How Prince Charles can be considered as caring for the environment, having good manners and all other aspects deemed necessary to be a royal and a major public figure, is beyond me.

He has in the past cost the long suffering British taxpayer a fortune and continues to do so. His environmental concerns are unrealistic.

He wants old, outdated buildings retained, when it would be better for them to be demolished for more space and energy efficient structures.

He gets his kicks from shooting wildlife and has committed adultery.

Is this the type of figurehead and moral example the British, such as Mr R.P. Utley, want? The writer's comparison with Hong Kong values is very good, he writes, ''such foolish values get in the way of a quick profit''. That sums up the Prince entirely.

Just look at the way he has taken, but given little.

Even down to the massive increase in rents imposed on the tenants living on his properties in the West of England.

If he behaves like a Hong Kong landlord perhaps the title, His Royal Lowness might be more appropriate than the one used at present.

In other countries don't embarrassments just quietly get disposed of? PETE ALEX Kowloon