Sir, – As Prof Ferriter states, allegiances and loyalties that prevailed in Ireland 100 years ago were complex and multi-layered. Might I suggest that, rather than distort history, as he fears, the presence of a royal representative at the 1916 commemorations might serve to honour the soldiers of the Irish regiments which, prior to deployment of reinforcements from England, were charged with suppression of the rebellion? In his capacity as colonel of the Irish Guards, and thus representative of the service of generations of Irishmen in the crown forces, even unto the present day, the photogenic young Duke of Cambridge, accompanied by his delightful wife, would be eminently suitable.
Historical hypothesis is a fraught area, but it is difficult to conjecture that any form of Irish “freedom” would in the context of the time have resulted in an entity that diverged significantly from the economic, intellectual and cultural sterility that characterised the Free State. To paraphrase Bismarck, one might ask if the entire violent enterprise was worth the bones of a single “volunteer”, or, indeed, those of the civilians killed? Yours, etc,
ENDA HARDIMAN,
Harbour Plaza,
Kowloon,
Hong Kong
Sir, – If ever an event needed the calming effect of a royal presence it must surely be the rapidly approaching Easter Rising commemorations. The real fun and games will kick off when we get that bit closer to D-Day and myriad nationalist groups begin jockeying for pole position. I can assure Prof John A Murphy (Letters, April 16th) that historical accuracy and reasoned debate will count for nothing when the bands start playing and speeches are littered with sanitised accounts of selfless devotion to the “cause”.
Once again, the winners here will be Sinn Féin and its many offshoots. After all, they can claim a certain legitimacy as the true heirs of the 1916 leadership. Yours, etc,
NIALL GINTY,
The Demesne,
Killester,
Dublin 5
Sir, – An Taoiseach is “very pleased” to hear the queen’s declaration that her family and government would “stand alongside” Ireland during the upcoming commemorations (April 10th). He is, I would suggest, a little premature in believing that this translates into a prospective royal presence at the 2016 GPO ceremony.
The GPO commemoration pays tribute to all those who died in the cause of Irish freedom and that is its sole purpose. One can presume that the Queen does not assume inclusion in its guest list yet to be announced. Ministers would work with “authentic historians” before deciding what events the royal family will attend, An Taoiseach assures us. He and his Ministers might also consider working with descendants of those executed in 1916 to establish their views on this unprecedented proposal. After all they occupy their present positions as a direct result of that supreme sacrifice. Yours, etc,
JAMES CONNOLLY
HERON,
Oxford Road,
Dublin 6
Sir, – Felix M Larkin (Letters, April 17th) has offered us an admirable and succinct tutorial in the high politics of British governments and Irish political movements in the years between 1910 and 1922.
He clearly identifies the genesis for the physical force movement of the period as residing within the Ulster Volunteer Force and unionist opposition to home rule. We should not ignore, however, the fact that it suited certain factions within the Irish revoluntionary movement to have the Ulster unionists doing what they did.
And as Irish history is an endless circularity, I’m not sure that nationalist Ireland hadn’t learnt, long before the UVF had ever been thought of, that British politicians, at the last, would only really understand force.
Nevertheless, in 1914 the fact was that home rule, in some shape or form for most of the island, was going to happen after the war; moreover, it had been conceded with barely a shot being fired.
The 1916 rebellion changed the rules of engagement, however, and retrospectively validated the Ulster unionists’ pre-war actions – just as the 1918 election was represented as providing post-validation for the rebellion. Yours, etc,
IAN D’ALTON,
Rathasker Heights,
Naas,
Co Kildare
Sir, – Declan Kiberd’s likening of Anglo-Irish relations to “the narcissism of small differences” has elicited letters strongly in support and strongly against.
The phrase was coined by Sigmund Freud (as der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen ) in a 1917 paper " The Taboo of Virginity " to emphasise that we express our strongest emotions towards those who resemble us most rather than those who differ from us. Freud developed the idea further in a 1930 lecture " Civilisation and its Discontents ", applying it to the rivalries between Spaniards and Portuguese and between North Germans and South Germans. He saw this narcissistic phenomenon as a useful safety valve for the hostility felt by near-identical communities with adjoining territories. Yours, etc,
DR JOHN DOHERTY,
Operngasse,
Vienna 1040
Sir, – The discussion of an invitation to British royalty to attend the commemoration of the 1916 Rising should surely extend to the surviving senior members of the Hohenzollern dynasty. After all, the leaders of that Rising spoke in their proclamation of their “gallant allies in Europe”, and this presumab.ly would include the Kaiser and the German imperial general staff. Yours, etc,
SEÁN Mc DONAGH,
Bettyglen,
Raheny,
Dublin 5
Sir, – Thanks to Eamonn McCann for his alternative perspective on the recent presidential visit to Britain. What a welcome antidote it was to the craven “gush and mush ” we have read from other commentators. Yours, etc,
NORA HARKIN,
Dalkey Park,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin