You write: ‘if the Rigg monument is seen as a monument to all river tragedies’ – but it hasn’t been seen that way by most people, I imagine. It would never have occurred to me personally. To me it’s a very particular monument marking a particular family tragedy at a particular time, 185 years ago. Very much of its time.

And also, of course, like any memorial, it provokes emotion, and sadness, and has extra layers of meaning in religious beliefs held by some observers. So any changes to it will arouse conflicting views with more depth of feeling than, say, the repainting of an old advert on a wall.

I find myself wondering, for example, if any descendants/distant relatives have been found. And whether, after all this time, there would be any feeling of ‘ownership’ or strong sense of connection to the memorial.

I’m interested in the different perceptions and meanings we attach to buildings and structures, in the questions around who gets to decide what happens to them, and the many perspectives on what is ‘aesthetically pleasing’ or not. Particularly since the ‘Reinvigorate York’ work on King’s Square. Plans affecting memorials and other things of significance that already have stories and personal and family connections attached to them make me rather uneasy. ‘Reinvigorate York’ wanted to remove the mulberry tree for ‘aesthetic reasons’. The granddaughter of the lady who planted it was understandably upset at the thought (see comments here and here). The initial decision to remove it came across as rather arrogant and thoughtless, and I hope we’ve learned from it. When I say ‘we’, I mean mainly the people who have the power to decide on what stays and what goes in the city’s streets and squares and parks. (What I learned from it is to try to pay more attention to what plans are being made by the council and others, and to try to pass on information via these pages, whenever I can.)

On the wider question of the Civic Trust membership and whether it’s representative of the citizens of York – I guess one answer is that it’s representative of citizens who can afford or justify the cost of a £28 membership. I’m not one of them. But I’m glad the Civic Trust is there, challenging planning applications and protecting the city’s heritage. Just that on the keenness to go around finding things to tidy up, I find myself often thinking ‘no, please leave it alone. It’s fine as it is.’

But, as in all things, there will be a range of opinions. Ultimately it’s good that so many people care about the place, in so many different ways.

We understand that benign neglect of ancient monuments is sometimes the correct way forward. But the monument clearly has much contemporary resonance and it is situated right beside the major entrance into St Lawrence Church, and in the formal setting of a churchyard which is used every day. We, and the church wardens, consider that careful conservation is the right thing to do.

The connection between a river tragedy in 1830 and the continuing tragedies of accidental deaths in the river, was not one which we initially pointed out. But it was inevitable that such a connection would be made, and we have no objection at all (how could we?) if the Rigg monument is seen as a monument to all river tragedies.

Your big question is: “Is the membership of the Civic Trust representative of the citizens of York?” We certainly want it to be so, and your article will help it to be so. Please join us and let more voices be heard!

David Fraser
Chief Executive
York Civic Trust