The Monarchy is alive and well

AS a royalist through and through I feel the need to reassure your Republican correspondent Mr Craig (Letters, February 17th) that the Monarchy is alive and well.

In his letter, Mr Craig states: “The Empire has shrunk down to Britain [United Kingdom] and a few islands scattered around the world.”

In fact, the British Empire was initially dissolved in 1931 and replaced by the British Commonwealth, in 1949 re-named the British Commonwealth of Nations, and now consists of a voluntary association of 56 states that were once under British colonial rule. These states declared sovereignty and gained selfgovernance from the British Empire. After over 70 years of its existence, the Commonwealth is a remarkable organisation which remains a major force for change in the world today. About 2.5 billion people – out of a global population of eight billion – live in the 56 Commonwealth countries.

As to the “inevitable” breakup of the United Kingdom, don’t be so sure. These things are usually decided by fiscal considerations – in other words Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland cannot afford to divorce themselves from the English money tree. Anyway, the Scottish Independence movement has always stated that if they did succeed in their aims they would always keep the Monarch as their head of state.

I have to say that all the signs are that the Royal Family are still very popular (the main reason why the world’s press follow them so avidly) and having a non-political head of state is much preferred by the population of the UK, something much admired and envied globally.

Of course, of late the Monarchy has had its problems and has been referred to as “dysfunctional”. This in many ways is the very thing that endears them to the UK public, as it is something they can relate to in their own lives. If anyone deserves the description of “dysfunctional” lately it is our elected representatives in Parliament!

As to the cost of royalty to the UK taxpayer – in poll after poll of tourists visiting this country the “Royal Family” are always in the top five as a reason for their visit, and tourists spend a lot of money in the UK each year. Overall, international tourism spending in the UK amounted to roughly £26.5 billion pounds in 2022.

I see Robert Craig has suffered a mild backlash in Tuesday’s letters page following his predictions of the demise of the Monarchy, and the break up of the UK. I have been following Robert’s political campaigns through his letters for many years, and they have entertained and amused me immensely. The man is a veritable tonic.

Many years ago he ran a campaign for the Westcountry to become an independent land called Saxland, with its own President and Parliament based in Bristol. His campaign letters appeared regularly (at least two a week) advocating the benefits of Saxland. Saxland was a mythical place that had never previously existed, and was a product of Robert’s fertile imagination.

Robert went quiet for a while, but

is now back, and campaigning for an independent Wessex. The difference between Saxland and Wessex is that Wessex actually existed. The fact that Wessex previously existed is not a strong case for reverting back to several small autonomous regions (I won’t say kingdoms because I know Robert is not a fan of Royalty). The UK is already fading into international obscurity, and further diluting it into little self governing regions would be a disaster.

However the subject of my letter was Robert Craig, who I hope continues to write controversial letters to this paper for many years to come.

Alan Howlett Banwell, Somerset

protection area, essential for breeding grounds, routes for species up the nine tributary rivers and as a result is essential for the fish stocks for the oceans further out from the Bristol Channel.

To just step aside from their initial pledge to provide an AFD is an outrageous contempt for the environment and the precious fish stocks which are found in the Severn Estuary waters.

If anyone was to flout the planning rules in this way they would be told to stick to the original planning application requirements. Nothing has changed, the fish still need protecting, in fact our awareness of the life of the oceans and subsequent impact has been enhanced as more marine protection laws have been passed for the Severn Estuary since EDF was given permission to build.

My concern is there is a lack of data for fish migration routes and species presence around the intake areas, to sanction water intake with no fish protection for 24/7 for 60+ years is a wildlife crime.

Because we don’t have enough real data (computer models are only as accurate as the information that is put into them) and because we can’t see into the sea is not justification to abuse it. We are slowly recognising that the very fine balance of related species and water content is more critical for our welfare than we have ever realised.

To sacrifice the environment for energy production which could be alternatively sourced, eg tidal, wave, wind and solar power, should be a more carefully measured process. Nuclear power wastes energy, two thirds of energy produced from nuclear is pumped as waste heat

into the Severn Estuary. Water other than from the sea should be used to cool the reactors if HPC goes ahead. To sanction and build water intake tunnels before the whole method of function is agreed is negligence. What else within the build is having retrofit plans and technology sanctioned purely because the operator has failed to research and understand the requirements of the location it has selected? The environment should have a voice over this and not be exploited by corporate industry who drowns out any opposition who tries to protect life for future generations.

Consultation ends on 29th Feb, (https://www.edfenergy.com/ energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/ hinkley-point-c/hinkley-point-cdevelopment-consent-order-publicconsultation)

Jo Smoldon Bridgwater, Somerset