Talk:Irish Republican Army (1919–1922)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 27 July and 6 August 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Irish Republican Army/Archive07. Thank you. Palmiro | Talk 21:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The House of Hohenzollern

What is the source of the coat-of-arms and the words "Its Prince Joachim was considered as King of Ireland during the 1916 Rising."? --ClemMcGann 10:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Accounts by Desmond FitzGerald and others of discussions that took place in the GPO during the Rising. They recorded a belief that Germany would win the Great War. Until 1918 Europewide monarchy rather than republics was the norm. Their discussion of creation of an Irish monarchy was reasonable in that context. (Norway had chosen a monarchy rather than a republic a few years earlier. Portugal, which had become a republic in 1910, was thinking about restoring a monarchy with a different royal family — they considered a Greek royal.) Why they focused on Prince Joachim of Prussia is not certain. However I noticed some years ago that he got extensive coverage on month before the Rising in the Freeman's Journal due to his marriage. I suspect it is simply because he was on highest profile non-British royal in the weeks before the Rising. What they forgot, of course, was that Joachim was the great-grandson of Queen Victoria, so he hardly a non-British royal. And he was protestant, which again they forgot. I'm surprised you don't know the Prince Joachim story. The great FSL Lyons wrote about it numerous times, as did Roy Foster. Dorothy Macardle wrote about it in a series on the Rising in the Irish Press. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

--ClemMcGann 19:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)They had some notion of a “dual monarchy”. I can’t recall the exact details, but Hungary was mentioned as a model. However I never thought that it was taken seriously at any level. My concern was that it seemed to have a higher profile in the article with the inclusion of his coat-of-arms. Someone has since removed them. That reduces the profile of this irrelevant story.

No. The dual monarchy was Sinn Féin policy until October 1917 when their Ard Fhéis changed policy, This was a different issue. The people in the GPO weren't Sinn Féiners. They were thinking separately about the issue. It is however an very important issue contextually for two reasons. Firstly, if the Rising had happened after 1918, the issue of monarchy would have been off the agenda. However before 1918 countries in Europe almost invariably were monarchies. Except for Switzerland and San Marino the only countries that were republics were so not from ideological conviction but because they had localised problems with their monarchs: France's Comte de Chambord had refused the throne in 1870 over a stupid row over the tricolor so France became a republic by accident. Portugal's monarchy was despised and Russia's was despotic and incompetent. Practically the first question every European country asked when it became independent was "Ok. Which country has a spare prince we can invite to be our king?". The Greeks invited a Danish prince. Ditto with Norway. Even republican Portugal wanted Greece's Prince Christopher to be its new king, but he declined because he was a friend of the deposed King Manuel II.

So the Irish leaders, in thinking 'Germany is going to win the war. Lets invite a German prince to become Irish king' were acting as was the norm in 1916. Secondly, time and again the leaders showed that they had a hazy understanding of constitutional theory, whether proposing a king in a republic, or creating a republic without a head of state, just a prime minister, the Príomh Aire (later updated in August 1921 to a full President of the Republic in a constitutional amendment). Even the whole treaty division came back to the same issue: the Irish accredited plenipotentiaries (ie, people allowed to sign a treaty without reference back) yet de Valera wanted the men he accredited as plenipotentiaries not to act as plenipotentiaries but just delegates referring things back to him. (Why the heck did he accredit them as plenipotentiaries, then?), to de Valera's constitutionally illiterate Document No.2, etc. So in revealing the thinking, confused and otherwise, of the leaders of the Rising, the idea of making Prince Joachim King of Ireland was of major importance. It also nails the myth that Ireland was committed to be a republic — throughout the 20th century and for much of the 19th; Sinn Féin wanted a monarchy until 1917 (it almost split on the issue), while as late as 1927 there were plans to have King George V crowned King of Ireland in a public ceremony in the Phoenix Park. Had two things been different, the Rising succeeded and Germany won the war, Joachim or someone like him almost certainly would have been made king, and Ireland today would probably have a royal family (while Britain might be a republic!) The story is clearly not irrelevant. It could have been the major story of the Rising if the Rising had succeeded. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This is so irrelevant. Wikipedia deals with the past, not could have beens. The coat of arms should have never appeared in the article, neiter should the complete exaggeration (penned by FÉ), namely that "Its Prince Joachim was considered as King of Ireland during the 1916 Rising." FSL Lyons does deal with the incident, but my understanding of it was that this is something that was proposed to the Germans in order to get guns. The 1916 leaders were pretty much republican, and had defined themselves as republican long before Griffith or his Sinn Féin did. The physical force tradition had been literally headquartered in exile in republican France at some stages in the 19th century.

As regards the Greeks taking a king to run the country. The "Greeks" did not decide to take a king, the so-called Great Powers imposed a Bavarian prince as king(later deposed), and he was followed by a Danish king later. Incidently, during one of the periods while Greece was left without a king, a Corkman served in the council of state that nominally ran the country. Euromillions to anybody who can name him. --Damac 23:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised you have such a mistaken impression of the history of Irish republican means. To quote Professor Tom Garvan,

To Sinn Féin’s left wing [republicanism] meant socialism or social democracy, often of a quasi-agrarian syndicalist and nationalist kind. To others it meant simply separation from Britain and its empire, together with the possibility of building up an economically independent and cultural distinctive nation-state. To others it meant the ability to build a cordon sanitaire around Ireland, preserving it from the evils of secularist and non-catholic ideas. To many it meant economic protection against British competition and to some it was an expression of the traditional anti-British political sentiment, occasionally mixed up with romanticism and ideas of self sacrifice. It was intellectually incoherent. (Tom Garvin, The Evolution of Irish Nationalist Politics (Dublin, 1981) p.150.

It did not mean, as it does now, a country with a head of state who is elected. Joseph Mary Plunkett was particularly enthusiastic at the idea of a "King Joachim I of Ireland", talking of "a nice young prince, with his nice young bride, and in a couple of years a young son, Prince Patrick, the Prince of Tara". Pearse too was very interested in the idea. The idea that it was anything to do with getting guns is nonsense. It was all to do with the standard method by which new states got themselves onto the world stage: they chose a member of an existing royal house to be king, in the belief that (a) not having royalty would make them the odd one out internationally (what was known as the 'Switzerland Problem' — Switzerland was seen as the forgotten country, an irrelevance internationally, partly, as one Swiss diplomat put it in a telegram to the cabinet in 1869, explaining how little attention was paid to Switzerland, he said it was because "we are related to nobody, we know nobody. We are nobody.") and (b) if you were linked to a bigger royal house you had an informal alliance with that country. People might be slow to involve you in a conference, but if they thought refusing to allow the Irish foreign minister to attend meant a snub to the King of Ireland, and that it turn would be seen as a snub to the King's father, the German Kaiser, and he would give you a right bollocking over not showing respect to his dynasty, having the son of the Kaiser as King of Ireland would open doors for Ireland, as would dynastic marriages. That entire world, centred on dynasties, collapsed in 1917-1919, but it was still the way people thought of as late as 1916 worldwide. Desmond FitzGerald recorded his embarrassment, as an "intellectual republican opposed to monarchy", to hear Plunkett, Pearse and even Connolly all in favour of a German King of Ireland, two of the signatories speculating whether the Irish for Joachim was Seamus and if so, should he be proclaimed Seamus I!

BTW you are mistaken too in your understanding of how the successor to Otto of Greece was chosen. It wasn't a case of the Great Powers "imposing" a king on a reluctant Greece. The Greeks had a referendum on the issue. 95%+ voted to have as Greek king Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh and Earl of Ulster, son of Queen Victoria. When he declined the Powers proposed a Danish prince who said he would only take control when his selection was confirmed by a plebiscite and by the National Assembly which it duly was. He then made a point of taking an oath of office in parliament.

It is easy to perpetuate simplistic myths but it is a cardinal error in historiography to apply today's standards and definitions to the past. What we understand by the term "republicanism" is not what was necessarily understood in 1916, and what was understood in 1916 is not what was understood in 1919. In 1916, as Garvan's quote indicates, Irish republicanism was not incompatible with monarchy. All it was incompatible with was the British monarchy. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing you have written above supports your outlandish claim "Prince Joachim was considered as King of Ireland during the 1916 Rising", which you included in the article under the coat of arms of the Hohenzollerns. Who considered him so? It is also striking that you fail to mention France above. Did everyone in France and the mighty empire it ran think eternally in terms of dynasties or monarchies? Or the USA for that matter? I'm fully aware of the deep political divisions within the 1916 leadership, nationalist and republican Ireland. What you cannot deny that there was a strand of anti-monarchist republicanism present among the leadership - "we serve neither king nor kaiser" etc.

Otto was imposed by the Great Powers; the monarchy was imposed on the newly-independent Greece after the first president was assassinated by a political rival. That's who I was referring to. The debates in the 1860s over who would follow him were greatly influenced by the Great Powers which each had their own political "party" to serve their interests, i.e. the English, French, German (and at times Russian) party. Whenever the Great Powers thought things were not going their way, they practically assumed control of the country (one Irishman, Thomas Wyse, practically ran the country as chairman of the board of finance for a few years in the late 1850s while being British ambassador). And in any case, such plebicites were only held among the patronised elite and the mass of Greeks were never consulted on who would be their king. (PS, the other Irishman I referred to above was Richard Church).

I'm fully aware of the dangers of retrospective, partisan, and teleological narratives on history. Your "simplistic myth" that Joachim "was considered" king of Ireland is a fine example. The Garvin quote I think clearly refers to Sinn Féin, and not necessarily to the 1916 leadership, who were clearly completely unrepresentative of Irish public opinion and sympathies at the time. But that's a different matter entirely.

The Joachim issue is interesting, but not fundamental for the understanding of the 1916 Rising and certainly has no relevance for the article in question. That's why I removed the Hohenzollern image and your ridiculous byline. The 1916 leaders left the issue of the form of government open, that's in the proclamation for all to see. However, this does not mean that the 1916 leaders were consciously working towards a monarchy. They were keeping their options open and certainly pandering to the Germans.--Damac 08:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Everybody uses the same (Irish) name...?

I just noticed something, wandering the web. Everybody (the Irish Defence Forces, the Provisionals, etc, etc, etc) uses the same name in Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann. Similarly, they all (including the Irish Defence Forces) use the name Irish Volunteers. Is that totally irrelevant, or might someone want to note it? --Penta 02:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a problem which needs fixing at ga.wikipedia incidentally, so while we're discussing things here maybe we should sort this out too - any suggestions on naming the corresponging IRA/Irish Volunteers/Defence Forces articles in Irish? --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 05:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The position in clearly set out in law. There is only one Óglaigh na hÉireann – it is the Irish Defence Forces. See the "Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act 1923".

From the opening of the Military Museum "Museums, such as this, can also serve as a corrective to the attempts of some to distort the past in pursuance of a fictional historical mandate for the activities of today. This distortion and perversion extends to the abuse of language and phrases, particularly the corruption of the name: Óglaigh na hÉireann. There is only one Óglaigh na hÉireann – it is the Irish Defence Forces. The words “Óglaigh na hÉireann” appear proudly on the cap badge of every member of the Defence Forces, just as they appeared on the cap badges of their forebears in the Irish Volunteers. The attempted appropriation of this noble and historic title is an insult to the memory of those who, like General Michael Collins, strove for Irish freedom and to those who have stood ready to serve and defend this country since independence." [1]

--ClemMcGann 09:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia, however, it is POV to say that the use of the name is an insult - that must be qualified by being specific: "The Irish Government/Defence Forces consider the use of the name to be an insult." Or something along those lines - more could be said. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo

We have to recognise the law. The "Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act 1923" and subsequent leglisation defined “Óglaigh na hÉireann” as the army raised by the Dail. In law, the President is Commander-in-Chief of “Óglaigh na hÉireann”. As illustrated by the cap badge, ever Irish soldier has “Óglaigh na hÉireann” on his or her cap. You might consider the 'insult' a point of view. But the fact that there is only one “Óglaigh na hÉireann” is a point of law - --ClemMcGann 15:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct. That the likes of the PIRA, CIRA, RIRA etc are Óglaigh na hÉireann is a point of view. That there is only one Óglaigh na hÉireann and that it is the Irish Defence Forces is a point of law. A statement of law, enacted by a sovereign parliament, carries more weight than here points of view of small minorities who have not the backing of a sovereign parliament in pushing their interpretation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 13:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)