Why would Queen need to be replaced?

IN his recent defence for retaining the monarchy, Brian Taylor offers some preposterous arguments that are typical of supporters of this outdated institution (Letters, last Wednesday).

His first concern is the question of who to elect as a replacement for the monarchy but I am puzzled by the idea. Why do we need a head of state? The US rejected the British and its outdated monarchy, and never looked back. There was no need for an additional head of state.

Mr Taylor then claims that many other countries “wish they had a head of state who strived to represent all the population”. But, it is quite clear the Queen does not. Recent reports have revealed that the Queen has interfered with parliament to protect her own interests.

Finally, Mr Taylor resorts to the clichéd claim that the monarchy brings in lots of tourists. This is nonsense for two reasons. First, people do not spend hard-earned money to visit our country to see the royal family. Is the goal of the British who visit Holland to see Willem-Alexander? Or on visiting the US, do you go to see the president (or is it really Disneyland)? Does he really

believe tourists are so superficial they visit our country to glimpse the Queen instead of its heritage and historical sights? This is embarrassingly patronising.

And secondly, Alton Towers (2.13 million, 2019) attracts around four times as many visitors as Buckingham Palace (0.5 million, 2019), while the Palace of Versailles hit a low of 6.7 million in 2016. Disneyland in Florida reached 20.96 million visitors in 2019. It seems that getting rid of the monarchy as head of state, is in reality, the profitable way forward.

TONY BENNETT, Ashington