YOU suggested that Prince Charles articulates a modern progressive and inclusive monarchy (The Yorkshire Post, March 10).
In the feedback column on the same page, I noticed the whinging and whining comments of the Twitterarti.
The Royal family, by their actions, set an example of duty and responsibility. They show ‘inclusivity’ and how much they care. To accuse them of racism is laughable. But the whingers and whiners appear to be incapable of working this out.
Duty, responsiblity, care and concern are the hallmark of the Royal family. Their embodiment of these attributes is all the more effective by being understated, and performed with such a light touch – dare one say it – with humour. It would be such a shame to lose this.
What does the public want of its head of state? Are we to be seen as a nation of publicity-grabbing celebrities, or do we value care, concern, duty and responsibility? Not delivered in a sanctimonious way, but with good humour and grace.
From: Keith Alford, Fulwood, Sheffield.
FOLLOWING the Oprah Winfrey interview there were in your columns a raft of predictable responses, many sadly characterised by snobbery and misogyny (an exception was the balanced article by Christa Ackroyd). Yet there has been little discussion of the most important factor raised by this well-publicised dispute, namely the status of the monarchy and the wider Royal family.
As a constitutional monarch, one could not deny that the Queen has carried out her role with diligence and dignity, but is there any constitutional function served by the bloated soap opera that is the rest of the House of Windsor?
If we are to have an hereditary head of state, it would be a mark of progress if the incumbent be a constitutional and ceremonial figurehead, based on the Scandinavian model, with other members of the family allowed to live a normal life unsupported by the taxpayer.
The succession will inevitably be a subject for discussion within the coming years, at which time it may well stimulate a serious review of a more appropriate 21st century constitutional model.
From: Mr S Robertsham, Brighouse.
HARRY and Meghan wanted to be part-time Royals so they could, from time to time, top up their status in order to milk Hollywood for millions.
They didn’t get their own way and threw their teddies out out the pram. The poor old Queen then got in the way of their money-making scheme so they took revenge.
From: Martin J. Phillips, Tinshill Lane, Leeds.
THE death of Sarah Everard has ensured that Meghan and Harry have disappeared from the spotlight.
With so many more serious matters in the world for the media to cover, Meghan and Harry’s issues were never front page news hence the fact that they have been forgotten within days of their ‘exposé’.
From: Jane Doe, United States.
I JUST wanted to let you know that the majority of America thinks Meghan Markle is disengenuous. America supports the Queen and loathes this ungrateful, disloyal couple.
Support The Yorkshire Post and become a subscriber today. Your subscription will help us to continue to bring quality news to the people of Yorkshire. In return, you’ll see fewer ads on site, get free access to our app and receive exclusive members-only offers. Click here to subscribe.