Search This Blog

Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Restoration I: Hibernie Rex. Imperator Scottorum

This is the first in a series of planned post I will be posting discussing the neccessities and complexities of restoring a Native Irish monarchy, the various forms this could take and the neccessary permutations of government that will result.

In this first post I will be exploring the nature of a possibly Irish Monarch, his position and duties and the meaning and impact of an Irish monarchy in today's modern age. Firstly I will be arguing whether or not 'King' alone is the right title for such a monarch.

Since antiquiety the position of the High King of all Ireland is a long recognised, highly fought over, but ultimately very weak institution within the Nation of Ireland. It is analogous to that of the position of the King of Gaul in both function and Nature. The tribes of Gaul, much like the Clans of Ireland, were fiercely independent of one another, each with their unique cultural traits to distinguish themselves from other Gauls but with enough in common to distinguish themselves as recogniseably 'Gaulish' from other Celtic nations to neccessitate the idea of a king. The throne of the king was traditionally left empty due to natural gaulish suspicion of eachother, and was intended only to be filled in times of crisis, (such as invasion by foreigners), where a suitable man would be crowned king of gaul and would act as supreme commander of all military actions of the Gauls. This was seen very famously in Vercingeterix's legendary yet tragic resistance of Roman Conquest, (who themselves had the position of Dictator for the exact same reasons as their tribal neighbours and which was usually left empty for almost the exact same reasons).

So to is the case with the Irish High King, while much of ancient Irish history is an insufferable mess of legends intermixed with real political developments, the position of the high king in Ireland is at least traceable to before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the Irish to their credit, always had someone ready to take up the position. Of course this usually meant the various Tuathes and their subordinate clans fought eachother in order to obtain a throne that would ironically end with none of the clans listening to their rule. Whoever gained the throne of Tara ended up only ruling the province of meath in addition to their own province, with the other kings being largely independent. This is most visible after Ireland became a largely Christian Nation, irish clans began adopting more formalised family surnames, geneaologies began to be traced and the beginnings of proper family dynasties were forming.

Now before I move on, I must say that this is exactly why the ancient Irish nation never truely united, we were proud celts, and we bloody well loved to fight eachother. It made the job of the Normans conquering us that much easier, as the old axium divide and conquer was already half achieved by the time they got here.

Now this is were I focus heavily on Brian Boru as he is commonly known, if you do not know of his tale I suggest you go research it, as I am not here to recite it to you but merely use the good king as an example. By all rights I should have something against the man, afterall it was one of my Royal Ancesters he bumped off in his quest, but I am not. Because I see what he was trying to do, what reasons he was doing it for and most importantly the sublime potential his ruthless quest held for a more glorious future for the nation as a whole extending beyond his own ambitions. And it is this that I have to speak about the nature of being a High King of Ireland, and just as importantly, Emperor of the Irish.

Long story Short, High King Brian Boru, because few would argue he was not the master of Ireland after such a long struggle, created the title of Emperor of the Irish as a style, (he did not crown himself such, for as brutal as he was he was an honest Christian man, and crowning oneself Emperor is inherent blasphemy, example, Napoleon) He did this for very practical reasons, his conquest of Ireland was in many ways special and quite different from previous High Kings, he didnt conquer purely for egotistical gain, he genuinely wanted to strengthenthe country, and he needed to make this impression on the kings of Ireland, so he styled himself as Emperor, not of the land but of the people, the Irish. The meaning was lost on no man. More to the point he was making the High Kingship hereditary, a practice not unheard of but deeply unpopular in certain sections of the islands, the dominant tradition being that royal clans had a gathering of enobled cousins to vote among themselves as to who would be the next king, primogeniture was rare. Now here is where the tragedy begins, after some elements of the clans saw the ageing Boru as weakning they struck out seeking to claim the High Kingship from him and to do so they allied with the descendents of viking settlers, enraged at such a shocking disregard for his hardwon authority, the Emperor took to the field, while he himself was too old to do battle, his first son carried his banner into the fray, (Irish Kings were very much of the older understanding of kings being by neccessity warlords as well as rulers, their participation in battle was neccessary, which speaks volumes for Brian). His son fell in battle but Brian won the day and the war, the dissenters were scattered and many expected a reckoning to come to the leaders of the traitor clans, Brian did what one would expect an old man to do in the situation immediately after the battle, he went and prayed, giving thanks to the Almighty for the deliver and for the repose of his noble son's soul. He had dismissed his bodygaurds to give chase to the enemy as he prayed in his tent and, well.. the rest is as they say, history.

The story of Brian Boru, what he did and what he represented presents a great deal of food for thought for any monarchist interested in restoring an Irish monarchy. For starters it neccesitates this: A ressurrection of clan loyalties. Their cannot be a true restoration of Ireland unless clans, and the love of expanded families, tradition, prid of name and history are fully restored so that even the poorest Irish Dockworker can hold his head high for knowing exactly who he is and bearing the family coat of arms above his door, for this is worthy and expected in any irish kingdom, as all Irish are fundamentally descended from Kings. Damn near every last one of them because of the old clan system, to ignore this is nigh treasonous if we were to establish a monarchy but I will expand on this in a later post having to do with Irish Culture.

The large point that this raises is that any Irish Kingdom,any Irish Kingdom will never be Just a Kingdom. It will always be a collection of clans and tuathes, leasri, ri, princes, knights (in the irish understanding of them), and will never be either, a federation, any kingdom of Ireland needs a High King, and thus becomes a High Kingdom. The only one in the world, (if its established that is), anything less does the nation and its fierce independence an injustice, or would truculent republicans really like to argue to me a Connaught man is the same as an Ulsterman in temperment and mannerisms?

This does neccessitate that the high King would also, by Tradition considering its establishment by Brian, would need to be an Emperor, although the title of Emperor would be a style compared to the Actual title of High King, in which the High King acts with the power and duties he is due.

Which brings me tot he functions of the High King. As High King, His Majesty would act as Head of Government with executive power. Powers which in the Republic are normally entrusted tot he Head of the Government would be lessened and some of these executive powers would be entrusted to the Throne (another advice I would give to my fellow monarchists in Ireland is that we should always refer to an Irish Monarch' s office and ministers as 'The Throne', it has a grounding, earthy effect of authority that resonates with the people and to sufficiently distinguish us in Political Culture to the British, as referring to 'The Crown' in Ireland conjurs very British imagery) The empowering of the Monarch would create a 'strong' constitutional monarchy. In this I am compromising for at heart I am and wiull always remain an Absolutist. And witht he tradition established that the monarchy has grown to weaken the parliament we will have a reversal of the effect the english civil war had on the British Monarchy. His Majesty will then have power and authority to questin the actions of the Diall Eireann, (should it remain called such in a Monarchy), making the diall Eireann Accountable constitutionally to the People WHILE making the elected representitives of the people Accountable to 'The Throne'

This will of course be a drastically radical concept some of our more constitutional brethern will find reprehensible and make outright democratists appalled. Good. Because that means Ireland has placed itself on the map politically in modern geo politics and made every sit up, take notice and more importantly take us seriously because we dare questin the paradigm in such a very real manner. And in that the Restoration has already achieved one of its aims, bringing prestige to the nation.

Specifically the Sovereign will have the usual ceremonial duties (the coronation of said Sovereign would be complex, I will outline why and how we should approach coronating an Irish Monarch in a later post dedicated tot he topic) but these will not be mentioned because they'll be covered later and I have little mind to dictate to His Majesty what he should and shouldn't be doing to display the splendour of an Irish Monarch and the symbolism he will embody. The Monarch would be default be the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and said forces will need to take an Oath to defend their Sovereign, his successors and subjects for the glory and safety of Ireland in service to God, this oath will help prevent the Military from being legislatively hijacked by an ambitious politician while preventing the monarch from abusing his power in this regard, (an Irish warrior declaring his services to God, the Monarch and the people in that order, if a politican is trying to become a dictator it is the warrior's duty to defend the sovereign and in reverse the soldier is not obligated to obey the sovereign should he order unreasonable slaughter of Irish Subjects, for this would be abhorrant to God. This is in keeping with ancient medieval principles of chivalry where knights were not obligated to obey their lieges in similar circumstances because it would be 'unChristian'), as well as this, His Majesty has the power to propose and veto legislation, ESPECIALLY when the Council of Chiefs find themselves in agreement with His Majesty, (I will cover this further in a later post), the power to grant titles and knighthoods, (this obviously means titles will be recognised constitutionally), the power to declare a state of war or peace, the power to appoint or dismiss Taoiseachs and the power to dissolve Dialls. These will be neccessary to stipulate in a modern Irish Monarchy.

Now His Majesty's duties with regards to being 'Emperor of the Irish', Imperator Scottorum, obstensibly means His Majesty claims the loyalty of all Irishmen and Women, so that means he declares himself the Emperor over the entire Irish Diaspora, (Sovereignty over Irish Descendants in foreign lands is something the Republic does anyway, so anyone who wishes to argue this point as unjust can pretty much get tossed). This will largely be a ceremonial sovereignty as it is unlikely His Majesty can actually command their loyalty, although it gives him leave to grant any irish descendent citizenship should he or she have sufficient proof and ceremonial duties. I am of the opinion that there is in fact a great deal of Irishmen out there who'd be more then happy to claim they have an honest-to-God Emperor in any context.

Now this is all theorizing and you all are welcome to argue my points, make suggestions or ask questions with regards to this, especially as this is still ongoing, input will be invaluable.

Other posts in the Restoration Series
II) Clans and the role of Culture in an Irish Monarchy
III) The Church and the Role of Religion in an Irish Monarchy
- Supplementary post: Divine Supremecy and Tolerance: The Neccessity of State Religion and toleration of Heretics
IV) The Legislative Process in an Irish Monarchy
- Supplementary Post: Monarchist Economics and Dynamic Politics
- The Role of Chieftans and other Lords
V) The High Coronation, the true All Ireland Final
- The Role of the Council of Chieftans, Dynastic succession issues and legitimacy
- The Role of the Church
- The Role of the Monarch and the Royal Family
- Lords, Statesman and Farmers
- Final comments on the Coronation
VI) And all the world is a stage... Foreign Relations and the Role of a Monarchical Ireland in Europe and Elsewhere.

46 comments:

  1. Oh it would be glorious if such a thing could happen and I fail to see how any Irishman with a proper sense of his history and national self-worth could not see the appeal of it. Further, I can think of no better way to put all the ugly experiences with Britain completely behind Ireland. To restore the native, traditional monarchy would be a statement to the world that even centuries of occupation did not succeed in making Ireland something she is not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would indeed be a grand thing, and this is why I am proposing this theory of government form, once all the details are ironed I can have a proper constitution formed, although I'd rather not have it called such, I would rather have a coalescent version of these ideas proclaimed as a 'declaration'.

    I am looking forward to working on this series and hope a good few irishmen notice this and either argue against me or question my ideas, I will be, and this theory will be, all the better for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. by the way, i am verry curious and must have one question anseared,
      who do you think should be high king? irish monarchist groups have to deal with that question allot
      (you do not need to have one name, a list of up to ten acceptable names will do)(maybee the dail should chose between them)
      there are a couple rules however
      1: no people with any ties to the british
      2: no non catholics (i have nothing against those who are not catholic, but they would have issues of siutibility for ireland)
      3: no one who does not have at least one irish ansesctor
      4: should be descended from the old Gaelic nobility (does not have to be though) (brian boro and hugh o neal being the two best ones to be desended from)
      5: should live in ireland (or be willing to move there)
      6: they have to embrace irish culture and learn both english and irish

      Delete
    2. Your rules are very easily met by the members of the Standing council of Irish Chieftans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Council_of_Irish_Chiefs_and_Chieftains

      Its as good a place as any to start drawing royal pretenders.

      Delete
    3. I was just curious, that is one issue facing Irish monarchists that very few other monarchist movements would have to deal with (Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and America are the only other countries that monarchists would have this problem in I can think of) is the lack of a pretender to rally around (France might have this problem, but they still have three pretenders that can be chosen between whereas those countries have either none, or so many that it would be very hard to chose one, depending on how you look at it). That makes your answer very interesting to hear. (whatever it is)

      Delete
    4. By the way, what do you think of prince Joachim of Prussia, very few figures in history mattered so little when they could have mattered so much (not for any fault of his own mind you). had Germany one the war Joachim was considered a potential king of two countries (although in my view he could not have taken both of them and expected it to work, but he could have his choice of them) (maybe he could have taken both and designated separate successors in each, but that is iffy in terms of how viable it was), Ireland and Georgia, there is a rather pleasant sound to the term "Irish Hohenzollerns" is there not? Other than having to convert to Catholicism (the Irish had had more than enough protestant monarchs forced upon them) I see no problem. And because he had no son, and his wife was pregnant at the time this idea was most popular he might have even been able to have an Irish born heir (Irish born in the sense of born in Ireland). Sadly he wound up shooting himself, in four years; he went from being considered for the thrones of two newly independent countries, to committing suicide. talk about a sudden fall.

      Delete
    5. Had the Germans won the war and indeed there were plans to put Joachim on the Irish Throne with the consent and approval of militant Irish Nationalists and even republicans if Germany provided aid to a revolt against Britain (which they did, but the Easter Rising was a disaster in SO many ways that alot of it went to hell and back, and the small force Germany managed to scramble together to land in Ireland arrived late and at the wrong location) Indeed a conversion is likely, if not of himself then at least of his heir, and his heir being Irish born and raised in Ireland (at a time when the Educated Catholic middle classes where in the ascendency) would have resulted in a very Catholic, very Irish Hohenzollern King of Ireland. It unfortunately would not have been a Gaelic monarchy, but it would have been a unique one nonetheless.

      Delete
    6. when i tell people about joachim, i introduce him as "someone you probably have not heard of, but if history had gone a little diferently you would have" however the hohenzollerns are not the only dynasty of foreign origen that has an irish cadet branch in alternate history, heard of the irish habsburgs (yes), herad of archduke john of austria (also a price of spain)there were plans to make him king if the spanish plans to liberate ireland in the late 1500s had succeded (if you have not herd of him read the article bellow)
      http://lxoa.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/the-hero-of-catholic-europe-who-almost-became-king-of-ireland/
      things would have gone mutch better if he was king let me list some of them: the landlords and peasents would share a nationality, the irish would have rights in there own land, irelands native crown would either survive or be abolished by the decision of its own people, the gaelic nobility would still exist, and catholicism would be the established church , having our own branch of the single most powerful family in europe sounds good to me what do you think of archduke john Servent of the Cheif?

      Delete
    7. the comment about the pretenders contained criteria that were intended to maximize a prospective monarch's suitability for Ireland, I think that the main challenge Irish monarchists face is reestablishing the irishness of monarchy, having a first monarchy whose personal irishness is beyond reasonable doubt would probably be very helpful in that, that's the underlying thinking behind my criteria

      Delete
  3. Very good stuff! On my mother's side I am descended from the Ui Mordhas of Laois!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. interisting, i (the one who made the comments about the pretenders)am descended from the old gaelic nobility myself (one of my anscestors commanded the navy of Hugh O'Neal)(the source that first led me to beleive this is my grandmothers maiden last name), that is why I, in the event of the restablishment of a native irish monarchy, nominate myself to receive the newly created title of "Baron of Umaill" (Umaill is the kingdom my ansestors ruled)(beacuse it is a minor kingdom and I am fairly obscure, I would settle for a barony) (my ansestors include one of the most prominant women in the history of naval combat)

      Delete
    2. Anon, the majority of Irishmen are descended from Gaelic noble lines, minor or major, in the event of a restoration, nominating yourself for a Barony may not go over too well with the other members of your clan who may have already decided their Chieftain who would like press the claim on Umaill.

      Delete
    3. i was half joking anyway

      Delete
  4. Perhaps we could persuade His Holiness the Pope to convene a meeting with the existing Chiefs of the Name for the purpose of discussing the recipient of the Crown of Ireland. I know, long shot chance, but this *should* happen, and would go a long way to persuade Irishmen of its necessity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It would take alot to convince His Holiness of such an audience, not that I have any doubt he would not love to be involved in such, it is just believable that His Holiness would rather not stir up something that could result in violence, but I acknowledge it would aid the monarchist movement to no end if he would meet with the Council for such a discussion. Even if nothing came of it, it would turn heads and since it is monarchism affecting Irish People directly, would hit home and cause serious questions to be asked.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Greatest of all Irishmen, is yet to be inaugurated. There may be a sparsity of monuments now, but the hero of all gaelic heroes lies in wait for his Destiny's splendour, the grandeur of mountains high. The golden statues will litter every province. His crown will reflect the outshining gem that is his valiant spirit, surpassed by no other. Under the protection of ALL his glory, the auspices of the her; the eternal triple 3. Evermore shall the wind cry out the legend's name. A river flowing.

    He shall ride out into the sunset, as the maidens whispers fill the air. After slaying thousands mercilessly & restoring ÉIRE to its rightful place, undisputed magnificence. Reflecting its most gracious children, its nature, poetry & gods.

    Do not fall victim to the trickery of the mean deceiver, the foe most arcane. Sublime are the divine sparks of Erin fair, forget it not.

    "They only appear great for we are on Our knees: LET US RISE!" It seems we have forgotten our true nature as the people and kin of destiny. Innisfail, Lia Fail: Onward!

    ÉIRE ABÚ!

    ReplyDelete
  7. you seem to have forgotten three powers that I presume the high king would have:
    1:sending all irish diplomats to other countries
    2:receiving all foreign diplomats sent to ireland
    3:the power to make treaties with other countries (unless they conflict with ireland's domestic law) (alowing the govenment to make treaties with foreign countries that impact the domestic law of a country without going through the process for making those laws being a dangourous loophole that could be used to bypass the regular lawmaking process for no good reason)
    other then that a very good description of what you einvision
    wheather you agree with that or not, it is good for the one advocating it to be able to clearly describe the system

    ReplyDelete
  8. comment on
    "Now His Majesty's duties with regards to being 'Emperor of the Irish', Imperator Scottorum, obstensibly means His Majesty claims the loyalty of all Irishmen and Women, so that means he declares himself the Emperor over the entire Irish Diaspora, (Sovereignty over Irish Descendants in foreign lands is something the Republic does anyway, so anyone who wishes to argue this point as unjust can pretty much get tossed). This will largely be a ceremonial sovereignty as it is unlikely His Majesty can actually command their loyalty, although it gives him leave to grant any irish descendent citizenship should he or she have sufficient proof and ceremonial duties. I am of the opinion that there is in fact a great deal of Irishmen out there who'd be more then happy to claim they have an honest-to-God Emperor in any context."
    so what you are saying about the sovreignty over the dispora is basically: "Ireland will not change in THAT regard."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Essentially you are correct. There's nothing a Monarchical or Republican Ireland could do that would significantly affect the lives of the Irish Diaspora anyway.

      Delete
    2. this may seem off topic but it seems you have a fondness for brian boru, is that true, if it is i understand, he was after all, without a doubt the most powerfull native ruler ireland ever had (and the first and only (so far) irishman to formally assume the title of emperor), an entire dynasty of later native rulers bears his name as the source of there last name, brian boru wanted a united ireland where the high king had absolute controll over all contact with foreigners, as an ireland with centralized controll over foreign afaris is a secure ireland, history, would have gone mutch better (for ireland, who knows if it would have for anyone else) if boru's empire had survived his death

      Delete
  9. this may seem minor but, I think the nobility of an independent irish monarchy should include counts. the british nobility does not include the title of count, so ireland could be diferent if we included some counts in our own nobility.

    ReplyDelete
  10. i have decided that i think the actaul crown of ireland (both the physical one and the one used as a heraldic symbol)(we would have to make it because ireland has never had an official crown)(you mentioned a coronation so we should have an actaul crown of ireland) should have 10 arches (for three reasons: 1: no other country has a ten arched crown 2: the crown of a king has 8 arches, the crown of an emperor has 12 arches, and a high king is less then a king but greater then an emperor, so it is fitting for a high king to have a crown with 10 arches and 3: to give him a greater staus then the british monarchy (who has a crown with 8 arches)) plus a large emerald (green is our national color, so it would establish the monarchy as irish to have green crown jewls), if i was better at drawing i would provide a picture of these hypothetical irish crown jewls (as well as a coat of arms for the new irish high kingdom)(my drawing is terrable).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oops one mistake to correct when i said "a high king is less then a king but greater then an emperor," what i mean to say is: a high king is greater then a king but lesser then an emperor, if you got confused before substitute that for what i originaly said,i also think that the high king's crown should have five smaller jewls (for the five provinces) (i want to restore midde as it is the single largest thing the british destroyed), this crown would be called the "crown of brian boru" (you might say that is a lie, as we would have to make it from scratch (that might take a few years from the point of restoration as we would have to save up money to pay for it as sutch things arn't chiep , even if you think they are worth it and not a waste of money they still cost alot )but the british crown is sometimes called saint edwards crown although it was made only in the 1660s and st edward lived about 650 years befor that, so there is precedent for that sort of name)what do you think of my idea for the crown of ireland, servent of the chief?

      Delete
  11. just a question i cannot think of a good place to ask on, what do you think of michael collins ? you know the general who basically commanded our struggle for independence. he prefered a republic but once said he could accept any government that had nothing to do with the british. i personaly would be in favorable of posthumous ennoblement as an honour for his fight for independence, (fransisco franco ennobled people postumously)the irish nobility has been depleted by centuries of british genocide without new titles being created, so ennobling a few of the leaders of our independence movement would replenish its ranks, specifically for his closist living relative I would like to grant the following titles:
    duke of cork
    marquis of independence
    earl of collins
    count of freedom
    baron of Clonakilty
    the importent thing to remember about collins was that he was not a war monger having once said "the only just war is a war of liberation." so, servent of the chief do you like collins or not? i am curious.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just discovered your blog, I really honestly thought I was the only monarchist on the island of Ireland!

    I must say that I too, am interested in your opinion of Michael Collins. Although a republican, I believe him to have been a good man of valour, who truly wanted Irish men and women to be free and IRISH.

    Regards,

    N

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ireland does not need a high king, it needs an Ard Rí, just as now ireland does not have a president, it has an Uachtarán

    ReplyDelete
  14. just my idea, please read the whole thing before forming an opinion of it, i think we should use the apparatus of the republic to enact restoration, meaning i think we should pass the law restoring the position of high king using the same procedure used to amend our current republican constitution. we pass an amenment that just makes so many changes it is effectivly a new document (the current japanese constitution was enacted in that manner) that makes it legal according to the current system wich might get some moderate republicans to accept the monarchy after a while, we can also point out that there own system said we can do this, it will also establish us as deriving our ultimate power from the irish independence movement(as the current republican government does)we could even recognize the republic as a historical entity and refer to it as a period of extended interregnum.in my view there would be 4 ways to enact restoration: coup, revlution, complete breakdown of social order, and the methed i am proposing. my proposal is that we restore the gaelic monarchy legally through a constitutional amendment said amendment to the republican constitution would repeal it and authorize the high king, dial and senate to draft a new monarchist constitution, the irish constitution has no limit on what can be amended (save one on the use of transitional provisions that expired back in 1941) this is the best option because: a coup could set a precedent that could be used to restore the republic (republicans would probably call it counter-restoration), revolutions are hard to do, and breakdown of the social order is just horrible for everyone involved, so my legality strategy seems like the best idea to me, what do you think of it, servent of the chief? and if you do not like my idea how do YOU propose to enact restoration? (please please andsear these questions) (anyone else with an opinion is encouraged to comment too)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ammending the constitution would be possibly the most peaceful way of achieving a monarchy and, indeed, I believe would be what would have happened had the rightful heir of Thomond accepted Develera's offering the crown of Ireland to him. A revolution is both unneccessary and undesireable as it would make recognition of the new Irish government by other European nations harder to come by and involves far too much blood, and, dare I say it, the current republic isn't nearly tyrannical or heathenish enough to justify a monarchist revolution. And coups would, as you say, set precedents. The legalistic restoration is also the most likely restoration to occur in Ireland should it come to pass and it is keeping with continuity. The only problem is its sets the precedent that crowns and legitimacy can be written into and out of constitutions provided the support is there, which offends me on many levels and poses a looming danger in the future. If we were to restore the monarchy constitutionally we would almost certainly have to sunder an Taoiseach's monopoly on executive power and cede certain authorities to the High King, lest we end up creating a 'crowned republic'.

      Trying to appease revolutionaries is fruitless however, they will cease upont he flimsiest of pretexts to justify revolution. Even if an army of angels descended upon high to seat Ard Ri upon the throne and placed a restored staff of St.Malachy into his hands, revolutionaries would still grieve and protest. Revolutionaries care not for legitimacy except using it as a cloak for their own pox ridden bodies.

      Delete
    2. it should be noted however that when it comes to changing the system of government of a country, there is no "good" option, only a least bad one, if the existing regime is either extremely corrupt or extremely oppressive, that may be revolution, but in most other circumstances it is legality,

      Delete
  15. Excuse me, was not Brian fighting the Vikings himself at Clontarf on one Good Friday? Or was that another battle?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, I read this now:

    "Brian did what one would expect an old man to do in the situation immediately after the battle, he went and prayed, giving thanks to the Almighty for the deliver and for the repose of his noble son's soul. He had dismissed his bodygaurds to give chase to the enemy as he prayed in his tent and, well.. the rest is as they say, history."

    Hmm, sound a bit like Sr Eric - locally venerated in Sweden and Scandinavia, killed when going out from Holy Mass. By enemies who included or were Asatru.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To answer your question he did fight Vikings or at that point, Hiberno-Norse warriors, but they were only a part of the rebellion, the majority of rebels being rebellious Irish lords and chieftains. Alot of the 'vikings' were actually just mercenaries and adventurers from a few of the Viking settlements all over Ireland and almost all at this point were Christian as well.

      As for the murder of Brian Boru, that he was at prayer or otherwise in his tent is the only agreed upon fact about his murder after the battle, and his murderers were anything from assassins or just lucky enemy warriors who were routing from the battlefield who happened upon the tent.

      Delete
  17. a question, I was wondering if my favorite feature of our current constitution would stay if you had your way, namely the autochthonous nomenclature. autochthonous nomenclature (I made up the word from 2 real roots as there is no concise word for this) is how the constitution gives government institutions names that are simply the Irish language word for what they are, but uses those names un-translated. (examples: Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Dáil, and Oireachtas) I feel that this aspect, even if more part of the style of the constitution than the substance of it, gives our government a local flavor. numerous other countries such as, but not limited to: India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Poland, and Malaysia do this now (not with Irish, but with their own native languages), but Ireland was the first country to do it. I hope a Gaelic monarchy would keep this one tendency of our current republican constitution. I love this one feature of our present constitution. (it does not do everything right, but the one thing I highlighted here, it does do right) I actually have some ideas as to how a restored native monarchy could not only, continue the habit of using un-translated Irish for proper nouns, but enhance this tendency. servant of the chief, would you keep the autochthonous nomenclature?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I would for as long as English was the common language and even longer for when the trading classes retain English for the sake of international trade after Gaelige has been reconstituted as the language spoken in the street.

      I am a traditionalist but I am no enemy of innovation or new conventions particularly not one such as this which enhances rather than detracts from tradition. There is no reason a Gaelic monarchy wouldn't retain this convention especially since a Gaelic monarchy would have need of it since by its nature, it will be introducing a whole host of native things that have no applicable English word, even if it did not go so far as to reintroduce the clan system in some manner.

      Delete
    2. good to hear, consider yourself to have one more supporter. securing a statement on this was my one reservation I had about saying I support you. the autochthonous nomenclature is so important to me that I feel that I can never support any change in government that will not make a commitment to that practice without feeling morally guilty of cultural treason. one thing that I love about autochthonous nomenclature is that is by definition, very radical from an outside perspective yet very traditional from a local perspective. that is why foreign empires are completely terrified of this practice and nationalist movements embrace it wholly. this practice declares very openly that a country has a government run by people who are proud of their own culture (or at the very least, implicitly recognize that that would be a good thing, by virtue of acting like they feel that way.) it indicates nothing else by definition (all other meanings being dependent on the context) despite this, it feels very important. as you mentioned concepts with no easy translation are a good base for such a custom and it is great to have them, but the thing that seals the deal is using your own language for proper nouns when a translation is available (Samoa uses a nice mix of un-translated words from both categories). this behavior actually has a very paradoxical and confusing, but unclear relationship with the monarchy vs. republic debate. I did a study evaluation how many words from their own language the constitutions of various countries use and I found that, in terms of the number of un-translated words from their own language the constitution used, Ireland was second on the planet, and Samoa was third. the vast majority of the countries (but not all) that did this were republics, but the country that did it the most was, Malaysia, a monarchy. I think it was nothing more than the percentage of countries that are republics being currently higher than the percentage that are monarchies. just to be clear, there is not a single case of autochthonous nomenclature that I am not in favor of, at least compared to a constitution containing the exact same substance. as I said, I have ideas about how a Gaelic monarchy could do even more of that one custom than the Irish republic (we might even be able to top the Malaysians) good to know you are on board with this custom, servant of the chief

      Delete
    3. if you can't tell, I am a strong enthusiast of autochthonous nomenclature. I am in favor of it in all cases. there is no case of autochthonous nomenclature that I would not significantly prefer, at least compared to a constitution containing the exact same substance but no autochthonous nomenclature. I am not just in favor of autochthonous nomenclature in Ireland. I love autochthonous nomenclature whenever any country does it. one of my ideas about how a gaelic monarchy could increase the amount of autochthonous nomenclature is that noble titles should be used in their Irish language forms. for example: if restoration was achieved tomorrow and than the current Ceann Comhairle was granted the title of prince, he would, be referred to in English as " Seán Ó Fearghaíl TD Flaith of South Kildare" (the Irish language version: " Seán Ó Fearghaíl TD Flaith na Theas Cill Dara" )(the actual person in the example is irrelevant, I decided to use a random public figure, and settled on the Ceann Comhairle) (the only part of the example that is truly relevant to the substance, is the use of "flaith" instead of "prince", everything else is included just to make the example more concrete) (the parts not constituting the substance could be used differently or not at all) (even the use of "flaith" is just an example, it was the noble title i could most easily find the irish language word for) in the above scenario Flaith would be used, even in English language legal documents. of course, this would not just apply to the title of flaith (prince) but all other titles of nobility would also be referred to by the Irish language words for them. If this practice was not the default in a Gaelic monarchy, it should at least be explicitly legal for a noble title to be used that way if the person holding the title wishes to. I would love to know what people think about this idea. this may even be something you have already thought of, but not yet brought up, servant of the chief. either way it just sounds right to do this as you already told me you would keep autochthonous nomenclature. I would like as many opinions as I can get on the principle I am illustrating here.
      P.S. sorry this post and the above one are so long

      Delete
    4. another idea I have as to how a restored native monarchy can embrace autochthonous nomenclature. this one is also a logical extension of something you have said you want to do, servant of the chief. your idea of using the expression "the throne" for a monarch his office, and subordinate ministers is good, and certainly better for Irish monarchism than the British expression "the crown" but I can offer a better idea lets use for that purpose "an Ríchathaoir" which means the same thing in Irish. this distances ourselves from the British monarchy as much as possible without altering the substance of anything, or deceiving people. taking a synonym and adding a linguistic variation to that means we are two steps removed from the system most Irish people hate (because they associate it with foreign domination). some might claim "Richathaoir" is an obscure word in Irish, that is true but so was "Taoiseach", until the Irish republic brought this word into the English language vocabulary of our country. it is now understood by most Irish people, even those who know very little Irish (the language). the English language media in our country even generally pronounces "taoiseach" right nowadays (the same cannot however always be said of foreign media in the English language). I image if a Gaelic monarchy were restored, the word "richathaoir" would become well known in English as decades pass. this type of thing was even anticipated by eamon de valera. there was a proposed amendment to our current constitution when it was being debated in Dáil Éireann as a draft that would have replaced "taoiseach" with "prime minister" in the English text, de valera spoke against it and it was voted down, he even said "the English language press will learn to pronounce this word over time as they encounter situations in which it is used" (the number of incorrect pronunciations of that word in English language media has in fact gone down over time, peaking right after the current constitution was written) (as a side note, I cannot be 100% certain on how to pronounce Richathaoir, as I myself have only ever encountered that word in written Irish, never in spoken Irish, although I can make a pretty good guess) Richathaoir is a word that Irish monarchists will likely have the capacity to control the connotation of. I cannot conceive of any regime besides a Gaelic monarchy using that word in English. One of the cool things about autochthonous nomenclature is that you get to have terminology that is both unique and descriptive. another thing I like about autochthonous nomenclature is that more countries doing it does not reduce the amount of unique results in produces (As every language is different) lately my mind has been racing with ideas about how a Gaelic monarchy could use autochthonous nomenclature, so I just wanted to express another one of those ideas. Any Irish monarchist is free to use any of these ideas on how a native monarchy could use un-translated Irish for proper nouns, whenever they want, and need not mention where they got them from.

      Delete
    5. as a continuation of my previous comment, I am willing to provide research to help refine a gaelic monarchy's use of autochthonous nomenclature, anyone can just name anything that a monarchy would have and I will attempt to find the irish language word for it. this might take time but I am willing to do research on this, autochthonous nomenclature is likely a good way to help remove foreign connotations to the words used as well as being good policy in and of itself. I am volunteering to be an advisor and researcher on autochthonous nomenclature if you, servent of the chief are interested, I am happy to look up irish language words for any concept, you or any other irish monarchist forewards, I will leave the substance of any ideas alone, but I aim to help make the style more irish.

      Delete
  18. Hello, and thank you for your blog.

    I have recently been reading the autobiography of the writer Francis Stuart 'Things to Live For' written in 1934. In one chapter he claims he was involved a plot to restore a Catholic Monarchy in the Free State and that it had the backing of a number of the clergy. They had also, apparently, picked out their proposed Monarch, who remains nameless in the account. I have been unable to find anything on this story elsewhere and was wondering if you had ever heard about it.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes this happened, it was a proposed plot/alliance between elements of the nationalist movement and the German empire, who'd agreed to back an Irish bid for full independence from the British empire secretly in the event of British involvement in a continental war. The even went so far as to commit several professional troops to aid Irish rebels and these troops DID land when the Rising happened, but because of poor communication and co-ordination, the small force landed after the rising was crushed and were captured by the British. It was a token effort and Germany would lose nothing from it, and likely backed it if it would distract Britain by fomenting revolt close to home and if it somehow succeeded, they'd then have a German-Friendly monarchy on the atlantic as a check on Britain in the future. The Germans had nothing to lose from it, as far fetched as it was.

      The prince was some German fellow, a protestant I believe who probably would've converted if he got the throne.

      Delete
  19. No, I'm aware of the plot you're referring to: Prince Joachim was the proposed candidate.

    The episode I'm referring to allegedly took place in the 1930s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh that. Yes that was the supposed moment when DeVelera actually offered the throne of Ireland to the Stuart pretender currently residing in Germany at the time (Catholic) who turned the offer down. Unfortunately I have nothing other than anecdotal evidence about the matter and can't be of further help I'm afraid.

      Delete
    2. I have heard that story too. (somewhat) the version I have heard is that is was the o'neil pretender to whom de Valera made the offer. I am more inclined to believe my version, as that version is more consistent with the general character of de Valera. he would never accept any British dynasty. in fact he proposed (in 1918) that if Ireland chose a monarchy after independence, the succession law would specifically provide that no member of the Windsor dynasty could ever become king. (I would actually be for an independent Irish monarchy having such a provision in the succession law, in order to protect the sovereignty of the Irish state) (this would not be unprecedented , the succession law for the throne of Belgium specifically excludes members of the house of orange and actually mentions that dynasty in those provisions, the heading to this section reads "savings to protect the sovereignty of Belgium") (Belgium declared independence from the Netherlands and orange is the reigning family of the Netherlands) so it would be highly inconsistent with de Valera to ever make an offer to a staurt. (the staurts are also a british dynasty, although you could make the case that they are german now) (but any claim a staurt would have to ireland would be exclusively through British royals, and thus a usurpation in my view) (and probably de Valera's view as well given that he wanted a "savings to protect the sovereignty of Ireland" provision) I do know that he thought highly of the gaelic nobility though. i am more inclined to believe specific stories that are consistent with the general tendencies I am already aware of. lots of stories without written documentation get passed on with distorted details. (i actauly think "Savings to protect the sovereignty of Ireland" clause is a good idea, and a gealic monarchy should have such a provision in its succession laws) (this would also help dispel the notion that irish monarchists are in favor of restoration of the british crown, if we go out of our way to bar british royals from the irish throne)

      Delete
  20. I was in contact with Francis Stuart's biographer, Kevin Kiely, who has informed me that the figure involved in the plot mentioned was one Osmond Esmonde, a diplomat and Cumann na nGaedheal TD. He was also involved with an organisation called the Catholic Monarchy Association. I had a quick internet search but could find nothing on this group. If anyone has any further info on them, I'd love to hear about it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I should add that the plot I'm on about is a different plot to the De Valera scheme mentioned above.

    ReplyDelete