Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why was Countess Markievicz born in London ?

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »

    I was having a bit of trouble reconciling the "culchie" republicanism* of my grandfathers against the rising. Not now though.


    OK as a mere Dub I need a translation for this - :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »

    In her intro Tallion attacks, rightly so in my opinion, the many historians who have ignored the role of women and the part they played in the Rising. She gives as an example Desmond Ryan whose account had the title The Complete Story of Easter Week yet only gives one paragraph - albeit complementary - to the role of women :

    Well, I am trying to redress the balance here and take the bangs off the ears and put them back where they belong -out the barrel of a gun.

    It's all very well to say we want women portrayed in equal prominence to Pearse and Connolly but not want to say what they did.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Well, I am trying to redress the balance here and take the bangs off the ears and put them back where they belong -out the barrel of a gun.

    It's all very well to say we want women portrayed in equal prominence to Pearse and Connolly but not want to say what they did.

    I don't think that's the issue at all - historical accuracy is what we need.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    OK as a mere Dub I need a translation for this - :confused:

    Well my grandfather used the phrase "poets and dreamers" and his political heritage would probably have been more Irish Independence Party than Sinn Fein.

    His local heritage in West Cork would have been

    http://www.ballingearyhs.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86:agrarian-disturbance-in-west-cork-1822&catid=6:journal-2000&Itemid=11

    The area was poor. Neighbours in mud huts.

    The Colthursts (of which Bowen-Colthurst who executed Frank S-S. was a family member) were the local landlords. Hanna S-S father would have been a local MP.

    There was no romantic notions about his nationalism but also the Colthursts got burnt out and not shot. Civilians I suppose.

    Their rebellion was the West Cork Flying Column.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I don't think that's the issue at all - historical accuracy is what we need.

    OK but we have to start somewhere.

    Why not start with Markievicz's Easter Week actions, the women with her and their military engagements and the military and civilian casualties. She was a leader.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Maybe we need to spin off this thread to cover all the women of 1916?
    The manufacture of bombs for use in a rising began in 1915. Dozens of enthusiastic women and girls worked, during their spare time, at various tasks connected with the manufacture of cartridges, bullets and bombs. The whole basement of Liberty Hall became one big munitions works.
    Armaments were stockpiled all over the city. Even though it was under constant surveillance, Constance Markievicz’s house contained all sort of weapons, hidden in every possible place. Nora Foley, a member of a Dublin republican family, described how her Fairview home too, was a ‘regular arsenal of bombs which had been made on the premises, dynamite, gelignite, rifles bayonets, ammunition and what not’.


    Eilis Ui Chonail tells how for some time small arms were imported from Sheffield labelled as ‘cutlery’. A shipment was discovered in Dublin port and Dublin Castle was informed, but in the meantime Volunteer headquarters was also notified. Three members of Cumann na mBan rushed to the scene and saved the entire shipment of 110 revolvers and ammunition.
    Again, I typed the above out of the Ruth Taillon book.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Maybe we need to spin off this thread to cover all the women of 1916?

    Again, I typed the above out of the Ruth Taillon book.

    Maybe later, let's focus on her first , and I suspect it will throw up other who's who.

    Here is a handgun owned by her

    Markieviczs-gun-390x285.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    CDfm wrote: »
    Maybe later, let's focus on her first , and I suspect it will throw up other who's who.

    Here is a handgun owned by her

    Markieviczs-gun-390x285.jpg


    That revolver raised a lot of interest last year when it went for auction by Adams; expected to make 800-1,000, it went for about €7,500 to according to rumour a foreign buyer. It’s a .32 cal manufactured by Smith & Wesson, finished by Kavanaghs of Dublin. Suitable for close quarters only. No wonder she missed the officers at the window in the University Club. However, she must have been either a great shot or a lucky one to put the bullet between them!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jolly Red Giant


    meganj wrote: »
    Connolly was a socialist, as was Markievicz (although Marki's (yes Marki) seems to have been less of an ideology, and more of a horror at how the world was, if you follow me? Connolly wanted a socialist state, he saw the capitalist system as a foreign entity.
    Connolly yes - Markievicz, I would argue not even close. During the war of independence she repeatedly ordered IRA troops to break strikes and continuously warned the leadership of SF to take action to undermine the significant class struggle underway in Ireland at the time.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Connolly yes - Markievicz, I would argue not even close. .

    Hi JRG

    And the , ahem, bodycount ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jolly Red Giant


    CDfm wrote: »
    Hi JRG

    And the , ahem, bodycount ?
    What has that got to do with anything I said?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I suppose reminding people that Madame Markievicz was a founding member of Fianna Fail won't go down well either.

    Anyway, there is a free (donations welcome) event coming up
    The second annual Countess Markievicz School will take place on 12th May 2012 in The Teachers Club, Parnell Square, Dublin. The Annual Markievicz Lecture will discuss First Wave Feminism. This year the School proposes to explore the position of women in Ireland regarding the Constitution. Were the suffragettes such as Markievicz who fought for equality in 1916 let down in 1937? How are women’s lives affected today, particularly in regard to the costly burden of childcare? The status of women and their activism will be explored on the day.

    Bookings

    countessmarkievicz @ gmail.com




    http://countessmarkievicz.wordpress.com/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    CDfm wrote: »
    I suppose reminding people that Madame Markievicz was a founding member of Fianna Fail won't go down well either.

    Fianna Fail founded in March 1926.*
    Constance Markievicz died July 1927.
    FF's first G.E. win 1932.

    Yup - she was up to her eyeballs in FF's reign of corruption.

    * the 1926 incarnation of FF was primarily anti-Treaty and aimed at working class people plus it had a high proportion of women on it's national executive.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    * the 1926 incarnation of FF was primarily anti-Treaty and aimed at working class people plus it had a high proportion of women on it's national executive.

    Interesting, who and what was their provenance ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    CDfm wrote: »
    Interesting, who and what was their provenance ?

    It's all in the FF archives in UCD ;).


    (Info pulled from a piece I wrote over 10 years ago with footnotes referring to papers in UCD -my hand scribbled notes are in a box in my attic. No way am I trawling through the ****e up there in an attempt to find them :p)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It's all in the FF archives in UCD ;).


    (Info pulled from a piece I wrote over 10 years ago with footnotes referring to papers in UCD -my hand scribbled notes are in a box in my attic. No way am I trawling through the ****e up there in an attempt to find them :p)

    It's quite a revelation and I thought you were fiannaphobic ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    CDfm wrote: »
    It's quite a revelation and I thought you were fiannaphobic ;)

    Fiannaphobe to the core. Mother, however, was a Fiannaphile and still is Marxiephile history buff :P


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    So 96 years ago today she was waiting for her court martial to happen on the 4 May 1916.....she was in solitary confinement , so would she have known that Pearse had already recieved the death penalty and was due to be executed on May 3rd ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 401 ✭✭franc 91


    I've had a look at the National Library website : - I quote - Pearse and Heuston were held at Arbor Hill Detention Barracks, Connolly was held in the Red Cross Hospital in Dublin Castle and all the others were held at Richmond Barracks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Sonja Teirnan has an article the current History Ireland (vol 20. No. 3) on the Gore-Booth sisters and their challenging of Churchill in Manchester that I referred to in a previous post.

    For those who don't have a current subscription (and why don't you I ask???) I'll be naughty and post the whole article.
    Huge population growth in British cities after the industrial revolution brought with it an increase in the number of public houses. By the turn of the twentieth century British newspapers were heaving with reports of the rise in alcohol-related crime, pauperism and insanity. In Ireland the social problems caused by drunkenness spurred proposed amendments to the Habitual Drunkards Act 1879. The Drunkenness (Ireland) Bill 1906 suggested legal protection for the husbands and wives of drunkards who squandered the family income. In order to reduce the availability of alcohol, numerous bills proposed limiting the opening hours of licensed premises on Saturdays and Sundays and a complete closure on election days. In a further move to control drinking habits, temperance advocate and MP for Bath George Gooch introduced a bill in October 1906 proposing the abolition of barmaids. Gooch argued that this measure would protect young women from the attentions of inebriated customers and ensure that men would not be lured into drinking by attractive servers. A similar ban on employing barmaids had been successfully implemented in Glasgow in 1902.

    Complete overhaul of licensing laws proposed

    In response to the numerous proposals presented to the House of Commons, the Liberal government agreed to overhaul the entire licensing arrangements across the United Kingdom. A proposed licensing bill (1908) would control opening hours, restrict the number of licences and contained a section effectively banning the employment of women. The bill, drafted in February 1908, contained 40 pages outlining amendments to the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906. The main thrust of the proposed bill was to reduce dramatically the number of public houses and transfer licences from breweries in an attempt to virtually nationalise public houses. Almost hidden in part three of this document, under clause 20 (‘Power to attach conditions to the renewal of a licence’), was a section granting local magistrates the power to attach any condition that they saw fit, including ‘the employment of women or children on the licensed premises’. Under this clause a local magistrate could refuse to issue or renew a licence unless a publican agreed not to hire women for bar work.


    Clause 20 was welcomed by many religious and temperance organisations, which argued that women were being exploited by the alcohol industry in order to sell liquor. The bishop of Southwark protested that ‘the nation ought not to allow the natural attractions of a young girl to be used for trading purposes’. Senior members of the Labour Party agreed, including Ramsay MacDonald and David Shackleton. The Labour MPs were part of a wider group who published their opposition to women working on licensed premises, insisting that the lives of barmaids often ended in ‘drunkenness, immorality, misery and frequently suicide’.

    Churchill was forced to resign as MP

    Barmaids were not unionised and previously had no cause to organise themselves. Eva Gore-Booth, now an effective trade union organiser, established the Barmaids’ Political Defence League. She headed a deputation of barmaids to the home secretary, Herbert Gladstone, pointing out the economic implications of throwing thousands of women out of work. Over the coming months the furore regarding the Licensing Bill would reach an all-time high after a dramatic cabinet reshuffle. Ill health led to the resignation of Prime Minister Campbell-Bannerman in April 1908 and Henry Asquith took over. Asquith promoted Lloyd George to chancellor of the exchequer and Winston Churchill to president of the board of trade. Under contemporary law, a newly appointed cabinet minister had to resign his seat and stand for re-election. On his appointment, Churchill was forced to resign as MP for Manchester North-West and stand for re-election in the same constituency. It was common practice that a newly appointed cabinet minister would be returned unopposed at such by-elections. The election was viewed by many as a mere formality. By then, however, Churchill had become a central figure in the barmaid issue and the election was contested.
    Churchill expected an easy victory. He had secured a majority of 62% over the Conservative candidate, William Joynson-Hicks, in the same constituency in the 1906 general election. Churchill addressed the public in the Coal Exchange in Manchester two days before the election. The Exchange building had a capacity for hundreds, but an unprecedented crowd of thousands arrived. People lined the side of the road when a cortège of black cars adorned with red rosettes and flags of the Liberal Party arrived. Churchill was accompanied by Lloyd George, who spoke in his support. In his speech Churchill addressed the Irish question, backing John Redmond’s campaign for Home Rule. Irishmen spoke in support of Churchill, including a local shopkeeper, Patrick Hickey, described by the Manchester Guardian as a Roman Catholic and a nationalist.


    The by-election

    Eva Gore-Booth and her sister, Constance Markievicz, launched an intense campaign in opposition. The women backed the Conservative candidate, Joynson-Hicks, in the by-election. A rather unlikely candidate for their support, he was staunchly evangelical and the Manchester Catholic Herald accused him of being anti-Catholic and anti-Irish. Irish Home Rulers deplored Conservative policies and actively campaigned against Joynson-Hicks. Gore-Booth organised a striking coach, drawn by four white horses, to be driven around Manchester with Markievicz at the whip. When the coach stopped, Gore-Booth and Markievicz took to the roof of the carriage and made rousing speeches. Markievicz was heckled by a man in the crowd, with the inevitable male query, ‘Can you cook a dinner?’ ‘Certainly,’ she replied, cracking her whip, ‘Can you drive a coach-and-four?’ The following day Gore-Booth arranged a mass meeting in the Coal Exchange in support of barmaids. This time Markievicz took the stand, announcing:

    ‘I have come over from Ireland to help because I am a woman. I am not a Conservative—I am a Home Ruler—but I have come over here to ask everyone to vote for Mr Joynson-Hicks because he, of the three candidates who are standing, is the only one who takes a straight and decent view of the barmaids’ question.’

    The polling stations opened the next morning, 24 April. Unusually for the time of year, Manchester was covered in snow and a bitter wind cut through the city. Despite the dire weather, there was a large turnout—10,681 people voted out of a total of 11,914 registered. Churchill spent most of the day driving through the streets of Manchester in an open-topped car accompanied by his mother, Jennie, and the Liberals’ chairman, Sir Edward Donner. Joynson-Hicks drove around the city accompanied by his wife, Grace, in a horse and carriage. At 9.30 that evening a blue flag waving outside Manchester Town Hall signalled the end of the vote count and the victory of the Conservative candidate, Joynson-Hicks. Winston Churchill was defeated by a margin of 529 votes. Weeks later Churchill stood at a by-election in Dundee and was returned as MP in May; he remained in the Dundee constituency until 1922. Gore-Booth continued lobbying against the Licensing Bill. On 13 June 1908 she held a demonstration in Trafalgar Square, London, which was attended by over 2,000 people. Gore-Booth delivered her speech on the plinth at the foot of Nelson’s Column. Markievicz later ascended to the plinth, attesting how ‘[we are] told the bar is a bad place for a woman (so it is), but the Thames Embankment at night is far worse’.

    Victory

    Within months, the Barmaids’ Political Defence League overwhelmingly won their campaign. Two hundred and ninety-four out of 355 MPs rejected the bill. During the debate, Liberal MP Horatio Bottomley declared that, under clause 20, local magistrates ‘would be able to say that no woman should be employed on licensed premises in any capacity whatever. The sub-section would reduce law to anarchy and legislation to a farce.’ Conservative MP Wilfrid Ashley questioned whether ‘a body of men elected entirely by men had any moral right to prohibit the employment of women in a certain trade purely on sentimental grounds’. The barmaids’ campaign was an unqualified success.
    HI

    Sonja Tiernan is Lecturer in Modern History at Liverpool Hope University and is secretary of the Women’s History Association of Ireland. Her Eva Gore-Booth: an image of such politics has just been published by Manchester University Press.

    Further reading:
    R. Blythe, The age of illusion: England in the twenties and thirties (London, 1963).
    Joint Committee on the Employment of Barmaids, Women as barmaids: with a preface by the lord bishop of Southwark (London, 1905).
    K. Mullin, ‘“The essence of vulgarity”: the barmaid controversy in the “Sirens” episode of James Joyce’s Ulysses’, Textual Practice 18 (4) (2004).



  • Advertisement
Advertisement