The monarchy is useless – but far too popular for change to happen in our lifetime

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Wednesday 02 August 2017 08:46 EDT
Comments
Princess Diana discusses her life with Prince Charles in new footage to be screened by Channel 4
Princess Diana discusses her life with Prince Charles in new footage to be screened by Channel 4 (PA)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

I wholeheartedly agree with Holly Baxter’s article “The Diana tapes prove we have to abolish the monarchy”.

Even if the monarchy runs at a profit, which I very much doubt, the institution of a hereditary monarchy is an outdated anachronism in a modern society. The idea of showering fabulous wealth and privilege on one family, merely on the basis of birthright, is totally unfair to the rest of society that mostly have to compete and survive on merit alone.

The fact that the institution of monarchy now seems to impose impossible burdens on some royal family members is just one more reason to abolish it.

Unfortunately, the monarchy is so popular with the masses, for reasons which are beyond my comprehension, that I regret that, at the age of 66, I will not live to see the day when the monarchy is finally abolished and the UK becomes a republic like most other European countries.

Richard Barlow
​Gloucestershire

Take the vote away from pensioners and give it to 16-year-olds

It’s all very well relatively well-off over-65s being prepared to accept Brexit economic damage – they won’t live with the consequences for as long as younger people, or feel them as much. It may be the same old folk who support the Government’s shameful policy of not raising taxes and increasing poverty, many not intentionally perhaps, but because they are out of touch with what happens outside their own circle. Clearly, they skewed the Brexit referendum result.

The answer is simple: give the vote to people at 16 for both elections and referenda (Scotland’s already done it) and take it away from them at retirement age. That way younger people who struggle for income and housing in current conditions would have more say than the many over-65s who have decent pensions and no mortgage.

For the record I am well beyond 65, voted Remain and would happily give my vote to a young person.

Geoffrey Downs
Bradford

Wisdom doesn’t come with age when it comes to Brexit

According to YouGov research, a majority of older Leave voters say significant economic damages is a price worth paying (Independent, 1 August). Which only goes to show that wisdom doesn’t necessarily come with age.

Patrick Cosgrove
​Shropshire

We need the Lib Dems to stand up for Europhiles

Where oh where are the Lib Dems? Come on Vince Cable, make your voice heard, shout it from the roof tops that staying in Europe is better than Brexiting!

Please demand a vote, even gamble with another referendum to really see if we British truly desire to leave the EU after the negotiations and agreements. I cannot believe that this nation really understood the negative effect of leaving when they voted to “be in control”.

Sheilah Elvins
Kent

We shouldn’t castigate those who voted Leave

Best of luck to Ilsa Pole (Letters, 1 August) in explaining to the 17 million Brexiteers that their votes are null and void because they didn’t vote for our team. By the way, I think she means “vote with their conscience”. I would hope that whichever way we and MPs vote it is while we are conscious – or is there a subtle point that she is making that I’ve missed?

Mark Thomas
Histon

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in