The decision by the Government to commemorate the events of the defining 1912-22 decade was an important and welcome attempt to be inclusive about the many, mostly complementary, historical narratives that make up our sense of who we are, from nationalism to trade unionism to feminism. Even unionism was to get its day in a series of commemorations – not necessarily celebrations – of the events that shaped modern Ireland.
It was also a very deliberate attempt to de-privilege one particular narrative, that of physical force republicanism, associated particularly with the 1916 Rising and with its commemoration. An attempt specifically to wrench back from Sinn Fein ownership of what has become in the popular imagination and affection the symbolic expression in one day of the State’s independence and, in the declaration, of its fundamental values. It’s what a national day is all about.
In that sense, of course, the Rising commemoration could never have been just one among equals of the decade’s series of commemorations. Yes, Easter 1916’s events will be, like the other special days, an opportunity to remember, re-evaluate, and to honour participants. It will also, however, unlike other commemorations, be an important public political expression or affirmation by the State of its sovereign independence, of Ireland’s “place among the nations”, and of its republican character.
In that context the likely attendance by members of the British royal family does not represent a dillution or blurring of the occasion’s purpose, but precisely a public acknowledgment of Ireland’s nationhood and sovereignty by a friendly neighbour, albeit once our ruler. And one that is to be welcomed.
It does not, pace Prof Diarmaid Ferriter, require a rewriting of the role of protagonists or denial of the events of the day, any more than attendance at Bastille Day requires France's allies to champion the cause of Mme La Guillotine.
Ferriter, professor of modern history at UCD, cheered on by fellow historian and member of the Government’s advisory committee on the decade, Prof John A Murphy, has recently worried that the presence of the royal family may end up “distorting history”. That the emphasis on the good relations between these islands had led to a “noble aspiration to please everybody and include everybody, which will not do justice to the historic divisions that were there that we need to understand.” The royal presence, he argued, might give succour to those who believe the Rising was unnecessary as the British were “committed” to the introduction of home rule once the war was over.
A legitimate concern , perhaps. But the royal presence is the wrong target and no doubt the good professor will help keep the issue live. He has not said his last on the subject.
