BILL Brown (Letters, May 22) is mistaken if he thinks the monarchy is a defence against the ambitions of politicians.
The British Prime Minister has far more domestic power at her disposal than a US president or even an Irish or German prime minister, precisely because of the monarchy.
The Crown grants enormous power to the government, while the Queen only acts on the instruction of the PM, ensuring there are no serious checks and balances in the system.
Putting to one side the unique present political situation, in normal times the government controls parliament and parliament has largely unlimited power.
Republicanism is about democratic principles and challenging a corrupt institution, but it’s also about rebalancing power between people, Parliament and our government.
Graham Smith,
Chief executive officer,
Republic,
20-22 Wenlock Road, London.
SOME appear to think that 65p from each citizen a year is a bargain to support the Queen and her clan; my family and I will do just as good a job for 50p.
It has been suggested that Prince Harry would rather be stacking shelves in Aldi than living the life he does and that Prince Charles would rather be a full-time farmer than a pretend one; being men in full possession of their mental capabilities one can only assume they have considered that prospect. I ask what’s stopping them and if you mention “duty” I may wet myself laughing.
Some also may doubt the wisdom of having an elected head of state as you may get a bad one when exactly the same could and has happened with hereditary monarchs and they are harder to get rid of. I would ask why we really need a ceremonial head of state when we already have an elected leader of our democratic system.
Anyone who watches BBC Antiques Roadshow and its never-ending backdrop of stately homes knows why we have a royal family and that is simply because it is the tip of an iceberg of privilege on which the social structure of the English Empire was and currently is constructed, if the Royals disappear then the rest of the iceberg will melt. End of story.
David J Crawford,
85 Whittingehame Court,
1300 Great Western Road, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel