|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 27, 2017 11:33:14 GMT
Can I raise another question on this topic? (Just because there are so many facets to what an Irish monarchy might look like.) I think ancient Ireland's patchwork of kingdoms was probably something which took a long time to develop naturally, out of the necessity of tribal survival. Over time, these tribal leadership roles took on a formality which was greatly legitimized by the coming of Christianity under various early saints (Sts. Ciaran of Saighir, Palladius, Patrick, Declan, etc.) I see the path towards modern monarchy as following a similar line: surnames organizing into a functioning body of members who undertake a search for a chief of the name; a chief nominated and ratified by the participating members of said clan; chiefs at first possess no political power but serve as the embodiment of local culture, clan history, and an elevation of humanity, attending cultural/historic preservation events/sites; local sporting competitions, emphasising Gaeilge; then gaining local prominence. The Standing Council of Irish chiefs could then have fresh blood and a renewed sense of purpose. And then comes the legitimacy: the anointing of chiefs by local bishops- not that the bishops bestow power or authority on the chiefs, since that would be sourced from the clan- but they anoint them as symbolic of God's favor (providing that both the bishops and the chief are of the same belief and are fully Christian). Once the Church legitimises them, it no longer is just a group of enthused genealogists. This becomes multidimensional. Over time, clans might even willingly crowdfund halls or designated meeting places where their operations would be centralised; where the chief and his clan council would hold session. Then once enough chiefs become locally active in the life of their clans/county, a body of aristocracy would form, and would be held in common by each clan as a body- not arising out of a central font, as with the British or European monarchs where their king was the origin or font of all nobility. Ours would be again a patchwork of local organizations. Sans the infighting of yesteryore. Does this sound like a feasible option? It doesn't really sound feasible to me, because it overlooks two trends which seem inevitable; that is, the increasing marginalization of the Catholic Church, so that it will become about as relevant as Cycling Ireland or some such body, and the decline of the ethnic Irish to a minority in their homeland. However, having said all that, I do LIKE the idea, and I think it's worthwhile. Even if the Irish become an ethnic minority, it becomes all the more important to hold onto our history and traditions. As for the bishops anointing chiefs....I'm less convinced by that. I would love it if every man, woman and child in Ireland was a Catholic, but sadly that's not the case and many people sympathetic to reviving the Irish clan system will not be Catholics. And, to anticipate this criticism, I don't necessarily think a proposal like this will make any tangible difference to the country. But a connection to one's traditions has a value of its own.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Dec 15, 2017 1:57:41 GMT
I've just read an obituary of King Michael I of Romania, who died last week. His official/unofficial role since 1996 is another example of a monarchy being recognised within a republic. It's a long story and well worth reading, but eventually "Savarsin Castle in Western Romania was returned to him while Elisabeth Palace in Bucharest was made his residence. Tough Romania remains a republic, the royal house looks after the family's properties and bestows honours" Significantly, he was quoted as saying in 2011 (he didn't usually address parliament, but the socialist government of '11 granted him the privilege for his 90th birthday) "tomorrow's world cannot exist without morals, without faith and memory. Cynicism, narrow interests and cowardice mustn't occupy our lives. They remind us too much of the years before 1989". I notice he died in Switzerland, hopefully he was receiving medical treatment there and wasn't exiled again.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 15, 2017 9:01:14 GMT
I was reading Bernadette Cunningham's recent book on the Annals of the four masters and Gaelic kingship. The Annals is the premier 17th century historical record from a Gaelic prespective.
3 things struck me. There were only 10 Irish high kings in all. It was largely an honourary title which died unlamented.
The four masters generally referred to the Irish Kings as Lords or some lesser title thereafter.
They accepted the claim of the Stuart family who hailed originally from Scotland as the legitimate kings of Ireland. There was no native claimant. This was the view of the Irish Clergy , the Bards and catholic opinion generally. If this was the opinion of the people who lived in traditional Ireland why can't the Royalists here accept the logic if they want a monarchy.... The Stuart successor is already the monarch of a quarter of the island of Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 15, 2017 9:16:04 GMT
I was reading Bernadette Cunningham's recent book on the Annals of the four masters and Gaelic kingship. The Annals is the premier 17th century historical record from a Gaelic prespective. 3 things struck me. There were only 10 Irish high kings in all. It was largely an honourary title which died unlamented. The four masters generally referred to the Irish Kings as Lords or some lesser title thereafter. They accepted the claim of the Stuart family who hailed originally from Scotland as the legitimate kings of Ireland. There was no native claimant. This was the view of the Irish Clergy , the Bards and catholic opinion generally. If this was the opinion of the people who lived in traditional Ireland why can't the Royalists here accept the logic if they want a monarchy.... The Stuart successor is already the monarch of a quarter of the island of Ireland. I'm not particularly a fan of amalgamation and centralisation. Yes, perhaps a functional high kingship could have saved us from the Vikings. But does everything have to be seen through a prism of social darwinism? Isn't it pretty much an acceptance that might is right and success is everything?
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 15, 2017 9:34:34 GMT
I was reading Bernadette Cunningham's recent book on the Annals of the four masters and Gaelic kingship. The Annals is the premier 17th century historical record from a Gaelic prespective. 3 things struck me. There were only 10 Irish high kings in all. It was largely an honourary title which died unlamented. The four masters generally referred to the Irish Kings as Lords or some lesser title thereafter. They accepted the claim of the Stuart family who hailed originally from Scotland as the legitimate kings of Ireland. There was no native claimant. This was the view of the Irish Clergy , the Bards and catholic opinion generally. If this was the opinion of the people who lived in traditional Ireland why can't the Royalists here accept the logic if they want a monarchy.... The Stuart successor is already the monarch of a quarter of the island of Ireland. I'm not particularly a fan of amalgamation and centralisation. Yes, perhaps a functional high kingship could have saved us from the Vikings. But does everything have to be seen through a prism of social darwinism? Isn't it pretty much an acceptance that might is right and success is everything? No the point I was trying to make was our ancestors who were real monarchists had a different view from what is being advocated here from various posters who are advocating a largely invented view of the past that those people did not share. There was no Irish Royalty in exile waiting to come home to oust the Saxons. Later generations adopted a republican outlook as we are all aware. If you want a monarch why not use the one nearest who has a real living claim to be that monarch? The last legal king of all Ireland was King Edward VIII in 1937 after all. Positively it would confuse the Unionists if we made Liz our head of state and it would reduce costs as we could retire Michael D and turn the Aras into something useful like a home for the needy.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 15, 2017 9:39:20 GMT
I'm not particularly a fan of amalgamation and centralisation. Yes, perhaps a functional high kingship could have saved us from the Vikings. But does everything have to be seen through a prism of social darwinism? Isn't it pretty much an acceptance that might is right and success is everything? No the point I was trying to make was our ancestors who were real monarchists had a different view from what is being advocated here from various posters who are advocating a largely invented view of the past that those people did not share. There was no Irish Royalty in exile waiting to come home to oust the Saxons. Later generations adopted a republican outlook as we are all aware. If you want a monarch why not use the one nearest who has a real living claim to be that monarch? The last legal king of all Ireland was King Edward VIII in 1937 after all. Positively it would confuse the Unionists if we made Liz our head of state and it would reduce costs as we could retire Michael D and turn the Aras into something useful like a home for the needy. Well, for me, it would be because of the recent historical connotations. I am both an anglophile and an enormous admirer of Queen Elizabeth II, but I'm cognisant of the fact that I would be haunted by several generations of family ghosts if I pledged any kind of allegiance to the British crown. I accept your point about historical anachronism, but it doesn't bother me very much...if the Irish wanted to pull a High King out of thin air, I'd be OK with that. Every tradition begins somewhere. As you've said previously, it's extremely unlikely anyway. The main relevance this discussion has, in my view, is putting clear blue water between Irishness and republicanism-- since republicanism is so often construed as French-style republicanism by the Fintans of this world.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 15, 2017 9:52:40 GMT
No the point I was trying to make was our ancestors who were real monarchists had a different view from what is being advocated here from various posters who are advocating a largely invented view of the past that those people did not share. There was no Irish Royalty in exile waiting to come home to oust the Saxons. Later generations adopted a republican outlook as we are all aware. If you want a monarch why not use the one nearest who has a real living claim to be that monarch? The last legal king of all Ireland was King Edward VIII in 1937 after all. Positively it would confuse the Unionists if we made Liz our head of state and it would reduce costs as we could retire Michael D and turn the Aras into something useful like a home for the needy. Well, for me, it would be because of the recent historical connotations. I am both an anglophile and an enormous admirer of Queen Elizabeth II, but I'm cognisant of the fact that I would be haunted by several generations of family ghosts if I pledged any kind of allegiance to the British crown. I accept your point about historical anachronism, but it doesn't bother me very much...if the Irish wanted to pull a High King out of thin air, I'd be OK with that. Every tradition begins somewhere. As you've said previously, it's extremely unlikely anyway. The main relevance this discussion has, in my view, is putting clear blue water between Irishness and republicanism-- since republicanism is so often construed as French-style republicanism by the Fintans of this world. Ideally I think a tradition should be based on a real pre-existing tradition. You sound suspiciously like the marxists who claim most traditions are invented! (Not that they don't have a valid point) However if people don't recall a dead tradition it can be a bit academic in pushing it. Imagine if an Irish government was debating reviving human sacrifice .... The repeal of the 5th ammendment in the 1970s did help create the view we were a secular republic. The church people supporting it back then probably never contemplated the the appalling vista we now experience.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 15, 2017 10:15:02 GMT
Ideally I think a tradition should be based on a real pre-existing tradition. You sound suspiciously like the marxists who claim most traditions are invented! (Not that they don't have a valid point) However if people don't recall a dead tradition it can be a bit academic in pushing it. I agree, it's better to build on pre-existing traditions, but not always. I was always amused by Patrick Pearse's common-sense argument that the Irish would be better off introducing the fairly anachronistic kilt as a "Gaelic" garment, rather than some outrageous leggings that were more historical. I'm more trying to out-manoeuvre the Eric Hobsbawm types than capitulate to them.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 15, 2017 10:18:09 GMT
Ideally I think a tradition should be based on a real pre-existing tradition. You sound suspiciously like the marxists who claim most traditions are invented! (Not that they don't have a valid point) However if people don't recall a dead tradition it can be a bit academic in pushing it. I agree, it's better to build on pre-existing traditions, but not always. I was always amused by Patrick Pearse's common-sense argument that the Irish would be better off introducing the fairly anachronistic kilt as a "Gaelic" garment, rather than some outrageous leggings that were more historical. I'm more trying to out-manoeuvre the Eric Hobsbawm types than capitulate to them. Sounds like a cunning plan Balderick!
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jan 14, 2018 9:42:33 GMT
Apparently, in the first round of Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations, after the War of Independence, Lloyd George told Eamon De Valera that the lack of a Welsh or Irish world for "Republic" proved that republicanism was contrary to the Celtic spirit.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Jan 14, 2018 10:25:43 GMT
The earliest recorded use of the phrase "Irish Republic" I recall reading about was in a document from Philip II, seeking to support Irish freedom from England once Elizabeth I had rebuffed him. I was amazed to see such a phrase being used by a seriously Catholic monarch. It's an oft-forgotten fact that Philip was nominally King of Ireland from 1554-1558 due to his marriage to Mary I.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jan 14, 2018 13:17:25 GMT
The earliest recorded use of the phrase "Irish Republic" I recall reading about was in a document from Philip II, seeking to support Irish freedom from England once Elizabeth I had rebuffed him. I was amazed to see such a phrase being used by a seriously Catholic monarch. It's an oft-forgotten fact that Philip was nominally King of Ireland from 1554-1558 due to his marriage to Mary I. What Philip was up to was most likely creating a puppet state under the Spanish crown. Seperatists who seek foreign aid against the English often assume that foreign power will give Ireland full freedom. Most recently IRA members believed that in the event of a Nazi victory Hitler would hand the 6 counties back to Dublin. Hitler being Hitler would probably have given Dublin to the British Vichy style government ruled by the restored King Edward VIII, the last legal king of Ireland. Philip's use of the term Republic doesn't necessarily indicate anti monarchism or modern style republican ideology. The greatest example of a Republic was the classical Roman model which was highly aristocratic and imperialistic but had certain restricted democratic features. Perhaps his use of the term was his unwillingness to declare which Irish Lord had a claim to the crown if any? Again this shows no one in Ireland desired a destinctive Irish monarchy in the 16th century even when the official monarch was a protestant heretic! After 1570 and the excommunication of Elizabeth I Philip was pursuing a personal claim to the English crown. I presume in the event of the Armada being victorious he would have ruled over a newly liberated Irish "Republic".
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 11, 2021 20:46:18 GMT
My answer to this is complex, but it reflects the fact that I am pro Irish and nationalist first, I have no other beliefs I am not willing to make exceptions to when it suits the cause of freedom, independence and justice for Ireland. if the restoration of the monarchy took one form, I would love it; if it took another, I would fight it to the death, and even be willing to make common cause with the IRA to prevent it. they key question is if the throne will harm Irishness or not. I would support it on the condition that the monarch, and the monarchy be Irish. the British Monarchy has no place in the political structure of Ireland, and has never had any just place there. Remember, the British monarchy are the very people responsible for the destruction of our native nobility and royalty; benefited from the crimes committed against us, and are the ones who instituted the protestant ascendency; plus they are not Irish anyway; if you claim we should not hold people accountable for the actions of their ancestors, please remember that a monarchy is a hereditary system, which says ancestry does matter; either it matters or it doesn’t but supporting the British monarchy in Ireland requires one to hypocritically mix those two options to the point of incoherence. Looking beyond that record; the British Monarchy fails every test of suitability for Ireland. Remember it is by law protestant only. There are two opinions on religion and Ireland’s head of state that I think are reasonable: 1. That the head of state’s religion is a private matter and so there should be no religious test office; or 2. That they should have to be catholic; anything else just spits in the face of the Irish nation and people. If the head of state’s religion doesn’t matter, the British monarchy is excluded because it is protestant only by law, and specifically excludes Catholics. If the head of state’s religion does matter, then Ireland’s must be catholic. The British monarchy is affirmatively neither secular nor catholic; and thus cannot function as Ireland’s head of state. Once again, to argue for the British monarchy having any role here (other then a foreign visitor), requires you to adopt two contradictory positions at once. Above and beyond their record and unsuitability for this nation; it is also bad realpolitik; it acknowledges that Irish republicans are right on the facts. “Is our own monarchical tradition so poor, that we have to substitute someone else’s for it? If so, we really should be a republic” the statement in quotes is logical but wrong, it is incorrect purely because it’s initial factual premise is untrue, but the reasoning is sound enough that if that premise were true, the statement would be correct. Whether you hear that or not, many Irish nationalists who might be supportive (or at least accepting if it is a done deal) of a native monarchy certainly do hear the subtext there, and it is bad. Also, I believe in the inherent right of nations to be ruled over by people who live in their country. I cannot overstate how much I prefer the republic to any British monarch. Anyone who supports a Windsor ruling over Ireland as a monarch should be killed or deported (I sincerely hope the later, because you just don’t belong here, and would be happier across the sea). On the other hand, a restoration of our native monarchy is a complete other story. I am strongly supportive of that. The key part is that the monarch must be Irish, in descent, residence, religion, language and culture. The last three may or may not be enforced by law on subsequent successions; but at the very least in choosing the first restored native monarch, those factors must be carefully adhered to. If you are indifferent to this philosophically, I can give you a very strong practical reason for supporting it anyway. The taintedness of monarchy in the Irish context is the result of its association with foreign domination, in making restoration happen we need to literally re-establish the Irishness of monarchy; the first monarch’s personal Irishness helps with that; just as a man recovering from a leg injury may have to use a crutch for a while until he regains the ability to walk, we need a monarch who is personally Irish while the Irishness of monarchy as a concept is still being rebuilt. That is why the first monarch should have no ties to the British, be of Irish descent (ideally, but not essentially, from the old Gaelic nobility), reside in Ireland, be a catholic, and have at least a working knowledge of the Irish language. As someone who wants to make everything how it would have been without the invasion, a restored native monarchy appeals to me, but the British monarchy is repulsive enough for me to make common cause with radical socialist republicans. I suppose you could even say I am against a “king” but for a “Rí”.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Sept 11, 2021 22:02:50 GMT
I'm surprised that few monarchists in Ireland argue for a restoration of petty kingdoms. These would seem to be more authentically Irish than the relatively short-lived and constantly disputed High Kingship.
|
|
|
Post by connacht4096 on Sept 11, 2021 22:42:42 GMT
I'm surprised that few monarchists in Ireland argue for a restoration of petty kingdoms. These would seem to be more authentically Irish than the relatively short-lived and constantly disputed High Kingship. I am in favor of restoring them, however, modern comunications and transport, plus the structure of the Irish state today have made the central government more important then it was in the era of petty kings; but I think the restoration of them also makes sense, and think the national monarch will be designated from amongst them (like a hybrid of malaysia and the holy roman empire); i am certain at least some other supporters of a restored native monarchy also agree, sorry we have not been more clear on that though. also I am kind of new to this forum,
|
|