Financial benefits of "Royal" prefix for Irish organisations?

Rebelheart

I've always wondered this: do Irish organisations which retain the 'Royal' prefix receive a stipend or financial support from the British crown for so-doing?

The vast majority of the organisations which have the 'Royal' prefix in Ireland added it to their original names, so the idea that they are "acknowledging their history" doesn't wash when their original name hadn't got the 'Royal' prefix. I suspect in this day and age it is only being kept for financial reasons.

Anybody know what's the story?

InTheTrees

Rebelheart wrote: »

I suspect in this day and age it is only being kept for financial reasons.

Interesting question but I cant imagine any UK organization budgeting cash to pay their Irish counterparts to keep some royalist title in their name. I cant believe the Royal Academy would be writing a cheque out of their yearly budget to the Royal Irish Academy just to keep "royal" in the name.

I really dont think they care that much. But I could be wrong.

pedroeibar1

@Rebelheart - Familiar with your past ‘anti-anything British’ posts I’m surprised that you do not know the answer. There is no ‘financial benefit’ and there are several false assumptions in your post.

Those institutions that have the ‘Royal’ prefix in their names did not ‘add’ it – the ‘Royal’ is granted by a special charter, is not done lightly (or frequently) and in those countries that had/have a monarchy it usually is seen as an honour. I know of only a few clubs in ‘new’ countries that have dropped it – some, not all, in Hong Kong, also in Singapore and Greece.

Most Irish grants date to the mid 1800’s so the names are a part of a club’s history/heritage of those clubs and today the President of Ireland is the holder of honorary membership ‘ex officio’

InTheTrees

It also makes some otherwise pretty dull organizations look a lot more classy.

Rebelheart

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

@Rebelheart - Familiar with your past ‘anti-anything British’ posts I’m surprised that you do not know the answer.

Being familiar with your past pro-British/anti-Irish posts I'm doubly surprised that you of all people don't know the answer.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Those institutions that have the ‘Royal’ prefix in their names did not ‘add’ it

This is the sort of ignorance which belies all your claims to be genuinely into history. The Irish Academy of Music, for instance, was founded in 1848. It only added the 'Royal' prefix in 1872. The Society of Antiquarians, later named the Irish Academy, existed long before it was renamed the Royal Irish Academy in 1786. Similarly, the 'Dublin Society for improving Husbandry, Manufactures and other Useful Arts', otherwise known as the 'Dublin Society', was founded in 1731. It was only 1820 when 'Royal' was added to 'Dublin Society'. And so on with so many more organisations adding the prefix 'Royal' to their names when Ireland was under British rule.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Most Irish grants date to the mid 1800’s so the names are a part of a club’s history/heritage of those clubs and today the President of Ireland is the holder of honorary membership ‘ex officio’

This is the British royalist cult in classic form. Let's completely overlook the club's Irish heritage before it got the 'Royal' prefix. "History/heritage" must never have existed before the English came. "History/heritage", if seems, only begins when the English gave that 'Royal' to the name. Are you not even mildly embarrassed by the anti-Irish bigotry of your view of history and heritage in Ireland?

Rebelheart

InTheTrees wrote: »

It also makes some otherwise pretty dull organizations look a lot more classy.

Perhaps this is so if one is a British pleb and, well, a bit simple or a right-wing British businessman who sees only financial opportunity in British state-run concentration camps, gulags and massacres of unarmed natives demanding civil rights under British crown occupation.

To the civilised world, the idea of an unelected sectarian monarchy living in palaces based upon the savagery of colonialism, as the British one is, is so obviously backward...
But far be it for me to get in the way of an English person and their delusions of "white man's burden" moral superiority over the rest of the planet.

Fratton Fred

Apparently bees pay a fee to her majesty every time they make royal jelly, due to the monopoly she has on the word royal.

Honestly.

Santa Cruz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Apparently bees pay a fee to her majesty every time they make royal jelly, due to the monopoly she has on the word royal.

Honestly.

That's right. And Brendan Bowyer had to leave the country when he couldn't pay the royalties for the Royal Showband

pedroeibar1

Rebelheart wrote: »

Being familiar with your past pro-British/anti-Irish posts
This is the sort of ignorance which belies all your claims to be genuinely into history.
This is the British royalist cult in classic form. Are you not even mildly embarrassed by the anti-Irish bigotry of your view of history and heritage in Ireland?

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is the sort of ignorance which belies all your claims to be genuinely into history.

This is the British royalist cult in classic form. Are you not even mildly embarrassed by the anti-Irish bigotry of your view of history and heritage in Ireland?

So, it appears that you are trolling again, as you have some information (albeit petty and toxic). I've nothing to be embarassed about, nor am I pro-British, Royal or otherwise. Nor have I shown any bigotry, unlike your comments. As Myles na Gcopaleen said go KMRIA and find somewhere else to play.

Judgement Day

If Rebelheart was drowning would he refuse to be picked up by an RNLI lifeboat? :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Judgement Day wrote: »

If Rebelheart was drowning would he refuse to be picked up by an RNLI lifeboat? :rolleyes:

He'd be fecked if it was a choice of that, or a yacht from the Royal Irish or Royal St George sailing clubs!

Best if he avoids Dun Laoghaire completely, because they'd take him across Queens road, in to the Royal Marine hotel!

And as for being treated by a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland.....

pedroeibar1

Yacht Clubs, Fred, Yacht Clubs. (even the Coal Harbour has a Yacht Club);)
Or fall sick and refuse to be operated on by a MRCSI, having been handled by members of the Royal College of Anaesthetists in Ireland and one from the Royal College of Radiologists. As for treatment in a Royal Hospital? (Imagine the blood pressure!)


Or attend TCD or even UCC (granted a Royal Charter in 1845) or live in a house designed by a FRIAI, using a QS member of FRICS, or an engineer a MIEI or if the cat was sick bring it to a MRVCI?



Would the children ever be brought to the Royal Zoological Gardens? I’ve no doubt that Rebelheart, known for venting bile and spleen, certainly would not be sociable enough to be proposed as a member for any of the Royal Clubs.

riffmongous

Now that you mention it, I do find it strange that certain groups would choose the keep the word as part of their name nearly 100 years after they left the monarchy. Nothing wrong at all with British orgs using it of course. Having a 'Royal' institute in a republic doesn't make much sense though, how would you explain it to a tourist off the top of your head if they asked you why it is called that still?

Here in Austria there used to be something similar, the K.u.K., Kaiserlich und Königlich, the imperial and kingly, which had much the same purpose as Royal, but after the monarchy was gotten rid of it's usage was dropped by all institutions except for a few cafes and bakeries I think.

Judgement Day

It's only people with too much time on their hands that worry about these things while the rest of us concentrate on things that matter. It's easy to knock things down, change things for the sake of it but it's all part of our collective history so why mess with it.

riffmongous

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's only people with too much time on their hands that worry about these things while the rest of us concentrate on things that matter. It's easy to knock things down, change things for the sake of it but it's all part of our collective history so why mess with it.

Hm, I get what you mean, but it's unsettling that science institute's are still using such an outdated name. At this stage I guess it wouldn't make any sense to rename them, but they should have all been renamed after the republic was established I think, like they did in Austria to have a full and clean break from the past.

gobnaitolunacy

I got a Royal Enfield motorbike, I get a fiver from Lizzie at Christmas time.

donaghs

riffmongous wrote: »

Hm, I get what you mean, but it's unsettling that science institute's are still using such an outdated name. At this stage I guess it wouldn't make any sense to rename them, but they should have all been renamed after the republic was established I think, like they did in Austria to have a full and clean break from the past.

Not sure exactly how you mean, but I can't see anything wrong with people keeping a historical legacy intact, if they so choose.

A "clean break with the past" has many connotations, e.g. Pol Pot's "Year Zero". Or why not the Taliban's blowing up of the Buddha statues, since Buddhism had been overtaken by Islam a long time ago in Afghanistan?

Peregrinus

riffmongous wrote: »

Hm, I get what you mean, but it's unsettling that science institute's are still using such an outdated name. At this stage I guess it wouldn't make any sense to rename them, but they should have all been renamed after the republic was established I think, like they did in Austria to have a full and clean break from the past.

Why? There's nothing about the conduct of scientific research or experimentation that requires "a full and clean break from the past".

The fact that an educational or cultural institution in Ireland has the prefix "Royal" added to its name tell us (a) that it has been recognised as making an important contribution to public welfare, and (b) that this recognition came some time ago - pre-1922 - so it's a long-established institution. The only purpose of dropping the "Royal" would be to conceal those facts, and why would a scientist want to conceal facts? The most likely motivation for dropping the "Royal" would be discomfort at the idea that Ireland was ever under a monarchical form of government but, the fact is that it was, and Not Mentioning It is not going to change that.

The dropping of the "K.u.K" designation from Austrian institutions is, I think, not quite analagous. That designation was awarded to institutions which enjoyed official (financial or legal or both) support from the monarchical state, or the patronage of the Emperor. Once that was no longer the case, it was no longer appropriate to use that designation. In fact most of the bodies which had the designation were government bodies, and they had the designation to signify that they had jurisdiction or functions both in Austrian and in Hungary. Institutions relevant to Austria only were "Imperial"; to Hungary only were "Royal" or "Royal Hungarian". And of course the significance of all that disappeared in 1918. Plus it was no longer appropriate in Austria for state agencies to be either "Imperial" or "Imperial and Royal".

The use of "Royal" in Ireland never had the same signficance. The Royal Dublin Society, for example, was never a government or official agency, and the word "Royal" did not imply that it was. In fact, government/official agencies in pre-1922 Ireland tended not to have words like "Royal" in the name, so there was no need for name-changes in agencies like the Department of Agriculture and the Board of Works.

The Royal Irish Constabulary was the notable exception. Originally the Irish Constabulary, they were awarded the "Royal" prefix in 1867 for their sterling work in infiltrating the Fenian Brotherhood and suppressing the rising of 1867. Given this, the prefix would certainly have been dropped in 1922, had the decision not been taken to disband the force entirely and replace it with a newly-constituted, unarmed police force.

riffmongous

donaghs wrote: »

Not sure exactly how you mean, but I can't see anything wrong with people keeping a historical legacy intact, if they so choose.

A "clean break with the past" has many connotations, e.g. Pol Pot's "Year Zero". Or why not the Taliban's blowing up of the Buddha statues, since Buddhism had been overtaken by Islam a long time ago in Afghanistan?

Yes exactly they should have blown up all buildings belonging to institutions using the word royal and disappeared all the members:rolleyes:

riffmongous

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why? There's nothing about the conduct of scientific research or experimentation that requires "a full and clean break from the past".

The fact that an educational or cultural institution in Ireland has the prefix "Royal" added to its name tell us (a) that it has been recognised as making an important contribution to public welfare, and (b) that this recognition came some time ago - pre-1922 - so it's a long-established institution. The only purpose of dropping the "Royal" would be to conceal those facts, and why would a scientist want to conceal facts? The most likely motivation for dropping the "Royal" would be discomfort at the idea that Ireland was ever under a monarchical form of government but, the fact is that it was, and Not Mentioning It is not going to change that.

The dropping of the "K.u.K" designation from Austrian institutions is, I think, not quite analagous. That designation was awarded to institutions which enjoyed official (financial or legal or both) support from the monarchical state, or the patronage of the Emperor. Once that was no longer the case, it was no longer appropriate to use that designation. In fact most of the bodies which had the designation were government bodies, and they had the designation to signify that they had jurisdiction or functions both in Austrian and in Hungary. Institutions relevant to Austria only were "Imperial"; to Hungary only were "Royal" or "Royal Hungarian". And of course the significance of all that disappeared in 1918. Plus it was no longer appropriate in Austria for state agencies to be either "Imperial" or "Imperial and Royal".

The use of "Royal" in Ireland never had the same signficance. The Royal Dublin Society, for example, was never a government or official agency, and the word "Royal" did not imply that it was. In fact, government/official agencies in pre-1922 Ireland tended not to have words like "Royal" in the name, so there was no need for name-changes in agencies like the Department of Agriculture and the Board of Works.

The Royal Irish Constabulary was the notable exception. Originally the Irish Constabulary, they were awarded the "Royal" prefix in 1867 for their sterling work in infiltrating the Fenian Brotherhood and suppressing the rising of 1867. Given this, the prefix would certainly have been dropped in 1922, had the decision not been taken to disband the force entirely and replace it with a newly-constituted, unarmed police force.

Good post, interesting stuff, well then how about the case of the ÖAW instead then, originally founded as the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien by imperial patent and renamed the Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften after the transition to a republic?

My thoughts are nothing to do with denying the past, but for me a scientific institute should be always more focused on the future (research) than the past, both are of course essential, but the ratio should always be slightly in favour of looking forward, and so to have an scientific institute with a name firmly rooted in a long gone past is strange to me as a scientist.

Edit: The Royal Irish Regiment would be another one similar to the RIC disbanded in the early 1920s

BlatentCheek

If something was called Royal pre-1922 and has continued in existence then dropping it just comes across as churlish. Irish nationalism doesn't have to be unduly petty. Brand recognition for places like RCSI, or continued links to a UK parent organisation such as with the RNLI can be useful.

Founding something new post 1922 and calling it Royal just sounds pathetic however. I don't know if it's a joke but I heard someone founded a Royal Galway Yacht Club a few years back and it made me cringe; I just pictured a shower of crass new-money boggers reaching desperately for anything that might allow them to look down on everyone around them (I know there was a royal charter 120 years ago but the link is tenuous and it's not necessary to call it Royal).

tac foley

Fratton Fred wrote: »

He'd be fecked if it was a choice of that, or a yacht from the Royal Irish or Royal St George sailing clubs!

Best if he avoids Dun Laoghaire completely, because they'd take him across Queens road, in to the Royal Marine hotel!

And as for being treated by a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland.....

Of course, he'd also be totally f&cked if he fell into the Royal Canal....but one can only live in hope.

tac

pedroeibar1

riffmongous wrote: »

.....well then how about the case of the ÖAW instead then, originally founded as the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien by imperial patent and renamed the Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften after the transition to a republic?

The Kaiser was made redundant, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was broken up, and the Germans and Austrians (and one of the latter in particular) had other things on their minds. They wanted to send a signal.

riffmongous wrote: »

.......t for me a scientific institute should be always more focused on the future (research) than the past, both are of course essential, but the ratio should always be slightly in favour of looking forward, and so to have an scientific institute with a name firmly rooted in a long gone past is strange to me as a scientist.

Of course science has to look forward, but how can one research the future? Information from the past is studied and used to predict the future. As pointed out earlier most of the great scientific institutions have been around for centuries - the Royal Society was started in 1660 at the Restoration. Its 'Transactions' - articles of analysis on past events/experiments - have been hugely influential in deciding the future in all of the sciences. Papers by 'natural philosophers' were being read to RS members e.g. studies on variolation and innoculation date to decades before Jenner.

riffmongous wrote: »

Edit: The Royal Irish Regiment would be another one similar to the RIC disbanded in the early 1920s

The Royal Irish Regiment still exists. In any case, we are talking 'Institutions' rather than government bodies; the Royal Indian Air Force dropped the 'Royal' in 1947 - in former colonies dropping the 'Royal' appears to be primarily confined to Govt. entities rather than private ones.

pedroeibar1

BlatentCheek wrote: »

If something was called Royal pre-1922 and has continued in existence then dropping it just comes across as churlish. Irish nationalism doesn't have to be unduly petty. Brand recognition for places like RCSI, or continued links to a UK parent organisation such as with the RNLI can be useful.

Founding something new post 1922 and calling it Royal just sounds pathetic however. I don't know if it's a joke but I heard someone founded a Royal Galway Yacht Club a few years back and it made me cringe; I just pictured a shower of crass new-money boggers reaching desperately for anything that might allow them to look down on everyone around them (I know there was a royal charter 120 years ago but the link is tenuous and it's not necessary to call it Royal).

You might be thinking of the Royal Western YC of Ireland

Jawgap

Santa Cruz wrote: »

That's right. And Brendan Bowyer had to leave the country when he couldn't pay the royalties for the Royal Showband

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Apparently bees pay a fee to her majesty every time they make royal jelly, due to the monopoly she has on the word royal.

Honestly.

I like this line of argument - it suggests there is support for the abolition of Meath - instead of the Royal County, we can just call it greater Dublin.

Does this also mean I can't enjoy a quarter-pounder in McDs on the continent - no more "Royale with cheese"!

On a more serious note I think in some circumstances an association with the Crown led to the prefix "Royal" being adopted, such as a member of the royal family patronising the organisation concerned.

On an even more serious note, some "royal" organisations are shared with the UK - the best example is the RNLI - I take it no one is advocating cutting off or excluding that fine organisation for the presence of a hard earned title or because the Queen is patron?

BlatentCheek

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

You might be thinking of the Royal Western YC of Ireland

I was thinking of these http://afloat.ie/sail/events/galway-stopover/item/17236-galway-revives-ancient-royal-yacht-club. Either way I think it's a bit snooty seeking out the Royal prefix when it's not necessary just as it's petty to get rid of it if it's already there.

riffmongous

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The Kaiser was made redundant, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was broken up, and the Germans and Austrians (and one of the latter in particular) had other things on their minds. They wanted to send a signal.

A signal to who?

Of course science has to look forward, but how can one research the future? Information from the past is studied and used to predict the future. As pointed out earlier most of the great scientific institutions have been around for centuries - the Royal Society was started in 1660 at the Restoration. Its 'Transactions' - articles of analysis on past events/experiments - have been hugely influential in deciding the future in all of the sciences. Papers by 'natural philosophers' were being read to RS members e.g. studies on variolation and innoculation date to decades before Jenner.

That's fair enough alright, just looking at the RIA list of projects they certainly seem to have a different focus to what I am used to dealing with from the ÖAW and IAEA where the focus is on cutting edge science and technology, interesting.

The Royal Irish Regiment still exists. In any case, we are talking 'Institutions' rather than government bodies; the Royal Indian Air Force dropped the 'Royal' in 1947 - in former colonies dropping the 'Royal' appears to be primarily confined to Govt. entities rather than private ones.

I meant the other RIR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Irish_Regiment_%281684%E2%80%931922%29

robinph

riffmongous wrote: »

Here in Austria there used to be something similar, the K.u.K., Kaiserlich und Königlich, the imperial and kingly, which had much the same purpose as Royal, but after the monarchy was gotten rid of it's usage was dropped by all institutions except for a few cafes and bakeries I think.

That sound like it would be similar to the Royal Warants that would be given out to places that supply the royal households with goods and services. Harrods got rid of theirs a few years ago after Al Fayed had a bit of a falling out, and I think they were taken away from the cigarette manufacturers. There was an article earlier this year I saw though where some other brands had decided to drop their warrants, or not reapply for them upon renewal.

tac foley

Anyhow, as ANY right-thinking Irishman [and a few plastics] knows, Royal Meath gets its nickname NOT from any association with British royalty, but from historical IRISH royalty - see - Wiki -

The county is colloquially known by the nickname "The Royal County" due to its history as the seat of the High King of Ireland. It formed from the eastern part of the former Kingdom of Mide (see Kings of Mide) but now forms part of the province of Leinster. Historically, the kingdom and its successor territory the Lordship of Meath, included all of counties Meath, Fingal and Westmeath as well as parts of counties Cavan, Longford, Louth, Offaly and Kildare. The seat of the High King of Ireland was at Tara.

So sssspplllllthththththppppppppp to you, Sir.

tac

riffmongous

robinph wrote: »

That sound like it would be similar to the Royal Warants that would be given out to places that supply the royal households with goods and services. Harrods got rid of theirs a few years ago after Al Fayed had a bit of a falling out, and I think they were taken away from the cigarette manufacturers. There was an article earlier this year I saw though where some other brands had decided to drop their warrants, or not reapply for them upon renewal.

This is one of the places I saw it at, a bakery in Linz http://www.kuk-hofbaeckerei.at/kukhofbaeckerei.htm

Tramps Like Us

tac foley wrote: »

Ah, right, that'll be me then.
<<<MOD EDIT>>>
Meanwhile, back to the thread.........................

tac

Pathetic that you can joke about what you lot got up to in the north - subhuman scum, arming loyalist death squads, murdering innocent people, then joking about it. Sense of adventure? Pathetic.

Wasn't all fun and games in South Armagh for you lot was it?

jonniebgood1

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Pathetic that you can joke about what you lot got up to in the north - subhuman scum, arming loyalist death squads, murdering innocent people, then joking about it. Sense of adventure? Pathetic.

1 week ban for above.

To those who teased out the quoted reaction, try not to do it again. I don't mind a slight bit of fun, but there is a line between this and trolling that varies in position depending on one's viewpoint. Note I have deleted some of the off topic posts.

Rebelheart

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

I got a Royal Enfield motorbike, I get a fiver from Lizzie at Christmas time.

Sorry to break it to you but a motorbike is not an "Irish organisation".

Rebelheart

donaghs wrote: »

Not sure exactly how you mean, but I can't see anything wrong with people keeping a historical legacy intact, if they so choose.

Ahem. What about the "historical legacy" of the organisation before the British royalist prefix "Royal" was added to the name of the Irish organisations in question? All the apologists for British rule over Ireland ignore the pre-royalist history of these organisations, understandably.

donaghs wrote: »

A "clean break with the past" has many connotations, e.g. Pol Pot's "Year Zero".

Or, indeed, British rule in Ireland. It's not like all the unionists are screaming for monuments to honour heroes of the native Irish? Or that Mountjoy did not smash the inauguration stone of the Ó Néill in Tyrone in 1603 in order to break the historical link of the Ó Néill? Or that the British were promoting Irish in schools prior to the rise of Conradh? Or that Irish placenames were not anglicised as a means to assert British control over a people and their place? ...

Rebelheart

BlatentCheek wrote: »

If something was called Royal pre-1922 and has continued in existence then dropping it just comes across as churlish.

If it's getting subsidised by this republic, then by no means is it "churlish" to demand that they drop an honour from an anti-Irish, institutionally sectarian foreign monarchy. He who pays the piper.... Not at all. Which, of course, brings me back to my question in the opening post, which has still not been addressed, never mind answered.

jonniebgood1

Rebelheart wrote: »

Yes, because evidently 1) canals cannot be built, or exist, anywhere unless they are named in honour of a British monarch? and 2) given that you are a self-confessed member of the British crown forces of occupation who has been party to the murder of Irish people in Ireland your views on things Irish in this forum are not exactly surprising.

Seeing as you're into wishing ill on people, and the moderator evidently condones it, not so far away from me one of your mass-murdering colleagues by the name of Robert Nairac ended up in a meat maker. One can only live in hope that Irish-hating British armchair warriors like you would meet a similar fate.

I have deleted some of your posts and issued you with a ban for back seat moderating although other comments you made would warrant bans also.

This thread has been quite simple Rebelheart and you should learn from it for the future as I see room for your view if expressed properly.
The problem with this thread was that your OP and following post is open to ridicule. If you do not believe me then read the number of comments that lightly make fun at the OP. They do not appear harmful to me but you should take them in the spirit meant and move on. Instead you respond by labelling those who disagree with you as anti-irish, etc, when this is not the case. If you return after your ban then do so with due care and heed the advice.

Moderator

jonniebgood1

Thread is left open (for the moment), people should look at the reasons why the institutions using the royal title do so.

With regard to the RNLI I believe that they are linked to the British lifeboat protection from their founding. In other words the boats in Irish waters are a part of the grouping of protective lifeboats that patrol and protect the waters of both Ireland and Britain. I guess its a type of pan-nation association so its 'royal' prefix is maybe more appreciated in the UK than in Ireland. In relation to identity I believe that the Irish boats fly both the RNLI flag and the tricolour together a fairly sensible compromise IMO.

The 'royal' part of most institutes that retain it would seem to me to be based on the type of organisations involved in many cases. For example the RDS and horseshow type environment would have more links to the more well off sections of society which for historical reasons would have had a higher proportion of Unionist members. I suspect this is more the reason for such retention rather than that suggested in the OP.

Santa Cruz

riffmongous wrote: »

Hm, I get what you mean, but it's unsettling that science institute's are still using such an outdated name. At this stage I guess it wouldn't make any sense to rename them, but they should have all been renamed after the republic was established I think, like they did in Austria to have a full and clean break from the past.

Lets start with Newgrange and then hit the Norman castles. Would that be a clean enough break or can we go back to the Ceide Fields

newmug

InTheTrees wrote: »

It also makes some otherwise pretty dull organizations look a lot more classy.

Classy? I think it makes them look snobbish / desperate to appear superior.

Jawgap wrote: »

I like this line of argument - it suggests there is support for the abolition of Meath - instead of the Royal County, we can just call it greater Dublin.

Here mister, as someone already pointed out, Meath is called the royal county because it was the seat of the High Kings of Ireland! Meath is the true capital of Ireland!

I agree with other posters that in this day and age, the "royal" prefix on anything should be scrapped. We've been through so many changes in this country to try and improve ourselves (eg scrapping our own currency, dropping articles 2+3 of the constitution, voting yes for Lisbon 2) that keeping a maudlin old title with virtually no functional value other than elitism, just seems daft. IMO, it detracts from the institution its trying to promote! The RNLI would sound much more professional if it was just called the Irish Lifeboat Emergency Service.

BlatentCheek

Rebelheart wrote: »

If it's getting subsidised by this republic, then by no means is it "churlish" to demand that they drop an honour from an anti-Irish, institutionally sectarian foreign monarchy. He who pays the piper.... Not at all. Which, of course, brings me back to my question in the opening post, which has still not been addressed, never mind answered.

Personally I don't care much for the British monarchy or the pro-British imperialist slant that the "Royal" prefix sometimes (though not always or even most of the time) signifies. However we should be secure enough in our Irish identity to not see every reminder of our colonial past as an insult.

In the examples I gave in my earlier post such as RCSI and the RNLI I outlined the advantages continuing the usage of the prefix may bestow; I'd rather not have medical education or marine rescue potentially suffer for the sake of an irrelevant name change.

Jawgap

tac foley wrote: »

Anyhow, as ANY right-thinking Irishman [and a few plastics] knows, Royal Meath gets its nickname NOT from any association with British royalty, but from historical IRISH royalty - see - Wiki -

The county is colloquially known by the nickname "The Royal County" due to its history as the seat of the High King of Ireland. It formed from the eastern part of the former Kingdom of Mide (see Kings of Mide) but now forms part of the province of Leinster. Historically, the kingdom and its successor territory the Lordship of Meath, included all of counties Meath, Fingal and Westmeath as well as parts of counties Cavan, Longford, Louth, Offaly and Kildare. The seat of the High King of Ireland was at Tara.

So sssspplllllthththththppppppppp to you, Sir.

tac

All true, but can't blame a Dub for trying!

camphor

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The Royal Irish Regiment still exists. .

The Royal Irish Regiment was disbanded in the 1920s. A new Royal Irish regiment was reconstituted about 20 years ago.

tac foley

newmug wrote: »

The RNLI would sound much more professional if it was just called the Irish Lifeboat Emergency Service.

That's a sound idea. :rolleyes: Then the members of the RNLI based in the North of Ireland would not have to risk their lives rescuing Irish crews from Irish boats in trouble around the coast of the republic.

Of course, there might be a conflict of interest, if the Irish Lifeboat Service that you are proposing got to a boat or ship in trouble, only to find that it was British-registered. They would, of course, have to stand off, or return to their base, rather than rescue a 'foreigner'.

Get real, for goodness sake. The RNLI units based in the republic fly the tricolour, not the white ensign, and treat everybody in peril on the sea with equality, regardless what flag they fly.

tac, lifetime supporter of the RNLI

jonniebgood1

You take a very one sided view of rnli crew in the north tac. Maybe they might prefer a name change? In my experience nordies pay more heed to symbolism of this kind than south of the border.

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

With regard to the RNLI I believe that they are linked to the British lifeboat protection from their founding. In other words the boats in Irish waters are a part of the grouping of protective lifeboats that patrol and protect the waters of both Ireland and Britain. I guess its a type of pan-nation association so its 'royal' prefix is maybe more appreciated in the UK than in Ireland. In relation to identity I believe that the Irish boats fly both the RNLI flag and the tricolour together a fairly sensible compromise IMO.

.

Not quite but an interesting example .....

The RNLI was and is a British body, founded in 1824, and incorporated under Royal Charter in 1860. It’s not ‘pan’ nation, it's just the UK and Ireland. It also is unusual in that a national lifeboat service is provided by a voluntary organisation. The US has the Coastguard, (today I think part of ‘Homeland Security’) and other nations have either a coastguard or a separate search & rescue ‘wing’ to their navies.

The RNLI has a small core of full-timers, but is manned by volunteers and paid for by donations, raised by thousands of unpaid collectors. The RNLI does not in their accounts split out income / expenditure by region, (income of £150million PA) but it is commonly held/believed in our sailing community that the Irish operations are heavily subsidized by the UK. (There are 106 stations in England, 46 in Scotland, 35 in the Republic of Ireland, 31 in Wales, 9 in Northern Ireland, 5 in the Isle of Man, and 4 in the Channel Islands.)

As for flying the RNLI ‘flag’ and tricolour together, JBG your inference is incorrect. The ‘flag’ is an ensign, and if the vessel is registered in Ireland it flies the Irish ensign. If it is registered in the UK it flies the appropriate UK ensign. The ‘RNLI Flag’ is a ‘house flag’ and is an ornament and does not have much significance (generalising a bit on ‘ house flags’ to get my point over, apologies to vexillologists).

And while we are on SAR, it should be noted that for years we depended on the ROYAL Air Force for SAR (both Nimrods & choppers) and still do to a certain extent. Even in the Irish Sea (until we were shamed into getting a few choppers of our own that could fly IFR i.e. in the dark) we depended on RAF Valley, and mighty glad were our offshore sailors that they were on hand if needed.

tac foley

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You take a very one sided view of rnli crew in the north tac. Maybe they might prefer a name change? In my experience nordies pay more heed to symbolism of this kind than south of the border.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying. The RNLI is the RNLI, and every member of the crew that risk their lives for their fellow man is a volunteer, whether he or she is a citizen of the RoI or a subject of the Crown. With that in mind, I don't think that the name colours their point of view in any way, whether or nor it has 'Royal' in front of it or not. Have you actually asked a volunteer on your side of the border if he or she objects to the use of the word 'Royal'?

So here is my suggestion - write to the RNLI and suggest changing the name of the part of organisation that operates around the coast of the RoI to reflect the impropriety of having the word 'Royal' in its name. Sure, the 'Republic of Ireland Lifeboat Organisation' sounds like a great wheeze, but pedroeibar1 has already provided details of the main source of the funding that provides the boats and equipment that is used by ALL crews regardless of their nationality.

It's a very petty thing, to my mind, to expect what is one of the most respected organisations of its kind on the planet to change its name to satisfy the upset few who object to the word 'Royal'.

Over to you.

tac, sometime RNLI tin-shaker.

PS - Pedroeibar1 - the US Coast Guard is the fourth arm of service of the US Armed Forces.

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The 'royal' part of most institutes that retain it would seem to me to be based on the type of organisations involved in many cases. For example the RDS and horseshow type environment would have more links to the more well off sections of society which for historical reasons would have had a higher proportion of Unionist members. I suspect this is more the reason for such retention rather than that suggested in the OP.

There are two issues here, firstly the meaning/use of ‘Royal’ and secondly if that word should be used by an institution in a republic. Contrary to the stuff written by another poster, I reiterate that ‘Royal’ cannot be ‘added’ to a name, it is granted by warrant or charter.

There is a big difference between a Royal Warrant and a Royal Charter – the former is commercial and has an end-date, the latter is granted in perpetuity. Grocers obtain warrants from whatever royals rule their marketplace, be it Spain, UK, Netherlands, wherever, ‘By appointment to His / Her Majesty, Prince, ....., etc’. They show that the recipient obtains custom from the ‘Royal’ in question and it is a boost to their business for a finite period (usually 5 years) and the 'By Royal Appointment' can be renewed or dropped.

A Royal Charter is given to a town or an institution conferring in perpetuity various legal rights and privileges. For example, prior to modern day company law, it was the only means of establishing an incorporated body (as opposed to a partnership). The East India Company, the Hudson Bay Company, the Royal Society are typical ‘old’ examples of companies/institutions dating to the 1600's. In relation to yacht clubs, the charter confers the right to use the word ‘Royal’ in their name and to fly various special types of flag (burgees, pennants, ensigns) of particular colours and design, which up to at least the late 1800’s had particular significance. many today respect and honour that significance. Since 1922 those institutions with ‘Royal’ have had their ‘flags’ and status (usually charitable) approved by the new State.

Bodies that have received Royal Charters are old; they have a heritage, a history and were founded by those that had an interest in the objects of the entity - the RDS was the improvement of agriculture to the fore. Similary more rural entities were founded without the 'Royal' e.g. the Tipperary Show, all to encourage the improvement of farming and animal husbandry. Back in the 1800’s most of those were ‘aristocrats’ / landowners because they had both the money and the time to develop their interests.

If some modern-day Irish people are so insecure in themselves and this Republic that they cannot accept a bit of history and heritage from a hundred plus years ago, it is a sad state of affairs. No doubt they are the ones who already have and again would pull down swathes of Georgian Dublin and deface any building ornament with a crown as representing perfidious albion.

InTheTrees

newmug wrote: »

Classy? I think it makes them look snobbish / desperate to appear superior.

I agree. I was just goading the OP. He takes it so seriously...

riffmongous

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

If some modern-day Irish people are so insecure in themselves and this Republic that they cannot accept a bit of history and heritage from a hundred plus years ago, it is a sad state of affairs. No doubt they are the ones who already have and again would pull down swathes of Georgian Dublin and deface any building ornament with a crown as representing perfidious albion.

Damn those Irish neo-nationalists, will they stop at nothing?:rolleyes:

Because obviously not wanting scientific institutes in a modern day republic to have a name from a monarchy that was almost a century ago is part of a grand plot to erase and deny all history pre-1916, obliterate Norman castles, then demolish and rebuild Dublin according to the vision of the neo-nationalist spiritual leader, The Great Dev/Pol Pot, with GAA pitches, RC churches and ceilidhs everywhere.

Peregrinus

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

There are two issues here, firstly the meaning/use of ‘Royal’ and secondly if that word should be used by an institution in a republic. Contrary to the stuff written by another poster, I reiterate that ‘Royal’ cannot be ‘added’ to a name, it is granted by warrant or charter.

The term "Royal" enjoys that protection in the UK but, of course, not here. There's any number of "Royal" businesses in Ireland; very few of them have a warrant or a charter.

Royal Showband, anyone? Royal Tara cutlery? The Royal Hibernian shopping mall in Dawson Street?

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The RNLI was and is a British body, founded in 1824, and incorporated under Royal Charter in 1860. It’s not ‘pan’ nation, it's just the UK and Ireland. It also is unusual in that a national lifeboat service is provided by a voluntary organisation. The US has the Coastguard, (today I think part of ‘Homeland Security’) and other nations have either a coastguard or a separate search & rescue ‘wing’ to their navies.
...
As for flying the RNLI ‘flag’ and tricolour together, JBG your inference is incorrect. The ‘flag’ is an ensign, and if the vessel is registered in Ireland it flies the Irish ensign. If it is registered in the UK it flies the appropriate UK ensign. The ‘RNLI Flag’ is a ‘house flag’ and is an ornament and does not have much significance (generalising a bit on ‘ house flags’ to get my point over, apologies to vexillologists).
.

If it were founded in 1824 it would have originally been for patrolling the waters of Britain and Ireland, not just British waters. Its Irish arm has its own HQ. With regard to the flag you should know well that with its basis on the St. Georges cross that it does indeed hold much significance historically for an Irish registered vessel to use it. To describe it as an ornament suggesting it has no meaning is missing out on the history of the past 250 years. The past year in NI shows how important flags can be to some people.

tac foley wrote: »

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying. The RNLI is the RNLI, and every member of the crew that risk their lives for their fellow man is a volunteer, whether he or she is a citizen of the RoI or a subject of the Crown.

That is the very point I was making. You suggested 'the members of the RNLI based in the North of Ireland would not have to risk their lives rescuing Irish crews from Irish boats in trouble around the coast of the republic.
'. My point was that when it comes to rescuing lives the name would not be a consideration.

tac foley wrote: »

It's a very petty thing, to my mind, to expect what is one of the most respected organisations of its kind on the planet to change its name to satisfy the upset few who object to the word 'Royal'.
Over to you.

This shows a real lack of understanding of why people might wish a name change. There are always reasons in life for peoples preferences and you should perhaps explore the reasons in this case before labelling them 'petty'.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

If some modern-day Irish people are so insecure in themselves and this Republic that they cannot accept a bit of history and heritage from a hundred plus years ago, it is a sad state of affairs. No doubt they are the ones who already have and again would pull down swathes of Georgian Dublin and deface any building ornament with a crown as representing perfidious albion.

As above labelling people as 'insecure' for holding this view misses completely 1 side of Irish history. Whether you agree or not with them, objecting to British links has a real historical basis, not insecurity or petty. In fact this type of label can be turned equally on those who strongly defend retention of these names. i.e. it is 'petty' to insist on retaining 'royal' in the case of the lifeboats as the most important thing is what they do, not what they are called (note I am not advocating the removal of the R in RNLI, just trying to add some balance).