If the King’s inheritance were solely for his personal pleasure, and if to pay tax would not lead to the break-up or selling off of estates, I might agree with Aditya Chakrabortty (It’s one law for King Charles the billionaire and another for his struggling subjects, 15 September). I regard the monarch as the curator of these palaces and castles, held in trust for the nation – a bit like the National Trust.
If money raised from inheritance tax from the monarch found its way directly into the pockets of the nation’s poor, it might be worth it. But having seen the chronic waste of public money by Boris Johnson’s government and the daily injustice of wealthy entrepreneurs avoiding taxation by clever accounting, I would say that there’s one law for the powerful moneyed classes and another for the rest of us.
Yvonne Williams
Ryde, Isle of Wight
• The state that lets King Charles avoid inheritance tax is also the state that makes elderly people who need residential or nursing home care sell their homes to pay for it. Many thousands of elderly people have been thus denied passing on any inheritance to their children, while Charles not only pockets a substantial inheritance from his mother, he also does not pay any tax on it. It cannot be a fair world where this is allowed to happen. such unfairness will inevitably lead to increased calls for an end to the monarchy as it now exists.
Roger Dobson
Llanvetherine, Abergavenny
• Aditya Chakrabortty is right to question the time devoted by MPs to paying tribute to the late Queen. Hansard of 11 February 1952 records four tributes delivered to King George VI. These were from Winston Churchill (prime minister), Clement Attlee (Labour leader), Clement Davies (Liberal leader) and Walter Elliot (on behalf of the Father of the House). All four managed to pay tribute in a little over 4,000 words, so probably delivered in under half an hour.
In contrast, Hansard records 321 MPs giving tributes to Queen Elizabeth, taking two days. Perhaps the broadcasting of parliament encourages indulgence of this kind, but today’s MPs might reflect on whether their words are truly so much more valuable than those of their predecessors 70 years ago.
Mike Sheaff
Plymouth
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
