SIR - Those like Alec Suchi, (T&A Letters, July 10), see monarchy in Britain as an essential part of our 'democracy'. However, a growing number of others regard monarchy in all its forms as archaic and standing in the way of true democracy. After all, if we can elect a government, why not the Head of State? True democracy should mean that citizens not only elect their representatives in parliament but also elect their Head of State.

Some regard constitutional monarchies as democracies. However, even constitutional monarchies are at the very least 'flawed democracies' because the Head of State isn't some minor aspect, part of the workings of government. It is the foundation of the system. Furthermore and crucially, entrenching privilege and accepting the hereditary principle at the heart of a country's constitution (even if it is an unwritten one) is corrosive and runs counter to the message of meritocracy, that all recent British governments have tried to put across. However, where meritocracy is concerned, the British monarchy is an anomaly that up to now all of them have preferred to ignore.

David Hornsby, West View Avenue, Wrose