I read Mr Tanner’s letter on the subject of a republican constitution with some interest.

I do not know what kind of system he has in mind, and wonder if he has any experience of living in a republic.

For four years, I lived in the Irish Republic as a student, and as republics go, the Irish one is a good one by international standards, and probably an example we could well follow.

Republics have shortcomings, however, notably the lack of a truly ‘neutral’ head of state free from party political history.

True, the last and current Irish presidents have been a great credit to the presidency, but their term of office is limited and the temptation to elect a retired party ‘hack’ is ever present.

I feel that Mr Tanner should ponder the following questions: 1. Cost. Has he considered the periodic cost of electing a president? While I dislike displays of wealth and privilege I suspect that there is little to choose between the cost of royalty and of a republic.

2. Real democracy. Can he explain why the most egalitarian and democratic states are modern constitutional monarchies and not republics?

I suspect that a long-standing and experienced neutral figure is well-placed to exercise the three traditional prerogatives, to listen, to advise, and to warn.

Alas, the best way of preserving that neutrality is to insulate one family from the cut and thrust of party politics.

And there is the intangible human benefit, too, not to be underestimated and summed up in Archbishop Robert Runcie’s words that monarchy “lends humanity to the operations of state”.

Gavin Lloyd, Merton Road, Ambrosden