Talk:Irish head of state from 1922 to 1949

Untitled

Who wrote so many wrong statements:

• transferring all of the functions performed by the King until 1936 to a new office of President of Ireland Not so. The prerogatives of the crown were with the government. The monarch had been a fundamentally different legal concept to the presidency and few of the roles previously possessed by the crown were given to the presidency.

• The status of the Irish state from 1936 to 1949 was largely a matter of symbolism and had little practical significance. This was because the roles of both the King and the President of Ireland were merely ceremonial, being exerciseable only "on the advice" of the Government (cabinet). The one practical implication of declaring a republic in 1949 was that it automatically terminated the state's membership of the (formerly British) Commonwealth, in accordance with the rules in operation at the time. That statement has so many constitutional law clangers it beggars belief!!!

• The constitution also contained many republican provisions, stating, for example, that sovereignty resided in the people, and prohibiting the granting of titles of nobility or the establishment of an official religion.' Irrelevant to the article. The Irish Free State constitution said exactly the same. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed "transferring all of the functions performed by the King until 1936" to "transfering many" because now I think of it 'all' is incorrect and is even contradicted elsewhere in the article.

That statement has so many constitutional law clangers it beggars belief!!!

Are you disputing the bit about symbolism or the bit about leaving the Commonwealth? What I was trying to say on symbolism was that (while the monarch may have reserve powers and the president has certain discretionary powers of her own) in practice both the monarch and the President of Ireland occupy largely ceremonial positions so no big change occurred in 1949 to the concrete way in which the state is actually governed. Are there important practical implications that I'm overlooking?

Who wrote so many wrong statements

Please don't be rude about the work put in by other contributors.

Iota 16:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Communications, and World War II

Out of curiosity, how was the "advice" of the Irish government as to the conduct of his few remaining functions relayed to the King in the absence of a Governor General? I suppose they could just pick up the phone and call, but still ... I notice also that the article says that treaties were signed by Irish ministers "in the name of" the monarch; it would be interesting learn what the precise wording on these documents were. To what extent did the King personally enact his Irish duties at all during this period? Did ambassadors to Ireland present themselves to the King in London before heading on to Dublin? Were treaties sent to the UK for his signature or seal?

A related question: During World War II, Ireland remained neutral, and thus maintained diplomatic relations with the Axis power. Did King George himself accredit ambassadors to or receive letters of credence from the German government during the war? --Jfruh (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer : Yes, George VI had to accredit the German representatives ! Even stranger : he reigned over newly-independent Pakistan & newly-independent India in the late 1940s, even though they were at war with each other ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.62.9 (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2009 (GMT)

Correction: No! Jfruh asked about the situation during the war. Hempel, the German Minister to Ireland, was appointed and accredited before the outbreak of war (in 1937) and remained in place until the end of the war in Europe in 1945. Scartboy (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer : I believe that relations were conducted via Charges d'affaires, due to the issues involved with the King being at War with Germany (albeit with his other hats/ crowns on). I believe this affected more the commissioning of Irish representatives to Germany, than the other way round. Trouble is cant' find the source where I read this although the wikipedia article on "Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_I" is consistent with this- in referring to a charge d'affaires. Neither the German nor Irish Foreign Offices websites seem to have information on the nature of the diplomatic relations for this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.177 (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Where's the verb?

The article quotes the 1936 amendment as follows: "..it shall be lawful for the Executive Council, to the extent and subject to any conditions which may be determined by law to avail, for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular agents and the conclusion of international agreements of any organ used as a constitutional organ for the like purposes by any of the nations referred to in Article 1 of this Constitution."

Where is the main verb in this? I can't find one. Typo? -- 92.230.9.191 (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the verb you're looking for is "avail", or perhaps more strictly "avail of", a kind of archaic phrase that basically means "make use of". (Actually I think the real main verb is "shall be", but never mind that for the moment.) The comma placement is confusing and may in fact be a typo, but the main stream of sense without the subordinate clauses is as follows: "it shall be lawful for the Executive Council ... to avail ... of any organ." Make more sense? The whole thing I think is deliberately obfuscative, as they were trying very hard not to say what they were in fact saying, which is that the King would still be in theory in charge of foreign relations. --Jfruh (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that the first comma in the sentence starts a sub-clause "to the extent and subject to any conditions which may be determined by law", perhaps the second comma was misplaced and should have been inserted two words earlier, closing this sub-clause. The other possibility is that the closing comma on that sub-clause was omitted and that a closing comma was also omitted in the sub-clause "for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular agents and the conclusion of international agreements".

The complete sentence then reads "Provided that it shall be lawful for the Executive Council, to the extent and subject to any conditions which may be determined by law, to avail, for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular agents and the conclusion of international agreements, of any organ used as a constitutional organ for the like purposes by any of the nations referred to in Article 1 of this Constitution." And makes a lot more sense.

It would be interesting to see the original text of the act - I'm relying on transcriptions made for the Oireachtas web site, in which the comma(s) might have been lost in translation, so to speak. Scartboy (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"British Commonwealth"

I have reverted Red King's alteration to "British Empire" of my reference to "the British Commonwealth" because the term "British Empire" is somewhat ambiguous in this context, whereas "British Commonwealth" is not. At the time, the "British Empire" (a term which has no formal definition) could be used to denote either (a) all the territories associated in any way with the British Crown, or more narrowly (b) only those territories which were dependent upon the United Kingdom (i.e. not the dominions). Referring in this context to the Commonwealth compares the situation in Ireland unambiguously with that in the other dominions, which is a more useful/meaningful comparison here than with (say) Kenya. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

It's correct that "British Empire" is a term which lacks a "formal definition", but the same is true of "British" and "Empire", not to mention "Roman Empire", "Greece" "Germany", "Italy", "America", and so forth. We have to live with the ambiguities, and all of these words have enough meaning for Wikipedia to use them. In some articles, Red King's change would be an improvement, but in this context I agree with Andrew Gwilliam, because the Irish Free State was generally looked on in Ireland as outside the British Empire, and indeed in 1939 it rather underlined the point by staying out of the Second World War. By the way, I also agree that "British Empire" has been used to mean something like "only those territories which were dependent upon the United Kingdom (i.e. not the dominions)", but to me that is quite a late meaning. I should be surprised if it were used in that way in the 1930s and 1940s. Moonraker (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(I have just now corrected the link to Red King's user page in my earlier post above.) Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

Receiving letters of credence

This article states that "the King continued to accredit Irish ambassadors, and receive the letters of credence of foreign diplomats," but it seems that some material in the Domhnall Ua Buachalla article contradicts this? That article says "While he continued to give the Royal Assent to legislation, summon and dissolve Dáil Éireann and fulfil the other formal duties of the governor-generalship, he declined all public invitations and kept himself invisible, as advised by "his" Government. In fact in his period in office he performed only one public function: the receipt of the credentials of the French Ambassador in the Council Chamber, Government Buildings, 1933, on behalf of the King, George V. However, de Valera subsequently had that duty moved from the Governor-General to his own post of President of the Executive Council." So, it sounds as if even these royal duties were carried out by actors in Ireland, not by the King. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that these duties were performed in the king's name? --Jfruh (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks Jfruh...

I think you make a good point. To be honest, the article is devoid of sources and should be deleted entirely on that basis. Or some one could step up to the mark and do a lot with it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. The Governor-General of the Irish Free State was the official representative of the monarch. The office was abolished in 1936. After that, the king may still have not received every letter personally, but an official representative would have. --Tóraí (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A good soure of reference for these kind of thing is a chapter "Ireland: External Association, the Republic and Secession" in Nicholas Mansergh, Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs pp. 262—304. --Tóraí (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"British" Monarch

I would like to argue that since 1931 after the passing of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 on 11 December 1931, that the head of state of Ireland would not be the King of the United Kingdom but the King of the Irish Free State of King of Ireland (as on 11 December 1931, the Head of State in Canada went from being His Majesty King George V of the United Kingdom to His Majesty King George V King of Canada). Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is not a place for arguing personal preference or conjecture, but if there is a supporting source to that effect, who needs to argue? The talk page is for improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There certainly was no British monarch reigning in Ireland post-1931. Why the fact there was an Irish king is being hidden is unclear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not go to Shankill Road and tell the people living there that no British monarch reigns in Ireland. If you don't get beaten up, just walk a short distance to Falls Road and tell the people there that George VI was Irish. This is not the place to make political points that are highly contentious, tragically ill-informed and based in fantasy rather than fact. DrKay (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. That's why edits aren't based on politically motivated fantasies held by people on Falls Road. It doesn't matter what they think. After 1931, the monarch in his British Cabinet, parliament, and courts had no role in Irish governance. Hence, no British monarch. It's pretty goddamn clear and verifiable. The monarch in his Irish Cabinet, parliament, and courts was the monarch of Ireland, i.e. the Irish monarch.

Perhaps you need to take a nap or something. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You're not going to get anywhere by being rude to Irish Catholics. DrKay (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it rude now to state that someone's personal beliefs don't align with facts when, in fact, they don't? Or, are you referring to the nap comment and insinuating you're Irish Catholic? In which case, Irish Catholicism had nothing to do with my remark, since I don't know anything about your ancestry or religious beliefs, though, it may explain (but not excuse) your outburst. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to get personal about me will not sway me around to your opinion. In fact, it makes such an eventuality less likely. DrKay (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is seemingly a fairly simple solution to this, already stated above by Qexigator: find a relevant Reliable Source.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't only about sources. It's about selecting one narrow view over another. The entire article is about how the issue is debatable. Selecting one side of the debate over the other is obviously bias. DrKay (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305044044/http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0067/D.0067.193705130005.html to http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0067/D.0067.193705130005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

title of this article

I have reversed a rename made in 2018 by Laurel Lodged from Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 to Head of state of Ireland (1936 to 1949) with edit summary "the head of state was not Irish".

1. The putative problem that was fixed in 2018 does not exist. The natural interpretation of "Irish head of state" is "head of the Irish state", not "Irish person who is a head of state". The latter interpretation is only possible by deliberate mental effort. See discontinuity (linguistics).
2. "Head of state of Ireland" uses the incorrect name of the state for the period prior to the coming into force of the new constitution on 29 December 1937.
3. A weak point: Having dates in brackets conflicts with use of parenthesis for disambiguation. I admit there seems to be no standard and many history articles use "(1936 to 1949)" or "(1936−1949)"

jnestorius^(talk) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The main point of the article is that there are legal niceities involved; "natural interpretation" does not arise therefore, only legalistic interpretation. Precision is therefore necessary, even at the expense of "natural" sentiments. If the head of state from 1936 to 1949 was King George VI, then he was not "Irish"; else if the head of state from 1936 to 1949 was Eamon DeValera et al, then they were "Irish". This can be avoided by not using the term"Irish" at all; hence the use of the name of the state in that period - "Ireland". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For the first part of the period, the name of the state was the "Irish Free State," and the question of whether "Ireland" without modifier was an appropriate name for the state was actually an active political controversy at the time! --Jfruh (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Both this page and Monarchy in the Irish Free State consider what is essentially a single topic: the relationship between the Irish Free State/Ireland and the monarchy. The significant date here is not with the constitution in 1937 or the first president in 1938, but with the External Relations Act 1936. Having them in a single page, however titled, would provide a more complete approach to the topic, whether the focus is on the monarchy or the question of who the head of state was. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I definitely see the logic to this. Fianna Fail's moves from 1932 to 1936 are definitely part of the same "story" as this. --Jfruh (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Support: I presume after the merge, the article title would be changed to Irish head of state from 1922 to 1949. DrKay (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the best encompassing title for it. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Monarchy in the Irish Free State" and "Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949" are two different topics. From 1922 to 1936, Ireland recognised the monarch as its head of state, whereas from 1936 to 1949 it wasn't clear who was the head of state. Peter Ormond 💬 07:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that distinction is that there's an overlap between the two "periods." The Free State still existed for the first year of the ambiguous-head-of-state situation. --Jfruh (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Peter Ormond, I would see it more at two distinct periods within the same period, that a page title such as Irish head of state from 1922 to 1949 would cover the topic more comprehensively, avoiding content forking for the post-1936 period. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment- As I understand it, the Irish Free State was a constitutional monarchy, with the British monarch reigning. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Essentially yes, but only up to 11 December 1936, whereas the Irish Free State continued to 29 December 1937. The Irish government of the time took advantage of the abdication crisis to end the position of the monarchy for all internal affairs. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I think this is a good idea. The current two articles read like Part 1 and Part 2 of the same topic, so a merge is logical. Spleodrach (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

While acknowledging that there has been one voice of dissent, I think it's reasonably fair to conclude that there's a consensus for this merger. I'll perform the basic merger now, and would welcome any additions in their consolidation. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge SCHMERGE

What a bad idea. Why not merge in President of Ireland and have an Irish head of state since 1922 article? Yes 1936–7 is an overlap between the two "periods." but forking can be avoided by WP:SUMMARY. jnestorius^(talk) 13:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Timing of constitutional changes in 1936 vis-a-vis new constitution

I may have brought this up in talk predecessors to this page but I am very curious as to how far along the drafting of the 1937 constitution was when the Abdiction hit. In other words, was the formulation of turning the King's status into a constitutional "organ" and "symbol of cooperation" in foreign affairs specifically drawn up in a few days in late 1936 and then transposed into the new constitution the next year, or had the concepts and/or language already been developed by the constitution's framers and was just dropped into the short-term fix of the 1936 amendment so that de Valera's government didn't have to look like it was legislating about the monarchy? I know de Valera already had proposed "External Association" for Ireland during the 1921 negotiations, which was very similar in concept to what was implemented in 1936/7, but I am very curious about the exact sequence if it's known, and think it would be important to add to the article. Our article on the 1937 constituion is very short on dates for the drafting process. --Jfruh (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Table of monarchs end date

The current table of monarchs has an end date -- 10 Dec 1937, the day the current Constitution of Ireland went into effect -- that makes very little sense in terms of the rest of the content of this article. More logical dates would be 11 December 1936 (the day all references to the monarchy were removed from the constitution), 25 June 1938 (the day a President of Ireland actually took office), or 18 April 1949 (the day the R. of I. Act came into effect).

If we want a table that actually reflects the content of this article, including the ambiguity, maybe we should have a column for monarchs and a column for Governor-Generals and then Presidents, and have it go down all the way to 1949, with notes on what the constitutional titles and references to the King were for each period? --Jfruh (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

A 3 column table sounds like a good idea Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a table going to 18 April 1949, possibly with separate headings after 1937. I wouldn't choose 1938 as a significant date of division, as there was an office of president from December 1937, albeit filled by the commission rather than Hyde. I also think details such as spouses, royal house and birth name are extraneous in the context of this article. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster and de jure sovereignty

There have been a couple of attempts to add a sentence to this article to the effect that the Statute of Westminster granted de jure sovereignty to the Dominions. While that's a common interpretation in retrospect, it's probably better to say that the Statute, along with the Balfour Declaration, were important steps on this path, and more to the point was perceived differently in different countries. This is particularly important because it was always the stated position of the Irish Free State government that it was the Treaty that made them sovereign; the Irish representatives came away from the 1926 conference saying that the Balfour Declaration merely confirmed for the rest of the Commonwealth the status that the Treaty had given to Ireland. I think rather than the give a sweeping statement saying "And now, at this precise moment, Ireland became independent," we use the story to give the details of how the Free State/Ireland's relationship with the British monarchy evolved. --Jfruh (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)