KIRSTY Strickland's accomplished dissection of Prince Andrew's ill-conceived and disastrous recent BBC interview raises questions not only of the present day role of the Royal Family but also of their accountability (“Andrew's car crash interview exposes the fault lines in UK's power structures”, The Herald, November 18). At a time when we have the highest number of millionaires in the Cabinet since the Lord Liverpool government of 1815, it is clear that the attitude of the self-appointed ruling classes has changed little since that era. The entitlement, arrogance and breathtaking lack of genuine empathy we witnessed in Prince Andrew's interview is mirrored in our present Government, a fact made transparently clear by the Prime Minister's support for the Prince amidst a sea of denunciation.

Ms Strickland sees the monarchy as “bloated and undeserving of its place in our modern democracy”, a withering criticism but an accurate description of an archaic institution which is nothing more than a totem to immoral privilege and inequality.

Prince Andrew's interview demonstrated the ludicrous nature of the Royal Family and a reminder of their limited abilities to show compassion, care or any level of empathy with other people. An arrogant and intellectually challenged man, funded wholly by the taxpayer but a stranger to any kind of moral compass, Andrew unwittingly highlighted the dark heart of the present-day UK.

The Prince, his family and the Conservative Government have more in common with Lord Aberdeen's administration of 1815 than they do with the ordinary people of today. The Royal Family, the House of Lords and the electoral system are all obsolete. The UK's system of power is rotten to the core and completely unfit for purpose in the 21st century. Andrew's interview lays bare the failings of a country that rewards and admires wealth and inherited privilege. There will be no consequence for him regardless of his lack of judgment or alleged illegal activities. It is time for a republic.

Owen Kelly, Stirling.

PRINCE Andrew, second son of the Queen and eighth in line to the throne, just after Archie now, is not used to being questioned about his behaviour. He must have realised that the controversy over his relationship with the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, was not going away. He therefore agreed to the interview conducted by BBC Newsnight's Emily Maitlis ("Duke under fire over 'disastrous' interview on links with Epstein", The Herald, November 18).

He said that he had "let the side down". I assume that the side includes his mother and his two daughters. I wonder what they really make of this affair and the damaging publicity not just to him but to the Royal Family. He denied knowing anything about what Epstein was up to even when he was living in his houses with Epstein present. Ms Maitlis failed to ask him about being photographed waving goodbye to a young girl at the door of Epstein's house in New York. He said that he had no recollection of ever meeting Virginia Roberts. He did not say that he had never met her. Moreover, he said that he had no memory of the photograph allegedly of him with her. He may have to think about these replies in the event of him ever giving evidence under oath.

Talking of giving evidence under oath, I wonder whether or not his lawyers, to whom he referred quite a lot, will ever advise him to give such evidence to assist the case being mounted by the US prosecutors and the cases being prepared on behalf of the victims of Epstein. It is a pity that the likely rules of engagement controlling the procedures for the interview probably excluded asking questions beyond the Epstein episode, such as the sale of the house in Sunninghill previously shared with his former wife, Sarah Ferguson, who is still standing by her man.

It is understood that he agreed to do the interview with the intention of drawing a line under the matter. I believe that he has failed in that objective and all he has done is feed the fire of controversy like the TV interviews given by Princess Diana and Prince Charles in efforts to justify their behaviour and accord blame for the state of their marriage. If he is as innocent as the driven snow with regard to the allegations concerning involvement with young women through his acquaintanceship with Epstein, then let him travel to the US and state his case.

Ian W Thomson, Lenzie.

PRINCE Andrew says he was having a pizza in Woking on the day Virginia Roberts says he was with her. Ask his personal royal protection officer, or read the officer's log book. That should tell who was/is speaking the truth

George Smith, Clydebank.

GIVEN that he already held the post before and that he appears to have an exceedingly poor memory of things of import, I seriously doubt that Prince Andrew, despite being a self-confessed honourable man, should expect an invitation soon to again be an overpaid trade envoy for good old Gov UK.

George Dale, Beith.

THE Prince Andrew interview was a bigger crash than Prince Phillip's.

Allan Thompson, Glasgow G61.

Read more: Andrew's car crash interview exposes the fault line in Britain's power structures