As for the title of “Prince”, there is so much confusion about this. The King has the power to remove that title without recourse to Parliament, unlike the dukedom which can only be fully extinguished by legislation.

John Gemmell, Wem, Shropshire.

The House of Windsor is in danger

As the curtain comes down on Andrew’s infamous career, is it likely that a door will open to ask for the disestablishment of the monarchy to replace it with a republic?

Prince William has assured us that, when he ascends the throne, Buckingham Palace will not be used as the royal residence since he prefers to protect his family and to provide it with tranquility far from the public gaze outside of the duties of a working royal’s life.

By closing down that particular domicile, he could well be opening that august monument to becoming a museum which would no doubt bring a pretty penny into the royal coffers to offset the expenses to keep our monarchy in the style to which it has become accustomed, unless a trend towards republicanism finally rusticates our royal tradition.

You would not want to say that the sword of Damocles is poised above the head of King Charles’s heir and successor but we are now entering difficult times where tough decisions are going to have to be made.

Is it time to abandon what many see as outmoded traditions and to drag Britain kicking and screaming into the 21st century where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of wealth, race, religion or pedigree?

Andrew should ask himself, now that he is entering his self-inflicted purdah, how much his own lifestyle has contributed to any distaste for the monarchy and a tendency to introduce republicanism to replace the monarchy. And William’s wish for privacy outside of his royal duties could well help to light the fuse which could bring down the House of Windsor.

Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.

Read more letters

• Prince Andrew is following in the footsteps of other royals over the generations, is he not? This is a family notorious over generations for its conduct: routine sexual peccadillos and drug use among other allegations. There are “No Kings” marches in the United States, so why not here in Scotland? This is a royal family which is born in and lives in England, whose titles and regnal numbers are based entirely on English history (including the insulting “Prince of Wales”), with no relevance to Scotland. Dump them, I say.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

Stripping ceremonies

Given the significant place of royal ceremony in the dignified operation of the British state and the popularity of royal pageantry, if its prominence in the print and broadcast media is to believed, I recommend to the favourable consideration of HM The King the establishment of a ceremony which would become a popular part of the investitures of honours and titles: the forfeiture of previously granted titles and stripping of honours by the Heralds of the College of Arms and the Court of the Lord Lyon King at Arms depending on the country of residence of the person who brought shame and disrepute to her or his honours and titles.

There could be a new tradition in Scotland in which the Lord Lyon, resplendent in his cloth of gold, at the Merkat Cross accompanied by the Albany Herald, announces the forfeiture of Scottish titles, such as that of the Earl of Inverness, or honours to Scots, before such announcements in the Edinburgh Gazette.

The new ceremonies could be trialled on Michelle Mone and refinements put in place before Mister Andrew (formerly known as Prince) Windsor’s big day. The punters and tourists would love the opportunity to wish him bon voyage to his new, full-time, permanent position as Postmaster General of South Georgia.

Stuart Swanston, Edinburgh.

Handicap for the R&A

I was intrigued at Gavin Cargill’s letter (October 20), which compared the values of the R&A with those of the Nobel Peace Prize. I wonder what the blazeratti at the R&A are going to do about their 2002-2003 Past Captain, Prince Andrew?

Eric Macdonald, Paisley.

Blair does not deserve praise

Ian Lakin (Letters, October 17) takes issue with Ruth Marr over her characterisation of Tony Blair and Donald Trump. Mr Lakin praises Tony Blair for ridding the people of Iraq of a despotic dictator. Mr Blair was Prime Minister of the UK and was not elected to be an international policeman of regimes around the world. His responsibility was for the safety and security of his own country and he defended his actions by citing the immediate threat posed to its people by Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction”. I marched with many thousands of others at that time in opposition to the proposed invasion which would endanger our military forces in response to a threat which was so clearly a fiction.

Turning to Donald Trump, who led the world in acclaiming his own achievement in Israel/Palestine last week… while the “ceasefire” was universally welcomed he, and any of his predecessors, could have brought it about at any time by ceasing to finance and supply the military might of the US puppet state in Israel. Another sad truth is that it took the outrage of the deplorable Hamas attack in October 2023 to draw the attention of the world’s media to the Palestine situation which had been quietly swept under the carpet for decades.

Willie Maclean, Milngavie.

• In reply to Ian Lakin, I would point out that my comments regarding Donald Trump (quoting and in support of a letter from another correspondent) referred to his speech in Israel, when he told us all, again, how clever he had been. Self-praise is no honour.

However, while I agree that Saddam Hussein was a very bad man, I would draw Mr Lakin’s attention to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died during a war which was considered illegal by the United Nations, which cost the lives of 179 British soldiers sent to war on a lie, and which left Iraqi communities in ruins and helped destabilise the Middle East. In my view, toxic Sir Tony Blair should have faced justice for the illegal invading and bombing of Iraq, not been the recipient of a knighthood.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

Tony Blair giving evidence to the Chilcott Inquiry on the Iraq War in 2011(Image: PA)

Backing indy, no matter the cost

In response to Catriona C Clark’s recent claim (Letters, October 18), I believe the reason why the SNP has been in power for almost two decades has nothing to do with its competence in government, which has been amply demonstrated, time and time again, to be sorely lacking. It is simply the fact that 30 to 35 per cent of Scottish voters are so blindly intent on removing Scotland from the United Kingdom that they couldn’t care less that the country is going to hell in a handcart as a result.

Bob Hamilton, Strathaven.

Fan ban is justified

Yesterday (October 19) in their home city supporters of Maccabi Tel Aviv and Hapoel Tel Aviv caused such serious social disorder that Israeli police ordered their derby fixture to be cancelled. This is further proof that the decision to ban Maccabi supporters from Birmingham was completely justified (“No 10 pledges action on Maccabi ban a week after police warned of risk”, The Herald, October 17). Politicians must now acknowledge this and withdraw their disgraceful allegations of anti-Semitism.

Colin Aldridge, Glasgow.

• The decision by West Midlands Police to ban the football supporters of Maccabi Tel Aviv to attend a football match in Birmingham is simply a disgrace and heaps shame on our country. Are we really saying in this day and age that parts of the UK in effect become “no go” zones when one side or the other threatens violence?

Our politicians now have huge questions to answer: in their use of language, combined it seems with their desire not to offend minorities. Our country has defended freedoms at vast human cost for over a century and longer and this appalling decision will be viewed globally with utter astonishment.

Richard Allison, Edinburgh.