(Correction to yesterday's letter that was published incorrectly)
Dear Sir, With reference to the editorial in yesterday's (Tuesday's) Bulletin, even the idea of Andy Murray being considered for a knighthood at the tender age of 26 is completely barking. These titles are handed out like dolly mixtures to anyone nowadays and are made even more meaningless when dished out by crawling and fawning politicians basking in the reflected glory of the person concerned.
For goodness sake get a grip and a sense of priorities. Knighthoods should be reserved for acts of great chivalry as they were so intended.
To even think about giving Britain's greatest male tennis player for 77 years a knighthood is a downright insult to thousands of people who are surely more deserving.
1.6 million pounds prize money, increased sponsorship, a Wimbledon title and a nailed-on Sports Personality (sic) of the Year come November is surely reward enough.
God help us all if England win the Ashes in the next few weeks, there'll be knighthoods for Cookie, Trottie, and Swannie. Even worse, if England win the World Cup in Brazil next year (an unlikely scenario, I agree), then the world really would come to an end.
PS Maybe us Jocks should award our own form of knighthood with the independence referendum drawing ever closer. How's about Lord Andy of the Isles or Monarch Murray of the Glens?