Cartoon – A ‘black spider’ memo for OFMDFM on Justice

Jamie Bryson cartoon

Tuesday May 24 had a busy afternoon. Sinn Fein announced its executive team. Prince Charles, known for his letter writing, visited Portadown and the Orange Museum as part of #RoyalVisitNI. Then news broke that the loyalist blogger Jamie Bryson  had written a letter to OFMDFM suggesting he be considered for the position of Justice Minister. Like the Justice portfolio, a question mark stands over who will be heir to the British Crown; perhaps that is another position for the loyalist blogger to consider?

, , ,

  • SeaanUiNeill

    There is absolutely no uncertainty as to who SHOULD actually inherit the throne:

    http://www.jacobite.ca/kings/francis2.htm

  • chrisjones2

    Ha…you forget the issue of the 2nd Dail!!

  • Msiegnaro

    Can anyone explain the uncertainty as to whom will inherit the throne?

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Primarily, English Republicans. And those others rather afraid that he may emulate his uncle Edward and genuinely mean it when he hints also that “something must be done”……….

  • Jag

    Prince Charles (or Charles Windsor for the republicans down the back) visited the Orange Order yesterday. Or at least one of their museums. A museum which receives funding from the Republic, it should be said.

    Is that a first?

    Queen Elizabeth regards the Orange Order as “ghastly”, and that view dominates “the Firm”. Was Charles’s recognition of the OO yesterday a maverick departure from the settled view, or is there to be a corporate attempt by the British royals to civilise the OO (Twaddell, public disorder, sectarian chanting, singing, incitement, Garvaghy etc etc).

  • Msiegnaro

    Orange Institution or Loyal Orange Institution, it is not called the “Orange Order”.

    The Orange has a significant presence in the ROI so what is the issue?
    Yesterday was clearly an example of the Royals better embracing an organisation that is loyal to them, your post it very poorly informed.

  • Msiegnaro

    So those who feel after her majesty there should be no Royal family?

  • Reader

    Probably a bit easier than palling up to republicans. All in a day’s work, really.

  • Reader

    Nothing to do with either republicans or Jacobites. Charles is not perceived as an attractive candidate for the job, so there are mutterings about skipping a generation.

  • Msiegnaro

    Yes I too would be in favour of that – good call Reader.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Reader, you obviously do not mix with English Republicans (quite a few in Labour) as I have done for years. While I’d not suggest that the Republian agenda is any sort of full explanation, it’s still a significant part of the bad publicity. And Charles’s being “not perceived as an attractive candidate for the job” is all very much about the fact that he has strong opinions and our current masters brook no challenge to their “natural” monopoly of power. You’ll be suggesting that the silly “Mrs Simpson” story in an earler generation is actually true next!

  • chrisjones2

    How dare you suggest that Republicans are at the back of the bus!!

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Well, Msiegnaro, certainly those who would challenge the customary pattern of sucession for their own ends, as with those self-interested Quislings who called in the Dutchman in 1688, and established a spurious parliamentary control of the crown with all the horrours that have ensued from that.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Not at Westminster, they’re not, certainly not the English Republicans!

  • Msiegnaro

    Oh dear, you really are a conspiracy theorist.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Exactly, M, the LOI for those unwilling to type beyond abreviations.

  • chrisjones2

    “And Charles’s being “not perceived as an attractive candidate for the job” is all very much about the fact that he has strong opinions and our current masters brook no challenge to their “natural” monopoly of power. ”

    Forgive me but I have to disagree and say – in all humility and with honesty – that that’s one of the biggest loads of bollox I have seen on here in a while.

    The reality is that they probably see him as too liberal but above all as harmless and utterly irrelevant – which is probably the best way to see a Constitutional Monarchy

  • chrisjones2

    Queen Elizabeth regards the Orange Order as “ghastly”

    ….. and who are we to disagree

  • SeaanUiNeill

    My dear fellow, “Nemo me impune lacessit”!!! If you were to have actually looked you’d have noticed that its serious accredited history for anyone keeping up with current research!!!!

    For simple starters, have you encountered my friend Eveline Crookshanks’ work?:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eveline_Cruickshanks

    Or, as I occasioanlly quote, the blurb from Scott Sowerby’s excellent “Making Toleration”:

    “In the reign of James II, minority groups from across the religious spectrum, led by the Quaker William Penn, rallied together under the Catholic King James in an effort to bring religious toleration to England. Known as repealers, these reformers aimed to convince Parliament to repeal laws that penalized worshippers who failed to conform to the doctrines of the Church of England. Although the movement was destroyed by the Glorious Revolution, it profoundly influenced the post-revolutionary settlement, helping to develop the ideals of tolerance that would define the European Enlightenment.

    Based on a rich array of newly discovered archival sources, Scott Sowerby’s groundbreaking history rescues the repealers from undeserved obscurity, telling the forgotten story of men and women who stood up for their beliefs at a formative moment in British history. By restoring the repealer movement to its rightful prominence, Making Toleration also overturns traditional interpretations of King James II’s reign and the origins of the Glorious Revolution. Though often depicted as a despot who sought to impose his own Catholic faith on a Protestant people, James is revealed as a man ahead of his time, a king who pressed for religious toleration at the expense of his throne. The Glorious Revolution, Sowerby finds, was not primarily a crisis provoked by political repression. It was, in fact, a conservative counter-revolution against the movement for enlightened reform that James himself encouraged and sustained.”

    Wake up and smell the coffee, that canonic Whig version is soooo discredited………

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Chris, another of your delightfully skewered postings that entirely misses the mark, although I’d entirely agree that he’s is a decent candidate for “Constitutional Monarchy”. In the continuing absence of our true leige, King Francis II, Charlie is probably the very best person for the job until our planned Jacobite coup comes to fruition!

    You’ve obviously missed all those debates about Charlie interfering with the current “closed shop”, then!

  • SeaanUiNeill

    So, you’re a Republican?

  • Msiegnaro

    Sceptic.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    In it’s practical effect, indistinguishable, then!

  • Msiegnaro

    As a member of the Orange Institution I have some genuine concerns regarding the Royal Family.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    I’ve no wish to give offence here, M, and many on Slugger might be surprised to find that, the exclusive Protestant nature of the Institution aside, I even have a sideways regard for many I know in the LOI (including my dear brother, etc) but must clearly state here that any genuine Royalist solidly affirms that very essence of the Crown as an institution, the Right of Direct Succession (which would certainly put King Francis II on the throne in Westmisnter and Dublin, an end most devoutly to be prayed for)! It’s not a game of pick and mix, not if you want it to be anything more than a slightly hereditary presidency, that is! I seem to encounter more and more Republican Unionists as I get older, some even within my own extended family. I always tell them that these things have to be thought out fully on their principals, if they are to mean anything at all.

  • Am Ghobsmacht

    Hmmmm, not as wild as you may think, even Prof Niall Ferguson in his book ‘Empire’ (a thumping good read btw)portrays that episode as an attempt by the British to get their hands on a Dutch style stock exchange system (there was a stock exchange of sorts in existence in the coffee houses but not as polished as the Dutch system).

    And sure enough a few years later the Bank of England (the Battle of Beachy Head giving it a priority of sorts) was formed and indeed there was an act passed in 1697 aimed at regulating stocks and what not.

    As far as I can recall William didn’t even like the Ulster Presbyterians that much (if he thought anything of them at all).

  • Msiegnaro

    Who are the Orange Order?

  • Ben De Hellenbacque

    So a rhotically challenged and unchecked narcissist Duke of Monmouth importunes for a self authorised inheritance! Will he claim some primogeniture even from the wrong side of the blanket? Being on the wrong (and failed) side of everything has been no hindrance to him so far. Great fun!

  • Jag

    I refuse to be deprived of the fun of putting dots in the middle of the “OO” to remind myself what I think of that organisation (not individual members mind, but as an organisation, it is responsible for much ugliness in this society).

  • Ben De Hellenbacque

    But he still saved Oolstar! Who cares about such insignificant things like the expansion of modern capitalism, the foundation of the western economy, financial stability from futures trading, English mercantile wealth, financing the growth of Empire … ad nauseam. He saved Oolstar! And he hated themuns too supposedly.

  • eireanne3

    interesting the black spider meme was also used here with reference to NI and the republic

    https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/a-royal-visit-black-spider-over-ireland/

  • Ben De Hellenbacque

    Are you questioning the institution’s relevance? If so, I’m with you.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    The nomenclature is after all a matter of respect………….

  • SeaanUiNeill

    No, AG, as Scott Sowerby shows the Presbyterians across the Isles had achieved the kind of equality of rights under James that, with the Dutchman’s succession, they would not again see for near 100 years, hence the 1798 alliance of Catholic and dissenter!

    Both Presbyterains and Catholics experienced Penal Laws under the governance of the Prince of Orange, Anne and the Electors. And, yes, William even considered dispossessing the entire plantation in the north and passing their property leases on to more robust supporters who would not cave in militarily as the locals had at the “Break of Dromore”! It’s a wonder when you check out his actions and opinions that his image survives on any local gable wall, but then most people ignore any history that actually troubles them.

  • Msiegnaro

    There is no such organisation as well you know.

  • Jarl Ulfreksfjordr

    What questions do you have over the “relevance” of the Orange ‘organisation’ (whatever the correct name is)?

    It has, so I’m told, around forty thousand members, about half that locally of the only organisation I belong to- the National Trust. Is it half as ‘relevant’ as the NT?

    I’m just trying to understand what you mean by your use of the word ‘relevance’.

  • Am Ghobsmacht

    “It’s a wonder when you check out his actions and opinions that his image survives on any local gable wall, but then most people ignore any history that actually troubles them.”
    Indeed, that’s why (I suspect) that objective scrutiny these days is frowned upon and the practice of ‘whataboutery’ is much preferred.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Serious history stretches the brain, and usually that hurts a bit at first. It’s so much easier for people to shore up their comfort zones and simply refuse to listen, but as my more committed Jacobite friends say:

    “It’ll all be very different when King Francis is finally restored……….”

  • Anglo-Irish

    What do you mean, ” it’s not a game of pick and mix “?

    That’s exactly what it’s always been as far as the LOI ( so sensitive about the description and yet so unconcerned when it comes to describing others ), is concerned.

    Their ‘Loyal’ oath is the only oath that I’m aware of that contains ‘Terms and Conditions ‘ included within it is the qualifier ‘ pledge allegiance to the sovereign and their heirs and successors whilst ever the Protestant ascendancy is maintained ‘.

    Hardly an unqualified pledge is it when T&Cs apply?

    Incidentally, the only OO member that I ever knew in any meaningful way was a lovely man.

  • Croiteir

    For Stuart Aye

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Oh, I fully understand all that, A-I. What I’m saying as that rarity, an Irish Legitimist, is that ever since the substitution of the Dutchman for our unquestioned liege lord James II & VII (of honoured memory), some locals have only been play acting at being Monarchists no matter how stridently they claim the title. “Loyalty” may be defined as “the state or quality of being loyal; faithfulness to commitments or obligations”, and any genuine faith is an absolute that does not allow of “Terms and Conditions.” In essence such people are qualified Republicans to my mind.

    But of course I should also add along with your final comment that I have found within the LOI quite a few people of unshakable loyalty to what they believe, and some with a genuine understanding of what toleration should always mean. Such people tend to be thoughtful members with several generations behind them in the Institution.

  • Anglo-Irish

    In my experience most people have a tendency to cling to that which they were born into and believe in any old manner of tripe whether it be political, religious or royalist.

    Despite which, if you are prepared to accept their particular set of eccentricities and they are prepared to accept your – very minor – ones then friendship can be enjoyed.

    I am a republican and I regard all deference to any other fallible human as unacceptable and subservient.

    As I’m also an agnostic I feel similarly when it comes to worship, whilst having a respect for others entitlement to their views.

    Basically, as long as your particular set of beliefs or lifestyle doesn’t impact on me or mine in any negative manner your fine by me.

    Doesn’t stop me enjoying a good argument of course but no ill will results. : )

  • SeaanUiNeill

    The key to all of this is good intentions on both sides of a discussion. without that it will be inevitable that metaphorically, sometimes even literally, the knives will come out.

Join us for the Slugger End of Year Review Show, Wed 14th Dec 2016
Get your tickets