Comment by Micheal O Doibhilin on February 9, 2016 at 3:58pm

I suppose the difference between "airbrushed" and "painted" is in intent. Airbrushed has been used to suggest that this is a (relatively) modern act, deliberately to keep women out of the picture. While that was the intent, it was not an Irish decision but a British newspaper's decision and it was done in 1916 when times and attitudes were very different. We need always to judge actions in their time and place - and this is not being done with this picture which has been hijacked in Ireland today to advance a particular agenda.

The photo is well known here - the original has been seen in Ireland widely for many years now, and the story told so often  that it is like a worn record. A few years ago the national Library bought an original print and this was widely publicised.

Neither the photographer nor the editor knew Nurse O'Farrell's intention in stepping back - she only told this story later. While she would have approved of being painted out, she would not have agreed with the motive.

Comment by Peter Power-Hynes on February 9, 2016 at 6:37pm

This is a very interesting thread.  In referring to Patrick Pearse as The Supreme Commander, you have to qualify this with Tom Clarke's position and status. In 1915 Clarke and Sean MacDermott established the Military Committee of the IRB to plan what later became the Easter Rising. The members were Pearse, Ceannt, and Joseph Plunkett, with Clarke and MacDermott adding themselves shortly thereafter. When the old Fenian Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa, died in 1915, Clarke used his funeral (and Pearse's graveside oration) to mobilise the Volunteers and heighten expectation of imminent action. When an agreement was reached with James Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army in January 1916, Connolly was added to the committee, with Thomas MacDonagh added at the last minute in April. These seven men were the signatories of the Proclamation of the Republic, with Clarke as the first signatory. It has been said that Clarke indeed would have been the declared President and Commander-in-chief, but he refused any military rank and such honours; these were given to Pearse, who was more well-known and respected on a national level. Many of the internees, on their return from Frongoch was shocked to find Pearse was held in higher regard than Tom Clarke. I have read elsewhere that Pearse was a bit shocked to find on  being invited to join the IRB Council that plans for armed insurrection were so far advanced. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clarke_(Irish_republican)

Comment by Micheal O Doibhilin on February 10, 2016 at 6:15am

Peter, you have given a very succinct account of the background politics of the Rising. One additional point worth mentioning is that Tom Clarke was out on license - if he stepped out of line he could go back to jail for life, something he was determined not to do, preferring death. Therefore, he deliberately stayed in the background, manipulating, moving and pushing. According to his wife Kathleen he was to be President of the Republic, and she could never understand how Pearse claimed the title. But Tom, as you say, shunned titles and rank. While revered by most, he saw the future of Ireland in the hands of the young. In my talks on him I refer to Tom as "the Svengali of the Revolution" as the simplest way of getting his role across.

Comment by David Lawlor on February 10, 2016 at 6:30am

Very interesting comments from you both, Micheal and Peter. It's interesting to note that the HIbernian Rifles, who also took part in the Rising, were kept in the dark about the whole enterprise, and essentially invited themselves to the 'party' on Easter Monday

Comment by Micheal O Doibhilin on February 10, 2016 at 8:33am

David, that is true. It could be argued that the actions of the Hibernians shows that the support for armed rebellion was wider than is currently argued as they had not been drawn into the conspiracy beforehand but were only too willing to enter of their own free will.

Comment by DJ Kelly on February 14, 2016 at 8:01am

Another great bit of research, David. Fascinating and well written. Thank you.

Comment by Thomas P. Kilcoyne, Jr. on February 15, 2016 at 2:00pm

Excellent article and interesting commentary by the posters. Thanks to all.

Comment by David Lawlor on February 16, 2016 at 4:32am

Thank you Denise and thank you, Thomas.

Heritage Partner Comment by That's Just How It Was on March 12, 2016 at 9:43am

 Michael Ó ………Thank you for your clarification on “intent”… yes it is always best to look at the era in which issues were raised and done… That it was a British Newspaper decision to paint/ airbrush this photo without O’Farrell, really says much about the fact that Ireland was in effect, a colonised country. The British Authorises may have went along with this, due to the fact that it was a women who helped in the surrounded, and not a man, as suggested in Neill Jordans film   "Insurrection." Director Neil Jordan, however, omitted her from his film "Michael Collins, " where her role in the surrender is portrayed by a man.! [ my article O’Farrell July 2015 Wild Geese “]  and she certainly would not have liked the motive , and the present day high jacking of the photo, to advance a particular agenda I also rather doubt that O’Farrell ,would have been  happy to have been eliminated altogether   out of her part in Irish history, why did Jordan do this ??

 

 Yes Clarke was out on Licence.. and was a man like you said , not overwhelmed by status or rank , just wanting to get the job done.

--------------

Peter Power- Hynes … Thank you for this information about the seven inner sanctum and when they al joined.. that was previously unknown to me…. ..  The Proclamation was signed in Jenny-Wise Power house on Henry Street however… and in my research on Wyse –Power … some sources would advise that Wyse-Power had always maintained that  these seven men signed in no particular order.. they just signed it as it was passed around to them ..Whether or not the seven had made a decision beforehand, whose name was to be added first, is not known.. However James Connolly wife, Kathleen Connolly,

“, Connolly's wife , however, has always maintained that her husband was invited to sign the proclamation first, as the other signatories acknowledged him as first president of the Republic. On the Rising's 50th anniversary, in 1966, Connolly was interviewed, and she was very scathing of Pearse and his leadership abilities “[ my article on Wyse –Power  The Wild Geese Aug 2015}  

Tom Clarkes wife held all the IRB documents for safe keeping. until she handed them over to Michael Collins..

----------------

David L. It does seem strange to me that an insurrection could be planned, and not take account of all the available skills that the IRB should have known about. That they invited themselves to the party, so to speak, is testimony to allegiance to Ireland’s cause, by putting themselves on the line, despite not having been included on the party list. … and as Michael Ó,, mentions below,  support for armed rebellion  was wider than historians currently argue  

Comment by Micheal O Doibhilin on March 12, 2016 at 3:49pm

TJHIW

Just a point of clarification - did you not mean Tom Clarke's wife Kathleen maintained he was acknowledged as the president rather than James Connolly's" Connolly's wife was called Nora, and as he was outside the IRB and their plans, it is unlikely he would have been seen as the leader of them all.

Re Jordan and his dire film "Michael Collins", which seems to have the destruction of DeValera as its sole purpose - well, the less said about that the better. The amount of accurate history in that film is limited to the title, most other events have been distorted, changed or invented.

O'Farrell said she deliberately hid from the photographer in the original photo, but later admitted that she wished she had not. As a life-long revolutionary, she would not have allowed the photo to be hi-jacked by anyone were she still alive - she was, even in old age, still a formidable woman!

The original plans for the rebellion we cannot now know, but we can infer some of them from the actions of the commanders on the Monday of Easter Week, when it was unclear how many men and women would turn out. As the week wore on these plans had to be modified or totally changed (e.g. Stephen's Green). Thus, when those with 20:20 hindsight complain about the tactics, they do not know what they are talking about.

One thing is very clear. Even though the plans went awry, even though the rebellion only lasted six days before unconditional surrender, it still brought about the collapse of the British Empire, the greatest empire the world had ever seen. Not bad for a "badly planned failure", I think.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page