Let’s talk about the Queen… April 20, 2011
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.trackback
I guess it’s worth addressing the issue of the Queens visit. I have to admit my attitude has been one of broad indifference. My own preference would be that if this is necessary at all, and there’s arguments for and against given the dispensation on the island, it would be best that it was very very low-key.
I was talking about this to someone recently who pointed out that one of the most irritating tropes about this is the ‘demonstrating our maturity’. I think they’re right in their criticism of the ‘maturity’ line. ‘Maturity’ is the litmus test? We must embrace this?
Can’t see why.
On the other hand the appetite for protest seems limited. Perhaps that is token of a ‘more than pity than in anger’ approach.
It’s hardly worth making a fuss over except for the bizarre itinerary. Croke Park? Seriously? The Garden of Remembrance, well that raises even more contradictions but ones which might be educative for the Queen. Perhaps it would be better if there was no public/semi-public component at all. An helicopter flight into the Aras, an helicopter out to Dáil Éireann or wherever and then a hop skip and a jump back to the UK. And in a way that wish is borne of the feeling that no more should be made of this than any other visit by an head of state, and perhaps in some ways a little less given the sensitivities.
And yet. And yet. In truth there’s another part of me that almost relishes the idea of the Queen having to go to a memorial of Irish Republicans [and here I'd echo the thoughts of Séamus as expressed here] and having to visit a site where the British Army opened fire on an unarmed crowd and murdered people and to do so in the company of Irish men and women who are citizens of an independent state – however flawed, and not subjects of her own.
There’s a duality to the itinerary that is telling and that in some ways has been overlooked. Seen from one angle it can seem like an affront to the memory of those who fought and died for Irish independence. Seen from another it seems completely different, something where she and all she represents must pay respects to those who fought and died to climb out from under the British monarchy and administration, something that comes close to a rebuke to the monarchy because this island did something remarkable in the early 20th century when it managed to shrug off a global superpower, at least in large part, and sometimes the fact that that was unfinished overshadows the fact that it happened at all.
And so it goes. The Queen will hardly find a square foot of Irish ground that doesn’t bear witness to the contest between these two islands across centuries, can hardly walk a pace without some reminder of this. It’s built into the very fabric of this city and this state, from the bullet marks that still can be found on our buildings, the names of the streets to the competing architecture of our towns and cities and the pattern of enclosures on the land. And likewise across the island.
Think about this all a bit more and one begins to wonder who comes away from it with greater advantage. The Queen visits a memorial to Republicans. How does that play with the Dudley-Edwards, the Harris’s, the Myers of this world, some of whose number refuse to recognise the legitimacy of 1916 let alone anything that came after [and note how 1916 and it's legitimising dynamic is coming back into their focus. Of course they're nervous. That's an anniversary with some potency]? How does that play with Unionists? If she [or the British state] can very publicly recognise the legitimacy of our Independence struggle against that which she is the most public expression of then what of them – what can they and should they recognise? In other words if some think that the traffic is all in one direction, some ‘gain’ for the monarchy, they may be incorrect. And if one says, well who gives a toss what she thinks/represents, or the significance of this visit [not of monarchy per se, but as representative of Britain], then why the protests in the first place?
And she has to face three days of this? A small exchange in the scheme of things, I guess.
Of course that doesn’t mean that lessons are learned, or that suddenly everything is different, but some small changes will occur and not necessarily for the worse from a left Republican position.
There’s no denying that since we do have an unfinished revolution that’s why this is still unsatisfying. Her presence merely points up that fact. But, and by the way I’m no two nationist, perhaps that was always going to be the case given the demographics of the north east, that there would never be a clear cut end point to the process of independence and instead it would remain truncated and contingent, something that rolls on into the future, with messy overlaps and competing identities.
All that said, the visit is going to happen one way or another.
So tone matters. Let’s hope that Enda Kenny has a somewhat more nuanced reaction than the cringe-inducing rhetoric John Bruton assailed us with in the mid-1990s when Prince Charles arrived in Dublin. Let’s hope.
President McAleese has always, so it seems to me, got the tone mostly right. As the elected head of this state and someone who has a grasp of the contradictions and paradoxes implicit in living on this island so she should, but… again, tone matters, particularly when the representatives of a Republic meet those of a monarchy, even a monarchy that exists in the context of a representational parliamentary democracy.
Perhaps indifference is then a better default option. But that’s simply my take on it.
There’s a whole bunch of other issues which collide here.
Issues of class. One of the most pernicious aspects of the monarchy (and this goes almost everywhere it is manifested) is the embedded nature of class distinctions that it generates. The UK is little different in that respect. The Guardian around the turn of the century had an eye-opening (for some) series on the wealth of the Royal Family. That in turn linked into societal positional power exercised by them and those around them.
Monarchs are obviously anathema to republicans, but then again we also have to take consideration that different states organize themselves as they see fit. There were no protests as far as I know in relation to the Monaco crowd. And I doubt there’d be any if the Dutch or Belgian or Spanish monarchs visited.
Which of course relates directly to the situation and history in the North, but then again the Good Friday Agreement underpins much of the framework that now exists on and between these islands and that was validated – at least in part – by democratic polls, however flawed. There is the history of the conflict, but to be honest it’s difficult for any single group to claim a moral high ground in relation to that. There’s also the fact that those with executive power, the British government are in and out of this state on a regular basis with no protests at all [and that is people with executive power].
There’s a further problem. A large tranche of those who we share the northeast of the island with and who most of us consider Irish actually self-identify with that monarch. This goes beyond a simple political allegiance, though that is part of it, into cultural/socio-political aspects. For a republican, or perhaps particularly as a republican, that makes the situation more complex in terms of how one responds to that identity. I don’t like monarchies but… how to engage with those who don’t merely like them but see them as core to their own outlook?
Ironically that makes it more difficult for us than say Republicans [in the sense of British Republicans, or English Republicans] in the UK. We’ve got to deal with the issue not merely in the concrete of the monarchy, and in the slightly more abstract aspect of a generalised affection/identification with them, but also with another concrete aspect in terms of a stronger adherence on the part of unionism to them.
I think that calls for some nuance. Not necessarily acceptance, certainly not approaching this on bended knee or a servile and subservient approach (though the contemporary monarchy doesn’t do subservience in quite the way it did – at least not in public displays), but something that recognizes that there’s this deserves a complexity of approach.
So what’s my solution? I don’t have any.
I think that this is going to remain a hugely tangled issue right into the future. That we – particularly left republicans – on this island are going to have to probably come to some sort of modus vivendi with those who hold radically divergent views on the issue. That some of that is going to involve looking the other way while holding fast to our views.
But some of it will probably involve reworking narratives to our benefit. And remembering that meanings aren’t fixed or only operate in one direction.
Because Unionism is not going anywhere, and in the longer term if and when there is a move towards a united Ireland, or even after the introduction of that UI, it will more than likely be necessary to see the political expression on some level or another of Unionism in an East/West context, perhaps by representation in reformed political institutions in London, say for example a truly reformed House of Lords. Without question it would necessitate – for example – allowing the Union flag to fly in the North (in parity with the tricolor) for a prolonged period. Like everything else all this works both ways.
That’s the sort of refashioning of relationships that will require significant thinking on our part as to how they can be manifested in the future in a world where the list of issues we’d like rectified, such as an English/British Republic, may simply not come to pass, or at least not on timescales that make much difference.
Hence my caution at this point. There’s a long hard road yet to go and while that won’t deter people from speaking their mind or protesting, and nor should it, it could at least provoke some consideration as to what the future holds and what has to be negotiated and who with further down the line.
This isn’t a particularly original argument, and for some the points won’t be of any great importance.
But taking this line requires no one to do anything other than that which they’ve already done, or intend to do. Reciprocity to whatever the British do in this context is not compulsory – quite the opposite. As I’ve said above, this visit is going ahead anyhow. Let’s just see how the narrative of the Myers et al can now be reworked.
Excellent piece WBS.
+1
And again although I shall be joining any events around the Dublin/Monaghan bombings justice campaign.
Good point about Unionist sensitivities, that it’s easy to forget.
However it is too convenient, just as the long recession and the dismantling of the public sphere begins to bite in the UK and gets even worse here, that there is a royal distraction both sides of the Irish sea.
That’s true. Difficult to know though how much this is by intent or not. President McAleese apparently was keen to see the Queen in Ireland before she left.
Excellent piece, insightful and nuanced, and far superior to anything we’ve seen in the national print media over the last few months in relation to the upcoming visit by the British head of state. Which really does say a lot about the very poor state of Irish print journalism.
News-making (rather than news-reporting) papers like the Irish Independent, Herald, etc. have become little more than an Irish equivalent of the right wing radio, cable TV and web-based media of the United States. As Fox News would have it, ‘Fair & Balanced’. But whose fairness and whose balance?
The real task ahead, since the visit is a fait accompli and cannot be prevented (barring a major ‘incident’), is to bring a progressive spin to it. The fact that the British head of state, ‘da queen’ (and by extension the British nation), will be acknowledging Ireland’s independence struggle, and the legitimacy of the Irish Revolution (and by extension the illegitimacy of Britain’s’ opposition to it) should be brought to the fore.
Ireland isn’t the only one embracing ‘maturity’ here. The British, whether they realise or not, will be honouring the men and women of the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Féin of the Revolutionary period – the same ones their political antecedents condemned as terrorists and murderers.
The words and opinions of the British apologists in the Irish news media, Myers, Dudley-Edwards, et al will ring somewhat hollow when even the British nation they pine for, and regard as having greater legitimacy, officially honours dead IRA men – and the Irish state they fought for.
The next time Myers engages in one of his fetishistic fantasies about poor dead Black and Tans, gunned down by evil IRA men, perhaps someone might remind him that even the British seem to be taking a different point of view these days.
So who are the ones who now have their heads in the past? And who now need to grow up and come to terms with the ‘modern world’?
Anachronisms? Kevin Myers, Ruth Dudley-Edwards? Surely not…
don’t know about that. did they not acknoladge the IRA of that period as soldiers when a ceasefire and negotiations for the treaty started. there still denying ireland its right to self determination as a whole, this homage is to a democracy created on there terms. don’t see much change in there position from 22. thats where there at and most of the body politic in Dublin, dought there’d be much of a protest on that basis.
suppose myers nose could be rubbed in it but thats a result of the caricature he created for himself, he makes money of it and what ever summersault article he writes iam sure will be the talk of the town.
still think the big issue is dublin monaghan. is she going to announce that the brits are going to co -operate and if not why not. there maturity and ours depends on that i think. the democracy of this state was undermined with that attack. would be hollow if the founders of the state where paid hommage if this wasn’t adressed not to mention the justice the families deserve.
They’re good points shea. Re the first I think acknowledgement is not necessarily the same as respect [whether one wants that respect or not] but there’s definitely something in what you say, and indeed I hope I reference it above, re their terms and independence being partial and incomplete.
I also think there’s a lot in what you say about somersaults from the usual suspects. Though that will have some entertainment value if little else.
Re Dublin Monaghan, the text of what is said over the visit will be well worth examining to see if there is anything said, or if other players, ie British ministers say anything. Certainly given the sensitivities that would be an appropriate thing to do. Though I also think Séamus is correct to point the finger of blame also at successive RoI govts.
I agree to an extent that the British acknowledged the Irish Republican movement and the struggled for Irish freedom and democracy in the early 1920s on their terms, and with their conditions (not all of which were acknowledged or reciprocated on the Irish side – the creation of the Free State represented a rather seedy compromise by the Irish – not an abject surrender).
However with the British head of state going to the Garden of Remembrance the British are acknowledging OUR revolution on OUR terms. Despite what some may believe, or claim, we should be the winners here in this particular piece of political theatre. Or we will be if we play it as such (and if Fine Gael doesn’t resort to Castle Catholic forelock tugging – which remains entirely possible, of course).
Personally the idea of the image of the British queen bowing her head in honour to our patriot dead going around the globe will provide no little satisfaction. And might make some of our northern Unionist compatriots reflect on what being a Unionist in Ireland means in the 21st century.
The rest, in terms of the points made on the greater constitutional and democratic questions, as well as the Dublin/Monaghan bombings by British state-sponsored terrorists, I quiet agree with it.
By the by, is this the future?
From the SDLP manifesto for the northern elections:
‘During the next mandate, we will seek a referendum on a United Ireland, for which the SDLP will campaign vigorously in favour of a ‘yes’ vote…
…the Assembly would continue, as a regional parliament of a United Ireland with all its cross-community protections…
…the Executive would be kept, bringing together all political parties…
…all the Agreement’s equality and human rights protections, including the Bill of Rights, would still be guaranteed…
…the right to identify oneself as British or Irish, or both, and hold British or Irish passports would endure…
…East-West cooperation would continue. In particular, just as the Irish Government has a say in the North now, the British Government would have a say in the North in a United Ireland…
…those in the North who want it, should have representation in the House of Lords in a United Ireland…’
Both the SDLP and SF now advocate, in different ways, a referendum on reunification in the next few years and some sort of regional assembly for the north-east in a reunited Ireland. Interesting. What place for the British head of state in that?
related to the fact that it is Easter
http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/05/05/ferghal-mcgarry-interview/
could be the future. the GFA dosen’t envisige a role for britain in the event of a referendum passing, so possible that could be a new default position for unionism to assemble around if there thinking. obviously ‘iam AGAIN it’ though hope its the near future in that instead of talking about the broad aim of a UI people are talking about the construct of a UI.
iam probably being childish for the last word in this post on this issue, think your over stateing the garden of rememberance. theres a train of thaught that that revolution has been compleated. from that point of view i’d say lizzy goin to the garden of rememberence will be spun. i won’t be loosing any sleep over the symbolism any way. personaly think the best thing to do is ignore it but will agree to disagree. but dublin monaghan i feel shouldn’t be ignored its more than symbolism it should be a call for something practical co -operation. i get where your coming from worldbystom our government should be held to accout and thats an on going issue but this is the head of the british state coming on the anniversery of a massacare that has gone unanswered for think it would be wrong not the raise it. but doesn’t look like it will happen. the shinners realeased a statement on it but are keeping away from the day, eirgi realeased a statement about it but are organiseing something for the garden of rem a few days before. if they don’t get blocked from entering they’ll get dragged out. smart from a self promotion pr angle but thats about it and good luck to them for it. joe higgans and boyd barrett seem to be opposing her on the basis of how much it would cost. fair enough i suppose but think progressives are missing an opportunity to do something worthwhile.
i don’t have a right to dictate how or on what others decide to protest so apologise if i was being offencive or dictating to other groups in the above post.
Just to clarify my instincts would be very close to yours in the sense of at this point ignoring the whole circus. I wouldn’t cross the street.
That said it is going to happen so rather than glass empty from a left republican point of view how about glass half full for a change at least in terms of how we look at what it means in terms of validation/legitimation of our politics?
The Brits may be cack-handed in many things when it comes to Ireland but nowadays surely Croke Park and the Garden of Remembrance have been teed up by the Whitehall mandarins for some sort of ‘what our nations have in common, learning from history, let’s move forward in peace and harmony…’ statement from Her Maj with a veiled if not outright apology, otherwise she could have made do with the National Stud.
“President McAleese has always, so it seems to me, got the tone mostly right.”
Funny thing is, she and her predecessor seem to me to have become monarchical in their approach. I saw her on last week while we were both on our way to work. I was on the bus heading into the city, she had Gardaí directing everybody else out of her way as she headed out of town. And a friend told how, nine or ten years ago, a furniture shop was sealed off on a Saturday morning so she could select times for her country home.
and I’ve been at two events where there was a pompus announcement “ladies and gentlemen, please be upstanding for the President”.
Yes, a head of state does need protection — being a such a high profile figure makes her open to greater security risks than the rest of us, and somebody in that job is more likely to be subjected to irritating approaches and invasions of privacy which wouldn’t be a security risk, but a lot of the stuff that goes on is more the pomp than the need. (A few years ago, I stumbled upon the Taoiseach of the day doing some Christmas shopping. He too would be subject to the same problems. Apart from looking to check it really was Bertie, most people got on with their own shopping. The nerd in me wondered where the security was, and I looked around the rest of the shop till I saw a detective standing a little bit away, watching us watching him.)
Here’s a king showing how it can be done.
I was in Cardiff a few years ago and wandered past the Welsh Assembly, within a few feet of Rhodri Morgan, who was having a chat with a mate of his. Not a copper in sight. Very civilised it was.
That’s not the nerd in you Tomboktu, it’s the nascent freedom fighter. It reminds me of the old saw about how if one has political differences – ahem – with the state or subsidiary groupings, or non subsidiary groupings when you sit in a pub always sit facing the door and close to an exit.
[...] noted previously how some aspects of the Queen’s visit throw up issues for Republicans and socialists, but [...]