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

Prince Joachim of Prussia

Options
  • 25-05-2008 11:01pm
    #1
    EamonnKeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 950 ✭✭✭


    ... was supposedly asked to take the Irish throne if the Easter Rising had been a success. But how could the rebels proclaim an Irish republic and then turn it into a kingdom?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    SlabMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭SlabMurphy


    EamonnKeane wrote: »
    ... was supposedly asked to take the Irish throne if the Easter Rising had been a success. But how could the rebels proclaim an Irish republic and then turn it into a kingdom?
    Where did you hear that ?? Took a search in Google under Joachim Prussia 1916 and only got " During the Easter Rising in Dublin, Ireland in 1916 some republican leaders contemplated giving the throne of an independent Ireland to Prince Joachim " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Joachim_of_Prussia

    Can you supply any more info yourself. Sounds like a load of rubbish to me, probably a rumour put out by the media ( Irish Times and Independent included ), to hype up the threat and alliances of the 'Sinn Fein rebels' etc.




  • Options
    #3
    SuperSean11
    Registered Users Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭SuperSean11


    Sounds like rubbish. Any links O.P.?


  • Options
    #4
    donaghs
    Registered Users Posts: 2,695 ✭✭✭donaghs


    It was only an idea, but its well known today. Pearse was interested in it. I don't have any authoritative text books to hand to check up on it.

    Not so strange really.

    Arthur Griffith and his Sinn Fein, not directly involved in 1916, were not then Republican, and believed in Dual Monarchy.


  • Options
    #5
    SlabMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭SlabMurphy


    donaghs wrote: »
    It was only an idea, but its well known today. Pearse was interested in it. I don't have any authoritative text books to hand to check up on it.

    Not so strange really.

    Arthur Griffith and his Sinn Fein, not directly involved in 1916, were not then Republican, and believed in Dual Monarchy.

    Pearse been allegedly interested in it and " it's well known today " ? Wouldn't claim to be an expert but it doesn't look like many others have heard of it and the OP cannot provide any references so far. If it's so well known, maybe you can. Sounds like the Ruth Dudley Edwards bullsh!t to me.


  • Options
    #6
    Kaiser_Sma
    Closed Accounts Posts: 222 ✭✭Kaiser_Sma


    lol, i guess it was the done thing to have a german head of state back then.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    donaghs
    Registered Users Posts: 2,695 ✭✭✭donaghs


    Sure, I'll have to do more research on this. Slab, true story or otherwise, your reaction sounds like someone who doesn't like it, and therefore doesn't want to know about it.

    Back in the days when monarchies were more common, importing a royal head of state was seen to confer legitimacy on a new state.

    Less than 100 years earlier the Greeks had King Otto imported/imposed on them.


  • Options
    #8
    Castlebar12
    Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭Castlebar12


    I also heard Prince Joachim of Prussia was considered for the irish throne by Pearse on RTE Pat Kenny show. File:Prince_Joachim_of_Prussia_in_unifrom.jpg
    I personally would prefer a constitutional monarchy. If Joachim became king the present King and Queen would be his Grandson Franz Wilhelm and his wife Maria Vladimorvna of Russia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Franz_Wilhelm_of_Prussia
    I also saw in the independent that de valera approached a descendant of Brian Boru and asked him to be Prince President of Ireland but he refused.


  • Options
    #9
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Wouldn't Roderic O'Connor's ancestors be a bit peeved?


  • Options
    #10
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Edit: I see this thread is originally from 2008. Oops

    I've seen no mention of this in Augusteijn's biography of Pearse and nor does it seem plausible. Both the Irish Republican Brotherhood (clue in the name) and the Irish Citizen Army were committed to an independent sovereign republic. The only real monarchist in nationalist circles was Griffith and his ideas were considered unorthodox, to say the least
    donaghs wrote:
    Back in the days when monarchies were more common, importing a royal head of state was seen to confer legitimacy on a new state.
    Not a new state that was founded on French ideals. Ever since Wolfe Tone the Irish nationalist movement had been based on republican lines, ie the idea that legitimacy is derived from popular sovereignty alone. The IRB oath explicitly called for an "Irish Republic". Irish Republicanism was, unsurprisingly, republican

    Obviously Connolly et al had arrived at the same conclusion from an even more extreme position
    Castlebar12 wrote: »
    I personally would prefer a constitutional monarchy[/URL]
    Yes, nothing bad could possibly have come from putting a Prussian Junker on the throne :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #11
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Reekwind wrote: »
    Yes, nothing bad could possibly have come from putting a Prussian Junker on the throne :rolleyes:
    Well if any relation to Bismark ...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Castlebar12
    Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭Castlebar12


    Reekwind wrote: »
    Edit: I see this thread is originally from 2008. Oops

    I've seen no mention of this in Augusteijn's biography of Pearse and nor does it seem plausible. Both the Irish Republican Brotherhood (clue in the name) and the Irish Citizen Army were committed to an independent sovereign republic. The only real monarchist in nationalist circles was Griffith and his ideas were considered unorthodox, to say the least

    Not a new state that was founded on French ideals. Ever since Wolfe Tone the Irish nationalist movement had been based on republican lines, ie the idea that legitimacy is derived from popular sovereignty alone. The IRB oath explicitly called for an "Irish Republic". Irish Republicanism was, unsurprisingly, republican

    Obviously Connolly et al had arrived at the same conclusion from an even more extreme position

    Yes, nothing bad could possibly have come from putting a Prussian Junker on the throne :rolleyes:

    With no power??? Plenty of constitutional monarchies in europe in just looks better and gives a boost in tourism. For all we know Joachim could have been an excellent king and given us great links as a new nation to all other european countries


  • Options
    #13
    Castlebar12
    Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭Castlebar12


    Manach wrote: »
    Well if any relation to Bismark ...
    No relation of BIsmark.........:confused:


  • Options
    #14
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Castlebar12 wrote: »
    No relation of BIsmark.........:confused:
    Sorry, just me pointing out that the Prussian Junker class whilst hide-bound reactionaries (a good point from my PoV) could also have produced some excellent thinkers such as Bismark.


  • Options
    #15
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,630 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Wouldn't the Prince have been most likely Protestant? I cant imagine swapping one protestant king for another would have been too popular without a lot of people, even though it could have appealed to others.


  • Options
    #16
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    My eminent history professor told us that ( around 1922, I think ) an Irish delegation went to Spain to try to persuade an O'Donnell to take the throne of Ireland, but he politely declined, preferring the life of a country gentleman.


  • Options
    #17
    johnny_doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭johnny_doyle


    An announcement re the marriage of Prince Joachim appeared in the Irish Times 11th March 1916. Perhaps a honeymoon in Ireland was planned.

    He was wounded in September 1914 serving on the Eastern Front; committed suicide in 1920.

    He isn't referenced in any BMH witness statements.


  • Options
    #18
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Castlebar12 wrote: »
    With no power??? Plenty of constitutional monarchies in europe in just looks better and gives a boost in tourism
    Yeah, the IRA and nationalist movement should have jettisoned their republicanism, and their dreams for the Republic, in the expectation that a figurehead monarch would have brought in a few extra pennies in tourism decades in the future. An area in which modern Ireland clearly struggles
    For all we know Joachim could have been an excellent king and given us great links as a new nation to all other european countries
    And nothing would have connected us to the rest of Europe better than putting in place a Hohenzollern monarch in post-war Europe :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #19
    Castlebar12
    Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭Castlebar12


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Wouldn't the Prince have been most likely Protestant? I cant imagine swapping one protestant king for another would have been too popular without a lot of people, even though it could have appealed to others.
    He was protestant. But in a situation like this when a foreign prince is brought into be king he is expected and usually does convert to the state religion or else promises his children and heir to the throne would be raised as catholics.


  • Options
    #20
    Castlebar12
    Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭Castlebar12


    Reekwind wrote: »
    Yeah, the IRA and nationalist movement should have jettisoned their republicanism, and their dreams for the Republic, in the expectation that a figurehead monarch would have brought in a few extra pennies in tourism decades in the future. An area in which modern Ireland clearly struggles

    And nothing would have connected us to the rest of Europe better than putting in place a Hohenzollern monarch in post-war Europe :rolleyes:

    Pearse most likely thought Germany were going to win the war and that Ireland would gain favor and not be invaded by the Germans if the emperors son was king. 1916 - Mid war europe :P These were exactly the thoughts in Greece when a Bavarian prince became king that they would gain links with rest of europe. Unfortunately in Greece they were unlucky in receiving Otto as king. :(


  • Options
    #21
    Castlebar12
    Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭Castlebar12


    johnny_doyle wrote: »
    An announcement re the marriage of Prince Joachim appeared in the Irish Times 11th March 1916. Perhaps a honeymoon in Ireland was planned.

    He was wounded in September 1914 serving on the Eastern Front; committed suicide in 1920.

    He isn't referenced in any BMH witness statements.
    They think he most likely said Prince Joachim because he was in the news at the time


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Castlebar12 wrote: »
    With no power??? Plenty of constitutional monarchies in europe in just looks better and gives a boost in tourism. For all we know Joachim could have been an excellent king and given us great links as a new nation to all other european countries

    Can you elaborate on how/why a constitutional monarchy 'looks better' than a republic?


  • Options
    #23
    donaghs
    Registered Users Posts: 2,695 ✭✭✭donaghs


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Can you elaborate on how/why a constitutional monarchy 'looks better' than a republic?

    Because, unfortunately, so many people are more impressed by monarchy than elected representatives. Just look at all the recent fuss about the UK royal wedding, and birth of the heir.


  • Options
    #24
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    donaghs wrote: »
    Because, unfortunately, so many people are more impressed by monarchy than elected representatives. Just look at all the recent fuss about the UK royal wedding, and birth of the heir.

    "WOMAN HAS BABY" - that was the banner headline in one organ.


  • Options
    #25
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Perhaps because a monarchy provides a sense of continuation linkage with the historical past and acts as a fulcum of loyalty to a geographic expression where the continuous 2-party tussle acts as noting more than an excuse for noxious effusion of opinion without any meaning.


  • Options
    #26
    Castlebar12
    Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭Castlebar12


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Can you elaborate on how/why a constitutional monarchy 'looks better' than a republic?
    Looks cooler. Better representation of the nation, in my opinion


  • Options
    #27
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Castlebar12 wrote: »
    Looks cooler. Better representation of the nation, in my opinion

    Was just asking out of curiosity

    I was kind of hoping for a bit more detail, but i suppose 'looks cooler' will have to do.


  • Options
    #28
    Castlebar12
    Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭Castlebar12


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Was just asking out of curiosity

    I was kind of hoping for a bit more detail, but i suppose 'looks cooler' will have to do.

    Ok , sorry :rolleyes:


Advertisement