Shimrod - you've more or less described my own attitudes at the moment. I have no mortgage or rent to pay, reasonable health, a modest pension which allows me to indulge my propensities for the odd guitar, old American railroad watches and bottles of wine. I've also got lots of free time and few worries other than hoping that life for my son and my grandchildren goes well in the future - and, like you, that the greedy bloody property developers don't get to concrete over the whole of Sussex...

I sat under the sun parasol in the back garden the other day, reading the paper, eating a Danish, drinking a coffee and enjoying the sunshine and the flowers waving in a light breeze. I thought to myself, "Well, this is what I worked 47 years for." Too bloody right, BUT - who needs more? I've never understood the need for acquiring masses of money, power and influence. What drives a man like, say, R. Murdoch to want to acquire more and more - all the world's newspapers, all the world's media?

A number of recent studies appear to show that the biggest cause of dissension in a country is not inequality but gross inequality, which we appear to be moving towards year by year. I'm with Richard in that a hereditary head of state, such as we have now, seems a reasonable figurehead to represent the country. But I prefer a monarchy in the Dutch style - one where Liz or Charlie could cycle off to the corner shop for a packet of fags and the paper - rather than one where huge amounts of wealth are involved. And if I get the usual argument that the Monarchy is worth its weight in tourism and exports, etc., I invariably reply, "Show me the balance sheet" - which no-one can. If people say that thousands of tourists come to London because of the manifestations of royalty, I reply that currently, by far the most popular tourist capital in Europe is Berlin.

And as for Charles becoming King - if he does so he'll have to stop his current proselytising and interfering in matters of government - unconstitutional as it is.