WE have a handy anachronism in the monarchy which is wrapped up within the comforting word known as tradition.

As Kevin McKenna pointed out in his scathingly comic article on Meghan and Harry's efforts to escape the clutches of this stifling and suffocating micro-culture ("If Harry and Meghan can pay their way, why can't the rest?", The Herald, January 11), it has glitches which are unappetising to the more modern and tolerant stance expected of a progressive mindset.

This niche tribe clearly has elements of dysfunctionalism and is sorely in need of generous tweaks to make it an institution more palatable to the tastes of the younger generation, which is not so thirled to the standards of days of yore.

Inherited wealth and privilege rankle in today's meritocratic milieu and can be viewed as a stumbling block on the road to a fairer and more equal society.

However, if the appropriate tweaks are made to slim down the monarchy and to eliminate the institutionalised anti-Catholicism inherited from, for many, long-forgotten political pressures (though our coinage still proudly displays the title of Defensor Fidei accorded to Henry VIII for his stout championing of his Catholic faith by the pope of the time), then we should retain the monarchy for the good it does in bringing in much tourist money to the delight of the Exchequer through its ceremonial pageantry and for absolving the country from having to hold mind-numbing presidential elections of the many political mediocrities who would strive to rise to such a challenge

For those very reasons, it is a price worth paying to hold on to this handy anachronism in the name of tradition, once the necessary tweaks are made to iron out the unhappy glitches still embedded in that framework.

Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.

I WAS disappointed to see Catriona Stewart leading the baying mob in pursuit of the Sussexes on Friday ("To be truly radical the Sussexes must cut all royal ties", The Herald, January 10). There were letters, the Opinion Matrix and the Views Online with a common theme of outrage. I don't remember a similar outpouring of rage in the Letters Pages in relation to Prince Andrew's (alleged) behaviour, which to me was a hundred times worse. Only Fergus Wood (Letters, January 10) was positive and sensible, suggesting a republic was the way forward.

Saturday's paper continued in the same vein with the single ray of sunshine being Kevin McKenna, entertaining and consistent as always, and making the point about scrapping the institution completely strongly but without excess.

What did jar with me was two very un-Christian letters from the Reverends John Cameron (January 11) and Robert Anderson (January 10). Not a very edifying couple of days for a country that, I think, likes to consider itself more tolerant than most.

Sandy Slater, Stirling.

THE hysterical reaction by certain members of the press and public leave me in despair. The tactic of resorting to personal insults illustrate the depth to which Britain has sunk in discussing issues be they political, social or constitutional.

Dr John Cameron appears to justify his rant based on being American and divorced; having had a TV career; being related to the Duke of Windsor; and failing to achieve "upper academic qualifications".

I wish the couple good luck away from the endless negativity and criticism to which they have been subjected.

Moira Smith, Johnstone.