Under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701 (amended to remove gender discrimination in 2013), the heir to the British throne becomes King or Queen the instant the previous monarch dies.

So, New Zealand did not rapidly accept Charles as King, as Chris Brady (Letters, September 24) suggests.

Within a day or so, Charles was proclaimed King to the population of the UK in a traditional ceremony – a relic of the times before mass communication. A similar proclamation was made in New Zealand. Neither government had the power to accept or reject what was already the status quo.

The head of state of New Zealand since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed has been the British monarch. Nothing alters when there is a change of monarch.

And, of course, in a hereditary monarchy, the population does not get to vote. Brady will have to wait until a referendum is held – if one ever is – on whether New Zealand should become a republic.

I have always believed that it would be disastrous for Britain, socially and constitutionally, if it became a republic. As for New Zealand, I read once that, historically, democracies with a monarch as head of state have been more stable than any other system.

So, we must be careful what we wish for. Will another level of government cost us way more than the present situation? Will