Sir: Your editorial ‘Crowning glory’ (6 May) celebrated the religious tolerance in Britain that will permit a multifaith coronation. However, it didn’t acknowledge that in modern Britain nearly half of people have no religious belief. This acts as a buffer, making religious differences of opinion of less importance. Britain is one of the least religious countries in the world. In more strongly religious countries, such tolerance is harder to find.
Admirals on horseback
Sir: If Admiral Sir Tony Radakin only had to march at the coronation (Admiral’s notebook, 6 May), he was fortunate. At the 1953 coronation, Lt Cdr Henry Leach (later Admiral of the Fleet Sir Henry Leach) was in charge of the naval element. Precedent required admirals to take part on horseback, but the best the Navy’s parade training specialists could come up with, when asked to advise on protocol, was a 1905 document advising sailors that horses were steered like a boat, but with reins instead of rudder lines. At one of the rehearsals, the Controller of the Navy was thrown from his horse and concussed, while on the day itself the First Sea Lord’s horse got restive and carried its rider through Admiralty Arch ‘beam on’ – at a right angle to the direction of travel.
David J. Critchley
Sir: The fundamental reason for the concerns expressed in Douglas Murray’s article (‘The cost of mass migration’, 6 May) is that two points of view, both of which favour higher immigration, have come to dominate the argument. The first can best be described as the ‘moral case’ – that we owe it to people less fortunate than ourselves. The other is the ‘economic case’, which has led British industry to favour cheaper foreign labour at the expense of the settled population.