Progress or royalty?

I am writing in response to Gwynne Dyer's viewpoint in the guise of the failing popularity of the Royal family of Britain in The Jakarta Post, May 1. It was merely an opportunity for recriminatory remarks borne on misgivings conceived from his past.

It is quite apparent that the constitutional role which the British Monarchy now displays is superficial and superfluous and respect for them is declining. However, it is rather exaggerated to describe Britain as clinging to an anachronistic monarchy and to ask where Britain has gone wrong (I assume that he considers that we have gone wrong because we still have a monarchy).

Should cultural heritage die as a gesture in the name of progress? Progress can still be made in the same fashion whether a monarchy is there or not. What is wrong with keeping a family from whom many people derive pleasure and who have contributed their time to many worthy causes? Who are they hurting? Would it catapult Britain to the forefront of advancement merely by calling itself a republic?

I truly found the article over-dramatic and condescending.

ANNE-MARIE ELIZABETH TAPP

Cilegon, West Java