 |
|
| Hobby Forum Index » Heraldry » Arms of Eamon de Valera? |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| The Chief |
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I recently read a newpaper article from the 1940s which mentioned in
passing that the then Taoiseach (and later President), Eamon de Valera,
was armigerous. What were his arms? Of course, he was later awarded the
Supreme Order of Christ, etc. (depite having been excommunicated IIRC).
Regards,
The Chief |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Barrassie |
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The Chief wrote:
Quote: I recently read a newpaper article from the 1940s which mentioned in
passing that the then Taoiseach (and later President), Eamon de Valera,
was armigerous. What were his arms? Of course, he was later awarded the
Supreme Order of Christ, etc. (depite having been excommunicated IIRC).
Regards,
The Chief
Yes Eamon de Va;lera was armigerous. All Presidents of Ireland are
granted Arms if they were not armigerous before. His Arms are in the
Spanish form, I read that his Arms were granted/recorded in Spain. I
would be interested to have this verified.
I notice also that Presidents of Ireland are now being granted
supporters for life, I do think that it should be an hereditary grant
to show Presidential families.
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| WILLIAM BALDWIN JR |
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: The Chief wrote:
I recently read a newpaper article from the 1940s which mentioned in
passing that the then Taoiseach (and later President), Eamon de Valera,
was armigerous. What were his arms? Of course, he was later awarded the
Supreme Order of Christ, etc. (depite having been excommunicated IIRC).
Supreme Order of Christ *after* being excommunicated? How'd he pull that
one? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Chief |
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR wrote:
Quote: The Chief wrote:
I recently read a newpaper article from the 1940s which mentioned in
passing that the then Taoiseach (and later President), Eamon de Valera,
was armigerous. What were his arms? Of course, he was later awarded the
Supreme Order of Christ, etc. (depite having been excommunicated IIRC).
Supreme Order of Christ *after* being excommunicated? How'd he pull that
one?
Works of supererogation?
Regards,
The Chief |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Chief |
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
WILLIAM BALDWIN JR wrote:
Quote: The Chief wrote:
I recently read a newpaper article from the 1940s which mentioned in
passing that the then Taoiseach (and later President), Eamon de Valera,
was armigerous. What were his arms? Of course, he was later awarded the
Supreme Order of Christ, etc. (depite having been excommunicated IIRC).
Supreme Order of Christ *after* being excommunicated? How'd he pull that
one?
Having done some research, it would seem that whether he was ever
excommunicated is capable of some debate, rather like many other events
in his life.
This much is clear: On 10 October 1922 the Irish Catholic bishops
issued a pastoral letter stating that "All who ..... participate in
such crimes [guerrilla warfare],... may not be absolved in confession
or admitted to Holy Communion."
The issues about this are twofold - is this excommunication, and to
whom did it apply?
First, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on
"Excommunication," available at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
simple prohibition from receiving the sacraments was formerly "minor
excommunication," but that this ceased to exist in the 1870s after
publication of the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis", an interpretation
ratified by the Holy Office (6 Jan., 1884). This leaves the
possibility that this was a true ("major") excommunication, but the
extracts from the letter above do not mention this word. On the other
hand, an article on the effects of the bishops' action at
http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?textID=3825&articleTypeID=1&issueID=501
by Patrick J. Ryan, S.J., President of Loyola Jesuit College, clearly
presents it as excommunication - and one might expect him to be
informed in such matters.
There is also the further confusion that prohibition from Holy
Communion can be taken as literally "excommunication", whatever the
precise canon law status of the bishops' action.
Second, there is the question of what was meant by "participate" in the
bishops letter. As it is unlikely that Dev was out in a ditch with a
gun, perhaps the "excommunication" simply did not apply to him. In this
context, Dev was famous (infamous) for his ability to strictly parse
language.
Whatever the position in 1922, by 10 years later de Valera (and the
majority of his followers), was very publicly admitted to Holy
Communion during the Eucharistic Congress in Dublin in 1932.
Regards,
The Chief |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Merrigan |
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The concept of "presidential families" cannot exist in a Republic as
the people vote for an individual to serve a term as president and, in
the case of Ireland, not more than two such terms. The citizen who
becomes our President does so as per Bunreacht na hÉireann
(Constitution of Ireland) and on leaving office, that citizen returns
to life as an ordinary citizen.
Michael Merrigan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Chief |
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Merrigan wrote:
Quote: The concept of "presidential families" cannot exist in a Republic as
the people vote for an individual to serve a term as president and, in
the case of Ireland, not more than two such terms. The citizen who
becomes our President does so as per Bunreacht na hÉireann
(Constitution of Ireland) and on leaving office, that citizen returns
to life as an ordinary citizen.
Michael Merrigan
Oh come now Michael. Surely the concept of "presidential families" does
exist - simply as those families that have had a member who was elected
President. Also, an ex-President is not entirely like other citizens -
she is automatically a member of the Council of State, for life.
And what is this with you getting such a dose of "republican" principle
these days - I seem to recall that an organisation with which you are
intimately connected went around bestowing the style of "Excellency" on
all and sundry a few short years ago?
Regards,
The Chief |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Chief |
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Merrigan wrote:
Quote: The concept of "presidential families" cannot exist in a Republic as
the people vote for an individual to serve a term as president and, in
the case of Ireland, not more than two such terms. The citizen who
becomes our President does so as per Bunreacht na hÉireann
(Constitution of Ireland) and on leaving office, that citizen returns
to life as an ordinary citizen.
Michael Merrigan
Oh come now Michael. Surely the concept of "presidential families" does
exist - simply as those families that have had a member who was elected
President. Also, an ex-President is not entirely like other citizens -
she is automatically a member of the Council of State, for life.
And what is this with you getting such a dose of "republican" principle
these days - I seem to recall that an organisation with which you are
intimately connected went around bestowing the style of "Excellency" on
all and sundry a few short years ago?
Regards,
The Chief |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Merrigan |
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Once again A Thoaisigh, hiding behind the name - deal with the issue.
The concept of "presidential families" - the fact that the president
becomes a member of the Council of State does not change the position
that such may not exist in a republic. Your failure to deal with the
issue is clear - either you accept what I said is correct or not.
Your position that you seem to recall that an organisation with which
I "was
intimately connected went around bestowing the style of "Excellency" on
all and sundry a few short years ago" is interesting. Would you like
to expand on that with your real name and address?
Michael Merrigan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Chief |
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Merrigan wrote:
Quote: Once again A Thoaisigh, hiding behind the name - deal with the issue.
The concept of "presidential families" - the fact that the president
becomes a member of the Council of State does not change the position
that such may not exist in a republic. Your failure to deal with the
issue is clear - either you accept what I said is correct or not.
I don't.
Quote:
Your position that you seem to recall that an organisation with which
I "was
intimately connected went around bestowing the style of "Excellency" on
all and sundry a few short years ago" is interesting. Would you like
to expand on that with your real name and address?
I can do better, I can provide a link to to a post by one
"MICK MERRIGAN, Rúnaí, Dún Laoghaire Genealogical Society"
bestowing said style, at:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.ireland/browse_frm/thread/e62d0b3bc6eff780/c7c7e526901acf3a?q=maguire+fermanagh+excellency&rnum=5#c7c7e526901acf3a
Do you know this Mick Merrigan by any chance?
Regards,
The Chief
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Chief |
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Merrigan wrote:
Quote: Once again A Thoaisigh, hiding behind the name - deal with the issue.
The concept of "presidential families" - the fact that the president
becomes a member of the Council of State does not change the position
that such may not exist in a republic. Your failure to deal with the
issue is clear - either you accept what I said is correct or not.
I don't.
Quote:
Your position that you seem to recall that an organisation with which
I "was
intimately connected went around bestowing the style of "Excellency" on
all and sundry a few short years ago" is interesting. Would you like
to expand on that with your real name and address?
I can do better, I can provide a link to to a post by one
"MICK MERRIGAN, Rúnaí, Dún Laoghaire Genealogical Society"
bestowing said style, at:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.ireland/browse_frm/thread/e62d0b3bc6eff780/c7c7e526901acf3a?q=maguire+fermanagh+excellency&rnum=5#c7c7e526901acf3a
Do you know this Mick Merrigan by any chance?
Regards,
The Chief
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Merrigan |
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Indeed, a Thaoisigh, your position is exposed when you won't give your
real name and indeed, when you said "that an organisation with which I
was intimately connected went around bestowing the style of
"Excellency" on all and sundry a few short years ago" is quite
incorrect.
Mr. Maguire was a guest of the Dun Laoghaire Genealogical Society at
that Conference in 1999 and he provided the "style" by which he was to
be addressed. This individual was recognised by the State as "The
Maguire of Fermanagh" at the time and indeed, he remained so recognised
until the position of courtesy recognition was abolished.
The Dun Laoghaire Genealogical Society cannot be blamed for recognising
this individual as "The Maguire, Prince of Fermanagh" when the State
and others advocated this position. In fact he was never
"de-recognised" by the State.
But when you say "all and sundry" - a Thaoisigh, you are mistaken and
therefore, it is clear that you cannot use your real name and address
to state such, can you?
Michael Merrigan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Chief |
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Merrigan wrote:
Quote: Indeed, a Thaoisigh, your position is exposed when you won't give your
real name and indeed, when you said "that an organisation with which I
was intimately connected went around bestowing the style of
"Excellency" on all and sundry a few short years ago" is quite
incorrect.
Mr. Maguire was a guest of the Dun Laoghaire Genealogical Society at
that Conference in 1999 and he provided the "style" by which he was to
be addressed. This individual was recognised by the State as "The
Maguire of Fermanagh" at the time and indeed, he remained so recognised
until the position of courtesy recognition was abolished.
Mr Maguire? Don't you mean "His Excellency"? Why such inconsistency?
Quote:
The Dun Laoghaire Genealogical Society cannot be blamed for recognising
this individual as "The Maguire, Prince of Fermanagh" when the State
and others advocated this position. In fact he was never
"de-recognised" by the State.
Oh, but you can be blamed. You yourself say above that he was
officially recognised as "The Maguire of Fermanagh." That recognition
was and is a load of old cobblers, but at least they **never**
officially recognised him as "His Excellency,.. The Prince of
Fermanagh." That latter recognition was bestowed by you, wasn't it,
Mick?
Quote:
But when you say "all and sundry" - a Thaoisigh, you are mistaken and
therefore, it is clear that you cannot use your real name and address
to state such, can you?
This recognition must have been available to all and sundry, in
accordance with your republican principles, musn't it? And to get it,
all one had to do is write in stating ones preferred style, right?
So, assuming that you are one and the same with the earlier "Riviera"
Mick Merrigan, I would still love to understand how you evolved from
the position where one can be an "Excellency" and "Prince" without
quibble, to where you dispute the use of the term "presidential
families" and throw in references to "Bunreacht na hÉireann" at the
drop of a hat, all the while professing your high "republican"
principles. Fascinating.
Regards,
The Chief |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Merrigan |
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A Thaoisigh, thank you - your position is clear - you've simply lost
the plot and continue to hide your true identity. Your last paragraph
rambles to such a degree that a reply is hardly required.
What do they say about people who, when all else fails, attack the
person and refuse to deal with the issues raised by the debate?
Indeed, to do so without using their real name - well - what can we
say?
Regards
Michael Merrigan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:43 pm |
|
|
|
|
My messages do not appear to be getting through from my newsreader, so
I am trying a posting via Google Groups.
Here are the arms used by de Valera, this being one of a series of
student photographs of Presidential arms in Dublin Castle:
http://www.sacmus.org/dublin2005_files/Photos/Dublinp_edited.jpg
Regrettably, these are assumed Spanish arms, and indeed perhaps
surprisingly also, given that de Valera's government had permitted
MacLysaght to maintain a state heraldic office. MacLysaght's successor
as Chief Herald, Gerard Slevin, did not issue a formal grant of arms to
de Valera, but did in effect certify the use of the assumed arms after
he became President in 1959. The matter of de Valera's arms is of
course linked to the uncertainty over his ancestry, he wishing to
believe that his missing father Juan Vivion de Valera belonged to an
aristocratic Hispano-Cuban family. For my current read on the mystery
of de Valera's ancestry, which will take you in a perhaps unexpected
direction, see
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/irhismys/devalera.html
Sean Murphy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:31 pm
|
|