Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Padraig Pearse

12357

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm



    As far as Pearse drinking a pint... I think I once heard that he didn't drink, smoke or play organised sports - I can't remember where I heard that so it may only be hearsay, but it does fit with the impression I have of the man.

    Thats the thing with Pearse -we get impressions rather than facts.

    The Green Scene with CnG is very believeable.

    I must look for a CnG hoolie link after the Plunkett comment as it does build a different part to the picture.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Well ,in answer to my own question Patrick Pearse neither drank nor smoked and did not partake in group sports. He did however like boxing and sing and have a sense of humour .

    showArticleImage?image=images%2Fpages%2Fdtc.104.tif.gif&doi=10.2307%2F30088734

    I have found a great article here comparing PP with Gavrilo Princip - Archdukes Franz Ferdinands assasin.
    Gavrilo Princip and Patrick Pearse: Nationalism, Patriotism and Rebellion : A Comparison - Patrick Pearse pdf_button.png printButton.png emailButton.png Serbian History

    Like Gavrilo Princip, Patrick Henry or Padraic/Padraig Pearse/MacPiarais (1879-1916) resorted to violence and rebellion/insurrection to achieve the goals of Irish nationalism. Princip and Pearse were motivated by the same ideals, nationalism and independence/sovereignty for their respective nationality/ethnic groups

    http://www.srpskoblago.org/books-articles/gavrilo-princip-and-patrick-pearse-nationalism-patriotism-and-rebellion-a-comparison/page-4

    Full article here

    http://www.srpskoblago.org/books-articles/gavrilo-princip-and-patrick-pearse-nationalism-patriotism-and-rebellion-a-comparison

    It is a good backdrop for the international scene and he quotes liberally from Sean Farrell Morans book
    In Patrick Pearse and the Politics of Redemption, Sean Farrell Moran examined the role that Patrick Pearse played in the Easter Rising of 1916 in Ireland. The "uprising" began on May 1, 1916, at the General Post Office in Dublin when an Irish republican leader brandished a gun declaring the independence of the Irish Republic. British troops then attacked the "rebels" with guns and artillery. The "insurrection" lasted for a week until finally put down by British military forces which included Irish veterans from the Western front in France. Approximately 450 "rebels" were killed and 2,000 were interned. The British troops suffered casualties of 100 killed or wounded in the conflict. Patrick Pearse was a central figure in the uprising. First, Moran noted that "historians of Ireland widely regard Dublin's Easter Rising of 1916 as the most important event in modern Irish political history" and that Patrick Pearse "was the most important figure of the Easter Rising." Historians of Ireland have not made Pearse or the Rising very "comprehensible" and Pearse remains "enigmatic" because Irish historiography has been "conventional in approach" and "conservative in tone". Moran faulted 'the literature on Pearse" because it has failed to "draw critical connections between Pearse and the historical event." Historians have not shown how an individual such as Pearse could come to play the role he did in the Rising. Historians have not used "innovative methodological approaches". Moran then examined the historical literature on Pearse and the Rising and concluded that it has "by and large...failed" because a conventional, rationalistic historical approach is inadequate to explain Pearse and the Rising. The rationalistic approach assumes rationality when in fact Pearse was motivated by irrationality. Instead, Moran applies a psychological analysis of Pearse and of the Irish nationalist tradition by exploring and examining in depth both Pearse's childhood and life and the ancient Irish national myths. For only by examining these aspects can one gain an understanding of the notions of self-immolation, of blood sacrifice, redemptive violence, for Pearse clearly understood the suicidal and futile nature of the Rising, but which he saw as a symbolic act of redemption, a "blood offering" in the name of Irish nationalism. Moreover, Pearse's martyrdom was not a futile and meaningless act but was a calculated and thought-out action that was part of a longer Irish tradition of martyrdom. For Pearse and those who would follow him, his martyrdom had meaning and impacted Irish history and nationalism. Furthermore, Moran argued that Pearse was in a sense merely expressing a "sentiment of his age", the idea that national and personal redemption could be achieved through violence and death. Rupert Brooke and Charles Peguy were discussed, who like Pearse, saw a similar need for redemption in a suicidal act.
    Moran pointed out the irony of Pearse's suicidal act when he compares the Rising to the Great War, World War I, which was a suicidal act of redemption on a massive scale. It is estimated that between 5 and 10 million people died in the Great War. Verdun became a tragic symbol of the waste of young life, an offensive launched not to achieve any tangible military objective, but to bleed France white. In the process, hundreds of thousands died needlessly. There is an old Roman saying attributed to Horace that guided the combatants on all sides during the Great War, which loosely translated, is as follows: It is sweet and noble to die for one's country. Seen in this broader context, Pearse's act is rendered more comprehensible. Pearse lived in a time when patriotic nationalism was at its zenith, when Theodor Herzl founded Zionism, when the Balkans erupted in the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, when Bosnia was in turmoil, and when the nationalities problem consumed the Habsburg Empire. Indeed, the act that precipitated the Great War, World War I, was very similar to Pearse's act, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 by a Bosnian Serb "nationalist", Gavrilo Princip, who was a member of the Young Bosnia Movement. The assassination occurred on June 28, St. Vitus' Day, or Serbian Vidov Dan, Kosovo Day, the date commemorating the epic battle of Kosovo in 1389. So like Pearse, Princip too was guided by redemptive violence as a blood sacrifice for the assassination was clearly as futile and suicidal as Pearse's act was. Princip too was guided by a nationalist mythology of redemption, of sacrifice for a nation and people. So seen in this broader context, Pearse and the Rising can be seen in proper perspective.
    Patrick Pearse was born on November 10, 1879 in Dublin, the son of an English father and Irish mother. In "The Making of a National Hero", Moran detailed Pearse's childhood and formative years and his family and social relationships. Diaries, Pearse's unfinished autobiography, reminiscences of friends and associates, Pearse's own writings, plays, articles, poems, and essays were examined in depth. Pearse emerges as a human being and we are able to see what motivated and inspired him. Clearly, Pearse was a product of his age, of his time, and of his environment. He became a militant Irish nationalist, took up the cause of Irish national identity, became immersed in Gaelic language, culture, and history. But we also see the inconsistencies and the wavering and the lack of commitment to a single, unified ideology as Pearse struggles to find his role and function.
    In "The State of Ireland", Moran examined the political climate of Ireland at the turn of the century by examining the key Irish nationalist parties and movements, the literary societies, the Gaelic League, and the Celtic Revival in Ireland. Irish independence was clearly the key issue of Irish politics of Pearse's time and for generations before. The constantly evolving Home Rule debate continued unabated. The emergence and growth of Sinn Fein and the Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood (IRB) are examined and discussed. Pearse was a member of the IRB. This chapter presents the political climate in which Pearse lived. It was a climate of volatility and of violence and of opposition to England.
    The next chapter examined the "politics of redemption" by a "psychodynamic" analysis of the tradition of violence in Irish history. Moran maintained that to sacrifice themselves for a cause wholeheartedly required "a concept of the nation" that had psychological depth and meaning for the individual, that abstract and theological considerations were not enough. Ernest Jones' analysis of Ireland as an "island home" is presented. Seeing Ireland as a feminine figure who has been violated demanded redemptive violence and sacrifice. This identification was reinforced by Irish Catholicism, by Irish poetry, and by Irish mythology from the Tain. The Young Ireland Movement continued this identification through poetry which relied on a Gaelic past. The ancient myth of Cuchulainn is crucial in Irish national mythology because of its theme of transcending death through sacrifice for the nation. In a nation that had a history of being conquered and of rebellion, such a myth was all-important. This tradition was similar to the Kosovo epic tradition in Serbian history, folklore, and poetry and the martyrdom of Prince Lazar and Milos Obilic. Like Gavrilo Princip, Patrick Pearse was immersed in an epic/heroic history of self-immolation or suicide to redeem his people and nation from defeat and oppression. The Young Ireland Movement had much in common with the Young Bosnia Movement which in turn was based on the Young Italy Movement. The 18th century was one of nationalism. Both Princip and Pearse were the embodiments of this nationalist tradition. Moreover, the 19th century saw much violence in Ireland which inspired a poetry of sacrifice and a tradition of symbolic violence and death, indeed, an "eroticization of death". This chapter is important in showing the roots of Irish nationalism, of the peculiar Irish mindset regarding national independence. Moran has chosen the right material, the mythological sources of Irish nationalism and the poetic works which most eloquently evoked it.
    Next Pearse's career as a journalist and school teacher were examined. Pearse was clearly talented as a writer, but was not a major literary figure. He was what might be termed a minor writer. Pearse wrote plays and short stories for children and nationalist articles, mainly on Gaelic language and culture. He found his true strength to be in speaking where he made his key contribution. Politically, Pearse was considered "naive" and "ignorant". Pearse's commitment to violence and death as redemptive acts transformed his thinking and vision for Irish nationalism. His vision became clear, unwavering, and committed. He gradually became accepted by the IRB, who were looking for someone who was articulate and single-mindedly committed to the cause of Irish independence. Pearse stated: "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace." The stage was now set for the Rising. Moran offers an analysis of why Pearse changed as he did. Pearse never married and had few close social contacts outside of his family. He thus had no object for his psychic energy. Thus, he sublimated his energy in Irish nationalism, and in the Rising. This material is important in showing the motivations behind Pearse's actions.
    In the chapter on the Rising itself, Pearse's own writings and poetic works are quoted and examined to show the thought processes of Pearse just before the Rising. This is an excellent method of elucidating the motivations behind the Rising. Here, however, some of the weaknesses of the analysis emerge. For instance, who was Roger Casement and what was the relationship of Germany to the Irish independence movement? Was there a long history of German involvement, or was it only during the Great War, was it merely a sham or was a German invasion plausible? At this point, the broader political context of the Rising is not fully developed. Casement and the German involvement is only sketched out. What was Pearse's involvement with Casement if any? Here, a more in- depth political discussion is needed. Moreover, we are not told of the broader implications for the nationalist movement and its members? What happened to Clarke? What happened to the IRB and Sinn Fein?
    The final chapter is on the European "revolt against reason" typified by the Great War itself. Moran explained that the Rising was not the result of a rational process, but resulted from "deep-seated psychological and emotional conflicts" which emerged after the failure of constitutional initiatives. The Rising was a "revolt against modernity", which England represented; it was a revolt against reason. At a time when thousands of Europeans were dying daily on the battlefields of the Somme, at Verdun, Pearse's sacrifice does not seem so inexplicable. It was an age when people actually believed that violence and death, which war is, would lead to national salvation and rebirth. It was a throwback to a much earlier time, to a mythic notion of the nation. It is noble and sweet to die for one's country. Pearse was not alone in seeking salvation through sacrifice and death. The entire age was consumed by the same desire.
    The style of the narrative is flawless. The writing is lucid, clear, and uncluttered. Only what was needed is said and nothing more. There are no diversions. The narrative is direct and the flow is unrelenting and consistent throughout. The lucidity and clarity impart a tremendous power to the narrative. Because there are no diversions, there are no interruptions and the text is very readable. The book is well written and
    well edited.

    What I think is that our guy is being edited to fit a profile and the sense of reality is taken out of him and do we need to over psychoanalyse him.

    Like how can a guy who worked with builders,edited a magazine and sold advertising been naive.

    It does not fit for me and I think his motivations were a bit more basic like not being able to get money to run his school and his Irish identity etc. Could he have emigrated to England in 1910 and worked as a barrister etc. Who knows but he is not what biographers have been telling us and probably not as enigmatic after all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    A sense of humor? That's interesting. I always got the impression that Pearse was impervious to jokes. He took himself way too seriously.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    A sense of humor? That's interesting. I always got the impression that Pearse was impervious to jokes. He took himself way too seriously.

    I dunno. I thought taking over a post office to get rid of british rule was pretty funny

    i kid, i kid, quit throwing stuff already


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    I dunno. I thought taking over a post office to get rid of british rule was pretty funny

    i kid, i kid, quit throwing stuff already

    Kinda worked though didn't it.

    At least he got a bow from mrs windsor.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    I dunno. I thought taking over a post office to get rid of british rule was pretty funny

    i kid, i kid, quit throwing stuff already

    Was it his idea or Mac Diarmada's, though?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    Was it his idea or Mac Diarmada's, though?

    I don't know. entirely possible it was his or Clarke's as they were most responsible for the planning


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    A sense of humor? That's interesting. I always got the impression that Pearse was impervious to jokes. He took himself way too seriously.

    There are many ways of interpreting dressing up as a woman and prancing down the red light district. Being a student is one of them says the person who planted seed potatoes and carrot seeds in the college flowerbeds.

    Just saying like.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    CDfm wrote: »
    There are many ways of interpreting dressing up as a woman and prancing down the red light district. Being a student is one of them says the person who planted seed potatoes and carrot seeds in the college flowerbeds.

    Just saying like.

    I wasn't his idea to dress up in a dress. It was his evil big sister Wow-wow who did it to him (and Willie).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    I wasn't his idea to dress up in a dress. It was his evil big sister Wow-wow who did it to him (and Willie).

    Ok - but which sister ? Wow-wow was a pet name.?

    And what were the circumstances, ages etc and do you have any references for the event.

    Patrick & Willie were involved in drama too as adults.

    The objective of this thread is to cut thru the urban myth and base what is said on fact.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    CDfm wrote: »
    Ok - but which sister ? Wow-wow was a pet name.?

    And what were the circumstances, ages etc and do you have any references for the event.

    Patrick & Willie were involved in drama too as adults.

    The objective of this thread is to cut thru the urban myth and base what is said on fact.

    Wow-wow was Pat's older sister Margaret. She was a very domineering presence in his life, always bending him to her will. I imagine, she did that to the boys when they were entering puberty (if Pearse had ever gone through it).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    Wow-wow was Pat's older sister Margaret. She was a very domineering presence in his life, always bending him to her will. I imagine, she did that to the boys when they were entering puberty (if Pearse had ever gone through it).

    ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    I second your '?'
    ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    Wow-wow was Pat's older sister Margaret. She was a very domineering presence in his life, always bending him to her will. I imagine, she did that to the boys when they were entering puberty (if Pearse had ever gone through it).

    So there is no reference for it.I am not saying it did not happen but there are a lot of myths about Patrick Pearse.

    On his older sister, in what way did she dominate him and play a significant role in his life as an adult ? Significant events ?

    If anything, he dominated Willie ?

    On Pearse -you have to reference because there is so much conjecture and speculation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    Morlar wrote: »
    I second your '?'

    Some psychologists suggest that he suffered from sexual infantilism, that he never really developed in that regard. Peter Pan complex.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    CDfm wrote: »
    So there is no reference for it.I am not saying it did not happen but there are a lot of myths about Patrick Pearse.

    On his older sister, in what way did she dominate him and play a significant role in his life as an adult ? Significant events ?

    If anything, he dominated Willie ?

    On Pearse -you have to reference because there is so much conjecture and speculation.

    It's in Sean Moran's biography of Pearse. Apparently, his sister bullied him into playing the sort of games she wanted. She liked to "murder" toys and make him drive them to Glasnevin for burial. And yes, there was a hierarchy in that family. Wow-wow dominated Patrick, and Patrick dominated Willie. Apparently, when Pearse went to the GPO, his sister stopped by and yelled at him: "Come home already, stop this foolishness."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    Some psychologists suggest that he suffered from sexual infantilism, that he never really developed in that regard. Peter Pan complex.

    Please, not this hypothetical impossible to prove revisionist psychobabble ****e again.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    Morlar wrote: »
    Please, not this hypothetical impossible to prove revisionist psychobabble ****e again.

    Is there any bio of Pearse that is NOT considered "revisionist psychobabble"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    Is there any bio of Pearse that is NOT considered "revisionist psychobabble"?

    I think you will have to do better than 'Some psychologists suggest' in order to prove that assertion. Otherwise it is revisionist drivel.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    Morlar wrote: »
    I think you will have to do better than 'Some psychologists suggest' in order to prove that assertion. Otherwise it is revisionist drivel.

    I honestly don't care enough about Pat's personal life to question Moran's authenticity. I repeat my question: can you recommend a source that's NOT considered revisionist? Certainly not Ruth Dudley Edwards', ;-)

    There's another bio of Pearse by some Hungarian historian, who also favors the theory that Pearse was an unconscious homosexual. Again, I don't care enough for Pearse to get indignant. I dislike his treatment of certain colleagues.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    Some psychologists suggest that he suffered from sexual infantilism, that he never really developed in that regard. Peter Pan complex.

    They may suggest never having met the guy.

    He discussed marriage with a woman and she drowned.
    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    It's in Sean Moran's biography of Pearse. Apparently, his sister bullied him into playing the sort of games she wanted. She liked to "murder" toys and make him drive them to Glasnevin for burial.

    That would be very odd -Glasnevin was out in the sticks and if you are talking the 1880's or 90's what would they drive in.

    They lived near Trinity College and would not have needed transport in their daily lives.
    And yes, there was a hierarchy in that family. Wow-wow dominated Patrick, and Patrick dominated Willie.

    As adults - the business closed down due to a recession and James Vincent the older half brother went to the UK for work and there was another half sister too and the mother.

    So biographies that do not mention the whole family miss out a big chunk of Pearse family life.
    Apparently, when Pearse went to the GPO, his sister stopped by and yelled at him: "Come home already, stop this foolishness."

    There are references to her and by all accounts she suffered from depression which would probably be described as bi-polar today.

    With one ancestor having been executed little over a century before she knew the outcome meant death and she did not need to be a dominating sister to try to disuade him -just a loving one.

    She also took her sister Mary to court in the 1930's and DeValera tried to mediate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    To be fair, all we have is rumors, at best. Historians interpret them differently. Nobody really knows how intimate his relationship was with Eveleen Nicholls. And he would not be the first man to attempt to have a "normal" family life. It's possible that he had some rudimentary romantic feelings for her, but then it's possible that it was just an attempt to be "like everyone else".

    I should've specified, that the Glasnevin game was imaginary. Wow-wow pretended there was a graveyard in their living-room.

    And being loving and being domineering are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure you know that. Some people have funny ways of showing their love. As far as I know, none of the 4 Pearse children (born in the second marriage) went on to marry.

    It's not all cut and try. It's not all homo-hetoro, loving-domineering.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    Nobody really knows how intimate his relationship was with Eveleen Nicholls. And he would not be the first man to attempt to have a "normal" family life. It's possible that he had some rudimentary romantic feelings for her, but then it's possible that it was just an attempt to be "like everyone else".

    Can I ask is there a reason for the suspicions you raise here, that there was some kind of an ulterior motive in his relationship, or that it was somehow just for show ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    Morlar wrote: »
    Can I ask is there a reason for the suspicions you raise here, that there was some kind of an ulterior motive in his relationship, or that it was somehow just for show ?

    First of all, the romantic nature of their relationship hasn't been confirmed. The fact that he proposed to Eveleen has never been confirmed either. It's all rumors. Eveleen's brother said they were "unofficially engaged". I have no trouble believing that Pearse had a rather elevated view of women. Maybe he thought that would be sufficient for him to marry. People get married for wrong reasons all the time. There's nothing unusual about it. If Pearse had left more of a paper trail of his relationship with Eveleen, there wouldn't be so much speculation right now.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    First of all, the romantic nature of their relationship hasn't been confirmed. The fact that he proposed to Eveleen has never been confirmed either. It's all rumors. Eveleen's brother said they were "unofficially engaged". I have no trouble believing that Pearse had a rather elevated view of women. Maybe he thought that would be sufficient for him to marry. People get married for wrong reasons all the time. There's nothing unusual about it. If Pearse had left more of a paper trail of his relationship with Eveleen, there wouldn't be so much speculation right now.

    You have said :


    I have no trouble believing that Pearse had a rather elevated view of women. Maybe he thought that would be sufficient for him to marry.
    &
    It's possible that he had some rudimentary romantic feelings for her, but then it's possible that it was just an attempt to be "like everyone else".

    I am wondering why this is your starting point (as opposed to the other option that he was in love with her and sexually attracted to her which would be the far more common reason for an engagement to marry ) ?

    This sounds like one of those 'I think I hear hoofs so it must be a herd of zebras'.

    I am just wondering why would your starting point be one of suspicion & seemingly baseless speculation rather than the statistically far more likely explanation for an engagement ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    Oh, boy... This is going to be a loooong one ;-) Read carefully. There is no official confirmation of engagement. You are making it sound like it was a documented fact that he and Eveleen had definite plans to get married. What we (and historians) are dealing with is just a bunch of rumors.

    Sexual attraction and marriage are certainly not mutually exclusive, but they don't necessarily go hand in hand. People got married for convenience, status, appearances all the time. Oscar Wilde was married and had two kids, but that didn't keep him from messing around. Roger Casement was rumored to have had relations with Ada MacNeill. The key word here is rumors. There is nothing to confirm that Pearse had any homo or hetero relationships with anyone.

    If you have the documentation to negate everything that Moran and Dudley Edwards have suggested, by all means, be my guest and write a separate book. As far as I know, there are no sources on Pearse that haven't been tapped into.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    ft2w1004tq_00008.jpg

    Sinead de Valera with Dev and Douglas Hyde. Hyde was a friend of the couple and Sinead was an active member of the Gaelic League.


    m.jpg

    Sinead - date unknown.

    Here are a similar couple from the same and the same social circle married and settled down.

    Now it would not bother me 1 iota if Patrick Pearse was a homosexual or bi-sexual or whatever.

    DeValera had written to the British government requesting the return of Roger Casements remains several times and was refused and it is widely referenced that his sexual orientation was of no consequence to DeV who said he was held in special affection by the Irish People.

    There are just not facts there to support the hypothesis.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Mairin1978 wrote: »

    If you have the documentation to negate everything that Moran and Dudley Edwards have suggested, by all means, be my guest and write a separate book. As far as I know, there are no sources on Pearse that haven't been tapped into.

    But rumours are not facts and we already know on the basis of this thread alone that Dudley Edwards and probably Moran as well and many other biographers have missed out huge chunks of Patrick Pearses life -which are readily available.I found them.

    Just cos its in a book does not make it true.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Mairin1978 wrote: »
    There is nothing to confirm that Pearse had any homo or hetero relationships with anyone.

    He was not married. He was reportedly in a relationship with a woman who drowned, he was reported to have been engaged to her. So it does seem as if you are approaching the subject from a skewed viewpoint, whereby the far more stastically likely probability is put on an equal footing with the far less statistically likely possibility and there seems to be no basis for this whatsoever. Couple this with the 'some psychologists suggest that he had not yet entered puberty' and it adds up to an imbalanced viewpoint in my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 Mairin1978


    CDfm wrote: »
    But rumours are not facts and we already know on the basis of this thread alone that Dudley Edwards and probably Moran as well and many other biographers have missed out huge chunks of Patrick Pearses life -which are readily available.I found them.

    Just cos its in a book does not make it true.

    Please, site those sources. A few months ago when we chatted you appeared to hold a different opinion. I'd be interested to see what made you change your mind. I have "A Dark Day on the Blaskets", but even that book does not assert 100% that Pearse and Eveleen were engaged. The fact that they knew and respected each other is a confirmed fact. Was there anything beyond friendship?


Advertisement