Sir, – Given the large number of British retailers now trading everywhere in Ireland and, presumably, repatriating millions if not billions of euros in profits each year, I’d be far more concerned about “British Aisles”. – Yours, etc,
RAY CRAWFORD,
Portmarnock,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – I prefer “The North Atlantic Archipelago”. – Yours, etc,
EOIN TIGHE,
Leixlip,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – I'm very pleased that Michael Stapleton raised that intriguing term, "the Anglo-Celtic Isles".
It’s healthy and normal that the people of an archipelago should at key points in their history discuss what they call their shared environment. In an age when we can look forward to putting our difficult history behind us, this is a term that not only allows us to name our islands – but to name ourselves as well.
The idea isn’t new. Nineteenth-century anthropologists considered it superior to “Anglo-Saxon” (as in economics) or “British” as a name for the people of these islands for the same reasons it is a good name today.
So, from Shetland to the Channel Islands, from the Scarborough coast to the beaches of Kerry, British and Irish alike, why not call ourselves Anglo-Celts – and these, the Anglo-Celtic Isles? – Yours, etc,
OLIVER MORAN,
Montenotte,
Cork.
Sir, – We were previously called PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain) in Europe, so maybe we could now be called WISE (Wales, Ireland, Scotland and England) on the periphery. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN SUGRUE,
Glenbeigh,
Co Kerry.
Sir, – Jonathan Blake (February 12th) comments that "Australia and New Zealand have much in common yet there is no suggestion to call both islands the Australian Isles". At their closest points, Australia and New Zealand are over 2,000km apart, which is approximately the same as the distance from Ireland to Morocco, Ukraine or Greenland. Australia is significantly closer to South East Asia than to New Zealand.
Furthermore, the indigenous people of Australia and New Zealand are entirely distinct from each other, and even the European settlement of the two countries followed very different patterns.
In contrast, Ireland and Great Britain are separated by less than 20km in places. There has been continuous movement of people between the islands for thousands of years, and people from different parts of the archipelago have an enormous amount in common. Consequently, it makes perfect sense to have a simple name describing the archipelago. “Ireland and Britain” is inaccurate, as that would seem to exclude the poor old Isle of Man! – Yours, etc,
PAT DIGNAM,
Queensland,
Australia.
Sir, – Jonathan Blake (no relation) asserts that “no Pole would consent to the use of Pomerania” to refer to the area formerly in Germany. It is now actually restored to Poland. The name comes from “Pomorze” which is Polish for “Land on the Sea” and would be understood as such by speakers of any Slavic language. – Yours, etc,
TONY BLAKE,
Blanchardstown,
Dublin 15.
A chara, – On opening your sports section, I was thrilled to be able to read a full page with reports on England’s soccer games of the previous night including Chelsea and Everton; West Brom and Swansea; Southampton and West Ham; Crystal Palace and Newcastle and Manchester Utd and Burnley.
I then turned to your Letters Page and read the ongoing correspondence concerning calling these islands the “British Isles”. – Is mise,
EF FANNING,
Churchtown,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – IONA, “Islands of the North Atlantic”. – Yours, etc,
OWEN McGINTY,
Rush,
Co Dublin.