Philip Murphy suggests that the Commonwealth is or shortly will be irrelevant and perhaps he is right in relation to Brexit (The myth of the Commonwealth, 10 April). But he misses out a different perspective put movingly by Lenny Henry in his recent TV programme about his Jamaican roots. Henry recognised that the concept means little or nothing to some people while others had benefited from educational opportunities so felt they belonged more. But if the Commonwealth is a “club” then surely there is value in mutual obligation, such as the need to do more to help after the recent hurricane which devastated at least one island and damaged more.

Alison Watson

London

• With regard to Ian Jack’s comments on the Commonwealth (Trade after Brexit will lay bare our fantasy of empire, 7 April), no sensible person could imagine that the Commonwealth network of nations would be an immediate substitute for access to today’s mature markets of Europe and the Americas. But Mr Jack seems to have overlooked that the largest expansion of middle-income markets is going on right now in Asia and Africa, that most of the world’s growth over the next three decades is going to be in what used to be called the developing countries, and that most of the world’s population lives in Asia. The Commonwealth may not be the only way for the UK into this new world, but as a network of like-minded countries it would be pretty silly not to build the best possible relations with its 53 members, with several more wanting to be associated with it.

David Howell

President, The Royal Commonwealth Society

• So who to believe? The enthusiasts who think the Queen should get a Nobel prize for helping to keep the Commonwealth going (Shortcuts, G2, 10 April)? Or Philip Murphy, magisterial historian of the Commonwealth headship, whose The Empire’s New Clothes so comprehensively rubbishes the institution that the University of London must seriously wonder why it hosts the only Institute of Commonwealth Studies in the world today?

It is a nice question as to whether the British monarchy is more important in supporting the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth in supporting the monarchy. But while the headship carries more weight in some countries than others, Professor Murphy’s views on the whole shebang are coloured by the weak leadership of the Commonwealth Secretariat for most of his time at the Institute. The holding of a summit in Sri Lanka in 2013 was a terrible own goal for its purported values and charter.

He underplays the continued denigration of the Commonwealth by a succession of British governments, still cutting multilateral budgets while spouting hot air about its significance. Its real influence in Britain – in encouraging anti-racism, the separation of powers and the establishment of an independent electoral commission – is overlooked. It has broken new ground internationally by suspending governments that fall foul of its rules, and built coalitions to fight climate change and write off unpayable national debts. Above all, it is not a British plaything but a genuine mutual, where sadly the sense of ownership has been allowed to drift as too many governments ask if their contribution is really valued, and what’s in it for them.

So yes, the Commonwealth is as flawed as other international bodies, and not as brilliant as all that. But sure, why not a Nobel for the Queen? The headship may not survive but in an uncertain world the Commonwealth is a factor for stability, and its heart is in the right place.

Richard Bourne

London

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters