A DISCUSSION should take place about monarchy. It should not be about personalities. It should be a rational discussion.
I agree with Tony Benn, who relinquished the peerage to become a commoner, that we should concentrate on issues.
When monarchies have been removed it has been at times of war, or civil turmoil – the Ottoman, the German, the Austro-Hungarian monarchies may not have been replaced had it not been for the dreadful conditions of the First World War.
It was amazing that the emperor of Japan was not dethroned when the Second World War came to an end.
When the monarchy in this country was replaced by the Commonwealth in 1649, there were bitter divisions in England about the brand of Christian religion that should hold sway.
I do not want such divisions to recur among us. This means that there should be a calm discussion about fundamentals and, if my analysis is correct, the balance of argument is for some kind of republic rather than the perpetuation of monarchy.
I fail to see why this suggestion is out of place and has to be shunned.
Geoffrey Bulmer, Billingham.
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 The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.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 here