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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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

Financial benefits of "Royal" prefix for Irish organisations?

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    If people are so put out by the use of the word "Royal" in the title of certain organisations, why not just join that organisation along with as many similarly minded people as you can muster and then at the next AGM propose a name change?

    The use of the word Royal is a bit like some of our post boxes, or the fact that we drive on the left or that some of us still drink pints - it's evidence of a shared, sometimes happy, sometimes violent history. Removing the word from use doesn't make the Republic a brighter place, in the same way as keeping it doesn't shackle us to the Crown.


  • #53
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    ...
    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).
    We have a heritage that includes the difficult relationship with Britain. But not everything that flows from that relationship is bad: our constitution was largely based on the British constitution; our legal system is largely a continuation of the British courts system; our common law is inherited from British Common law; many of the statutes that are still in force here were enacted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. All of these things have more meaningful impact on life in Ireland than the use of the word "Royal" in the names of some institutions.

    So if you want to object meaningfully to British links, fight for the adoption of a new constitution, a new set of laws, and a new judicial system.

    And perhaps we should also reject the use of a language that was given to us by Britain.

    It is petty to go after labels that people don't take too seriously except that they have vague sentimental attachment to the name, and the idea that it conveys that the institution has a long history.

    It is not petty to resist meanness of spirit.


  • #54
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    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?

    That is selectively interpreting what I wrote and not what we are talking about. I said ‘Institutions’ meaning the generally accepted use of the term for private clubs, member associations, etc. Furthermore, the shopping mall is built on the site of the Royal Hibernian Hotel. There are more than 400 companies in Ireland that include the word ‘Royal’ – a large number of them are in hotel names, which is not surprising for historic reasons (another ‘royal’ connotation name for a hotel is ‘Bristol’, from Frederick Hervey, Earl of Bristol & Bishop of Derry, who was known to insist on his comforts). Many other ‘Royals’ are restaurants, or associated with Tara/Meath. The idea is to gather patronage, it is a marketing exercise.


  • #55
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    We have a heritage that includes the difficult relationship with Britain. But not everything that flows from that relationship is bad: ....

    I don't see where anyone seriously proposes the above???
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    So if you want to object meaningfully to British links, fight for the adoption of a new constitution, a new set of laws, and a new judicial system.

    And perhaps we should also reject the use of a language that was given to us by Britain.
    Again, I don't see where anyone seriously proposes the above??? The thread is dealing with symbolism.
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    It is petty to go after labels that people don't take too seriously except that they have vague sentimental attachment to the name, and the idea that it conveys that the institution has a long history.

    It is not petty to resist meanness of spirit.
    With respect, this is opinion, equally valid as those who do take the use of the word 'royal' seriously. That some people have a problem is certainly not 'petty' as they base their opinion on their reading of history. Calling it petty suggest there is no basis for that kind of view.


  • #56
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    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.
    The RNLI has a branch in Ireland, not a HQ. It is registered as a charity here to be legally compliant and has a small office that is used primarily for coordination & accounting AFAIK.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    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.
    That requires a huge leap and the biased logic of an extremist, a leap I am surprised you would attempt to make or even suggest – the St. Georges Cross is a simple crucifix shape. Are they also to be banned because of their form? The Union flag is a totally different matter as it also incorporates the St. Andrews Cross, etc.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    ........ 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).
    Weird standpoint for anyone to take. The’Royal’ is part of the brand, the name, heritage and history for almost 2 centuries. Its operations in Ireland are funded primarily (it is not known for definite) from the UK. What they do is save Irish lives in Ireland. Just because some with strong nationalist views would like a name change it should the RNLI have a split identity? No doubt the Dept. of Finance would love to take on the funding (Just read up on the history of the funding for the Coastguard helicopters to get a flavour!)

    It is petty and small-minded to insist on the removal of all traces of ‘British Royalty’ from our heritage when it is done in the intolerant spirit shown by earlier posters on this thread, whose bitter and vitriolic views have led to a ban (for some on many occasions).
    I have no problem with any Irish institution that holds a Royal Charter in keeping/using the word because it retains a historic significance and is part of heritage. (Is the purpose of this board not to support History & Heritage? ) Allowing an old institution bearing a ‘Royal’ name to continue unchanged shows political maturity and does not diminish our Republican ideals. (After all, one of our President’s exercised his prerogative of ex officio honorary membership and out of several clubs chose a ‘Royal’ one.
    If a Chinese entrepreneur wants to call his chipper the Royal Takeaway, I have no issues either, it is meaningless. However, if some idiot wanted to open a casino named ‘The Royal Irish Sporting Emporium’ I would regard it as a futile exercise in pretention and snobbery.


  • #57
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    .....The thread is dealing with symbolism.


    ......

    You've hit the nail on the head there.

    Part of the 'problem' (I think) is that symbols, their display and their significance starts to touch on ideas of ceremony and pageantry - and they are things some people associate with sovereigns and royal courts, and therefore they are perceived as having no place in an independent republic.

    I agree with this to a point - some symbols have no place in this or any other republic, but over the years people have seen more exercised by the existence / removal of royal and British symbols and less concerned about the significance of stuff like this......

    1-s2.0-S1081602X08000730-gr1.sml (Dev kissing Archbishop McQuaid's ring)

    Maybe if we'd worried more about what's going on in that photo and less about lions, unicorns and statues of dead military commanders we'd be a bit better off.


  • #58
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I don't see where anyone seriously proposes the above???
    ...
    Again, I don't see where anyone seriously proposes the above??? The thread is dealing with symbolism.
    So nobody here is proposing that we eliminate substantial elements of the Hiberno-British heritage. Just the small stuff - by dictionary definition, the petty things.
    With respect, this is opinion, equally valid as those who do take the use of the word 'royal' seriously. That some people have a problem is certainly not 'petty' as they base their opinion on their reading of history. Calling it petty suggest there is no basis for that kind of view.
    Frankly, I don't much mind if some people are intolerant, idiotic, or mean-spirited - so long as they don't get to decide how the rest of us live our lives.


  • #59
    tac foley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »

    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.


    Sir, you appear to have ignored my carefully inserted 'sarcastic roll of the eyes' emoticon.

    tac


  • #60
    tac foley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭tac foley


    The Dubliners, or those still with us, would have to agree to changing the words of 'The ould triangle' as it 'goes jingle jangle, along the banks of the Royal [delete, insert honorific of your choice more acceptable to a republican] Canal......'

    tac


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Jawgap wrote: »
    You've hit the nail on the head there.

    Part of the 'problem' (I think) is that symbols, their display and their significance starts to touch on ideas of ceremony and pageantry - and they are things some people associate with sovereigns and royal courts, and therefore they are perceived as having no place in an independent republic.

    I agree with this to a point - some symbols have no place in this or any other republic, but over the years people have seen more exercised by the existence / removal of royal and British symbols and less concerned about the significance of stuff like this......

    1-s2.0-S1081602X08000730-gr1.sml (Dev kissing Archbishop McQuaid's ring)

    Maybe if we'd worried more about what's going on in that photo and less about lions, unicorns and statues of dead military commanders we'd be a bit better off.

    Indeed, the fact all our schools and hospitals are prefixed "our lady.." or "Saint" probably says more about the secular republic we are supposed to be rather than the odd "royal" here and there.


  • #62
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    We have a heritage that includes the difficult relationship with Britain. But not everything that flows from that relationship is bad: our constitution was largely based on the British constitution; our legal system is largely a continuation of the British courts system; our common law is inherited from British Common law; many of the statutes that are still in force here were enacted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. All of these things have more meaningful impact on life in Ireland than the use of the word "Royal" in the names of some institutions.

    So if you want to object meaningfully to British links, fight for the adoption of a new constitution, a new set of laws, and a new judicial system.

    I'd have to disagree with the idea that the Irish Constitution is based on the unwritten British equivalent. It contains some of the same basic values and principles (as do all most modern, functional democracies) but is radically different in many ways.


  • #63
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    While we're on about symbols, how about this......

    Chair.jpg

    and this.....

    irvregt1.jpg

    Image 1 is the Cathoirleach of the Seanad in his seat.

    Image 2 is the seat used in the inauguration of all Presidents since the establishment of the Republic, except President Higgins.

    They are what were the thrones of Mr and Mrs Viceroy!!

    The seat / throne used to inaugurate President Higgins was a replacement - much plainer in design - purchased to replace the Viceroy's throne which had become a bit worn - apparently OPW don't know any furniture restorers.

    The Vicereine's throne is still in use in the Seanad!

    How's that for symbolism!


  • #64
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    I'd have to disagree with the idea that the Irish Constitution is based on the unwritten British equivalent. It contains some of the same basic values and principles (as do all most modern, functional democracies) but is radically different in many ways.
    I said that it was largely based on it. I'm happy to stand over that.


  • #65
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I said that it was largely based on it. I'm happy to stand over that.

    So would I. And your comment on British law was ignored, although it is only relatively recently (2007?8?) that we tackled our dependence on the British legal system (and I’m not talking about case law).
    In 1542 Henry VIII had the Irish parliament pass a law declaring him as monarch to be the King of Ireland and we repealed that law only in 1962. However, in repealing it, the DoJ missed another, that of 1542, which restated and expanded on the first. So, until a few years ago we were a monarchy!

    All the laws of England were applied to Ireland in 1494 by Henry VII, so laws pre-dating our Independence should have been repealed. Some, back to the Norman conquest, were ‘dormant’ and inoperative, like the one applying to those living in and around Bellewstown Castle, Co Meath who, following "depredations by the O'Connor clan", held the right to repel by force any tax collectors who tried to gather tax.

    Even today there are about 1500 or so 'English' Acts on our statute books that are considered necessary but yet have to be repealed. New laws will first have to be enacted in their place before that can happen.


  • #66
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I said that it was largely based on it. I'm happy to stand over that.

    By their very nature the constition of a republic and a constitutional monarchy have to differ greatly e.g. Royal perogative simply can not exist in a republic.

    The British constitution is unwritten/uncodified. It is made up of a series of laws (both written and common), treaties and and agreements developed from the Magna Carta onward. Some of these sources of constitutional law direcetly conflict with one another.

    The Irish constitution was more significantly influenced by the classical republican constitutions of France and the United States and those of the new European states that came into existence after WW1. Of particular importance is the notion of seperation of powers between the courts, parlaiment and executive branches.

    The most obvious application of this is the fact that the Irish Courts can strike down laws which are unconstitutinal and the President can refer bills to the supreme court which may be unconstitutional. In the UK the doctrine of Parliamentary Soverignty inhibits the ability of the courts to review acts of parliament regardless of their legality.

    Weimar Germany's constitution is regarded as being very influential on the Irish equivalent...
    http://www.ria.ie/getmedia/a0686b61-acc4-4331-acd2-6b95c900fe00/Comparison-between-the-Weimar-Constitution-1919.pdf.aspx

    Our constitution has been very influential worldwide in the drafting of the post-colonial constitutions of many countries.

    The fact that it was drafted by a fledgling state in the years of European political extremism to guarantee the fundamental rights of the Irish people was an outstanding achievment. The fact that we get to hold referenda on constitutional change and foreign treaties is a very unique feature (although not much appreciated much by our EU buddies).


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    So would I. And your comment on British law was ignored, although it is only relatively recently (2007?8?) that we tackled our dependence on the British legal system (and I’m not talking about case law).

    The comment on British law was noted, I just happened to agree with P.Breathnach on that point so I didn't bother mentioning it.
    In 1542 Henry VIII had the Irish parliament pass a law declaring him as monarch to be the King of Ireland and we repealed that law only in 1962. However, in repealing it, the DoJ missed another, that of 1542, which restated and expanded on the first. So, until a few years ago we were a monarchy!

    The Irish constitution supercedes every other law in the state. If a law is unconstitutional then it is invalid. Therefore, claiming Ireland was a monarchy until 1962 is nonsense
    All the laws of England were applied to Ireland in 1494 by Henry VII, so laws pre-dating our Independence should have been repealed. Some, back to the Norman conquest, were ‘dormant’ and inoperative, like the one applying to those living in and around Bellewstown Castle, Co Meath who, following "depredations by the O'Connor clan", held the right to repel by force any tax collectors who tried to gather tax.

    Obsolete laws remaining on the statute book are common to all jurisdictions, not just Ireland. Many have been replaced by subsequent laws while others are incompatible with the constitution, as such they are uninforceable through the Irish court system.

    The fact that Ireland didn't scrap all British law at the outset of the state was the smart thing to do as it gave continuity to our legal system.
    Even today there are about 1500 or so 'English' Acts on our statute books that are considered necessary but yet have to be repealed. New laws will first have to be enacted in their place before that can happen.

    Obsolete laws don't have to be replaced, they can simply be repealed. The programme to repeal such laws is ongoing. There are almost 35,000 laws being repealed, not 1,500
    http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/slru/slrp.html


  • #68
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    The RNLI has a branch in Ireland, not a HQ. It is registered as a charity here to be legally compliant and has a small office that is used primarily for coordination & accounting AFAIK.

    HQ in Swords? http://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/irish-lifeboat-hq-in-swords-is-opened-by-the-president-27766279.html

    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    That requires a huge leap and the biased logic of an extremist, a leap I am surprised you would attempt to make or even suggest – the St. Georges Cross is a simple crucifix shape. Are they also to be banned because of their form? The Union flag is a totally different matter as it also incorporates the St. Andrews Cross, etc.
    Ah Pedro- Surely you are not going to argue that flags are not contentious! They quite clearly matter symbolically to large swathes of people. Also quite clear is that the St. georges flag RNLI flag link is not tentative or the idea of extremists, it is clear that one evolves from the other.
    From "The Colours of the Fleet" by Capt. Malcolm Farrow, page 2.14 (2008 ed.):
    "The familiar RNLI house flag is based on St George's cross. It was designed by Miss Leonora Preston in 1884, formally adopted in 1908, and has been painted on lifeboats since 1920. The RNLI currently operates about 280 named lifeboats in the UK and Ireland."
    Martin Grieve, 18 July 2009 http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-rnli.html


  • #69
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Obsolete laws don't have to be replaced, they can simply be repealed. The programme to repeal such laws is ongoing. There are almost 35,000 laws being repealed, not 1,500
    http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/slru/slrp.html

    In that post I had my tongue firmly in my cheek - apologies, perhaps I should have used a few icons. That said, I did speak of and repeatedly use the term 'repeal'.

    The figures in my post are not very far out, I said about 1500 English Acts are being kept, the correct figure is 800. If you look at the bottom of the page you linked above you will see
    Subject to consultation and Government decision it is proposed to retain approximately 800 such Acts enacted between 1750 and 1922, to repeal approximately 2900 such Acts, and to implicitly repeal approximately 19,000 such Acts which are deemed not to apply to Ireland.
    While the figure you quote (30,000) was correct at the start of the repeal process many years ago, many of those were of our own making & I understand that figure also includes Statutory Instruments. When the new Companies Bill is finalized (hopefully next year) it will wipe out another few thousand


  • #70
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    HQ in Swords? http://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/irish-lifeboat-hq-in-swords-is-opened-by-the-president-27766279.html

    I take your point – but my position prevails. In a legal sense (that which governs a business, and that is what we are discussing here) the RNLI in Ireland is a branch of an entity registered elsewhere. For comparison, many foreign banks operating in Ireland are ‘branches’ of entities registered elsewhere, they are not Irish Banks. (Thankfully, we have enough in bailing out our own) Even though they or the media might call a building in Dublin ‘HQ’, that does not make it so, nor does it make them Irish companies: as branches they are ‘entities licensed to transact business in Ireland'. The RNLI structure is similar and in regulatory terms it is licensed as a charity to operate in Ireland.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Ah Pedro- Surely you are not going to argue that flags are not contentious! They quite clearly matter symbolically to large swathes of people. Also quite clear is that the St. georges flag RNLI flag link is not tentative or the idea of extremists, it is clear that one evolves from the other.

    I think that really puts the finger on the problem – some people are too uptight about anything that can be attributed to the English monarchy. The St. Georges Cross is used everywhere in the world – it dates to about 400AD, before much later becoming associated with the Crusades. It is the national flag of Georgia, it is the flag of Milan and several other Italian cities and also that of Sardinia. In Spain the province of Aragon's flag contains such a cross, to quote just a few examples. A slightly more complex version was used by the Knights Templar, which grew into use in Scandinavia and as a model for the Iron Cross in Germany.
    I agree that flags can be contentious, (ref the recent thuggery in Belfast) particularly for those uneducated in either the meaning of their symbols, their history. Unfortunately those idiots are unwilling to open their minds (doubtful commodities.) In replying to you earlier post 45, I said the RNLI flag is a ‘house flag’: it is similar to one designed for a football club or a business and has no national significance. In simple terms, boats fly their national ensigns on their sterns. Some boats have permission from their appropriate authority to fly a special ensign – the RNLI in the UK has such a permission (from the Admiralty) and has its own ensign . In Ireland, if a lifeboat is registered here it flies the tricolour. I’m not aware of the Irish branch having a special ensign, but do know that if an ensign is flown it is worn on the mainmast for operational reasons, to keep the stern clear. However, I imagine that the last thing on the cox's mind when going out to a resucue is 'do I have me flag up?'
    I'm not linked to the RNLI - other than a contributor/supporter - so I'm not very much at ease in fighting that corner when I do not have access to their unpublished corporate data.


Advertisement