Talk:Constance Markievicz

Scouting

Why is the Scouting portal on this page? The article should at least mention the connection.Rlevse 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)...Apparently connnected to Fianna Éireann, but that is not considered Scouting, so I removed it.Rlevse 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fianna Éireann while not part of the international scouting movement was a nationalist movement inspired by scouting in the same way that the Hitler Youth was a facist movement inspired by scouting. So there is a connection and it should be reflected some way in the scouting articles. --Gramscis cousin 08:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

IRB

I am not sure that the Countess was in the IRB (not sure they admitted women at all) definitely in the period when the IRB was most active around her time her allegiance was with the Citizen's Army. Please source if I'm wrong on this. --Gramscis cousin 08:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling: Markiewicz v. Markievicz

What is the correct spelling of her name? Is it MarkieWicz or MarkieVicz? A google search for Countess Markievicz returns 18,000 whereas a search for Countess Markiewicz returns 779. On oireachtas members database her name is given as "Countess Constance Georgina de Markievicz". In the current article both versions are used. Snappy56 17:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the ODNB spells it V as dos its list of sources, so maybe we should change to that. Ref: S. Pašeta, ‘Markievicz , Constance Georgine, Countess Markievicz in the Polish nobility (1868–1927)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 accessed 22 July 2007 --mervyn 07:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

BUT confusingly the Polish WP article uses W. I don't know enough about Polish naming conventions to comment! --mervyn 07:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dublin City Council spells it with a V as in 'Markievicz Leisure Centre' [1] and I'm pretty sure her statue in St. Stephen's Green spells her name with a V as well. Anyone native Polish speakers out there, who can clear up this confusion? Snappy56 14:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Countess was closely associated with Sligo and as a Sligo man there was many buildings, streets, pubs etc named after her and its always spelt Markievicz suck as Markievicz Park, Markievicz Heights (large area in the south of Sligo town), Markievicz House (the headquarters of the Northernwestern Health Board). For this reason I would say V not W.--Vintagekits 14:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a native Polish speaker and I can assure you that the correct Polish writing of the Countess' surname is Markiewicz (in Polish alphabet the "v" character doesn't exist at all - of course with except of foreign words). The version with "v" was probably created to make reading easier for English-speakers (Polish "w" is spelt like English "v"). --Elvus (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's always nice to have a definitive answer. Scolaire (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in Poland it would most certainly have been spelled with a "w". But that doesn't necessarily mean that's how she spelled her own name in a non-Polish context. If all the monuments, parks etc have it with the "v", I can only assume they would have checked as to how spelled her own name rather than just changing it by administrative caprice. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

she shot an unarmed Dublin policeman

Is it true that on her way to the 1916 Easter Rising she shot an unarmed Dublin policeman? If so, did she ever explain why she did this?--User:RFMJR (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is true. He might have been the first casulty. He objected to the citizen army digging trenches in Stephen's Green ClemMcGann (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least Kevin Myers claimed it was true so I suppose it must have been. Interesting to know the cops were not armed in those days. Ahem!86.42.80.145 (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dublin Metropolitan Police were unarmed ClemMcGann (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with taking Kevin Myers as a source is that he has an oft-stated political bias in these matters, do we have a bone fide historian who says this happened? ANB (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do have a bona fide historian who says this happened. And an eyewitness, to boot. [2] Joe kearns (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Move article?

I don't believe Constance Markiewicz was ever known or addressed as Constance Georgine, Countess Markiewicz. Certainly I have never seen it in the literature. Countess Markiewicz, yes, but not the whole thing. The article has been named according to the naming convention for UK countesses, but Markiewicz was married to a Polish count, and never lived in Poland, so the convention does not apply. Interestingly, the Polish Wikipedia article is titled "Constance Markiewicz", as are the German, Spanish, French and Norwegian articles (the Irish article is titled "Constance Gore-Booth Markiewicz"). Any objections if I move this to Constance Markiewicz? Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please move, makes sense. --mervyn (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

agree - ClemMcGann (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold and moved it. I will revert if anybody objects later. Scolaire (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Title

She was not a UK countess therefore was not known as or called Constance Georgine, Countess Markiewicz but Countess Markiewicz. Check the Polish wikipedia. It is very relevant. Snappy56 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Proof? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, why are you attempted to impose one country (UK) title and styles on on another (Poland) ? The Polish wikipedia intro is as follows: Constance Georgine Markiewicz (Markievicz), zw. Countess Markiewicz (Markievicz), z domu Gore-Booth, irl. Chúntaois Constance Markievicz. You can read here too and here as well. In Dáil Éireann transcripts, she is referred to as COUNTESS MARKIEVICZ. Did you actually read the article? She was an ardent Irish republican who spent most of her life fighting for an Irish Republic, yet you want to impose UK titles and styles on her posthumously? Finally, I intend to visit her grave, photograph her headstone and upload it to wikimedia commons, as the title on one's headstone usually indicates how one was addressed and what one was known as in life. Snappy56 (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am more than aware of who she is and what she did. This has nothing to do with the posthumous imposition of a UK style (ignoring for the moment that the terminology of a UK title is irrelevant, especially given that it could equally involve imposition of the styles of the Peerage of Ireland - the country she loved so). Do as you wish. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the current (Snappy's) intro and infobox because it implies that "Countess" was a nickname, and not a title. In moving the page I never intended for the full name to be expunged from the record. A compromise would be acceptable: I suggest "Constance Georgine, Countess Markiewicz" for the 'Name' in the infobox, "Constance Markiewicz" for the picture caption, and the intro per Snappy ("Constance Georgine Markiewicz, also known as Countess Markiewicz"). Scolaire (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's expunging anything which is factual. Can you prove she was known as, styled as or addressed as Constance Georgine, Countess Markiewicz or Constance, Countess Markiewicz while alive? This is a UK title style, in fact there is not title of count in the UK, a countess being the wife of an Earl. Why do you want to impose the title style of the wife of a British Earl on an Irish woman who was married to a Polish Count? In the Dáil records, she is referred to as Constans de Markiewicz and Countess Markiewicz. Also her headstone simply says Countess Markiewicz + date of death. To compromise, I have re-worded the intro, removing the also known as since you feel this implies a nickname though I disagree; and add Countess Markiewicz to the photo caption in the infobox and retaining her full married name above the photo. Snappy56 (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, Snappy. You didn't need to get snappy about it. Scolaire (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Snappy, in the Dáil Members Database, she is referred to as Countess Constance Georgina de Markievicz, i.e., with a V not a W. Perhaps this (as mentioned previously) should be reflected in the title of the article? --The.Q^(t)(c) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears she had many names and titles. There was a discussion on the V vs. W spelling before on this page but it was inconclusive. The Polish wikipedia spells her name with a W but has the V spelling in brackets afterwards. As far I can tell, the reason for the V spelling in English was to keep the same pronunciation, as W is pronounced V in Polish, though I may be wrong on that. Snappy56 (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Worse than the above on how she should be styled, was that her husband assumed the title "Count", and so she wasn't a real Countess in Poland or anywhere. This was researched and published in 2006. A bit like "The O Rahilly", but if you are known by a name it becomes your name and, like a deed poll, it becomes real. So legally Countess was like a nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.211.113 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have responded to this at Talk:Casimir Markievicz#Fake title of Count. --Scolaire (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's known that the Dunins were landed gentry, and rich, but there were never any counts Markievicz in the Russian (or any other) nobility. When Casimir moved to Paris he described himself and carried himself as a count. I can call myself Emperor Jim and change my name by deed poll. Sorry but Constance was never a real countess, but a convincing and charming fake. So calling her "the rebel countess" just shows how gullible our grandparents were!78.16.86.228 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

1908 Manchester North-West by-election

The suggestion that Constance Markievicz stood as a candidate in the 1908 Manchester by-election against Winston Churchill is extremely puzzling and seems incorrect since women at that date were only permitted to stand in local (municipal) elections and for roles such as Poor Law Guardians. They would not be legally entitled to stand for Parliament until 1918. Contemporary sources such as the Manchester Guardian reference Countess Markiwiecz being active, together with other women suffragists, including her sister Eva Gore-Booth in opposing Winston Churchill's candidature since the Liberal Government's policy at the time was opposed to women's suffrage. Constance Markievicz made headlines by driving a coach and four white horses through the streets at election time [Anne Marecco, The Rebel Countess, Weidenfield and Nicholson 1967; the Manchester Guardian 1908] but her actions seem directed at defeating Chruchill not at promoting any specific alternative candidate.Legionseagle (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The user ******* who added the claim is no longer active. If it is an error then you should remove it or re-write the sentence to clarify that she campaigned against Churchill but was not a candidate herself. Snappy56 (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Court martial

Is it true that newly released documents show that she actually begged for her life before the tribunal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.127.126.110 (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No. There are no newly released documents as far as I know. It's true that some British officer present at the court martial (I forget who) told that story. All serious historians consider it a total fabrication. Scolaire (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruth Dudley Edwards, in her 2006 lecture on Countess Markievicz, says this is true. The recording is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is true. The account was given by then 2nd Lt William Wylie, the prosecutor. He was one of Ireland's foremost lawyers, a barrister and KC at the time of the Courts Martial, a judge in later life. What's more, he was commended by the rebels themselves for his scrupulous fairness, and made it his business to ensure that all evidence that would help their defence was properly aired. There is no reason not to take his account at face value, and I would be interested to know the names of the "serious historians" who consider it a fabrication. I can name at least one (Neil Richardson) who evidently does not. Joe kearns (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Constance Markiewicz → Constance Markievicz – "Constance markievicz" returns 45400 results on google, "constance markiewicz" returns 32500 results. While I have no doubt that her husband was born adn was known by Markiewicz, Constance herself was known generally by Markievicz, as can be seen in the names of places named after her (see prior discussion of her name a few sections up). 79.97.144.17 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

*Doubtful: If they were married, they should reasonably have the same name with the same spelling, shouldn't they? And the difference is not overwhelming. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC) (see below)

*Oppose: Needs more than a Google search.--Domer48_'fenian' 09:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Google Books - always a better indicator - gives 7,500 results for "constance markievicz" and 1,500 for "constance markiewicz". Note that when you search for "markiewicz", it asks "Did you mean: constance markievicz?", showing that that is by far the more common search term. But most importantly, the former search brings up Prison letters of Countess Markievicz, which is presumably a collection of letters she signed herself. See also #Spelling: Markiewicz v. Markievicz above where it was established that "Markiewicz" is the correct spelling in Polish but "Markievicz" is the most common spelling in Ireland. Finally, I have found Casimir in the 1911 census, where he spells his name "Markievicz". Scolaire (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No immediate opinion on the subject at hand, but great research and links. RashersTierney (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with RashersTierney. This raises the question whether the count should be moved too. In the census, his name is stated as Casimir Dunin Markievicz (with Markievicz as the only family name), and one has to assume that is what he called himself in Ireland, and thus WP:COMMONNAME applies. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favour of moving his article to Casimir Dunin Markievicz - or preferably even Casimir Markievicz - since that is how he was known in Ireland, and he is not notable for anything he did in Poland/Ukraine/the Russian Empire. But let's wait and see what happens here first. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I'd prefer the version without the middle name. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - per info provided by Scolaire. It appears they used the V spelling in Ireland, presumably for pronunciation purposes. Also see Markievicz Leisure Centre. Snappy (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per above.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support move for the reasons outlined above. RashersTierney (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Polish song for ICA anthem?

Can anyone post any references to the Polish song that was supposedly adopted by her as an ICA anthem with changed lyrics? Which song was that? Is there any recording of her version? Silmethule (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A quick search of Google Books brought me to Frank Robbins's Under the Starry Plough. On p. 46 it says 'Madame Markievicz also wrote the song "Armed for the Battle", and dedicated it to the Citizen Army. The music was not original; it was the air of a revolutionary Polish song.' It seems to have the lyrics on p. 82. However, I very much doubt there is any recording of it. Scolaire (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, wait! I've found another one: Alice Acland, The Rebel Countess. '...adapted by Constance from an old Polish hymn, "With the Smoke of the Fires".' Could this be it? Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Trial Claim

I've removed the claim made by William Wylie from the article. Its based on one (rather biased) individual's recollection of the trial and hasn't been supported by the court transcripts. If anyone disagrees, feel free to comment. CivisHibernius (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This material needs to be reinstated. See above #Court_martial Joe kearns (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Gazelle

On what basis does it say that she is the 'gazelle' in Yeats' poem 'In Memory of Eva Gore-Booth and Con Markiewicz'?

Good question! This seems to suggest that Eva was the gazelle. --Scolaire (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Madame

In her political career she was generally referred to as "Madame Markievicz" or "Madame de Markievicz". In the 1919–22 Dáil transcripts, she is "Countess Markievicz" and "Madame Markieivicz" variously, with the latter predominating by 1922. I would have thought that, as a republican, she repudiated the noble title "Countess". Is there evidence that she explicitly addressed the question at all? The fact that it was a Polish rather than a British title might make the incongruity less pointed, but OTOH Poland was a republic after 1918. Admittedly Count Plunkett's title was also incongruous, but the Papal nobility would have been a special case for Catholic republicans of the era. According to Kathleen Behan, the upperclass ladies in Inghinidhe na hÉireann all used "Madame" in preference to "Mrs" or "Bean", which suggests but does not prove that "Lady", "Countess", etc. were inconceivable. "Madame" tout court was an affectionate nickname for Markievicz; was it sometimes pronounced "Madam"? Dev's eulogy: "Madame Markievicz is gone from us. Madame the friend of the toiler, the lover of the poor." jnestorius^(talk) 13:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Madame" was adopted by the members of Inghinidhe na hÉireann as an alternative to the English "Mrs", as you say. "Madame Gonne" and "Madame Markievicz" are the ones that are most commonly seen. "Bean" was used in Irish, but as Gonne and Markievicz did not have "Irish" names like, say, Mrs. Wyse Power ("Bean an Phaoraigh") they would never have used it. However, there is no evidence that she ever repudiated the title of Countess, nor any that I know of that she embraced it (unlike Plunkett). "Countess" should be used in the article where appropriate e.g. "he and Gore-Booth married in London on 29 September 1900 making her Countess Markievicz." Otherwise, she should be referred to simply as "Markievicz", as is the convention in all biographical articles. There are at least a half-dozen instances of "the Countess" that should be changed. There should also be mention in the article that she was addressed as "Madame". Scolaire (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, his self-description as a Count on a census and before could not "make her" Countess Markievicz. Everyone was convinced at their fakery, but there never has been a legally created title of Count Markievicz anywhere. Ever! It just sounded better than what she really was, Mrs Dunin-Markievicz.78.16.86.228 (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Any reliable references for this? Real title or not she was definitely known as Countess Markievicz. Spleodrach (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

She was definitely a real fake Countess, which tells us how gullible our ancestors were, and also how most Irish historians copy the last book without double checking their facts.78.17.57.86 (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

In the debate on Casimir's page, Talk:Casimir Markievicz#Title (March_2016), Scolaire accepted that there are reliable sources that agree that the title "Count Markievicz" never existed, and so the title of "Countess" was likewise faked.78.19.205.160 (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Scolaire accepted that there was a reliable source that said that a member of the Russian Secret Police had said that there had never been a "Count Markievicz" in Poland. Scolaire also edited this article to add that information. Scolaire also said that any edit should not include personal (and negative) observations such as the "claimed" and "affected" phrases that I had quoted earlier in the discussion; that would also include the emotive word "faked", which doesn't appear in any reliable sources. Now, the relevant details have been in the article for three and a half years. Can you not just let the matter drop? Scolaire (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hagiography

Whether through the concerted efforts of a few individuals or just an accident of editing by committee, this article has completely lost all objectivity. Every glorifying myth and propaganda anecdote concerning Mrs Markiewicz seems to have been taken as Gospel. Every pithy quote "attributed" to her is trotted out uncritically. Her right to the style of Countess is blithely defended without any mention of the controversy surrounding her husband's claim to the title of Count. And at the same time, her well-documented murder of an unarmed policeman is erased from the record, in favour of the unsupported claim that she wounded a "British sniper". This is not a factual article, it's a political hagiography, and the sort of thing that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. I would make edits, but to be honest the whole piece is so far gone that the best thing would be to delete it and start over again.Joe kearns (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added the fact of the shooting of the policeman, which has only been supported by evidence in recent years, and given a reference for the wounding of a sniper. The rest of your post is nonsense. True, there are more "anecdotes" than is desirable, but it's a long way from being a "hagiography". The "controversy" over the style of Countess is non-existant outside of the posts on this page by you and your alter-egos 78.18.211.113 and 78.16.86.228. Just peppering the talk page with your assertions doesn't make it so. Scolaire (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any alter egos, Scolaire. It would appear that more than one person disagrees with you, that's all: it happens. A commentor on the Casimir Markiewicz article stated - quite correctly, as it turns out - that his name does not appear in the lists of Russian counts. I took the trouble to check that out, and would suggest that you do likewise. It so happens that the lists of both Russian and Polish nobility are available online. The Russian empire had surprisingly few counts, and no Markiewicz among them. He was clearly not a Russian count, as he claimed to be. Nor a Polish count for that matter. Nor even a baron. I struggle to understand how this pretence of his can be so important to you that you continue to defend it in the face of the very clear evidence against it. The only satisfactory explanation I can think of is that the hagiography is somewhat marred by the fact that your egalitarian, freedom-fighting heroine was so pretentious and snobbish as to affect a bogus aristocratic title. And of course, as Kevin Myers pointed out a while ago, it puts a very bad aspect on her shooting working-class Irishmen - some might suspect she fancied trying her aim on peasants instead of pheasants, for a change. By the way, your reference for the wounding of a sniper seems to be, like several other references attached to the page, an obscure work of Republican fan-lit, and not verifiable online. I suppose it will have to wait until such time as I get to a good old-fashioned library. You don't happen to know what your source's sources were, do you? Joe kearns (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit "adds a reliable citation" only in the sense that it adds a citation to a web page where the article already had a citation to a book: Ann Matthews's Renegades. Both say the same thing: that one person wrote in her diary that she saw Markievicz shoot a policeman. You will see on the bottom of that page that Ann Matthews says as much there. There are other accounts, however, that place Markievicz at City Hall at the time that the constable was shot in Stephen's Green, as stated in the second ref, Ann Haverty's biography. The phrasing of your edit, including naming the constable, is designed to present a POV that this was a murder, or some sort of war crime. This is not supported by your own citation, Lauren Arrington, who says, "The righteousness of this act seems to be unquestionable." I have dealt with the other matter at Talk:Casimir Markievicz#Fake title of Count. --Scolaire (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The citation I added is from a professional historian and can easily be verified online. It is a great deal more accessible than the obscure work that was already cited, in addition to carrying more weight. By the way, where I come from, shooting and killing unarmed policemen is considered murder. I believe this was also the legal position in Dublin in 1916. Joe kearns (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Added another citation, Neil Richardson According to their lights which has a lot more detail about the particulars of the Lahiff murder. And in view of the fact that there were clearly multiple eyewitnesses who saw Mrs M at the scene with her C96 in hand, I think we can assume that anyone who claims she was elsewhere must be either confused or clutching at straws, so I deleted that note. Joe kearns (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You said here that you would refer the matter to DR. If so, please do not edit-war, as you did here and here, pending the outcome. You have not established a consensus to change from the stable version. Scolaire (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Scolaire I am the IP-78 guy you mention above and nothing to do with Joe Kearns. Lots of people know about the "title" and its non-validity can be checked with e.g. John Gilmartin the Dublin art historian who knows lots more about Casimir D-M. Its survival up to now just shows how bad a lot of Irish historians are, copying pub gossip that is then it is quoted in another book and becomes verified quotable history.78.17.51.81 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Fianna Éireann

The current wording, relying on Fianna material from 1965, implies that Markiewicz was the sole founder of Fianna Éireann, whereas it is generally accepted that she was the co-founder, with Bulmer Hobson - the original, northern Fianna having been founded in 1902 by Hobson. I think, particularly in view of the circumstances pertaining in 1965, this reference has to be regarded as suspect. Hobson had, after all, opposed the Rising and was thereafter marginalized and ostracized by militant Republicanism. Should we not entertain the possibility that, in a time of increasing militarization and escalating sectarian tensions, McNulty and O'Shea wanted to write him out of the Fianna's history, in favour of Markiewicz? Joe kearns (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed. There were people around that time who insisted that she was the sole founder, but it is an accepted fact nowadays that she and Hobson were co-founders. Scolaire (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Constable Michael Lahiff

Looking at the cited material from Neil Richardson, Ann Matthews and Lauren Arrington it seems to be pretty well established that Markievicz was at St Stephen's Green and did shoot Constable Lahiff. Richardson's version of events contains significant details not present in the Geraldine Fitzgerald account referenced by Matthews and Arrington, so evidently more than one witness placed her there. In view of this, I want to question the validity of conflicting claims that she was elsewhere. It isn't clear from the way the references are all positioned together, but I'm assuming that the source of this was Anne Haverty. I haven't seen her book yet and I won't presume to pass judgement on it until I have, but I think it has to be treated with some scepticism under the circumstances, and I would like your view, Scolaire, as someone who clearly has read it. On the one hand, Richardson and Arrington are professional historians with reputations to uphold, and Matthews - while perhaps not a historian by training - has clearly taken the trouble to do actual research. My question is: is Haverty's work strong enough to stand up against these as a serious and credible alternative voice? From what I can gather, her Markievicz biography was an on-commission job for a publisher with an overtly feminist and socialist agenda, which would at least cast some doubt on its impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe kearns (talk • contribs) 12:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Haverty is the source for her being elsewhere. She doesn't have a footnote for her being at City Hall, but it is fairly obvious that it's drawn from Markievicz's own account and that of Kathleen Lynn. Lynn's BMH witness statement is here. In it she says that she and Markievicz were driven to City Hall in Lynn's car, arriving after Constable O'Brien had been shot and Seán Connolly had occupied the building. Marekievicz then took the car with the intention of inspecting the various positions. According to official accounts, per Irish Times, Sinn Fein Rebellion Handbook, p. 57, Lahiff was shot "at about 12 noon", the same time as O'Brien was shot and City Hall occupied (interestingly, Ann Matthews also places her at City Hall just after noon (p. 126) before going on to say that she shot Lahiff "sometime after 12.30"). Haverty does have a cite, Máire Nic Shiubhlaigh's The Splendid Years, for Markievicz driving past Jacob's factory and encouraging the occupants. This would have been after leaving City Hall and before arriving at Stephen's Green, which turned out to be her final destination. I would rate Haverty as highly as any of the other authors cited. The standard of her research, at least on this matter, is equal to theirs. Here is an article written by her only last week, where she subjects the Fitzgerald "diary" to the kind of forensic examination usually reserved for Markievicz's accounts. It leaves a big question mark over the "eye-witness account".

I have not been able to read Richardson's book, so perhaps you might tell me just what it says. You say that "evidently" there was more than one witness, which suggests to me that Richardson doesn't actually say there was. Given that there was no eye-witness account for nearly 90 years until the Fitzgerald one came to light, it would be surprising if there were suddenly multiple witnesses. Merely having details that other accounts don't is no guarantee that those details are correct. I would be in a better position to comment if I knew what those details were. As to him being a "professional historian", the Irish Military War Museum refers to him as its "in-house historian", which is a far cry from being a distinguished academic with a body of published works. Scolaire (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In summary, Richardson says that Lahiff was negotiating with insurgents at the Cuffe St/Harcourt St entrance to the park when Lt Markievicz, with two other ICA volunteers, manoeuvred along the railings into a vantage point and fired on him. He was hit three times, and was taken to Meath hospital where he died shortly afterwards. These details obviously aren't in Nurse Fitzgerald's account, but I can't say exactly where they originate because the book is not cross-referenced. It is, however, thoroughly researched from an impressive range of sources. It would reflect very badly on the IMWM if its house historian were a dilettante, but Richardson's reputation seems pretty solid. I can't say my misgivings are much allayed by Haverty's cite - an actress's memoirs "as told to" someone else - though at least she was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe kearns (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just read that article by Haverty, and thanks for that. Talk about Hagiography! But the doubts are definitely credible. Joe kearns (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That is the version of events recounted by Max Caulfield in The Easter Rebellion (1963). It is an excellent book in many respects, but there is absolutely no doubt that Caulfield "fleshed out" episodes when the documentary evidence was too sparse. Unfortunately, many historians today cite it uncritically. I didn't say that Neil Richardson was a "dilettante". I'm sure he is highly professional in his approach. I was simply saying that ranking authors according to whether they are "professional historians" becomes meaningless if "professional historian" means anybody who earns an income from doing history. Of the four authors we've talked about Arrington and Haverty have done in-depth studies on Markievicz herself, and Matthews on women of the revolutionary period with an emphasis on Markievicz, whereas Richardson's area of expertise is Irishmen in the army and police. Scolaire (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have moved and amended the part about Lahiff, highlighting that it is controversial. Regarding what Haverty has to say about the Fitzgerald account, I think a lot of that is tendentious to say the least, and some of the reasoning appears pretty shaky to me. She makes a few unsupported assumptions: that Fitzgerald was on the ground floor; that she wouldn't have been able to see into the park from there (never mind that the incident took place outside, at the gate); that there was heavy traffic despite the shooting. And while Constance was undoubtedly a good and experienced shot, the triumphant exclamation might be explained by this being the first time she had ever brought down a human being. But the one thing that concerns me is that the Fitzgerald testimony apparently only exists as a typescript, and the link to an actual diary is not proven. Fair enough, if it's a sworn deposition or at least has a provenance annotated by trustworthy witnesses, but as we stand now I have to accept that the whole thing is controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe kearns (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes by @Poissonette:. One significant problem is the attempt to move the location of Lahiff to Dublin Castle, the problem being that it was a completely different constable shot by somebody else entirely at Dublin Castle. FDW777 (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dubious

I have tagged as dubious the claim that she was sent to prison for her Republican views. Even during the Civil War, that seems most unlikely. So I have tagged it as dubious because it is significant enough to justify something more that an ordinary citation needed. --Red King (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Easily fixed. --Scolaire (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I see it was hyperbole as expected. --Red King (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Little Museum of Dublin

Hi all,

I really want your opinion about this addition:

A very important figure in Dublin during the Easter Rising where she led the troops with Michael Mallin. She was the only one not to be executed by the British simply because she was a woman. The official document commemorating all the soldiers executed by the British during the Easter Rising is currently at The Little Museum of Dublin .

Thanks a million, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Léa Di Francesco (talk • contribs) 13:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Object This is spam by an editor with a Conflict of Interest. The Banner talk 14:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References