Was it only by coincidence that the Queen was wearing Suffragette colours at the wedding?
SIR – Did any broadcaster remark on the significance of the colours of the Queen’s outfit for the wedding: green, white and a very prominent splash of purple on her hat?
As feminists ought to know, these were the colours of the Suffragette movement, explained at the time as purple for freedom and dignity, white for purity in private and public life, green for hope and spring.
Was it a coincidence or to emphasise the information on the Duchess of Sussex’s future interests now published on the Royal family’s website? Natalie Wheen
London SW12
SIR – “Meghan is to fight for feminism” (report, May 21), is she? What a waste of time. I’m a woman and I disapprove of fighting for feminism, just as I disapprove of fighting for the rights of any particular group.
Things are either right or wrong, and it doesn’t matter what gender, age, race, colour, creed or anything else you are. The Duchess of Sussex, and anyone with influence, would be better fighting for fair treatment for everyone, than limiting themselves to a particular group. Only by treating people as truly equal can we avoid division, and benefit everyone. Sara Goodwins
Maughold, Isle of Man
SIR – If only all young women could ensure their futures by quitting their profession, marrying a multimillionaire, joining a “firm” that guarantees palatial accommodation, servants, armed security and even jewellery. A feminist role model for the 21st century? I think not. Pamela R Goldsack
Banstead, Surrey
SIR – I understand that the new Duchess of Sussex is committed to gender equality and empowerment of women, a position supported by the Palace.
If the letters patent creating the Dukedom of Sussex exclude women from inheriting it, as previous practice might indicate, would this not be an issue of gender inequality? Fergus Courtney
Dublin, Ireland
SIR – Bryony Gordon (May 21) says that Meghan Markle can change the world. Come on, she played her part quite well at the weekend, but don’t make her out to be Mother Teresa. Kevin Platt
Walsall
SIR – Juliet Samuel’s list of royal wedding naysayers (Comment, 21 May) omits the most numerous and genuine of them all: those who neither accept nor understand the degree to which the establishment has determined to “modernise” our lives.
Those of us left trailing by our unwillingness to embrace all the new virtues – same-sex parents and marriage, children determining (even changing) their own sexuality, equality quotas – wonder who now represents us. Certainly not the Church, which embraces any modern trend – regardless of how it may conflict with its traditional teaching. Tony Stone
Oxted, Surrey
SIR – My old vicar, many years ago, told of a parishioner who said at the end of the service: “That was a very good sermon, vicar”. His reply was: “And what are you going to do about it?”
I don’t think the fellow ever commented again. Robert Jackson
Preston, Lancashire
SIR – America should start by putting its own house in order rather than the New York Times reporting that the royal wedding became a breakthrough in British race relations. Derek Collinson
Winchester, Hampshire
SIR – Perhaps those responsible for the planning of the royal wedding could now be redeployed to handle Brexit. Roger Hiscock
Hayling Island, Hampshire