I've always found the convention of borrowing diacritics on foreign names and occasionally words (although the latter is less standard) from other languages with Latin alphabets in written English to be very strange. Especially given that English essentially has none since the diaeresis and co. are nearly extinct. It makes sense in some contexts, for example writing for an audience familiar with the language diacritics are borrowed from, or research papers, where English is nearly universal and should at least be a courteous host. But it's useless to most people who use English as a first language, since spellings could just be changed to closest English approximations, typically we don't know how to read diacritics and the same diacritic may be used for different purposes in different Latin languages. I was wondering if there is at least a reciprocity in this useless practice. Is English the only language using the Latin alphabet that borrows diacritics that it does not use from other languages using said alphabet? If not, do we know the practice's origin in English? Is it English speaking cultures being needlessly hospitable to foreign words or others writing with diacritics in English. The latter feels like showing up to a baker and asking for a cut of lamb.
-- Someone whose ancestors transliterated their surname from a Cyrillic script and made it pronounceable to English-speakers, but didn't make the spelling and writing match.