Monday, August 21, 2006
What role a monarch in a 32 county Ireland?
Thanks to Boland’s Ghost for pointing us in the direction of Gay Mitchell’s latest kite flying exercise, when he asks if there would be a role for a monarch in a 32 county Republic. It is, as Boland notes, a role back from the position held by Collins in treaty negotiations, since the Irish Republican project has never had more than a derisory response from the island’s original republicans (ie Ulster’s Presbyterians), it may be the least it can do to at least picque their interest.
Mick Fealty @ 05:00 AM
‘There are certainly things we can do, like re-enter the Commonwealth, but that seriously is a step too far.’
So you think about compromise, and then realsie that no, even that (re-entering the commonwealth that India, and all sorts of other republics have no issue with) is a step too far. Why don’t you just keep the tricolour that has been used as the battle standard of the IRA in its war against the UK and Unionists, and keep the soldiers song as the anthem.
In that way you would not have to make any moves to encourage unionism to accept a UI, and in which case NONE of them will.As IJP said, it is going to be about compromise. You are expecting Unionists to absolutely 110% do a turn face (in fact to not be ‘unionists’ any more.) Where as republicans do not even want to entertain any give and take, any compromise.
It does not bode well when you are attempting to
pursuade people that a new Ireland will look after them and respect their culture. All the evidence on this thread contradicts that entirely.Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:10 AMWhy should the Monarch of Ireland be the same person as that of England? I say, draw up a shortlist of suitably qualified candidates for the throne of Ireland: Jacobite, Bonapartist and nativist, and let the best one be elected King/Queen for life. After all, the Holy Roman Emperor was elected. If Lizzie Guelph-Wettin wants to stand, then let her.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:11 AMdantheman: Why would we want a permanently, unelected and permanently protestant head of state?
The Republic has already had at least one Protestant President. You should ask yourself why you are concerned about their religion.
the post: island’s original republicans (ie Ulster’s Presbyterians), it may be the least it [Irish Republicanism]can do to at least picque their interest.
Eh? Why would one Irish Republican use the promise of monarchy to get another Irish Republican to support him/her!
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:16 AMNot all members of the Commonwealth acknowledge the British monarch as head of state. Those that do are known as Commonwealth Realms; however, the majority of members are republics, and a handful of others are indigenous monarchies. All members recognise Queen Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth, a role perhaps best likened to that of a ceremonial president, but this is not a hereditary position: there is no assumption that the next British monarch will necessarily inherit this title.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:17 AM“kensei - the republic was formed on seperatist and socialist ideals too. It wasnt a problem to abandon those.”
Republican ideals have stood the test of time better. Not just here, but all over the world. And I would be in favour of a little more socialism :)
“Always find it amusing how nationalists are quite happy to accept the “vast majority” argument when it works in *their* favour.”
It’s pragmatism. The problem here is that it insn’t the vast majority, it’s the rather slim majority.
“Doubly amusing when people assume they know the opinions of everyone else and feel free to speak on their behalf and ridicule those who disagree.”
I ain’t ridiculing anyone. But the strength of reaction on here tot he suggestion should give you a somewhat unscientific indication of the oipposition to such a suggestion.
Nick J
“So you think about compromise, and then realsie that no, even that (re-entering the commonwealth that India, and all sorts of other republics have no issue with) is a step too far. Why don’t you just keep the tricolour that has been used as the battle standard of the IRA in its war against the UK and Unionists, and keep the soldiers song as the anthem.
In that way you would not have to make any moves to encourage unionism to accept a UI, and in which case NONE of them will.”Not I hate to piss on your rant, but that was just badly phrased. I menat that monarchy was a step too far, but Commonwealth should certainly be considered.
As for the tricolour, that would be a real wrench to give up but I suspect necessary. I would prefer it used somewhere, perhaps as the standard of the Dail or the President, or incorporated into the new flag.
“As IJP said, it is going to be about compromise. You are expecting Unionists to absolutely 110% do a turn face (in fact to not be ‘unionists’ any more.) Where as republicans do not even want to entertain any give and take, any compromise.
It does not bode well when you are attempting to
pursuade people that a new Ireland will look after them and respect their culture. All the evidence on this thread contradicts that entirely. “I’m not expecting Unionists to do an about face. Even if we managed to convince enough people to join a UI, there will remain a large percentage of people who do not want it. I do not want to remove their identity. Nor do I wish to dictate to the ones that did change their minds. Things like this should be thrashed out in negotiation by your own leaders. I have no wish to tell you want you find acceptable. I’d prefer to give a broad vision and what would and won’t be possible.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:21 AMHow about Shirley Temple Bar as the new queen of Ireland???
No seriously, lets bring back the old Irish royal family. Forget about this elections, accountability and democracy crap, lets go back to barbaria.
OC,
I am well aware that presidents of both ireland and the GAA have been protestant.I think you will its the “permanently protestant” rather than protestant bit you should be looking for. No such requirement exists in any other HoS in europe so in this respect the royal family is clearly the most racist in this aspect.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:22 AM“The Republic has already had at least one Protestant President. You should ask yourself why you are concerned about their religion.”
The problem isn’t the religion. It’s the religion coupled with the permanently. And the unelected.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:22 AMRe: The tricolour, I would also give it up for the sake of a new irelan. The green flag with the harp on it would be alright. I would even consider changing the anthem. But to revert to a monarchy is a reversal of democracy. It is the Uk in this aspect which needs to sort out the democratic defecit which exists in its jurisdiction.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:28 AMdantheman, kensei,
Good points. I agree, no head of state should have eligibility rules based on religion.All those unionists talking about compromise should remember that it won’t take many unionists to convert to the full Irish republicanism (tricolour and all) to cause a UI to happen.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:33 AMIf the Head of the Commonwealth is not a hereditary position and some members states are Republics, what objections would Republicans have to this as a possible compromise?
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:56 AMI have no ideological reasons against the commonwealth but I wouldn’t want Ireland to join it. Mugabe showed just how weak an organisation it is. When the rest of the commonwealth failed to rain him in. Just like the UN it is on its last legs. It would be just an excuse for junckets.
Just for any unionist here. If the monorarcy was changed would it make any differance at all in your views on the south.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 10:57 AMThe problem with this suggestion is that both England and Scotland are moving on from the basically imperialist British identity, and the royal family are no longer much of a unifying influence in either country.
The Commonwealth is no longer known as the ‘British Commonwealth’ for much the same reasons as during the 80’s under Thatcher, English politics became so extreme and rightwing that the Brits came very close to being expelled.
It’s bad enough that so many unionists seem to live in a 1950’s timewarp but now certain Fine Gael members seem to be suffering from flashbacks. What are they selling in the clubs in Dublin these days?
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:06 AMOC - ‘All those unionists talking about compromise should remember that it won’t take many unionists to convert to the full Irish republicanism (tricolour and all) to cause a UI to happen.’
As espoused and articulated by the largest republican party, Sinn Fein? I have my doubts how many unionists will be pursueded by the provisionals arguments after withstanding 35 years of them trying to blow their community to bits.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:11 AMThis discussion is based on the premise that the British monarchy survives well into the future. There are a lot of us republicans in the UK you know - and I don’t think our cause is a hopeless one. Oh - and we don’t all have Irish connections - may a “Saxon” is a republican.
The monarchy is drifting into increasing irrelevance, and people accept it/prefer it that way. If we do get King Charles III his potentially more activist inclinations may kill of the whole thing.
Question: are there any NI unionists who are British republicans? I don’t see why unionism should be synonymous with monarchism.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:18 AMlib2016 - ‘The problem with this suggestion is that both England and Scotland are moving on from the basically imperialist British identity, and the royal family are no longer much of a unifying influence in either country.’
However, the vast majority of British people want the monarchy to remain, so it must be doing something right
Apologies if my hyperlink does not work in advance!!
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:20 AMHooray, looks like it did!!
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:20 AMI don’t object to the idea of a monarchy because what Gay Mitchell seems to be proposing is to recognise the British Queen - I object to the idea of a monarchy/freak show, whatever guise it takes.
Sure there are some monarchies around the world that don’t draw shame on their country to the same extent as the British Windsors, but that’s no reason to go down that road. I’m not in favour of an Irish High King either. The idea of monarchy is ancient twaddle and its advantages are far outweighed by its disadvantages.
if this is what unionists want us to in order to accomodate a United Ireland, what next? Recognise that the earth is flat? That the sun revolves around the earth?
This is not a compromise worth entertaining because it isn’t, in itself, sensible. And I think Gay Mitchell is an absolute head the ball for suggesting it and invoking the name of Arthur Griffiths to endorse it. Griffiths ended up as the first president of the Irish Republic(at the 1919 Dáil) - so it’s hardly likely he would have endorsed a monarchy!
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:29 AMThe Republic returning to the Commonwealth would make no difference whatsoever to me.
My Britishness, like all Brits, has little to do with loyalty to a symbolic Head Of State as a person - The British Royal Family are honored because they are the Head of State and for that reason only.
Whether you elect them or they derive from an herediatry family is neither here nor there as real power lies with the elected Government.However all things remaining equal I have no problem with the hereditary route as its saves us from people like Livingstone and Galloway.
Also please spare me the talk about Free State and its Republican ideals - If there had been an Irish Royal family in the waiting in France in 1921 it would have been welcomed back with open arms.
They were republicans because the British had a constitutional monarchy and they needed to be different.You just need to look at how defferential the Free State was to the Vatican and its often corrupt bishops to realise how ‘royalist’ the Catholic Irish are.
Infact if James had won the Battle of the Boyne and secured Catholism to the throne of England the ‘Irish problem’ would now be about the rebellious north seeking to join a Calvinist Scotland.
Irish Catholics would then be the most royalist in Europe.Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:31 AMNick J,
The largest republican parties on this island are FF and FG, not SF (well, don’t forget the arguments over who’s really a republican! But that could rule out PSF for RSF). Seriously though, many’s a unionist could convert and join FF, FG or the PDs or something.I predict a UI with the full trimmings, but not because of (P)SF unless they get their act together on tackling sectarianism and sane economics.
This is going off topic though, must stop myself ...
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:31 AMOK. I’ve changed my mind. After listening to all the arguments I am now in favour of instituting an Irish monarchy. Please forgive me if have have less time to visit on Slugger for a while as I shall be busy in my garden shed constructing the guillotine.
Head of State - oh yes indeedy! Prominently displayed on a pikestaff for all the citizenry to admire.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:45 AMROFLMAO Good one Rory!
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 11:57 AMOC - ‘I predict a UI with the full trimmings’
I wonder what that might look like?
Gaeilge gravy forced down the throats of those who do not wish to learn it? A larger portion of Brussells than many would wish for? What form of cultural or historical stuffing would unionists have to endure on their plates? Not mentioning about the anthem and flag for just desserts? I suspect that this republican relish may be a tad too rich for some in NI(enough of the food quips now)
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 12:03 PM“My Britishness, like all Brits, has little to do with loyalty to a symbolic Head Of State as a person - The British Royal Family are honored because they are the Head of State and for that reason only.
Whether you elect them or they derive from an herediatry family is neither here nor there as real power lies with the elected Government.”Oh, I do strongly disagree. Monarchy has no place in the modern world. Power may lie with the elected government, but the Head Of State has some power, certain influence, projects an image to the world, and costs money. It may, in the cosmic scheme of things, be 2p a year, but I resent any of my money going to bunch of rich twats.
“However all things remaining equal I have no problem with the hereditary route as its saves us from people like Livingstone and Galloway.”
Yeah, that democracy thing sucks.
“Also please spare me the talk about Free State and its Republican ideals - If there had been an Irish Royal family in the waiting in France in 1921 it would have been welcomed back with open arms.
They were republicans because the British had a constitutional monarchy and they needed to be different.”No, they were republicans because they were inspired by the Americans, the French, and followed in the tradition of the United Irishmen. Connolly was a latent monarchist! You are just being ignorant.
You are doing those men, and the Irish people a great disservice.
“You just need to look at how defferential the Free State was to the Vatican and its often corrupt bishops to realise how ‘royalist’ the Catholic Irish are.”
Infact if James had won the Battle of the Boyne and secured Catholism to the throne of England the ‘Irish problem’ would now be about the rebellious north seeking to join a Calvinist Scotland.
Irish Catholics would then be the most royalist in Europe.”What a great point! Except there were no major democracies in the world at point. Or Constitutional Republics. I really wish we had come up with the idea, but we didn’t so the best we can do is take it and run with it.
Who know what would have happened if history hadn’t have turned out like it did? The point is, it happened like it happened, and most people on Ireland support Republican Government.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 12:05 PMHi all-
Kensei…you state the monarch is ‘honored’ because the monarch is the head of state… THerefore, people who honor this monarch are honoring a position that relegates Catholics as lesser human beings ....because by law a Catholic can not be a monarch. Interesting…the queen can be a satanist…the king can be a hindu and the prince can be a muslim…all legal…yet the monarch can not be a Catholic…and there is discussion about having them play a role in Ireland?
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 12:22 PM“Kensei…you state the monarch is ‘honored’ because the monarch is the head of state… “
I stated absolutely nothing of the sort . Do pay attention.
Posted by on Aug 21, 2006 @ 01:11 PM
