Countess MArkievicz

brianthebard

I never called anything rubbish, and I don't think what she has published beforehand would be seen in a better light. I am merely telling you that there are certain qualifications that some people have, and these give you an insight into how much work they have done and. All I'm saying is I've done three years as an undergrad, and as far as I'm aware a taught masters is not a huge step up from that. So while I have a certain amount of respect for her studies, they don't match up to what a phd student has achieved or even a M. Litt student.

csk

Mick86 wrote:

I was speaking in general not specifically about RDE.

Well I was speaking about her, so there you go.

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.

No I don't think that's the case at all. If people ignore her or dismiss her, it is because the service she is providing is not up to the required standard, in this case, it is because her work is deliberately subjective. Imo it is diminished as a result.

That was a bit silly of her.:D

Well apart from being silly, it begs a lot of questions. Such as why she would write a book on Pearse and then not stand by it? Could it be, she realised she was wrong in her methodology and now wishes to acknowledge her mistakes? If that was the case, then fair play to her.

csk wrote:

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.

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

As I said and you conveniently left out, what Ruth Dudley Edwards does may not be as dramatic; it is the same in principle with regards to qualifications and whatnot.

walrusgumble

it was not rde who plucked that theory out of the blue. one of the main sources for this story came from the diary of judge william wylie, who was a member of the prosecuting counsel when the 1916 leaders were put on trial, strange thing was it that he went on to continue as a judge post 1921.

from what i remember of markievicz, she was heavily involved in the citizen army, labour movement (in the sense of helping dublin lock out and the poor of dublin by running soup houses), she set up na fianna (like scouts for young lads). she really served her life for this country.

it is easy to look at history now. it does seem hypocritical if this story is true, but we have to accept it. i am sure there was a nerve in someone say william pearce or con corbett (youngest member to be executed) that freightened the life outta of himself when he knew he was going to die. surely it is human nature.

maybe this is true, i would accept it if there were cold hard facts. but we will never know. either way it wont make me think any bad of her. if we had that opinion then we may as well have a similar one about dev (ok many will see the bad side to him but there were some goods sides) when i say dev i mean that he was not too shy to walk away from execution when his Sinead was able to find his american birth cert. yet, this would be the same man who told the country 5 years later how he and his men would have to wade through the blood of irish men after refusing the treaty.

luckat

The story about Constance Markievicz supposedly begging for her life was current tabloid journalism; go to Kew and look up the contemporary accounts of the courts martial and you'll find that it's not true.

Markiewicz was beloved of Dubliners because she actually did a hell of a lot of good for working people, unlike those who now deride her because it makes them a living. She was a fine person, a brave woman and a genuine revolutionary.

Whether her husband was 'aristocratic' or not - well, that matters to you if you're a toady of aristocrats, not otherwise.

Mick86

walrusgumble wrote:

... if we had that opinion then we may as well have a similar one about dev (ok many will see the bad side to him but there were some goods sides) ...

Apart on welching on his appointment with the firing squad Dev was prominent in bringing about the civil war. 75 people had their death sentences commuted by the way. They can't all have been women or foreigners.

walrusgumble wrote:

... this would be the same man who told the country 5 years later how he and his men would have to wade through the blood of irish men after refusing the treaty.

Well thats a typical politician for you. He talked the talk but somebody else had to walk the walk. Meanwhile he died peacefully in his bed a very old man.

Mick86

luckat wrote:

The story about Constance Markievicz supposedly begging for her life was current tabloid journalism; go to Kew and look up the contemporary accounts of the courts martial and you'll find that it's not true.

I wouldn't rely too much on British records. Some historians say they were all faked.:D

luckat wrote:

She was a fine person, a brave woman and a genuine revolutionary.

She was obviously a genuine revolutionary since she took part in a revolution. That does not necessarily make her a fine nor a brave person. Loath do I am to comment given my lack of historical credentials, she strikes me as someone who took the path she took in life merely to thumb her nose at her family or her class. She certainly liked getting photographed dressed in uniform and sportng guns.

luckat wrote:

Whether her husband was 'aristocratic' or not - well, that matters to you if you're a toady of aristocrats, not otherwise.

It's only relevant in the context of whether she lied about it or not. Kind of odd for a republican and a socialist t o go about calling herself Countess anyway. Comrade Markievicz should have been more in her line.

brianthebard

Mick86 wrote:

I wouldn't rely too much on British records. Some historians say they were all faked.:D

That's quite a bold statement, can you back it up please?

She was obviously a genuine revolutionary since she took part in a revolution. That does not necessarily make her a fine nor a brave person. Loath do I am to comment given my lack of historical credentials, she strikes me as someone who took the path she took in life merely to thumb her nose at her family or her class. She certainly liked getting photographed dressed in uniform and sportng guns.

Her family was quite liberal, it would've took more than that to thumb her nose at them. All the women of the family were strong independent types. I don't think you should judge a person based on a photo that was taken of her, unless you can show me that she had a scrapbook filled with photos of her holding a gun and wearing a uniform?

It's only relevant in the context of whether she lied about it or not. Kind of odd for a republican and a socialist t o go about calling herself Countess anyway. Comrade Markievicz should have been more in her line.

Again I don't see how she lied. Her husband was a Count. Whether he bought that title or not is irrelevant, since that's how all titles of this type came about, more or less. People seem to be complaining because he didn't come from a family of counts and had gotten the title relatively recently.Imo it makes little difference, but in the end that's because titles mean little imo anyways.

csk

Mick86 wrote:

I wouldn't rely too much on British records. Some historians say they were all faked.:D

Really:rolleyes:

You are propably refering to something like this book no doubt The Origins and Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland 1920 by Brian Murphy.

I would doubt that any historian would tell you that British records "were all Faked".:rolleyes:

Mick86

brianthebard wrote:

That's quite a bold statement, can you back it up please?.

Joke. See the

Though Meda Ryan has been known to say as much. Does she count as a historian by the way?

brianthebard wrote:

Her family was quite liberal, it would've took more than that to thumb her nose at them. All the women of the family were strong independent types.

I never met her family so I'll take your word for it.

brianthebard wrote:

I don't think you should judge a person based on a photo that was taken of her, unless you can show me that she had a scrapbook filled with photos of her holding a gun and wearing a uniform?.

There are several photos online of her posing in uniform with gun. They look ridiculous but she obviously liked them.

brianthebard wrote:

Again I don't see how she lied. ?.

By claiming she was a countess when she wasn't?

Shutuplaura

Mick86 wrote:

By claiming she was a countess when she wasn't?

She never used the title countess herself and prefered to be called Madam which is a perfectly reasonable title for the age she lived.