Giles Fraser is on his journey from left to right, as befits his geographical move to the City (Comment, 30 April). Fine. But he must stop these meaningless generalisations about the rest of us. He tells us, after Friday's jamboree, that the left is committed to bloodless rationalism. He's clearly never enjoyed the collective emotion of (say) the Durham Miners' Gala. And socialists have always sought more recreation, less grind. (Does he know how little leave the hyper-capitalists of the US allow their workers?) So "any excuse for a party" is a slogan more at home with the left than the right.
Moreover, the left has nothing to fear in owning that its commitment to the NHS, free education and wealth redistribution is both rational and emotional; they warm our hearts. But it's these that the right seeks to undermine, with its own version of cold-hearted reasoning – before, during and after the welcome bank holidays – "there is no alternative".
Father Patrick Morrow
Uxbridge, Middlesex
• Chris Chivers talks of Milton's poetry in the context of "the depth of the national tradition of which the [royal] couple are the youngest icons" (Face to faith, 30 April). This idea of a seamless and homogeneous national tradition is mythical. Likewise, the irrational bonding and the unassailable links between state, monarchy and church that Giles Fraser imagines in his article conceal a more complex reality. British history and culture is fissured and rich with oppositional currents. John Milton was, of course, an ardent republican who faced prosecution and worse for his support of the execution of Charles I.
Dr Bill Hughes
Timperley, Cheshire
• It's a bit ironic that having snubbed every Labour supporter in the country by not inviting Tony Blair, the party's longest-serving prime minister, and Gordon Brown, who only left office last year, to the wedding, five of the 10 pieces of music (excluding the national anthem) played at the event were written by Fabians – four pieces by Charles Hubert Hastings Parry and one by Ralph Vaughan Williams. So, no socialists please, but their music's alright.
Barbara Burfoot
Alton, Hampshire
• Ian Jack (Royal wedding supplement, 30 April) fails to mention the feminist objections to Charles and Diana's wedding, which proved to be the most accurate in both their analysis and their prediction of the likely outcome. We all knew that Diana was a young, unknowing girl who had been "kidnapped" by a powerful and cynical older man, backed up by the patriarchal establishment, for breeding purposes, and that it would end in tears. We wore our "Don't Do It, Di!" badges, but did anyone take any notice? Perhaps not, but at least partly due to Diana's own fightback, one of the gratifying features of Friday's event, in spite of continued compulsion upon the bride-to-be, both stunningly beautiful and slim as a reed, was the apparent equality in the relationship between her and the groom.
Isabella Stone
Matlock, Derbyshire
• "Judge it right," says your leading article (30 April) about the monarchy's offering to the nation, "and we buy. Get it wrong, and we may one day look elsewhere." Well, the same can be said of your newspaper – nine full pages of dross, plus a 16-page supplement, and only Polly Toynbee for contrast.
Michael Clayton
Wisbech, Cambridgeshire
• I see now why they had to ban smoking in Westminster Abbey. Polly Toynbee says it's made of cardboard, I had been fooled by this in the past.
David Hockney
Bridlington, East Riding of Yorkshire
• Didn't watch the wedding; would have gone to Red Lion Square if I'd known about the party there. But I thought your supplement was great. Thank you.
Carol Orchard
Winchester, Hampshire
• Could it be that the little bridesmaid to Kate's right on the balcony photographs – her face glum and hands over her ears – is a Guardian reader?
Peter Higgins
Oxford