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

Financial benefits of "Royal" prefix for Irish organisations?

2

Comments

  • #32
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭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".


  • #34
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭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? ...


  • #35
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭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


  • #39
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    It also makes some otherwise pretty dull organizations look a lot more classy.

    :D


    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.


  • #40
    BlatentCheek
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭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.


  • #41
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    camphor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 202 ✭✭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.


  • #43
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭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


  • #44
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭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...

    :o


  • #49
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,616 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 25,990 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #51
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭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).


  • Advertisement
  • #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 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 Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭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 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 Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭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 Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement