Sir, Yet another Royal visit to our fair city (Report, May 12) and still no sign of an unbiased article. How much money did this little excursion of Mrs Windsor cost the Oxfordshire taxpayers (police and security costs, local council employees being allowed time off work as rent-a-crowd mob etc). This would have been a perfect opportunity for The Oxford Times to present a more balanced view by investigating why some of us do not see having a monarchy as a reason for national pride, but one for shame (that we still do not have a true modern democracy where merit rather than one's ancestor's prowess on a battlefield is rewarded).

The Oxford Times whose policy is one of impartiality always seems to report these events as wonderful, uplifting experiences for all. Not so. There are a lot of people amongst us who believe that an un-elected head of state and a system of inherited privilege is an anachronistic aberration in a modern society.

According to your sister paper, the Oxford Mail, at least 20 per cent of people are opposed to a monarchy, with more than 40 per cent finding it an outdated idea (BBC). Yet Republicans are never allowed their fair share of a debate and articles about Royalty are never questioning, or in any way critical. How this can be considered impartial is beyond me.

A true intelligent public debate can only be initiated by the media, but the media seems terribly unwilling to indulge in good journalistic practice and investigate both sides of the argument.

Getting this letter published would be astonishing as one is seldom allowed the right to express an opinion not favourable to the Windsor family.

Cassandra F Petibout, Witney

In our judgement, the Queen's visit to open a prestigious new facility was not an occasion to open a debate on the future of the monarchy Ed.