Another great "Irish" gob****e from WWII/Churchill's Irishman.

Snickers Man

Speaking as we are elsewhere in this forum of a supposed gob****e with Irish connections who rose to prominence in World War Two, don't miss RTE's documentary tonight on Brendan Bracken, who had much firmer claims to be considered both Irish and a gob****e than Montgomery.

This odious twerp was born into an avidly republican/Fenian/GAA family in Tipperary, although he chose to turn his back on them and passed himself off as an Australian-born orphan for most of his life. A largely self-educated conservative he established the Financial Times and became a confidante and supporter of Winston Churchill while concocting a web of fantasy and lies about his background. He was frequently caught out, earning the distrust and enmity of many in Britain's ruling circles.

It will be interesting to see how much, if at all, the documentary focusses on suggestions that Bracken tried to represent himself as Churchill's illegitimate son. I don't know a lot about that but I'm keen to learn.

I often ponder the irony of the respective fates of two notorious Irishmen of Catholic background who lied about their circumstances of birth to ingratiate
themselves at various times with the British establishment. Wiliam Joyce, later known as Lord Haw Haw was born in the US, although raised in GAlway, and lied about his place of birth in order to obtain a British passport fraudulently.

This piece of opportunism, occuring in the 1920s when he was aiming to establish himself on the right of British politics, backfired horribly on him when he was tried for treason after the war. It effectively got him hanged because it was deemed that he "owed his allegiance to his majesty."

Bracken, who was Irish born but lied that he wasn't, backed the right horse and became a peer of the realm.

Should be an interesting program.

mikemac

Thanks for the heads up!

22:15 on RTÉ1 is the slot

It'll probably be up on the website player some time tomorrow

jonniebgood1

Snickers Man wrote: »

This odious twerp was born into an avidly republican/Fenian/GAA family in Tipperary, although he chose to turn his back on them and passed himself off as an Australian-born orphan for most of his life. A largely self-educated conservative he established the Financial Times and became a confidante and supporter of Winston Churchill while concocting a web of fantasy and lies about his background. He was frequently caught out, earning the distrust and enmity of many in Britain's ruling circles.

.............

Should be an interesting program.

A tad harsh- the republican/ GAA link was his father who died when Brendan was 3 years old. He can't have taken any influence from his father at that age and his mother took him out of this immediate republican/ GAA background soon after when re-marrying and packed him off to boarding School. When he later exagerated his Australian link it was to avoid anti-irish sentiment and it worked for him even if it does leave his patriotism open to question. Thanks for the reminder- RTE sometimes do a good job on lesser known figures so it could as you say be interesting how they portray him.

Snickers Man

Well the documentary was a bit more flattering about him than it might have been, while remaining objective enough to remind us of some of his less savoury characteristics.

Certainly he was a man of some intelligence, talent and drive. But he was also a transparent fraud and something of a megalomaniac.

With regard to the former, perhaps the most poignantly amusing sequence was the one where he was stuck in the mid west with a delegation on their way to the USA while their flying boat was being repaired in Foynes and he took them on a tour of places he knew from his childhood. None of them believed him, thinking that this was just another of his fantasies, but for once he was telling the truth about his background!

As for the latter, the documentary pointed out that one of his subordinates at the Ministry for Information was Eric Blair aka George Orwell who used the ministry as his model for the Ministry of Truth in his novel 1984 and Brendan Bracken as his inspiration for Big Brother (BB. Geddit?)

Most interesting of all was his ongoing and dutiful, but arms-length and discreet, relationship with his mother. Which hinted at a more benign side to his character.

He ordered all his papers to be destroyed after his death. So he remains an enigmatic and mysterious character.

Interesting documentary though.

jonniebgood1

Snickers Man wrote: »

Well the documentary was a bit more flattering about him than it might have been, while remaining objective enough to remind us of some of his less savoury characteristics.

Certainly he was a man of some intelligence, talent and drive. But he was also a transparent fraud and something of a megalomaniac.

With regard to the former, perhaps the most poignantly amusing sequence was the one where he was stuck in the mid west with a delegation on their way to the USA while their flying boat was being repaired in Foynes and he took them on a tour of places he knew from his childhood. None of them believed him, thinking that this was just another of his fantasies, but for once he was telling the truth about his background!

As for the latter, the documentary pointed out that one of his subordinates at the Ministry for Information was Eric Blair aka George Orwell who used the ministry as his model for the Ministry of Truth in his novel 1984 and Brendan Bracken as his inspiration for Big Brother (BB. Geddit?)

Most interesting of all was his ongoing and dutiful, but arms-length and discreet, relationship with his mother. Which hinted at a more benign side to his character.

He ordered all his papers to be destroyed after his death. So he remains an enigmatic and mysterious character.

Interesting documentary though.

I agree- they had a good summary of him, a really interesting charachter. The height he reached in what was such a closeted class system through both bluffing and intelligence was amazing. It reminded me a bit of the di caprio 'catch me if you can' film. I was really interested in the question they asked at one stage- basically- What would his role in Ireland have been if he had'nt left for Australia?

imme

RTE showed a programme called Churchill's Irishman - Brendan Bracken on Tueday 21/12/2010.

http://www.rte.ie/tv/programmes/brendan_bracken.html

The programme dealt with the life of Irish born Brendan Bracken.
I'm not sure if the programme covered too much or not enough.

Anyone see it. The topic was interesting enough, the somewhat misleading title could have led one to believe that Irish born Bracken was some kind of spy or interloper.

He was a guy who became a government minister in the UK during WW2. I hadn't heard of him prior to the programme publicity. His private business empire in the world of publishing was only glossed over I thought by the programme. He created the Financial Times and the FTSE.

brianthebard

mergeriffic.

Fuinseog

Snickers Man wrote: »

Speaking as we are elsewhere in this forum of a supposed gob****e with Irish connections who rose to prominence in World War Two, don't miss RTE's documentary tonight on Brendan Bracken, who had much firmer claims to be considered both Irish and a gob****e than Montgomery.

This odious twerp was born into an avidly republican/Fenian/GAA family in Tipperary, although he chose to turn his back on them and passed himself off as an Australian-born orphan for most of his life. A largely self-educated conservative he established the Financial Times and became a confidante and supporter of Winston Churchill while concocting a web of fantasy and lies about his background. He was frequently caught out, earning the distrust and enmity of many in Britain's ruling circles.

It will be interesting to see how much, if at all, the documentary focusses on suggestions that Bracken tried to represent himself as Churchill's illegitimate son. I don't know a lot about that but I'm keen to learn.

I often ponder the irony of the respective fates of two notorious Irishmen of Catholic background who lied about their circumstances of birth to ingratiate
themselves at various times with the British establishment. Wiliam Joyce, later known as Lord Haw Haw was born in the US, although raised in GAlway, and lied about his place of birth in order to obtain a British passport fraudulently.

This piece of opportunism, occuring in the 1920s when he was aiming to establish himself on the right of British politics, backfired horribly on him when he was tried for treason after the war. It effectively got him hanged because it was deemed that he "owed his allegiance to his majesty."

Bracken, who was Irish born but lied that he wasn't, backed the right horse and became a peer of the realm.

Should be an interesting program.

he was a Paddy who did well for himself in a time when paddy was not popular, so why the begrudgery?

Snickers Man

Begrudgery? Do me a favour!!

He was a man of talent, drive and ambition but he was also a sneaky sycophantic fantasist and was distrusted, and indeed detested, by many in the circles in which he moved because it was so blatantly obvious. So clearly, being a disliked, distrusted and disingenuous personality was no barrier to success in inter-war Britain.

As long as you were the right sort of disliked, distrusted and disingenous personality, or could at least pass yourself off as such.

Bracken clearly admired a vision of Britain as a strident, dominant world power and wanted to be part of it. But why would you admire a social movement that would dismiss you out of hand if it realised the true nature of your origin and upbringing? After all, many Irish people or people of Irish origin had no trouble rising to prominence in Britain without trying to pass themselves off as the prime minister's illegitimate offspring or telling lies about schools they didn't go to. Bracken's mythologising diminished both himself and the social class he admired.

Many Labour party politicians became prominent despite clearly Irish Catholic backgrounds. They may not have trumpeted this but they didn't deny it either or seek to cover up their origins. Unlike Bracken.

Jim Callaghan made it to the post of Prime Minister.

Dennis Healy, a prominent Labour politician and cabinet minister in the post war era described in his memoirs a difficult moment in his first parliamentary election campaign after WWII in which he stood as Major, the rank he had held in the war.

"What is Major Healy going to do about the partition of Ireland?" somebody asked at the hustings. The questioner, Healy revealed, "was my father!"

In these times in which we live, it is not enough to dismiss misgivings about a liar, conman and spindoctor with the glib "at least he was successful". You could say that about any number of wealthy shysters whose mess we are all having to clear up.

So he cried at his mammy's funeral, for which he turned up late? What a guy!!

I think odious little twerp is fair comment. You're surely not begrudging me that, are you?

oncevotedff

Fuinseog wrote: »

he was a Paddy who did well for himself in a time when paddy was not popular, so why the begrudgery?

Obviously he should have sat at home in Kilmallock rearing pigs and eating praties like a good Irish, Catholic, republican GAA supporter.

I thought Joyce was a Protestant incidentally.

Denerick

OPs post is funny. Little Irelanderism is alive and well after all.

Snickers Man

oncevotedff wrote: »

Obviously he should have sat at home in Kilmallock rearing pigs and eating praties like a good Irish, Catholic, republican GAA supporter.

I thought Joyce was a Protestant incidentally.

If you're saying the only choices facing an Irish person in the 1920s were sitting at home with the pig in the parlour and worming your way into the heart of the British Establishment based on a tissue of lies and falsifications then I think you have a view of the world that is insulting to both Irish and English people.

For all his undoubted attributes as a war leader, the British people themselves were very wary of Churchill. Look what happened to him before the war was over. Dumped out of power after VE day in a Labour landslide. The vision of most British people for THEIR country differed greatly from the fantasies held by Bracken. Which could easily be described as "little Englander".

William Joyce was the product of a "mixed marriage". His father was Catholic; his mother Protestant. He was educated at a Jesuit school in Galway but apparently refused the last rites of the Catholic church before his execution, preferring to die in his mother's faith.

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

OPs post is funny. Little Irelanderism is alive and well after all.

Where are you getting that from?

Adrian Bracken

Glad you liked the documentary - we addressed the point about Churchill family thinking Brendan Bracken was Winston's illegitimate son quite well I thought. Bracken also ordered all his papers burnt on his death - they all were by his loyal Chauffeur Alex Aley - it took him 8 days, despite being asked not to by Harold Macmillan (British Prime Minister 1960's), Lord Beaverbrook and apparently Churchill himself.
Bracken also refused the last rites - a cousin, a monk, visited him , but Bracken sent him away - "the blackshirts of God were after me" he said "But I sent them packing".
Lots of stories we couldn't put into the Documentary - no time.
The title was originally "Brendan Bracken - Churchill's Secret Son" but we changed it as it represented only one aspect of the story.
Adrian Bracken - Writer & Producer "Brendan Bracken- Churchill's Irishman"

Denerick

brianthebard wrote: »

Where are you getting that from?

I don't exactly think Bracken should be hailed as an Irish hero, but few could deny he lived an interesting life which this documentary did a fair job at showing. To hate the man for turning his back on his fenian roots is a little much. To hate the man for becoming a British spin doctor and media magnate is also a bit silly.

jonniebgood1

Snickers Man wrote: »

Begrudgery? Do me a favour!!

He was a man of talent, drive and ambition but he was also a sneaky sycophantic fantasist and was distrusted, and indeed detested, by many in the circles in which he moved because it was so blatantly obvious. So clearly, being a disliked, distrusted and disingenuous personality was no barrier to success in inter-war Britain.

As long as you were the right sort of disliked, distrusted and disingenous personality, or could at least pass yourself off as such.

Bracken clearly admired a vision of Britain as a strident, dominant world power and wanted to be part of it. But why would you admire a social movement that would dismiss you out of hand if it realised the true nature of your origin and upbringing? After all, many Irish people or people of Irish origin had no trouble rising to prominence in Britain without trying to pass themselves off as the prime minister's illegitimate offspring or telling lies about schools they didn't go to. Bracken's mythologising diminished both himself and the social class he admired.

I think odious little twerp is fair comment. You're surely not begrudging me that, are you?

I think by these standards there is quite a large section of historical figures that you could right off. If he had not lied (for which you are entitles to criticise) he would not have got to the top layer of government control which he did. My point would be that like many other successful figures, he did what he had to do to achieve his goals. We only have to look at some of the great Irish patriots of the 1900's to see this type of ruthless behavioural trait is not unusual.

Einhard

Snickers Man wrote: »

He was a man of talent, drive and ambition but he was also a sneaky sycophantic fantasist and was distrusted, and indeed detested, by many in the circles in which he moved because it was so blatantly obvious. So clearly, being a disliked, distrusted and disingenuous personality was no barrier to success in inter-war Britain.

I'd agree with the most of that, but from what I gathered from the documentary, his personality and ability to get on with people were important factors in his rise to eminence, so I don't see how he could have been widely detested.

I think odious little twerp is fair comment. You're surely not begrudging me that, are you?

He even looked like one!

I have to say though, I thought the documentary was of poor quality, and terribly put together. Why did they have a narrator and a presenter providing the facts? They should have just combined the role. Also, there were reports of aspects of his life which seem to have been either exaggerated, or included merely as an exercise of wish fulfillment to enhance his stature. The promotional material was built around the fact that this was the man who secured Churchill's appointment, and much was made of the fact that it was he who advised Churchill to be silent, and yet after it all, we were told that it was "likely" to have been him. And then the verdict on his relationship with his family and Ireland was left to a clearly enamoured family member, and left stand, despite the fact that he only visited Ireland twice after 1920. Very shoddy IMO.

jonniebgood1

Einhard wrote: »

I have to say though, I thought the documentary was of poor quality, and terribly put together. Why did they have a narrator and a presenter providing the facts? They should have just combined the role. Also, there were reports of aspects of his life which seem to have been either exaggerated, or included merely as an exercise of wish fulfillment to enhance his stature. The promotional material was built around the fact that this was the man who secured Churchill's appointment, and much was made of the fact that it was he who advised Churchill to be silent, and yet after it all, we were told that it was "likely" to have been him. And then the verdict on his relationship with his family and Ireland was left to a clearly enamoured family member, and left stand, despite the fact that he only visited Ireland twice after 1920. Very shoddy IMO.

Regardless of opinions about the man I thought that the documentary retained interest throughout and thus managed to inform. Clearly you are correct regarding unchallenged relations but surely the inclusion of them in the program was to show that he had'nt completely forgotten his family, rather he had helped them financially at times. I would also feel that the family member gives their opinion and that the verdict on him is up to the watching viewer? His number of visits home must be placed in the context of an era when many immigrants never managed to return?

pburns

Adrian Bracken wrote: »

Glad you liked the documentary - we addressed the point about Churchill family thinking Brendan Bracken was Winston's illegitimate son quite well I thought. Bracken also ordered all his papers burnt on his death - they all were by his loyal Chauffeur Alex Aley - it took him 8 days, despite being asked not to by Harold Macmillan (British Prime Minister 1960's), Lord Beaverbrook and apparently Churchill himself.
Bracken also refused the last rites - a cousin, a monk, visited him , but Bracken sent him away - "the blackshirts of God were after me" he said "But I sent them packing".
Lots of stories we couldn't put into the Documentary - no time.
The title was originally "Brendan Bracken - Churchill's Secret Son" but we changed it as it represented only one aspect of the story.
Adrian Bracken - Writer & Producer "Brendan Bracken- Churchill's Irishman"

I thought it was fascinating - well done. I first learned of Bracken in Michael Dobbs' novels on Churchill's war years. He seemed such a fantastical figure I researched him a bit online to make sure the character was real!

A flawed character perhaps but as your brother (or cousin?) said, he did right by his family behind the scenes. As for his lack of patriotism...the older I get the more I think patriotism is a load of b*****ks (if I may be so ineloquent...)

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

I don't exactly think Bracken should be hailed as an Irish hero, but few could deny he lived an interesting life which this documentary did a fair job at showing. To hate the man for turning his back on his fenian roots is a little much. To hate the man for becoming a British spin doctor and media magnate is also a bit silly.

The op clearly doesn't hate the man for turning his back on fenian roots, that was just a backstory which any thread or documentary would require. As for the latter, perhaps being a spin doctor is something to be hated? Besides which the op acknowledges the abilities of the man before offering his personal opinion. Either way your little Irelander comment was unnecessary.

Thoin

To be fair to Mr Bracken, I dont think he would have been happy to have been called Irish, let alone Irish Hero, An English or British Hero would more accurately desribe him. His Achievement with The FTSE and The Financial Times and generally in English publishing were great and his work during the Second World War on behalf of his Country as Minister for Information were crucial at the time as was his advice before and during Churchills Political Career.
He was also a total Liar or a fantasist if you want to be kinder. He seems not to have possessed much in terms of human nature's warmth and wasnt trusted by those whom he aspired to be like. He did use his acquired wealth to win the friendship and family he wanted in Churchill. He was a driven and Intelligent man born in the wrong place (from his perspective) As Wellington once said (Even he didnt deny his roots in Ireland) "Just because I was born in a Kennel, It doesnt make me a dog and Just because I was born in a stable it doesnt make me a horse":)

Brendan Bracken A Patriotic Englishman

MarchDub

Thoin wrote: »

To be fair to Mr Bracken, I dont think he would have been happy to have been called Irish, let alone Irish Hero, An English or British Hero would more accurately desribe him. His Achievement with The FTSE and The Financial Times and generally in English publishing were great and his work during the Second World War on behalf of his Country as Minister for Information were crucial at the time as was his advice before and during Churchills Political Career.
He was also a total Liar or a fantasist if you want to be kinder. He seems not to have possessed much in terms of human nature's warmth and wasnt trusted by those whom he aspired to be like. He did use his acquired wealth to win the friendship and family he wanted in Churchill. He was a driven and Intelligent man born in the wrong place (from his perspective) As Wellington once said (Even he didnt deny his roots in Ireland) "Just because I was born in a Kennel, It doesnt make me a dog and Just because I was born in a stable it doesnt make me a horse"

As has been well established on this forum in the past - Wellington never said that.

It was said by Daniel O'Connell as a put down regarding Wellington's claim of being Irish.

HellsAngel

Didn't see the documentary but Bracken seemed to be a complete chancer, liar, yes man and swindler. Just like other great public figures Ireland has produced such as Charlie Haughey, Bertie Aherne etc :rolleyes:

Thoin

In fact Daniel O'Connell never said it either regarding Dogs or Kennels but The point here really is that Brendan Bracken like other English Hero's or Anglophiles of Irish Extraction really did not like where he came from and seemed to want to re-create himself from a fantasy world, which he obviously became very succesful at. The sad thing was that from the end of the 17th century onwards the native Inhabitants (Or what was left of them after various planatations, Genocide and The destruction of all forms of their culture (Schools, Medical & Scientific, Libraries, Brehon Law etc) at a mimimum did not know their background or culture any more and at a maximum began to despise this under a new "re-education" under English Rule,
So maybe Brendan Bracken to some extent was a result of this also once he widened his Horizons in Australia and had the Benefit of a very "English" Social setting and Culture which would have been very evident there at the time, (A very Anti-Irish Culture from the ruling classes) A Ruthless Chancer by all accounts but with a sad personal life.

MarchDub

Thoin wrote: »

In fact Daniel O'Connell never said it either regarding Dogs or Kennels.

So - just curious, why did you throw in the quote within quotation marks and claiming it to be from Wellington? - and add the erroneous kennel part? - which BTW I did know was bogus.

FYI O'Connell said the 'horse' part in a speech.

Thoin wrote: »

but The point here really is that Brendan Bracken like other English Hero's or Anglophiles of Irish Extraction really did not like where he came from and seemed to want to re-create himself from a fantasy world, which he obviously became very succesful at. The sad thing was that from the end of the 17th century onwards the native Inhabitants (Or what was left of them after various planatations, Genocide and The destruction of all forms of their culture (Schools, Medical & Scientific, Libraries, Brehon Law etc) at a mimimum did not know their background or culture any more and at a maximum began to despise this under a new "re-education" under English Rule,
So maybe Brendan Bracken to some extent was a result of this also once he widened his Horizons in Australia and had the Benefit of a very "English" Social setting and Culture which would have been very evident there at the time, (A very Anti-Irish Culture from the ruling classes) A Ruthless Chancer by all accounts but with a sad personal life.

I think this is pretty broad brush you are painting with - yes, many of the native Irish did lose touch with their own background - but many of those who rebelled against the colonial presence were in fact members of the so called colonial class.

Thoin

MarchDub wrote: »

So - just curious, why did you throw in the quote within quotation marks and claiming it to be from Wellington? - and add the erroneous kennel part? - which BTW I did know was bogus.

FYI O'Connell said the 'horse' part in a speech.



I think this is pretty broad brush you are painting with - yes, many of the native Irish did lose touch with their own background - but many of those who rebelled against the colonial presence were in fact members of the so called colonial class.

History is full of misquotes and bogus ones and is never truly observed in a neutral way

Thoin

Thoin wrote: »

History is full of misquotes and bogus ones and is never truly observed in a neutral way

And yes only for certain more humane and liberal members of the new ruling Class did Ireland manage some sort of recovery from the disaster that was Colonization, mainly because the fully dispossed & Colonized did not have the wealth, connections etc in the new socio/political setup and those from the native gaelic population that did advance embraced this new setup to achieve this advancement.

Snickers Man

Just as a curiosity. Can anyone show a source, contemporaneous or otherwise authoritative, which shows Wellington making that comment about Irishness, stables and horses?

The O'Connell one is documented in evidence given at his trial for sedition. A journalist who attended one of his speeches (it might even have been a Monster meeting) produced his notes which had O'Connell making that jibe against Wellington.

Just because O'Connell said it in one context does not necessarily prove that Wellington NEVER said it about himself in another.

But it would be good to get a trusted source if he did.

MarchDub

Snickers Man wrote: »

Just because O'Connell said it in one context does not necessarily prove that Wellington NEVER said it about himself in another.

But it would be good to get a trusted source if he did.

Snickers I know you don't need me to point out that proving a negative is not within the bounds of logic. Of course O'Connell's words prove nothing else but that O'Connell said it -

We could speculate forever that someone or anyone else might have said it. But anyway, I am preparing a longer post on Wellington and Ireland.

MarchDub

Seeing as how we have drifted into the Duke of Wellington territory I thought I would post this.

I have hard copies of most of Wellington’s Parliamentary and other speeches and letters and he was no friend to Irish Catholic aspirations for participation in the British political process.

Wellington was long opposed to Catholic Emancipation – he had many times in speeches to Parliament expressed his opinion that Catholic Emancipation would threaten Protestant ascendancy and also the Protestant monarchy. In one speech in 1819 he actually explained that because the Reformation was only imposed on Ireland "at the point of the sword" and Catholic power was eradicated only by "confiscations" there was a danger that if Irish Catholicism was restored to the political arena then "their first exertion would be to restore their religion to its original supremacy and to recover the possessions and property of which they had been stripped of by the reformation."

He restated his position of fearing Catholicism as a threat to the Protestant ascendancy as late as 1828.

There is no person in this house, whose feelings and sentiments, after long consideration, are more decided than mine are with respect to the subject of the Roman Catholic claims; and I must say, that until I see a very great change in that question, I certainly shall continue to oppose it.

Duke Of Wellington 28th April 1828

It was only after the election of Daniel O’Connell to Parliament and the threat that this posed to stability in Ireland when O’Connell would present himself and would not be allowed to take his seat, that Wellington gave in and decided to support Catholic Emancipation. So sudden was his change that many who opposed Catholic Emancipation charged Wellington with double dealing. There were some nasty exchanges both in parliament and in the press of the day.

In his parliamentary speech given on April 2nd 1829 after he had changed his mind – actually speeches, Wellington was forced to answer so many questions –he boldly and unequivocally states that it was the threat of civil unrest in Ireland that made him change his mind. He referenced the 1798 Rising calling it "that unnatural rebellion" and feared that the same might happen again if the Act emancipating Catholics was not passed. He charged O’Connell’s Catholic Association with being the root cause of this unrest and while he conceded that the Catholic Association was not "strictly illegal" it was the basis for Irish unrest. He also reminded skeptics of the bill that the Stuart restoration was now unlikely.

But the Emancipation bill was a compromise and actually disenfranchised many Irish Catholic farmers because the wealth qualification for voter eligibility was raised.

Note: All within quotation marks are taken directly from Wellington's speeches and are his own words.

Thoin

MarchDub wrote: »

Snickers I know you don't need me to point out that proving a negative is not within the bounds of logic. Of course O'Connell's words prove nothing else but that O'Connell said it -

We could speculate forever that someone or anyone else might have said it. But anyway, I am preparing a longer post on Wellington and Ireland.

MarchDub, Ref: Wellington & The Stable & Horse Quote; If you accept in your own words "Of course O'Connell's words prove nothing else but that O'Connell said it -" Then why state "Wellington never said that" What proof do you have that he never said it and why be so absolutist about it without proof ?