Adding to Ulster’s Party Panoply

Splitting the Unionist vote further hardly bothers me: as unsympathetic as I am to republicanism of any kind, the history of British colonialism in Ireland is filled with such injustice that I cannot favour the heirs to that legacy.

Ideally, of course, Ireland would be related to the other nations of the British Isles under a common monarch- the heir to James II.

Gabriel, ironically it was James II’s grandfather (James I – himself a Stuart!) who commissioned the Plantation of Ulster with Protestant colonists from England and the Scottish lowlands. Those ‘planters’ are by and large the ancestors of modern Ulster Protestants. (The Irish Catholic Church was also viciously persecuted throughout most of James’ reign.) One can also draw parallels between the conduct in Ireland of Cromwell and Charles I’s Lord Deputy, Thomas Wentworth. I certainly have no nostalgia for the Stuarts, whose policy in Ireland was probably more cruel and oppressive than the Hanoverian monarchs.

I agree with the need to maintain good relations between Ireland and Britain (or perhaps eventually with an independent Scotland, Wales and England) and this is already expressed institutionally through the British-Irish Council — which includes the RoI, the UK, the devolved governments, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles. Any arrangement more intimate than that strikes me as unacceptable (and instituting a monarchy in Ireland of any description is simply out of the question) and if it were made a condition of the re-unification of this island, I would turn it down. Good fences make good neighbours!

Back to the post itself – in the long run, whether the unionist vote is split or not shouldn’t really matter to unionists since, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, a constitutional change in Northern Ireland’s status can only be effected by means of a referendum. Even if in theory SF and the SDLP won all the seats, Northern Ireland would still remain within the union. Indeed unionists could have much to gain from a diversity of unionist parties because it might help contribute to the normalization of Northern Irish politics. (The obsession with the border is silly and counter-productive, given that NI’s status is already quite secure.)

Shane, I think one must distinguish between the policies of James I and Charles I on the one hand, and their sons Charles II and James II on the other. While the last generation of Stuarts were certainly left much to be desired, their policy was decidedly the most benign of any government from the reign of Henry VIII through that of George II.

That being said, ideals are not always practicable, and while the historic sympathy of the exiled Jacobites with Ireland might do much to mend the breach, it is nonetheless the case that Ireland neither wants nor needs any political arrangement with England, even to the extent of sharing a sovereign. In respect of Ireland I become nearly a republican.

“it is nonetheless the case that Ireland neither wants nor needs any political arrangement with England, even to the extent of sharing a sovereign”

Gabriel, I agree. I actually have no problem in principle with either monarchism or republicanism but ultimately I think the particular form of government suitable to a country will vary, depending on its history, circumstances, conditions, culture, etc. I can entirely understand ‘Altar and Throne’ attitudes among French Catholic traditionalists but I think it would be a nonsense to graft that onto an Irish context, where the historical circumstances are very different. When I think of a traditional Catholic society, I think of (and pine for!) the devout peasant society of 1950’s Ireland, not ancien régime Versailles. Certainly the idea of a ‘Kingdom of Ireland’ does not appeal to me at all. And I feel nostalgic for little in the British administration of Ireland (for me the tragic turning point in Irish history was the Battle of Kinsale, not the Battle of the Boyne.)