prime ministers she had to suffer.

Being polite, cheerful, shaking hands with thousands of people, remembering their names and showing interest whether she was opening a theatre, a swimming pool or a school, must have been a real drag, with little or no respite.

I totally agree with both Lester May and Alan Wheeler (Long live the king and Don’t throw the baby out with the royal bath water, September 22).

Those who press for a republic do not seem to be aware that the royal family and their associated duties, ceremonies, visits, meeting and greeting world leaders, are worth millions to the economy because of the influx of tourists who come here, mainly because of our unique institutions and ceremonies. Hotels, hospitality venues, theatres and the like in London depend very largely on tourism.

The arguments about cost do not add up when tourism revenue is taken into account, and the queen herself insisted some time ago that she should pay income tax.

And as for Charles, when he became king, the allegations about sacking his staff are unlikely from a kind and thoughtful man. Logically, if he has a ready-made staff working for the crown at Buckingham Palace, and he no longer carries out the different duties of the Prince of Wales, his then staff would no longer be needed. No doubt Mr Smith would be the first to criticise the cost of retaining two sets of unnecessary staff.

As for a republic, with the present legal system of crown succession it seems unlikely without a change of government and laws of the land and, as Alan Wheeler points out, just imagine if we had a republic, what is to stop a Trump or a Thatcher or a mini-Hitler or a Putin taking over?

The late queen was not elected, but then nor was Boris Johnson or Liz Truss. Their party chose them, not the electorate and we are stuck with them.

All these arguments make an excellent case for proportional representation. Also it is about time the populace at large were enabled to vote for their preference for prime minister rather than just the party apparatchiks.

JOHN STRATTON
Thurlow Road, NW3