Heirs and graces

Is the question of who should succeed to the throne really to be settled by an opinion poll (your report, 21 August)? In the run-up to the 20th anniversary of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, it was to be expected that there be renewed speculation about Prince Charles and his future.

Much of the “Diana-fest” so far in the print media has fed a prurient public appetite for details of her marriage and private behaviour. Only some of it has focussed on the character of the Prince of Wales, a good deal of it unfavourable but certainly not completely character destroying.

In the final analysis, however, a simple point should be made. A hereditary monarchy should mean exactly that. The heir becomes the monarch irrespective of age, character defect, education, public speaking ability, administrative prowess or even public perception. Otherwise what is the point of having the hereditary principle? Whoever succeeds to the throne has to abide by a strict, if subtle, constitutional code. When stripped of all the pomp and grandeur, that code amounts to saying that, on all the important matters of state, the elected government – through the prime minister – will determine what the monarch says, where he or she goes, and possibly even what they are informed about.

Whilst Prince Charles has a reputation for forming views on a variety of subjects, there is no reason to believe he would not conform to the terms of that code. He will be comparatively old when he accedes, but in comparison to some of his ancestors and their private morality and ability, he is well qualified for the task.

BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes