Why was Nelson's Pillar Destroyed?

Blisterman

Was it merely because it was a legacy of British rule? Or was it specifically because it represented Lord Nelson. As far as I can see, Lord Nelson did nothing negatively affecting Ireland. In fact, when the Battle of Trafalgar was won in 1805, there were public scenes of jubilation in Dublin, as he was seen as fighting in the interests of the British Empire, which at the time included Ireland. The column was constructed 3 years later, and there doesn't seem to have been much opposition at the time.

Exile 1798

With respect, 5 seconds on google answers your question and refutes a number of your assertions.

Why it was destroyed:

At 02:00 on 8 March 1966, a group of former Irish Republican Army (IRA) volunteers, including Joe Christle,[13] planted a bomb that destroyed the upper half of the pillar, throwing the statue of Nelson into the street and causing large chunks of stone to be thrown around. Christle, dismissed ten years earlier from the IRA for unauthorised actions, was a qualified barrister and saw himself as a socialist revolutionary. It is thought that the bombers acted when they did to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising.

Controversy and opposition both pre and post independence:

The construction of Nelson's Pillar had been, from the outset, controversial. As early as September 1809 a paragraph appeared in Watty Cox's Irish Magazine, stating: "The statue of Nelson records the glory of a mistress and the transformation of our state into a discount office."

In 1876 the Corporation took up the question of removal, but discovered it did not have the power to remove it. They tried again in 1891, causing much debate in the city and in Parliament, but due to financial considerations they did not succeed. A writer on Dublin's history in 1909, Dillon Cosgrave, acknowledged the temporary nature of the Pillar's existence, remarking that "For a very long time, the project of removing the

Pillar, which many condemn as an obstruction to traffic, has been mooted, but it has never taken definite shape".[11]

In 1923, when W. B. Yeats supported its removal on aesthetic grounds ("It is not a beautiful object."), in 1926, and again in 1928 the debate was renewed. Several attempts were made subsequently to have it removed, including by the Taoiseach, Seán Lemass, in 1960.[12] Other plans, also not implemented, saw proposals to replace the statue of Nelson at the top of the Pillar with other statues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelsons_Pillar

And yes it was disliked in part because it was a legacy of British rule. After the Treaty statues of the Royals were removed from public display, towns and streets were renamed. I doubt the Pillar would have lasted so long had it not been such a large structure and therefore difficult to remove.

What's more of a mystery is why that stupid Spire was build in the same place 35 years later.

Morlar

Blisterman wrote: »

Was it merely because it was a legacy of British rule? Or was it specifically because it represented Lord Nelson. As far as I can see, Lord Nelson did nothing negatively affecting Ireland. In fact, when the Battle of Trafalgar was won in 1805, there were public scenes of jubilation in Dublin, as he was seen as fighting in the interests of the British Empire, which at the time included Ireland. The column was constructed 3 years later, and there doesn't seem to have been much opposition at the time.

I think the size of the monument and where it was placed are also relevant factors (though there were other statues were destroyed or removed post independence which were not that big or strategically placed).

I doubt there was any personal animosity toward him - it was more for the fact that he was a british military figure positioned on a very high, imposing perch smack bang in the centre of Ireland's capital city.

Blisterman

I suppose the question is, how did it survive for over 40 years after independence? Also, was its bombing comdenmed at the time, or celebrated? Whatever about the symbolism of the statue, it's hard to condone an act of terrorism like that.

Wolfe Tone

My father tells me it was widely celebrated, people gathered and cheered when the army blew what was left into smithereens.



Personally I think it was a great way to celebrate 50 years of freedom.

Judgement Day

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

My father tells me it was widely celebrated, people gathered and cheered when the army blew what was left into smithereens.



Personally I think it was a great way to celebrate 50 years of freedom.

Maybe the Spire could be blown up to celebrate 100 years of 'freedom' in 2016?

Wolfe Tone

Blowing up the spire would have no symbolic meaning whatsoever.

Morlar

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

My father tells me it was widely celebrated, people gathered and cheered when the army blew what was left into smithereens.



Personally I think it was a great way to celebrate 50 years of freedom.

The way I always heard it was the IRA explosion was clinical, no injuries and no 'collateral' damage and it was only when the Irish army came along to get rid of the rest that they blew out every window on the street.

brianthebard

Blisterman wrote: »

I suppose the question is, how did it survive for over 40 years after independence? Also, was its bombing comdenmed at the time, or celebrated? Whatever about the symbolism of the statue, it's hard to condone an act of terrorism like that.

it was blown up for the lolz. Seriously though I think the reason it survived was because Ireland/the Irish independence movement was only capable of partial independence and held onto many aspects of colonial rule. It wasn't a fully decolonising operation and is ongoing in many respects. Its perhaps more a question of postcolonial theory than history specifically, but interesting in both contexts.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Blowing up the spire would have no symbolic meaning whatsoever.

Except that its an eyesore and some would be glad to see the back of it. Culchies like me like to use it as a beacon to guide them back to O'Connell st when lost in the big schmoke...

MarchDub

Morlar wrote: »

The way I always heard it was the IRA explosion was clinical, no injuries and no 'collateral' damage and it was only when the Irish army came along to get rid of the rest that they blew out every window on the street.

You're right on that. I was a secondary school kid at the time and when we heard it on the radio news in the morning that the pillar was blown up during the night we all made into O'Connell St to see it. The "half nelson" jokes were everywhere. But it was a clean explosion - when the army finished off the job they blew out windows including some of Clerys.

But there was mixed feeling about getting rid of the whole pillar - Nelson's annihilation was cheered though. Everyone agreed that Nelson ought to have been taken down long ago and I don't remember hearing anyone say otherwise - but there was even talk at the time of building the pillar back up and putting Pearse or some Irish patriot on top. There was a lot of proud nationalist feeling around at the time - and great pride about 1916.

The spire is a disgrace IMO. A nothing symbol - says something about our times?

Fratton Fred

Blisterman wrote: »

Was it merely because it was a legacy of British rule? Or was it specifically because it represented Lord Nelson. As far as I can see, Lord Nelson did nothing negatively affecting Ireland. In fact, when the Battle of Trafalgar was won in 1805, there were public scenes of jubilation in Dublin, as he was seen as fighting in the interests of the British Empire, which at the time included Ireland. The column was constructed 3 years later, and there doesn't seem to have been much opposition at the time.

There was many an Irishman on board HMS victory at the time, including the ships surgeon, William Beatty, who took the brave decision not to remove the bullet that killed him. It was a very risky procedure and during the battle, he had to give his time to people he could save.

Regardless of what he stood for, Nelson was a genius and the RN really did rule the waves.

Wolfe Tone

The Army blast it to bits(this did the damage)

"Up went Nelson"is an example of the delight of it being blown up. "Up Went Nelson" is a song by The Go Lucky Four (a group of Belfast school teachers Gerry Burns, Finbar Carolan, John Sullivan and Eamonn McGirr) that was number one on the Irish music charts in 1966 for eight consecutive weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__3v0eKHB_s

Manach

Perhaps they should have replace him by Wellington, having been born in Ireland. Given his alleged saying, "Born in a stable those not mean being a horse", it w'd have annoyed him no end.

ejmaztec

They should have dismantled it and given it to the French, to remind them that they didn't send enough people here to get rid of the British, or better still, auctioned it off to the highest bidder.

Kev_ps3

Blisterman wrote: »

Was it merely because it was a legacy of British rule? Or was it specifically because it represented Lord Nelson. As far as I can see, Lord Nelson did nothing negatively affecting Ireland. In fact, when the Battle of Trafalgar was won in 1805, there were public scenes of jubilation in Dublin, as he was seen as fighting in the interests of the British Empire, which at the time included Ireland. The column was constructed 3 years later, and there doesn't seem to have been much opposition at the time.

Do you realize how stupid you sound? Imagine a statue to General Rommel in the heart of an Israeli city, it being destroyed by Patriots, and some idiot posting a thread saying 'Why was that statue destroyed?'. Wouldn't happen in any other country than this:rolleyes:

Blisterman

That's not comparing like with like at all.

And like I said, the statue lasted 150 years, with little opposition, before it was blown up.

F1ngers

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Do you realize how stupid you sound? Imagine a statue to General Rommel in the heart of an Israeli city, it being destroyed by Patriots, and some idiot posting a thread saying 'Why was that statue destroyed?'. Wouldn't happen in any other country than this:rolleyes:

I think you should have done a little research on Rommel before you posted this... You are not comparing like for like..

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Rommel.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel

Sorry for off-topic post, couldn't let that one go...

jos28

I have a small piece of Nelson's pillar(at least thats what my Dad told me.) Although I am sure half the population of Dublin have one too.

annieoburns

For many years non rubble bits of the pillar were stored at the back of Kilkenny Design Workshops opposite the Castle in Kilkenny. Around 10 years ago a selection of cut stone blocks were used to make garden pond feature in Ormonde House. The battered remains of the head had a few adventures but is now in Collins Barracks Museum in Dublin.

Wolfe Tone

Hopefully in 2016 we can blow up something. If Paisley is somehow still alive then let it be him, otherwise the Spire!




jk!

Snickers Man

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps they should have replace him by Wellington, having been born in Ireland. Given his alleged saying, "Born in a stable those not mean being a horse", it w'd have annoyed him no end.

It was said about him, not by him. It was Daniel O'Connell who said it.

MarchDub

Snickers Man wrote: »

It was said about him, not by him. It was Daniel O'Connell who said it.

Thanks Snickers - I was about to reply the same and was trying to find the link to your post on the thread where you showed the original source for this but got lost in the search.

Blisterman

Interestingly enough, I was reading that 4,000, nearly a quarter of the total men fighting under Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar were Irish. So there must have been a reasonabl amount of support for Nelson at the time.

brianthebard

Blisterman wrote: »

Interestingly enough, I was reading that 4,000, nearly a quarter of the total men fighting under Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar were Irish. So there must have been a reasonabl amount of support for Nelson at the time.

The Irish and Scottish were always disproportionately represented in the British army it had little or nothing to do with support tbh.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

The Irish and Scottish were always disproportionately represented in the British army it had little or nothing to do with support tbh.

Dead right. In fact it was as an officer in the British Army that Lord Edward FitzGerald learned that his heart and head were with an Irish rebellion. As regards his time in the American Revolutionary War - fighting in the British Army - he later lamented: "I fought against the cause of liberty".

CDfm

Nelsons Column and 1966 50 year Anniversary go hand in hand.

What about the taking down and burial of the Queen Victoria statue in UCC.

Nelson had nothing to do with Ireland in real terms. As I understand it the pillar was a landmark and you could go to the top and look over Dublin.

Now, the Duke of Wellington Monument Obelisk in Phoenix park -if the IRA at the time were trying to impress they should have had a shot at that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T7OaDDR7i8

I dont know if Ronnie Drew was a fan but the Dubliners stopped singing Republican songs.

getz

Blisterman wrote: »

Interestingly enough, I was reading that 4,000, nearly a quarter of the total men fighting under Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar were Irish. So there must have been a reasonabl amount of support for Nelson at the time.

there was a lot of hero worship for nelson in ireland at that time,irishman the rev patrick bronte [father of charlotte,emily, and anne,] changed his name from brunty to take one of nelsons titles duke of bronte.

MarchDub

getz wrote: »

there was a lot of hero worship for nelson in ireland at that time,irishman the rev patrick bronte [father of charlotte,emily, and anne,] changed his name from brunty to take one of nelsons titles duke of bronte.

Not sure how you quantify "a lot" - as I said on another thread Patrick Bronte had little love for things Irish. He left Ireland and never literally looked back. I have no problem with that - it was his life to live, but I wouldn't quote him as typical or representative.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

What about the taking down and burial of the Queen Victoria statue in UCC.

Queen Victoria fought toi get three colleges built in Ireland, Cork, Galway and Belfast. She wanted to improve the education of the less wealthy (and by that Catholics) who were effectively prevented from going to Trinity.

She is effectively UCC's founder.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

She is effectively UCC's founder.

Queens University Cork does have a bit of a ring to it.

Was it ever called that??

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

Queens University Cork does have a bit of a ring to it.

Was it ever called that??

Yes they were QUB, QUC and QUG. I'm not sure about the education for lower class Catholics aspect though. If that was her intention then she failed because it wasn't until the NUI was set up that nationalists believed the Catholics had a university to represent them.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes they were QUB, QUC and QUG. I'm not sure about the education for lower class Catholics aspect though. If that was her intention then she failed because it wasn't until the NUI was set up that nationalists believed the Catholics had a university to represent them.

In order to get them approved by parliament, the anti reformists had to be appeased so it was ruled that no there would be no Catholic theology taught, so they effectively became secular colleges.

The Primate of Ireland wasn't happy about this and the Pope decreed them "Godless" colleges and Catholics were forbidden from attending them.

There is plenty on this in the UCC archives.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In order to get them approved by parliament, the anti reformists had to be appeased so it was ruled that no there would be no Catholic theology taught, so they effectively became secular colleges.

The Primate of Ireland wasn't happy about this and the Pope decreed them "Godless" colleges and Catholics were forbidden from attending them.

There is plenty on this in the UCC archives.

Given the era -that was a fairly predictable reaction by the catholic church and population.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Queen Victoria fought toi get three colleges built in Ireland, Cork, Galway and Belfast. She wanted to improve the education of the less wealthy (and by that Catholics) who were effectively prevented from going to Trinity.

She is effectively UCC's founder.

Victoria was no bleeding heart liberal as regards Ireland. Her vision was always limited to what would bolster the monarchy - anywhere.

Robert Peel was the man behind the Queen's Colleges and he "sold" the idea - but not quite - to Victoria by naming them for her and explaining why they were necessary. Peel wrote to a correspondent that he hoped to wean wealthy Catholics away from O'Connell's repeal movement by establishing this education system. His bill for the Queen's Colleges passed in 1845.

Victoria remained fairly skeptical about the value of Catholic education in Ireland though and even in 1873 wrote in a letter to her daughter that the University Bill of that year which failed to establish funding for Catholic education was the undoing of Gladstone, whom she hated. She wrote in sarcastic and almost gleeful tones "Good Mr G is not judicious and this "Mission" to redeem Ireland and which has signally failed - has been the cause of his defeat". Victoria favoured Disraeli who had beaten Gladstone in this bill.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In order to get them approved by parliament, the anti reformists had to be appeased so it was ruled that no there would be no Catholic theology taught, so they effectively became secular colleges.

The Primate of Ireland wasn't happy about this and the Pope decreed them "Godless" colleges and Catholics were forbidden from attending them.

There is plenty on this in the UCC archives.

Well in that case it is incorrect to state that she effectively founded universities for the less wealthy and/or Catholics.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

Well in that case it is incorrect to state that she effectively founded universities for the less wealthy and/or Catholics.

that is understandable and given the job Wellington did on her predessor on emancipation is believeable.

It makes sense.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Well in that case it is incorrect to state that she effectively founded universities for the less wealthy and/or Catholics.

Why?

The intention was to advance education in Ireland, basically for people who could not, for one reason or another, attend Trinity. The colleges were to be non-denominational so anyone could go.

it wasn't her fault Pope Pius ****ed it up.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Victoria was no bleeding heart liberal as regards Ireland. Her vision was always limited to what would bolster the monarchy - anywhere.

Robert Peel was the man behind the Queen's Colleges and he "sold" the idea - but not quite - to Victoria by naming them for her and explaining why they were necessary. Peel wrote to a correspondent that he hoped to wean wealthy Catholics away from O'Connell's repeal movement by establishing this education system. His bill for the Queen's Colleges passed in 1845.

Victoria remained fairly skeptical about the value of Catholic education in Ireland though and even in 1873 wrote in a letter to her daughter that the University Bill of that year which failed to establish funding for Catholic education was the undoing of Gladstone, whom she hated. She wrote in sarcastic and almost gleeful tones "Good Mr G is not judicious and this "Mission" to redeem Ireland and which has signally failed - has been the cause of his defeat". Victoria favoured Disraeli who had beaten Gladstone in this bill.

your summation surprises me. nothing I have read has made me think that Victoria would have wanted anything but education for all. She may have disliked Gladstone, but that is a different matter, surely?

I would have thought that the act to replace the colleges she personally had a hand in would have been against her wishes anyway.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Primate of Ireland wasn't happy about this and the Pope decreed them "Godless" colleges and Catholics were forbidden from attending them.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The colleges were to be non-denominational so anyone could go.

it wasn't her fault Pope Pius ****ed it up.

Let's get our quotes right here. It wasn't the Pope who made the remark that the Colleges were "Godless" it was O'Connell and Archbishop McHale and they borrowed it originally from Sir Robert Inglis regarding University College London, a secular college.

Inglis had strong Anglican views.

Within the context of the time it was natural for the Catholic Church to want to establish Catholic Colleges in Ireland. All religions wanted these - it was the denial of this that led to widespread discontent and the withholding of funds for a Catholic University left a bitterness. Nevertheless the Catholic Church did establish its own University in 1850 - and without British Government support.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why?

The intention was to advance education in Ireland, basically for people who could not, for one reason or another, attend Trinity. The colleges were to be non-denominational so anyone could go.

it wasn't her fault Pope Pius ****ed it up.

Fred you are not that type of guy who doesnt understand the priveleged position enjoyed by the Church of Ireland especially prior to its disestablishment in 1869.

It wasnt Pope Pius that put the rules of goverance for the colleges in place or restricted the teaching of catholic theology in the same way that Church of Ireland Theology was taught Freely in colleges.

It also ignores the constitutional position of Queen Victoria as Head of the Church of England and the political reality that arose with that.

Thats not the same as saying all religions were being treated equally or that all people would be treated equally.

I am not nesscessarily saying that the Church leadership in Ireland was right but I can understand their skepticism.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

your summation surprises me. nothing I have read has made me think that Victoria would have wanted anything but education for all. She may have disliked Gladstone, but that is a different matter, surely?

I would have thought that the act to replace the colleges she personally had a hand in would have been against her wishes anyway.

If Peel - and Victoria - wanted to "please" the Irish base they would have established Catholic Universities, however this was not granted. The idea for what eventually became the Queens Colleges came originally from a select committee formed in 1835 for Foundation Schools and Education in Ireland. Victoria wasn't even on the throne then. In the face of Catholic Emancipation they were aware that there would be British government resistance against too much Catholic power in Ireland and suggested inter-denominational schools.

This of course all ran counter to requests from the Catholic Church for funding for a Catholic University. Peel took up the select committee's idea in 1845 - but by then the idea of any theological teaching had been put aside - and called them Queens Colleges. And trouble ensued.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

Fred you are not that type of guy who doesnt understand the priveleged position enjoyed by the Church of Ireland especially prior to its disestablishment in 1869.

It wasnt Pope Pius that put the rules of goverance for the colleges in place or restricted the teaching of catholic theology in the same way that Church of Ireland Theology was taught Freely in colleges.

It also ignores the constitutional position of Queen Victoria as Head of the Church of England and the political reality that arose with that.

Thats not the same as saying all religions were being treated equally or that all people would be treated equally.

I am not nesscessarily saying that the Church leadership in Ireland was right but I can understand their skepticism.

The Churches wanted to control education. that wasn't/isn't restricted to any denomination. Educated people ask questions and are less likely to take the word of a preacher so if you can control the education you can control the questions.

The idea of the Queens Colleges was to encourage a broader education and to act as an alternative to Trinity. The protestants (for want of a better term) were uncomfortable with the possibility of Catholic theology being taught, so it was decided to ban all teaching of theology (not a bad move some would say).

Pope Pius was involved somewhere along the line because i believe Paul Cullen brought it to his attention, who was himself very very anti.

Thomas Davis by the way heavily supported the colleges, but was criticised for this by O'Connell.

I don't think any side is whiter than white, but, at the end of the day, the colleges were practically founded by Queen Victoria, so it is probably appropriate that her statue is there.

The one in Dun Laoghaire though...............

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

If Peel - and Victoria - wanted to "please" the Irish base they would have established Catholic Universities, however this was not granted. The idea for what eventually became the Queens Colleges came originally from a select committee formed in 1835 for Foundation Schools and Education in Ireland. Victoria wasn't even on the throne then. In the face of Catholic Emancipation they were aware that there would be British government resistance against too much Catholic power in Ireland and suggested inter-denominational schools.

This of course all ran counter to requests from the Catholic Church for funding for a Catholic University. Peel took up the select committee's idea in 1845 - but by then the idea of any theological teaching had been put aside - and called them Queens Colleges. And trouble ensued.

would the term run before you can walk, or one step at a time not apply?

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Churches wanted to control education. that wasn't/isn't restricted to any denomination. Educated people ask questions and are less likely to take the word of a preacher so if you can control the education you can control the questions.


The idea of the Queens Colleges was to encourage a broader education and to act as an alternative to Trinity. The protestants (for want of a better term) were uncomfortable with the possibility of Catholic theology being taught, so it was decided to ban all teaching of theology (not a bad move some would say).

When you look at an issue like this on the basis of modern day values you can attach a significance to values the protagonists didn't have.

You could equally say they wanted to establish a protestant middle class by giving them every advantage.

Banning catholic theology from issues such as philosophy and morals would be a bit of a croc for catholics learning medical ethics.

Pope Pius was involved somewhere along the line because i believe Paul Cullen brought it to his attention, who was himself very very anti.

But he defered to the Primate of Ireland and didnt poke his nose in.

Thomas Davis by the way heavily supported the colleges, but was criticised for this by O'Connell.

He was a Protestant and Trinity graduate.

I don't think any side is whiter than white, but, at the end of the day, the colleges were practically founded by Queen Victoria, so it is probably appropriate that her statue is there.

The one in Dun Laoghaire though...............

I dont object to her statue and wouldnt object to it being called Queens University either.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

would the term run before you can walk, or one step at a time not apply?

It was a highly charged political situation and who would blame anyone for having a level of distrust.

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

Not sure how you quantify "a lot" - as I said on another thread Patrick Bronte had little love for things Irish. He left Ireland and never literally looked back. I have no problem with that - it was his life to live, but I wouldn't quote him as typical or representative.

patric bronte as the C of E priest of the church in haworth would have had very little chance of going back to ireland,you just couldent jump on a plane in the 19th century,he had to stay in haworth untill his death,but what he did was to take the young irish priests under his wing untill places could be found for them,if you read some of charlottes books,you will find in her stories that most of the church of englands priests are irish,she herself married a irishman, and went to dublin to meet his family,she even it is said when first leaving haworth for the first time ,had a irish accent,

CDfm

I dont think that Patrick Bronte was a bad guy -he was of his era.

It cant have been a nice thing to bury 3 out 0f 4 of your kids who died of TB. I think I read somewhere that he liked to start the morning firing his pistols out the window to keep them in working order.

So moving to the UK for a better life was probably for better expectations for his kids to including living longer.

I just wonder was he bitter that that didnt happen.

Were any of the daughters Irish born???

getz

CDfm wrote: »

I dont think that Patrick Bronte was a bad guy -he was of his era.

It cant have been a nice thing to bury 3 out 0f 4 of your kids who died of TB. I think I read somewhere that he liked to start the morning firing his pistols out the window to keep them in working order.

So moving to the UK for a better life was probably for better expectations for his kids to including living longer.

I just wonder was he bitter that that didnt happen.

Were any of the daughters Irish born???

he married a cornish girl near bradford, moved with her to haworth with the young children,life expectancy was to 27 years there and 40% of the children died before reaching the age of 7 years.[remember this was victorian england] his wife died soon after leaving him to bring up and educate them himself,as well as his full time calling,he carried a cap and ball pistol ,because it was still a very dangerous time,ludsites were still around and this was in weaving country,every morning he would fire off his pistol over the church yard at the church tower because gunpowder soon got wet,he even got emily to do it,if you go to howarth today you can see all the indents in the church tower,but my real reason for saying he was a great irishman is because the brontes are regarded as the greatest english language family of all time.every country that teaches english in the schools and universities use bronte books to teach,last sunday hawoth was packed out with japanese tourists and a lot of other nationals,all because of the rev patrick brontys legacy

CDfm

getz wrote: »

h,ludsites were still around and this was in weaving country,every morning he would fire off his pistol over the church yard at the church tower because gunpowder soon got wet,he even got emily to do it,if you go to howarth today you can see all the indents in the church tower,

So the brontes fans blew up Nelsons Column on a family day out and the army finished the job but the powder was wet

I always think the Irish Armys demolition gets a bad rap.

The IRAs explosion left a dangerous structure destroying the top and comsidering the thing was 135 feet tall the bottom 70 or 80 feet of it was always going to be a dangerous demolition job as the structure would be unstable.

A taxi was destroyed and it was only luck the driver wasn't. It escapes some people that it was a mere 8 years later that you had the Dublin bombing. I wonder where that idea came from.

getz

remember irish attitude had change a lot from the 1850s,the attempt to wipe out their british history only started after the 1940s

UltimateMale

getz wrote: »

there was a lot of hero worship for nelson in ireland at that time,irishman the rev patrick bronte [father of charlotte,emily, and anne,] changed his name from brunty to take one of nelsons titles duke of bronte.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In order to get them approved by parliament, the anti reformists had to be appeased so it was ruled that no there would be no Catholic theology taught, so they effectively became secular colleges.

The Primate of Ireland wasn't happy about this and the Pope decreed them "Godless" colleges and Catholics were forbidden from attending them.

There is plenty on this in the UCC archives.

Interesting, whenever Fred Fratton posts, getz is never far away ?

Anyway, the head of the statue actually survived intact and can be seen in the Pearse St Liberary in Dublin. Kiss me Hardy, kiss me

CDfm

UltimateMale wrote: »

Anyway, the head of the statue actually survived intact and can be seen in the Pearse St Liberary in Dublin. Kiss me Hardy, kiss me

It may yet rival the Blarney Stone