Countess MArkievicz

cousin_borat

Was listening to a podcast recently by Ruth Dudley Edwards on the Countess. Was very interesting in that she was exposing her for the fraud she truly was. I guess it's not something that's talked about much or whether people pay much stead by her. Would be interesting to hear what other persons opinion of her were. I might add that I'm no fan of RDE but in this case I think she was on the money so to speak.

brianthebard

Fraud in what context?

cousin_borat

She wasn't a Countess
When she was on trial after 1916 she practically begged not to be executed and was spared execution due to her sex. Whilst she was always fast to espouse the merits of dying for the revolutionary cause

brianthebard

She married a count, that's why she was a countess. Makes sense to me. Tbh I don't blame her for not wanting to die.

Aedh Baclamh

Yeah but she never really sent out that feeling, did she? All the history books have her saying quite the opposite.

cousin_borat

Supposedly her husband bought the title and that it was not a valid polish lineage.

As for not wanting to die. Well asking for clemency on account of your sex and then coming out with "I do wish your lot had the decency to shoot me." reveals a deeply delusional character

I guess I was reading some material from her tour of America and it's so sycophantic it really got on my goat.

brianthebard

Tbh I haven't read much about her, but yeah the general the message seems to be the glory of the nation. But I don't know how much she said about sacrificing oneself for the cause. In fact the first page I got from a google states that she had her sentence commuted on account of her gender. So her biographers at least seem to have no problem acknowledging this fact.

edit: Imo a bought title is about as valid as a "real" one. I know that's debateable, but I have little time for titles in the first place, it doesn't bother me.

Shutuplaura

There is a difference of opinion as to whether or not she crumpled at her trial or not as far as I know. I'll poke around and see if I can find a link. Regardless, She did actually go out and participate in the rising which I guess shows she had some courage. To be honest though I've no real opinion on the matter apart from a knee jerk anti-RDE reaction.

Shutuplaura

Nah, couldn't find anything really except that there's no mention of any pleading in the official transcript of the trial (which wasn't a verbatam record so I guess that it proves nothing either way). I don't think it was made in the immediate aftermath though. A good reason for her being spared could have been the negative reaction worldwide in the aftermath of the execution of Nurse Edith Cavell in 1915. I guess is the British government made hay out of that then they may not have wanted to shoot a woman themselves.

Apparently though, her husband wasn't a count but she didn't use the title countess anyway. She preferred to be called Madam.

Erin Go Brath

Sounds like RDE spouting more anti-Irish, pro-british rubbish to me. That would be no major departure for the woman.

Because the Countess was firstly a woman, and secondly from a wealthy family brought up in London, it would i assume have been a major embarrassment for the British Government to execute her.

History showed her as a very brave and courageous woman. Regardless of whether she crumbled and begged for her life, and I don't know if that was the case or not. She will be remembered as one of our heros, and righly so imo.

"One thing she had in abundance - physical courage; with that she was clothed as with a garment." Sean O'Casey

Aedh Baclamh

How the hell is it anti-Irish?

Erin Go Brath

Aedh Baclamh wrote:

How the hell is it anti-Irish?

Well I havent listened to the podcast, but it seems from whats said, that shes slating one of Irelands great female nationalist icons. Anybody familiar with some of RDE's work, and political leanings would not be greatly surprised by this attitude.

Zambia

Just because something in our past is not nice to hear does not make it Anti-Irish.

I think De-Valera was a complete disaster , however I would not consider myself Anti- Irish.

Erin Go Brath

Zambia232 wrote:

Just because something in our past is not nice to hear does not make it Anti-Irish.

I think De-Valera was a complete disaster , however I would not consider myself Anti- Irish.

Firstly, let me say that I agree with you to an extent on both points, although I think your probably being a bit harsh on Dev.

However the person in question, RDE is notoriously anti-Irish/anti-nationalist. I feel whether I'm correct or incorrect that its this attitude that is the reason behind besmirching the countesses good name.

If a neutral, non-politically aligned person made the comments, and could back them up then they would certainly have more credibility.

Zambia

OK I will have a look at this Ruth Dudley Edwards and see what I can estabilish as till today I never heard she existed.

My attitude to Dev seems from a dis-like of the whole neutrality thing, but thats off topic

Zambia

Hmm that didnt take long http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=15774

Your opinion is well shared , while the dobting of the countess may not be Anti-Irish I reckon the motive behind the Questioning certainly is.

Mick86

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Because the Countess was firstly a woman, and secondly from a wealthy family brought up in London, it would i assume have been a major embarrassment for the British Government to execute her.

Whatever about her gender they weren't too embarrassed to execute Sir Roger Casement so being one of the upper class didn't save her. What did she do during the rising anyway? Wasn't there a story that she was "blooded" by some volunteers by shooting a prisoner.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Sounds like RDE spouting more anti-Irish, pro-british rubbish to me. That would be no major departure for the woman.

I thought she was anti-republican. That would not necessarily mean that she was either anti-Irish or pro-British.

Shutuplaura

Yeah but to be fair Mick they were probably very quesy about shooting a woman. The germans shot Edith Cavell to universal disgust, and the french looked bad after shooting Mati Hari some time later. Even now, women are less likely to recieve the death penalty than guys. That is just a personal opinion but I'd be surprised if it didn't hold true.

RDE is famously anti-republican. I'd personally also consider her anti-Irish also but I won't argue that point as its a matter of opinion. She also takes a childish delight in slagging off dead republican heros such as Padraig Pearse and Countess M. Now I'm not saying these people are above reproach but she tries to make a career of it.

Mick86

Shutuplaura wrote:

Yeah but to be fair Mick they were probably very quesy about shooting a woman.

Maybe although 90 participants were sentenced to death and she was one of 75 reprieved. Were there any other women in the same boat.

mountainyman

The series is called 'Speaking ill of the dead' it is deliberate polemic.

On the other hand RDE is not a historian, she is a historian's daughter.

MM

Mick86

mountainyman wrote:

On the other hand RDE is not a historian, she is a historian's daughter.

She's got an MA in history and she writes history books. That probably means she's an historian.

csk

Mick86 wrote:

She's got an MA in history and she writes history books. That probably means she's an historian.

While she may have a MA in history, I would not consider her a historian, at least not in any proper sense of the word. Her works are polemics and she a polemicist, nothing more. Actually I would say she is a journalist before I would consider her a historian.

Anything she writes should be taken with a bucket of salt.

mountainyman

Mick86 wrote:

She's got an MA in history and she writes history books. That probably means she's an historian.

An MA is piss poor qualification for a professional historian. She is a columnist and a polemicist, she is NOT a historian.

MM

Mick86

csk wrote:

While she may have a MA in history, I would not consider her a historian, at least not in any proper sense of the word. Her works are polemics and she a polemicist, nothing more. Actually I would say she is a journalist before I would consider her a historian.

Anything she writes should be taken with a bucket of salt.

mountainyman wrote:

An MA is piss poor qualification for a professional historian. She is a columnist and a polemicist, she is NOT a historian.

MM

his·to·ri·an (hĭ-stôr'ē-ən, -stōr'-, -stŏr'-)
n.
A writer, student, or scholar of history.
One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler.

As well as being a historian and journalist she is also a crime novelist.

As for being controversial so what. Who's going to read another book rehashing the same tired facts about the past. I take it you don't like what she writes so in your opinion it should just be written off as revisionist, anti-Irish or polemical.

MM, Define a piss-rich qualification for a historian.

cousin_borat

Strictly speaking I wouldn't regard her as a Historian in the sense of Norman Davies. I would'nt dismiss her simply because she isn't as heavyweight as so called "proper" Historians

csk

Mick86 wrote:

As for being controversial so what. Who's going to read another book rehashing the same tired facts about the past.

There is precisely the problem. A Historians job is not to say "oh look these facts have become tired, I should rehash them by being controversial".

I take it you don't like what she writes so in your opinion it should just be written off as revisionist, anti-Irish or polemical.

No, no, I don't like why she writes what she writes or the thinking behind writing it, therefore in my opinion her predjuices should be noted because they inform everything she writes and imo that diminishes the value of her work significantly.

MM, Define a piss-rich qualification for a historian.

A MA is not a bad qualification itself but obviously a Ph.D would be better.

Mick86

csk wrote:

There is precisely the problem. A Historians job is not to say "oh look these facts have become tired, I should rehash them by being controversial".

What if the historian discovers new facts. Inevitably they will be controversial to somebody. Isn't it the historians duty to publicise the new discovery. Otherwise how do we progress and learn?

csk wrote:

No, no, I don't like why she writes what she writes or the thinking behind writing it, therefore in my opinion her predjuices should be noted because they inform everything she writes and imo that diminishes the value of her work significantly.

Then you should make counterarguments rather than dismiss her as anti-Irish and revisionist or whatever.

csk wrote:

A MA is not a bad qualification itself but obviously a Ph.D would be better.

Better than a B in Leaving Cert History I suppose.:D

Shutuplaura

The allegations about madame breaking down have been pub gossip in Dublin for years so I wouldn't call it new.

Got round to listening to the podcast by the way. Have to say that she does an entertaining hatchet job if nothing else.

csk

Mick86 wrote:

What if the historian discovers new facts. Inevitably they will be controversial to somebody. Isn't it the historians duty to publicise the new discovery. Otherwise how do we progress and learn?

Yes that goes without saying, but that is NOT what Ruth Dudley Edwards does, what new and significant facts did she bring to light. All she did was deconstruct the previous generations work and then add her own predjuiced spin. That didn't move historical reasearch on this island forward, in fact it greatly retarded it, as it means a whole new generation now has to go and spend time wading through her inane dribble.

Then you should make counterarguments rather than dismiss her as anti-Irish and revisionist or whatever.

According to the link provided earlier, she has told people to stop reading her own book! So there really is no need for me to argue against her as it seems we agree on something!

However that being said her work is not history, its codology dressed as history. If a fully quailified doctor had an anti-old people agenda, and because of this, they decided they would administer lethal doses of medication to any old person he/she treated in order to murder them, would we say, "hey its alright, that doctor is fully qualified and therefore fully entitled to hand out medicine"?

Like hell we would the doctor in question would be carted off to jail and struck off. Now what Ruth Dudley Edwards does may not be as dramatic but it is the same in principle.

brianthebard

Mick86 wrote:

She's got an MA in history and she writes history books. That probably means she's an historian.

Lolz I've been told specifically to do an M. Litt if I want to be a historian, and then go on for a phd. Then you are a historian.

Someone suggested that she was practising revisionism. This sort of history study is given a bad name by negationists like this woman. I hope that everyone knows the difference, because revisionism is a very important aspect of historical studies, while negationism is not.

Mick86

csk wrote:

Yes that goes without saying, but that is NOT what Ruth Dudley Edwards does, what new and significant facts did she bring to light..

I was speaking in general not specifically about RDE.

csk wrote:

All she did was deconstruct the previous generations work and then add her own predjuiced spin. ..

Deconstructing the mythology that surrounds the IRA from 1916 on might be no bad thing. I'm not suggesting that RDE is the woman for the job but there doesn't appear to be a middle ground between the Republican Mythology School and the Anti-Republican School.

csk wrote:

That didn't move historical reasearch on this island forward, in fact it greatly retarded it, as it means a whole new generation now has to go and spend time wading through her inane dribble..

...However that being said her work is not history, its codology dressed as history...

.

Because of the Irish inability to be dispassionate about this aspect of our history RDE will just be ignored or dismissed out of hand by those who disagree with her.

csk wrote:

According to the link provided earlier, she has told people to stop reading her own book! So there really is no need for me to argue against her as it seems we agree on something! ..

.

That was a bit silly of her.:D

csk wrote:

..If a fully quailified doctor had an anti-old people agenda, and because of this, they decided they would administer lethal doses of medication to any old person he/she treated in order to murder them, would we say, "hey its alright, that doctor is fully qualified and therefore fully entitled to hand out medicine"?..

.

On the other hand if you were bleeding to death in a car crash you wouldn't refuse his help.

brianthebard wrote:

Lolz I've been told specifically to do an M. Litt if I want to be a historian, and then go on for a phd. Then you are a historian.

So if RDE achieves a doctorate next year, what you would call the rubbish she has published to date will magically become Holy Writ. Conversely if she wrote a book lauding the Countess to high heaven and claiming she was the best thing to happen to Irish womanhood since the dawn of time, an A in the Junior Cert would do her.