Letters | 7 May 2011 | The Spectator

The Queen and I

Sir: I did not expect Andrew Roberts (‘The meaning of a marriage’, 23/30 April), to agree with my New York Review of Books article on the royal family but, since he quoted from it, I would have thought he might have read it all the way through. True, the piece begins by setting out the reasons why one might have assumed these to be ‘anxious times for the House of Windsor’, from austerity to the Duke of York’s travails. But the bulk of the essay is dedicated to explaining why ‘the appeal of the royals remains resilient’, citing the Queen’s near-perfect performance as head of state, her provision of continuity in a fast-changing world and her connection with Britain’s solitary defiance of Hitler in 1940 — sentiments that would, I suspect, have most Spectator readers nodding in agreement.

Jonathan Freedland
London

Pilate study

Sir: Bruce Anderson, who thinks he knows a lot about the historical Pilate, says he was tough, corrupt and ambitious, and therefore could not have behaved on good Friday as described by St Matthew and St John (‘What is truth?’, 23/30 April). Who is he to judge? St John was almost certainly a witness of the events he describes, and the theme of truth runs through his gospel from beginning to end. Why would he want to deceive his readers? Besides, who knows how a Roman official, of whatever character, would have behaved when face to face with a man like Jesus? There’s a baying crowd outside, likely to spark a rebellion, and a saint in front of him, and he has to make the decision of his life. If he vacillated, it is hardly surprising.

Nicholas Debenham
Twickenham

Sir: Thanks to Bruce Anderson for his wonderful evocation of the Good Friday message. Read that, Professor Richard Dawkins, and reflect.