Expenditure for benefit of nation

THE opinions expressed by Barry Jones and Clive Bishop revealed views that are significantly different from each other, but the latest missive from Stephen Jackson (February 10) is, to say the least, offensive.

I find it to be a shame that republican views get expressed when what is being politically propounded do not affect the writers individually, particularly when the expenditure is actually for the greater benefit of the nation.

Barry Jones (January 27) obviously appreciated not only the advantages of having a Royal Yacht but the value itself of a stable monarchy.

We are one of the luckiest countries in the world in having such apolitical stability costing no more than the expenditure of a president and his or her entourage, not to mention the squabbling that would arise during republican elections.

Those who object about the way money is spent when it is not to their personal advantage, are effectively promoting a political trend not too dissimilar to some of those of totalitarian regimes of the recent past.

We must cherish our Royal Family and remain enthusiastic subjects of the Crown rather than expressing envy of those with higher standards of living brought about by accidents of birth.

I fail to see why our connection with the European Union, regardless of whether one favours it or not, has any direct bearing on the nature of the titular head of state.

Our Royal Family is a bulwark against our degenerating into a socialist regime wherein writers of letters to the press, such as Stephen Jackson, will find their freedom of expression significantly restricted.