Letters

Spectator, The, Mar 9, 2002

Royal value for money

From Mrs Jennifer Miller

Sir: Perhaps the greatest weakness of our monarchy is the constant malicious misrepresentation of royal finances; so Simon Heffer's brilliant and well-informed analysis (`Republican whingers', 2 March) is particularly welcome.

The last Sunday Times list of the 1,000 richest people in Britain and Ireland ranked the Queen in joint 105th place: members of her family did not feature at all. She now pays all their former parliamentary annuities (except for Prince Philip and the Queen Mother) although her own Civil List, fixed at 7.9 million in 1991, has been frozen for the next ten years.

It should be remembered that the too trusting George III surrendered to the Treasury not only his crown estate surplus, but also other lucrative hereditary revenues such as the customs and the post.

During the present reign Queen Mary's former residence, Marlborough House, has been given up to the Commonwealth, and the White Lodge in Richmond Park (birthplace of Edward VIII) made over to the Royal Ballet School, while the `floating palace', H.M.S. Britannia, has also been sacrificed and is now a tourist attraction. In contrast, expensive luxury government homes and the Speaker's house in the Palace of Westminster are never open to the public.

Jennifer Miller

London SW 15

From Mr Stephen David

Sir: I feel that Simon Heffer has rather missed the point. Many would agree that the government is wasteful and is too careless with our money, but that does not render criticism of royal expenditure invalid. The expenditure of the royal family is criticised on very different grounds, and Mr Heffer has simply set up a straw man that he can knock down.

First, unlike the government, there is no constitutional machinery by which we can remove the royal family, however badly they behave or how much of our money they waste. Second, the government has a rational function, which can be explained in a rational way. Even monarchists find it difficult to explain the reasons for the existence of a royal family in a rational and intellectually satisfying way. The cost of maintaining a head of state is a legitimate concern, and hence of the public accounts committee.

Stephen David

Ilminster, Somerset

The US and us

From Mr John Dickenson

Sir: Mark Steyn's further analysis of the soft elements in Europe (`On the right side of history', 23 February) reminds me of the perfect embodiment of this phenomenon, at least in the English form.

Rik Mayall's character in the early 1980s series, The Young Ones, was an excitable Marxist student. The demoness Thatcher was in No. 10. The world was ripe for revolution; but, in one episode, a great flood threatened the student abode. Rik yelled, `Call the police!', to which one of his fellow students replied, `But they're fascists!' Rik's response was `Yes, yes, but never mind that now!'

The US can expect the eyes of British liberals to join those of the rest of the country in looking westward if, God forbid, it really does all go disastrously wrong. But how far would the US go to help its errant cousin? John Dickenson

Telford, Shropshire

From Dr Franz Metzger

Sir: Sorry to put a damper on Mark Steyn's almost rhapsodic praise of the great and wonderful US of A, but I don't think that America is really entitled to receive the full three marks in his list: Who's been on the right side in the three big wars of the 20th century? After all, the US joined the first world war only in 1917, and the second in December 1941, and until then they were quite happy to do business with the ghastly Nazis (as they did with the ghastly Saddam). All we can derive from this approach is that the US tends to get in right at the end, and that they are pretty good at finishing the job of war. But as for their quality and wisdom in leadership, one should show some reservations. The only ones who fully deserve those three marks are the Brits and their former dominions, which include Steyn's native Canada.

Franz Metzger

Nuremberg, Germany

Fruit for the loins

From Mr Duncan Blake

Sir: I read with interest the correspondence regarding the article on possible links between sexual activity and prostate cancer (`The wages of sex,' 19 January) and would like to recommend to all (male) readers that, whatever their level of sexual activity, they consider eating as much processed tomato - whether in the form of juice, sauce or even ketchup - as they wish, as it has been shown in studies (Harvard Medical School) that regular ingestion of cooked tomato products can reduce the incidence of prostate cancer by up to 35 per cent.

Readers may also find it interesting that this can also lead to an increased sperm count, and also that tomato juice (as well as honey) is the best non-medical method of breaking down alcohol in the body.

While fresh tomatoes are also good for you, the tomato is possibly unique in being the only fruit (or vegetable) that is better for you once cooked.

Duncan Blake

Vice-Chairman,

World Processing Tomato Council,

Istanbul, Turkey