John Echevarria's piece on the monarchy was in my view thoughtful, interesting and well-argued.

For once a monarchist looks deeper into the issue than the usual 'good for tourism' mantra, although his claim that the Royals are cheaper to maintain than many heads of state is debatable.

At 58p per head (Guardian, June 28), they are more expensive than many (eg Queen Beatrix at 32p or the Irish President Mary McAleese at 34p), and the £2.23 'surrendered income' that John cites is surely derived from rent in the first place? Anyway, economics is not really the point and John's main argument does not concern cost but culture, and here I wonder if he does not rather overrate the need for traditional.

Tradition is merely habit, and habits change.

If people needed their traditions to have a sense of identity, there would never have been any change and we British would still be painting ourselves blue.

Monarchy is a thousand year old habit now reduced to a mere curiosity.

Although the British do like a spectacle, even the Queen Mother's funeral inspired only a minor and temporary surge of enthusiasm in what has been otherwise a slow and perceptible drift towards republicanism.

Like organised religion, in decline everywhere in the western world, we simply do not have a use for monarchy any more.

We are growing out of it.

Things have changed.

People do not tug their forelocks at priests or politicians anymore.

We do not look up to our 'betters' and down at our shoes as we once did in this class-riven land.

Expectations are higher.

Self-respect is higher.

The general public is more sophisticated, more affluent, more informed, and more politically conscious than ever before.

Now we tend to define ourselves by lifestyle, not by class status, and cannot be browbeaten by those who think themselves superior.

And we question everything once held sacrosanct.

The result is that our rulers just can't seem to get away with murder like they used to.

And that can't be a bad thing.

Personally I don't believe that abolishing the monarchy would make any political difference worthy of note.

Presidents are still elected from among the ruling class, so they are only kings by another name, and I am more interested in a democratic social revolution than just changing the names of a few leaders.

But I do think that some traditions are unhealthy, and a tradition of subservience has got to be against the interests of a truly democratic society and must surely impair its ability to grow and mature.

I certainly don't regard any human being as superior by natural right, and I doubt if there are many readers of this newspaper who do.

All individuals need a sense of identity, but I'm pretty sure we benefit more by having respect for ourselves rather than by crawling in submission to others, whatever grand titles they wear.

Paddy Shannon

Green St

Lancaster