Frank Edwards (Letters, December 24) uses the very arguments to defend the Royal Family that I would use to get rid of them.
Like most of my parents' generation, Mr Edwards fought to defend democracy and the right to free speech.
What was the point of such a sacrifice if it did not win the right to democratically elect our head of state?
The most surprising supporter of the royalty is Carole Irvine (Letters, December 24).
The women of my grandmother's generation fought for the right to be considered equal in the eyes of the law.
How can any woman support a law which says women are inferior to men. In the line of succession, women come behind men, which is why Princess Anne is behind her younger brothers.
Ms Irvine then drags religion into the argument. So what if Joseph and Mary did come from the Royal House of David? Is it right in this day and age to enact a law that prevents Prince William or Harry marrying a Catholic?
Is Charles Windsor fit to be King? Is Camilla fit to be Queen? How can those two, with their track record, possibly be held up as a shining example to promote family and moral values?
-Simon Smith, Upper Beeding
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article