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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
RIC PENSIONS
Comments
-
I don't know but I doubt the Free State coughed up for them.
Genealogy Forum Mod
0 -
From memory it was HM Govt. and many families had moved to England. I know between 1911 and 1925 Tipperary lost 46 per cent of its Protestant population, many being soldiers and RIC. I think there is info in Gemma Clarke's book on the Big House Burnings.0
-
The RIC was largely Catholic, except at the senior levels. It would amaze me if a huge proportion of the Protestant population of Tipperary were serving in the crown forces.pedroeibar1 wrote: »From memory it was HM Govt. and many families had moved to England. I know between 1911 and 1925 Tipperary lost 46 per cent of its Protestant population, many being soldiers and RIC. I think there is info in Gemma Clarke's book on the Big House Burnings.
But I think it's more credible that a significant chunk of those who left were associated with the forces. There was a similar decline in the Protestant population of Cork between 1911 and 1926, and I recall reading a statistical analysis that found that most of those who had left by 1926 were not from Cork; they had come there in connection with their employment, mostly government employment, and their migration out of the county was a response to the change in that employment.
And the same could be true of Tipperary. Tipperary had a significant garrison with a number of military barracks, and by 1926 these had either been handed over to the Free State Army or closed completely.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »The RIC was largely Catholic, except at the senior levels. It would amaze me if a huge proportion of the Protestant population of Tipperary were serving in the crown forces.
But I think it's more credible that a significant chunk of those who left were associated with the forces. There was a similar decline in the Protestant population of Cork between 1911 and 1926, and I recall reading a statistical analysis that found that most of those who had left by 1926 were not from Cork; they had come there in connection with their employment, mostly government employment, and their migration out of the county was a response to the change in that employment.
And the same could be true of Tipperary. Tipperary had a significant garrison with a number of military barracks, and by 1926 these had either been handed over to the Free State Army or closed completely.
In May 1922 HMG established the Irish Distress Committee which by 1926 had been renamed the Irish Grants Committee and was dealing with about 20,000 claims from usually ex-service or ex-RIC men and their families who had fled to Britain because they were perceived to have been loyal to the British regime in Ireland. There are many records of personal threats against former personnel.
Between 1911 and 1926 the Protestant population of Ireland dropped by 33% compared to a total pop. decline of 5%. Arguably there was a 100,000 drop in minority religions in the 26 Counties, of which about 25% was Army & RIC and their dependents. (See Enda Delaney, Demography, State and Society, McGill-QUP).
A big issue with accurate stats is that the 1921 census was dropped (due to civil unrest) and the 1926 one will not be released until 2027.0 -
pinkypinky wrote: »I don't know but I doubt the Free State coughed up for them.
This is what I would have thought initially also.
However, a sister of my grandfather was married to a civil servant in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). After his death, my grand aunt received a pension from the Ceylonese government, which it appears was still paid by it after Sri Lankan independence, in 1948.
I know about this because when delays or worse cropped up during the 1950s, Liam Cosgrave, as Minister for External Affairs, raised the matter on her behalf with the Sri Lankan foreign minister, when the latter visited Dublin.
Perhaps therefore, the Irish government had an obligation to pay RIC pensions, but if so,would it have been prompt in paying, or would it have been inclined to cut the pension. After all, old age pensions were cut between 1924 and 1928, although due to deflation, pensioners could buy more with their nine shillings in 1924 than they could buy with ten shillings five years earlier.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm open to correction here, but I think that throughout its history pay and pensions for the RIC were always handled by the Paymaster General's office in London and not by any government department or office in Ireland. Unlike in Britain, where policing was primarily the responsibility of local governments, policing in Ireland was tightly controlled from London because it was seen as central to the maintenance of the authority of the national government during times of political turbulence.
Thus in 1922, when the force was disbanded, there was no decision to "transfer" the burden of RIC pensions to London. It had always been in London. And any suggestiong that the Irish Free State should be responsible for the legacy costs of the RIC would have seemed at the time to make about as much sense as a suggestion that it should be responsible for the legacy costs of the disbanded Irish regiments of the British Army.0 -
Everything I've read seems to say the Free State did take on the RIC pension burden, not enthusiastically, but as a condition worked out in the Treaty.
Possibly it was reasoned that they were they were the police for of Ireland, made up of Irishmen, and would be for some time after the Treaty. Whereas the British Army, Irish regiments included, were to evacuate the Free State permanently and quickly.
Wikipedia (not "Gospel" I know):
"Some former RIC men joined the Garda Síochána. These included men who had earlier assisted IRA operations in various ways. Some retired and the Irish Free State paid their pensions as provided for in the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty agreement. Others, still faced with threats of violent reprisals,[22] emigrated with their families to Great Britain or other parts of the Empire, most often to police forces in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia" and Palestine.
http://www.ucd.ie/pages/95/Brennan.html
"However, in spite of his vociferous objections the reality was that the terms were not ungenerous particularly in light of the fact that the British government had to be careful not to alienate the new government in Ireland by granting unreasonable terms as it had been agreed that 75% of the pensions ultimately would be paid by the Irish Free State. (The other 25% was the responsibility of the Northern Government)."
But did it include Auxilliaries and "Black and Tans"/temporary constables? Apparently not:
https://www.qub.ac.uk/home/Research/GRI/mitchell-institute/FileStore/Filetoupload,517191,en.pdf
"Some of the compensation introduced by the first government of the Irish Free State was obligatory under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty.
This was most notable in the case of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) who were pensioned after the disbandment of the force in 1922. This committed the government to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the [Government of Ireland] Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of Police Forces and other Public Servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance hereof.’ The Irish liability did not extend to the Black and Tans or Auxiliaries who were the responsibility of the British government."
All the RIC records though, including pensions, seem to be held in Kew in the UK.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/royal-irish-constabulary/0 -
Thank you for that contribution.
Looking at the linked assistance from the national archives @ Kew, chapter 6.4, Formation and Disbandment, they say that pensions continued to be paid by the Paymaster General in London. Whether there was a financial contribution from Dublin under the treaty may be the case, but this warrants further investigation.
We all know about partition and the oath of allegiance, but does anyone know where other details of the treaty are comprehensively listed?0 -
-
And here's the text of a financial settlement arrived at in 1926 between the UK and IFS governments which covers a variety of issues. Inj para 11 it confirms the 75% deal that Donaghs mentions.0
-
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »And here's the text of a financial settlement arrived at in 1926 between the UK and IFS governments which covers a variety of issues. Inj para 11 it confirms the 75% deal that Donaghs mentions.
Thanks for that clarification, it looks like the Irish government paid 75% of RIC pension costs, presumably on the basis that NI must have had 25% of the liability. But the pensioners got their money through the UK government.
difp is a website I was hitherto unfamiliar with, so another source to remember.1 -
Excellent research everyone!
Genealogy Forum Mod
0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »The RIC was largely Catholic, except at the senior levels. It would amaze me if a huge proportion of the Protestant population of Tipperary were serving in the crown forces.
But I think it's more credible that a significant chunk of those who left were associated with the forces. There was a similar decline in the Protestant population of Cork between 1911 and 1926, and I recall reading a statistical analysis that found that most of those who had left by 1926 were not from Cork; they had come there in connection with their employment, mostly government employment, and their migration out of the county was a response to the change in that employment.
And the same could be true of Tipperary. Tipperary had a significant garrison with a number of military barracks, and by 1926 these had either been handed over to the Free State Army or closed completely.
Ah yes, but if you read any revisionist accounts of why the Protestant population fell so much it was because they were forced into exile by the IRA at the point of a Lee Enfield rifle, despite never providing any credible evidence for this.0 -
BalcombeSt4 wrote: »Ah yes, but if you read any revisionist accounts of why the Protestant population fell so much it was because they were forced into exile by the IRA at the point of a Lee Enfield rifle, despite never providing any credible evidence for this.
Well I can assure that many were threatened and I know of two family members (former RIC) that went from Co.Tipperary to the USA where their descendants still are.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »From memory it was HM Govt. and many families had moved to England. I know between 1911 and 1925 Tipperary lost 46 per cent of its Protestant population, many being soldiers and RIC. I think there is info in Gemma Clarke's book on the Big House Burnings.
There was 76 Big Houses burned or blown up in the Tan War & 199 during the Civil War. I know thats still a pretty big number but I thought it was close to the 1,000 mark. Tom Barry claimed his unit burned two big houses for every one Sinn Fein supports (or possible supporters which was about 75% of the population) house and he did this to stop British force burning down civilian homes as SF supporters homes were not worth much and Big Houses cost millions.0 -
Well I can assure that many were threatened and I know of two family members (former RIC) that went from Co.Tipperary to the USA where their descendants still are.
So they were threatened because they were armed members of the British state not because they were Protestants. This was Collins' now well known strategy of intimidation & a policy by the Dail of ostracism against the RIC. And Tipperary was one of the most active counties during the war and was were it actually started.0 -
BalcombeSt4 wrote: »So they were threatened because they were armed members of the British state not because they were Protestants. This was Collins' now well known strategy of intimidation & a policy by the Dail of ostracism against the RIC. And Tipperary was one of the most active counties during the war and was were it actually started.
Well the thread is about the RIC, but I can give other examples.. my Gt.Grandparents who bailed out; my mother and her brother...will I go on or will we just accept that it happened?0 -
BalcombeSt4 wrote: »Ah yes, but if you read any revisionist accounts of why the Protestant population fell so much it was because they were forced into exile by the IRA at the point of a Lee Enfield rifle, despite never providing any credible evidence for this.
Those comments have nothing to do with RIC pensions. Nobody here has claimed that every Protestant was expelled at the wrong end of a 303. Elsewhere I do not recollect anyone, even Peter Hart, making that claim. Many of the threats (and house burnings) were sectarian, for example, the owners of Longfield House in Tipperary received a note “You bloody Protestant you needn’t think the staters are going to get Longfields back for you we will put decent Catholics in your place.” The manner in which household staff, Catholic and Protestant, were treated at various house burnings also differed, which has no military strategic input and is plain sectarian. (see Everyday Violence in the Irish Civil War -The campaign of fire. by Gemma Clark).BalcombeSt4 wrote: »So they were threatened because they were armed members of the British state not because they were Protestants. This was Collins' now well known strategy of intimidation & a policy by the Dail of ostracism against the RIC. And Tipperary was one of the most active counties during the war and was were it actually started.
Where did Tom Barry (BTW his father was an RICman) make that claim? In his book I recall he said he ordered the burning of loyalists’ houses in retaliation for the British burning of republicans' homes. I do not recall a ‘2 for one’ claim (don’t have his book to hand). You ignore the fact that the new Irish State also was burdened with a massive compensation claim debt from these burnings, which indeed ran to millions that could be ill-afforded. (It should not be forgotten that Barry was behind the 1932 murder of elderly Admiral Somerville, an event that an entire village – Catholic & Protestant – despised.)BalcombeSt4 wrote: »There was 76 Big Houses burned or blown up in the Tan War & 199 during the Civil War. I know thats still a pretty big number but I thought it was close to the 1,000 mark. Tom Barry claimed his unit burned two big houses for every one Sinn Fein supports (or possible supporters which was about 75% of the population) house and he did this to stop British force burning down civilian homes as SF supporters homes were not worth much and Big Houses cost millions.
Your comments also show that you do not understand the strategy used by the IRA (where there was one!) for the burnings and are made without any context. For example Barry’s No.2, Liam Deasy, was strongly opposed to the burnings. So was a leading Tipperary commander, Dinny Lacy. The ‘Big House’ burnings and threats need to be viewed by the date of the event, as that is critical to understanding why the burnings / threats happened. They should be segmented by period, war of independence, after the truce and civil war. For example, in the one year period ending 5 December 1922 eighty-nine big houses were burned. In the following fifteen weeks 103 were burned. Up to the Truce only 77 were destroyed. (Clark).
An open-minded researcher will, after some digging, come to the conclusion that most burnings had nothing to do with retaliation and many were plain thuggery (count the number of fires after the Truce!). In the five burnings I have examined (in Co. Kerry, a County not covered by Clark), all of the houses were fired after the Truce and looted by locals before each burning. (The compensation files are in the NAI & more info in Kew.) There are records of countless other lootings before the burnings – Castle Otway is one that comes to mind.
After the Treaty the burnings continued apace, they had no military purpose and simply were to drive away the (mainly Protestant) owners. Many were the result of plain greed/land hunger; burn them out, the land will be sold cheap. A few were – early in the War of Indep –reprisals for burnings of Republican homes. Some were burned because of a ‘belief’ that the owners just because they were Protestants were ‘loyalist’. Some were ‘payback’ for past disputes/grievances. Many houses were put on the market, with no hope of them being sold and several were burned while for sale. Some others were lucky - the Munster Express of 7 January 1922 states that Killinane Castle was the thirtieth mansion to be sold since the previous August. (In many cases the new owners were the nouveaux riches Irish from the merchant class who often were worse than the previous owners.
As for your earlier mention of ‘revisionism’ I suggest that you remove the rosy glasses and study the hard facts of what actually happened.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »Those comments have nothing to do with RIC pensions. Nobody here has claimed that every Protestant was expelled at the wrong end of a 303. Elsewhere I do not recollect anyone, even Peter Hart, making that claim. Many of the threats (and house burnings) were sectarian, for example, the owners of Longfield House in Tipperary received a note “You bloody Protestant you needn’t think the staters are going to get Longfields back for you we will put decent Catholics in your place.” The manner in which household staff, Catholic and Protestant, were treated at various house burnings also differed, which has no military strategic input and is plain sectarian. (see Everyday Violence in the Irish Civil War -The campaign of fire. by Gemma Clark).
Where did Tom Barry (BTW his father was an RICman) make that claim? In his book I recall he said he ordered the burning of loyalists’ houses in retaliation for the British burning of republicans' homes. I do not recall a ‘2 for one’ claim (don’t have his book to hand). You ignore the fact that the new Irish State also was burdened with a massive compensation claim debt from these burnings, which indeed ran to millions that could be ill-afforded. (It should not be forgotten that Barry was behind the 1932 murder of elderly Admiral Somerville, an event that an entire village – Catholic & Protestant – despised.)
Your comments also show that you do not understand the strategy used by the IRA (where there was one!) for the burnings and are made without any context. For example Barry’s No.2, Liam Deasy, was strongly opposed to the burnings. So was a leading Tipperary commander, Dinny Lacy. The ‘Big House’ burnings and threats need to be viewed by the date of the event, as that is critical to understanding why the burnings / threats happened. They should be segmented by period, war of independence, after the truce and civil war. For example, in the one year period ending 5 December 1922 eighty-nine big houses were burned. In the following fifteen weeks 103 were burned. Up to the Truce only 77 were destroyed. (Clark).
An open-minded researcher will, after some digging, come to the conclusion that most burnings had nothing to do with retaliation and many were plain thuggery (count the number of fires after the Truce!). In the five burnings I have examined (in Co. Kerry, a County not covered by Clark), all of the houses were fired after the Truce and looted by locals before each burning. (The compensation files are in the NAI & more info in Kew.) There are records of countless other lootings before the burnings – Castle Otway is one that comes to mind.
After the Treaty the burnings continued apace, they had no military purpose and simply were to drive away the (mainly Protestant) owners. Many were the result of plain greed/land hunger; burn them out, the land will be sold cheap. A few were – early in the War of Indep –reprisals for burnings of Republican homes. Some were burned because of a ‘belief’ that the owners just because they were Protestants were ‘loyalist’. Some were ‘payback’ for past disputes/grievances. Many houses were put on the market, with no hope of them being sold and several were burned while for sale. Some others were lucky - the Munster Express of 7 January 1922 states that Killinane Castle was the thirtieth mansion to be sold since the previous August. (In many cases the new owners were the nouveaux riches Irish from the merchant class who often were worse than the previous owners.
As for your earlier mention of ‘revisionism’ I suggest that you remove the rosy glasses and study the hard facts of what actually happened.
I'm not forgetting that the Free State had to pick up the bill, that's why I would have been anti-treaty and would have supported the Republican side in the counter-revolution. I think fighting just for Dominion status was a crime, that could have been easily attained through negotiations. I just despised everything about the new Irish state especially its extreme Catholic-conservative nature. And I'm not talking abut after before the truce I'm talking before it.
There's a whole chapter on it. In the 2013 edition it starts on page 190.
" The British are, of course, a people well practised down the centuries in the use of fire as an instrument of terror. It has been said that they reached the peak of perfection in this art in Ireland after the Rising of 1798, but I do not think this is correct. Surely they excelled in the war for the conquest of South Africa, when they failed to defeat in the field a handful of Boer riflemen, but succeeded in forcing their surrender by the mass burnings of Boer homesteads and the imprisonment, under appalling conditions, of Boer women and children, many thousands of whom died. So in 1920 and 1921, the British would use against the Irish the instrument which was so successful against the Boers, previous generations of the Irish and other subject races. There was, however, one all important factor which the British evidently forgot to take into consideration. While the South Africans had no British Loyalists’ homes which could be destroyed as reprisals, Ireland was studded with castles, mansions and residences of the British Ascendancy who had made their homes here. The West Cork Brigade was slow to commence a campaign of counter-burnings, but eventually action was taken. A note was sent to the British Military Commander in west Cork, informing him that for every Republican home destroyed from that date, the homes of two British Loyalists would be burned to the ground.
The British ignored this threat and two nights afterwards burned out a small farmhouse and labourer’s cottage. The following night the I.R.A. burned out four large Loyalists’ residences in the same neighbourhood. The British countered by burning four farmhouses and we promptly burned out the eight largest Loyalists’ homes in that vicinity. And so the British terror and the I.R.A. counter-terror went on. Castles, mansions and residences were sent up in flames by the I.R.A. immediately after the British fire gangs had razed the homes of Irish Republicans. Our people were suffering in this competition of terror, but the British loyalists were paying dearly, the demense walls were tumbling and the British Ascendancy was being destroyed. Our only fear was that, as time went on, there would be no more Loyalists’ homes to destroy, for we intended to go on to the bitter end. . .
Very soon after our campaign of counter-burnings commenced an outcry arose from the British Loyalists themselves, demanding that the British forces should cease destroying Republican homes, as otherwise they too would be treated likewise. . . British peers in their House of Lords and members of the House of Commons, dyed in the wool Imperialists, who would gladly have destroyed the home of every Irish Nationalist, echoed those appeals. . . This outcry had its effect, and although British burnings were never officially called off, they were slowed down considerably and even halted for a time. Once again the British had reacted to the only sure method of meeting their terrorism, an effective counter-terror."
Perhaps you were drunk when you read it? (Tomy Barry used to parade the UJ up and down Bandon).0 -
Well the thread is about the RIC, but I can give other examples.. my Gt.Grandparents who bailed out; my mother and her brother...will I go on or will we just accept that it happened?
Accept what? I didn't deny anything, of course there was sectarian attacks carried out against Protestants.
From the information in your post the most logical conclusion was that they were targted because they were RIC members. The RIC wasn't some poor helpless force, they were very well armed and trained and they carried out many brutal attacks on unarmed people. The Croke Park massacre was carried out by a mixed force of RIC, Auxies & British Army, not surprising people were hostile to the RIC.
In your last post you said it only happened to two family members you knew, now it happened to your entire family? Okay, then whatever.0 -
Advertisement
-
BalcombeSt4 wrote: »Accept what? I didn't deny anything, of course there was sectarian attacks carried out against Protestants.
From the information in your post the most logical conclusion was that they were targted because they were RIC members. The RIC wasn't some poor helpless force, they were very well armed and trained and they carried out many brutal attacks on unarmed people. The Croke Park massacre was carried out by a mixed force of RIC, Auxies & British Army, not surprising people were hostile to the RIC.
In your last post you said it only happened to two family members you knew, now it happened to your entire family? Okay, then whatever.
I never said that my entire family were connected with the RIC - just two - and the other family members left for various reasons connected with new State. Please don't try and twist my words with smart remarks.0 -
BalcombeSt4 wrote: »I'm not forgetting that the Free State had to pick up the bill, that's why I would have been anti-treaty and would have supported the Republican side in the counter-revolution. I think fighting just for Dominion status was a crime, that could have been easily attained through negotiations. I just despised everything about the new Irish state especially its extreme Catholic-conservative nature. And I'm not talking abut after before the truce I'm talking before it.
There's a whole chapter on it. In the 2013 edition it starts on page 190.
" The British are, of course, a people well practised down the centuries in the use of fire as an instrument of terror. It has been said that they reached the peak of perfection in this art in Ireland after the Rising of 1798, but I do not think this is correct. Surely they excelled in the war for the conquest of South Africa, when they failed to defeat in the field a handful of Boer riflemen, but succeeded in forcing their surrender by the mass burnings of Boer homesteads and the imprisonment, under appalling conditions, of Boer women and children, many thousands of whom died. So in 1920 and 1921, the British would use against the Irish the instrument which was so successful against the Boers, previous generations of the Irish and other subject races. There was, however, one all important factor which the British evidently forgot to take into consideration. While the South Africans had no British Loyalists’ homes which could be destroyed as reprisals, Ireland was studded with castles, mansions and residences of the British Ascendancy who had made their homes here. The West Cork Brigade was slow to commence a campaign of counter-burnings, but eventually action was taken. A note was sent to the British Military Commander in west Cork, informing him that for every Republican home destroyed from that date, the homes of two British Loyalists would be burned to the ground.
The British ignored this threat and two nights afterwards burned out a small farmhouse and labourer’s cottage. The following night the I.R.A. burned out four large Loyalists’ residences in the same neighbourhood. The British countered by burning four farmhouses and we promptly burned out the eight largest Loyalists’ homes in that vicinity. And so the British terror and the I.R.A. counter-terror went on. Castles, mansions and residences were sent up in flames by the I.R.A. immediately after the British fire gangs had razed the homes of Irish Republicans. Our people were suffering in this competition of terror, but the British loyalists were paying dearly, the demense walls were tumbling and the British Ascendancy was being destroyed. Our only fear was that, as time went on, there would be no more Loyalists’ homes to destroy, for we intended to go on to the bitter end. . .
Very soon after our campaign of counter-burnings commenced an outcry arose from the British Loyalists themselves, demanding that the British forces should cease destroying Republican homes, as otherwise they too would be treated likewise. . . British peers in their House of Lords and members of the House of Commons, dyed in the wool Imperialists, who would gladly have destroyed the home of every Irish Nationalist, echoed those appeals. . . This outcry had its effect, and although British burnings were never officially called off, they were slowed down considerably and even halted for a time. Once again the British had reacted to the only sure method of meeting their terrorism, an effective counter-terror."
Perhaps you were drunk when you read it? (Tomy Barry used to parade the UJ up and down Bandon).
No need to make churlish remarks, I wrote that I did not have his book to hand. T Barry never 'paraded' the 'Union Jack' around Bandon, he once hoisted it in rememberance of the fallen on the first anniversary of the Armistice.
The burnings of the houses that I researched/mentioned were not preceded by any local burnings of republican homes. Barry's writings are hardly historic, as he lumps all British together and goes on a rant about 'British Imperialism'.
Frankly, I have no interest in what you would have done in that era, I simply see your posts as a means of glorifying a past that is questionable and most written totally off topic. End of.0 -
I never said that my entire family were connected with the RIC - just two - and the other family members left for various reasons connected with new State. Please don't try and twist my words with smart remarks.
I wasn't trying to twist your words, I genuinely thought you meant all the other members of your family left because they were forced out over sectarian reasons.
And I agree, the new Free State was not inclusive at all. Socially it was even more conservative than the state it got rid of, it cerainly wasn't what James Connolly or Liam Mellows idea of a free Irish state. I uess thats why so many Anti-Treaty people left for the States & Britain.0 -
pedroeibar1 wrote: »No need to make churlish remarks, I wrote that I did not have his book to hand. T Barry never 'paraded' the 'Union Jack' around Bandon, he once hoisted it in rememberance of the fallen on the first anniversary of the Armistice.
The burnings of the houses that I researched/mentioned were not preceded by any local burnings of republican homes. Barry's writings are hardly historic, as he lumps all British together and goes on a rant about 'British Imperialism'.
Frankly, I have no interest in what you would have done in that era, I simply see your posts as a means of glorifying a past that is questionable and most written totally off topic. End of.
No, Barry's writings should not be taken as histroical text but the two houses for one idea would make sense.
I don't know what past you think I'm glorifying but as I already stated the WOI was a waste of time, The Free State could have been won without blood letting as Nationalists were in a majority down here, thats not to say that I don't think the Irish guerrilas who fought in it were very brave I think they thought they were fighting a noble cause. But 1969 in the North was much more of a cause worth fighting for.0 -
The conditions for entry into the RIC were tough demanding tall well built individuals with education levels somewhat above the basic level. Many came from Catholic rural Ireland. An armed force, except Dublin area, with its senior ranks from England or individuals strongly loyal to London. To many it was a sought after well paid pensionable job. Their local knowledge proved invaluable particularly during the attempted Fenian Rising. Because of their importance during the Fenian Rising the Irish Constabularly were allowed carry the title Royal thereafter. After 1922, as part of the Treaty, their pensions were paid by both Free State and Northern Governments. Many of the children, including girls, of retired RIC were educated above the ordinary children. More than a few went to third level.
DID THE RIC HAVE A FUND FOR THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN.
Can anyone help ?
0
Advertisement