SIR,
Mr Alastair Robertson claims (in his rather bizarre attack on bilingual signs) that the name Vineacre, at Osbaston, was "dreamed up in the 1960s and based on no historical antecedents". He is mistaken.
Vineacre was named after a medieval vineyard, which is documented as being situated at Osbaston (see Keith Kissack's 1974 'Medieval Monmouth', page 32).
However, all is not lost, for in his final sentence he says that "Where there is strong evidence of a significant historical antecedent, then translation might be justified". Presumably the medieval history of Osbaston makes the new Vineacre sign alright, after all!
Perhaps Mr Robertson is unaware that bilingual signage is required by law as there is equal status for the two languages – Welsh is no longer banned – as it once was. He asks if he is being paranoid. Well, if he feels that Monmouthshire County Council members are "language fascists" for implementing the law, then he surely is suffering from paranoia.
Perhaps he would be better off campaigning for a change in the law and not making such strange suggestions as that people will be forced to 'name their houses in Welsh and be made to give their babies Welsh names'.
What I find particularly perplexing is that Mr Robertson is a conservationist, professionally involved in the protection of parts of the historic and archaeological core of Monmouth.
Surely he knows that a language is of inestimable historical and archaeological value and that Welsh is one of the oldest living languages in Europe, possibly in the world and was until comparatively recently the dominant language in this area.
Considering his attitude to Welsh, does it not follow that Mr Robertson should also oppose the considerable sums of money spent on our castles and other ancient or historic buildings and sites, many of which are far less significant to historical studies than the Welsh language?
Stephen Clarke
(Monmouth)