The Royal Family

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29746, 13 February 1962, Page 3

The Royal Family

Sir, —Mere words cannot express my utter contempt for those who attack our Royal Family under the cover of a nom-de-plume. Perhaps they remember the fate of the person who, after making a totally unwarranted public attack upon Her Majesty, received a well deserved slap on the face from an outraged Briton.—Yours, etc., B. B. THOMPSON. Ashburton, Feb. 12, 1962.

Sir, —Scarcely a less mature interpretation of Royal roles and functions can be imagined than that under “constitutional” as limited monarchy. Unless it be “Prisoner in a Guilded Cage.” The inheritor of such social estate as King (or Queen) is allowed neither to rule nor to step uncensored from a pedestal of lesser godhead. And our subject loyalty can be measured against the ' restrictions we impose to his (or her) private movement amongst us as a free member of our society. Royal titles served their purpose in a dark and now overpast era of colonial expansionism by impressing upon subject native populations an awesome figurehead of might in power. Today if W’e need such dignified examples in the social graces an adequate expression would be “First Lady” (or gent); £475,000 per annum pJui household expenses plus other Royal grants and parks is too great a retainer to pay in these enlightened days, even if it is not all tax-free. And we do no honour to the Royal Family by any argument that it is not.—Yours, etc., FRANCIS WM. HEAL. February 10, 1962.

Sir.—The enthusiastic crowds which greeted the Royal party during its tour of New Zealand would rather give the lie to the private Gallup poll conducted by “Democracy First.” I live in a predominantly leftist area and the response given the Royal party was not a whilt less enthusiastic. I was always very interested in the attitude of the average English soldier during the war who not infrequently would pass derogatory remarks concerning the Royal Family. However, should an outsider offer even the mildest criticism—weld, the results, to says the least, would be very spectacular indeed. In the light of actual experience “Democracy First’s” privately conducted Gallup poll is worthless—Yours, etc., R.N.W. February 9. 1962.

Sir, —A. S. Miller and others who are “concerned about the possibility of being bled to support the monarchy” may set their minds at rest. Neither New Zealand nor any other Dominion makes any contribution whatever to the income of the Royal Family. And in any case, Her Majesty the Queen, bearing immense responsibilities as head of a multi-racial Commonwealth of 660 million people, exercises a worldwide influence for good which is beyond price.—Yours, etc., F.C. February 10, 1962.

Six', —I. Trew claims the statement. “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others,” as a masterpiece. This should be sufficient to evaluate his other ideas, which he blandly submits as facts. Another correspondent remarks that we should be glad to live in a country w’here speech is free: but you, sir, know how many letters of mine—all, in fact, till that of February 9—you have refused to publish. One in particular, very recently, in which I deplored the fact that while Britain’s top nuclear scientist had to be lost to us because public funds were not available, countless thousands were always available to make Royal yachts and residences even more luxurious—a reasonable criticism. Frankly, I was amazed that my last letter was published, even more by the publication of “Democrat's” admirable letter in today’s issue. However. I suggest your correspondents get busy and tell us where we get comparable value for the cost of Royalty. We know this must be tens of thousands of pounds a day—the Royal yacht alone is £7OOO a day.— Yours, etc., DEMOCRACY FIRST. February 12, 1962.