Monday. June 11, 1921. The truce between Ireland and the United Kingdom ends the Anglo Irish War.

The flag of Ireland.

Hannah Carey, a 48 year old waitress in Killarney, was killed by a shot fired from a Royal Irish Constabulary truck.  She was likely not a victim of murder, but of an accident, as the RIC was reacting to an IRA attack upon a British Army unit just minutes prior.

She was the last causality of the Anglo Irish War.

On this day in 1921 the Anglo Irish War came to an end under an agreement between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the putative Irish Republic. The agreement had not only included an agreement to end the fighting, but also to engage in talks that would obviously outline the formalities, and there were indeed many to work out, of the existence between the two countries.   The Irish delegation would leave for London on July 12, the following day.

The history of the English presence in Ireland is a complicated and not really subject to easy summation.  England was a more powerful nation, comparatively, to Ireland dating back to the early days of the English kingdoms and as England's rule began to consolidate in a single king, that king often made claims of authority over Ireland even though they really were incapable of being enforced.

In 1169 the Normans, who were then into a century of their rule over England, having conquered the English thrown in 1066, invaded Ireland.  The invasion started in the form of an Anglo Norman mercenary intervention on behalf of one of the Irish kings but grew in scale until the English crown intervened against both the Irish kings and the Anglo Norman mercenaries.  The Crown then preceded over a period of years to consolidate its power in Ireland.

It is therefore commonly claimed that the Anglo Norman Invasion brought about "800 years of English rule" but it is not really true.  Even after the invasion, direct English rule was somewhat weak and grew weaker. The Anglo Normans assimilated surprisingly rapidly and by the 15th Century English rule was mostly titular with Ireland ruled by its own parliament and the Crown largely ignored.

The Reformation, however, rapidly changes this and in 1542 King Henry VIII, not content with all of the other destructive things he was doing, proclaimed himself the King of Ireland.  This was backed up by English military might and the contest took on a religious aspect given the English separation from Rome.  Indeed, the British effectively chose to fight out some of their contests for power on Irish ground.  Real British rule in Ireland, therefore, really dates to 1542.

In 1801 Parliament consolidate the rule with an Act of Union, making Ireland part of the United Kingdom. This was a political development that had been ongoing in Great Britain and had already brought about the union between Scotland and Wales that still exists.  This union was more problematic in Ireland, however, given that Ireland's population was overwhelmingly Catholic and Catholics were repressed in the United Kingdom.  The union was never really accepted by the Irish and a series of moves towards regaining independence occurred in following years.

Prior to World War One a strong move towards "home rule", which would have essentially granted Ireland regained independence in association with the Crown, leaving the British Parliament with authority on foreign policy, gained grown. These moves were strongly supported and strongly opposed.  They were gaining enough strength prior to the Great War that, had the war not broken out, Ireland would have obtained home rule prior to 1920, and the following Irish history would likely have developed differently.

As it was, moves towards an open civil war were already afoot prior to World War One and indeed they caused an infamous mutiny within the ranks of the British Army in Ireland which looked as if it would oppose any sort of Irish political freedom.  The British were still dealing with the aftermath of this mutiny when the Great War broke out, and the war quickly set all of these issues aside.

As we've been dealing here, the one group that didn't put them aside were Irish republicans, which struck during the late stages of the war itself in open rebellion.  This move was very unpopular inside of Ireland whose sons were fighting in France, but it did gain international attention. At the same time, the republicans took the wise course of action of forming their own putative representative government, setting up rival institutions to the official British ones where they could, and declaring themselves to be the legitimate government of the nation.

Following the Great War the British government was wise enough to see the handwriting on the wall, even though surrendering one of the major portions of the United Kingdom was a gigantic concession.  To some degree, much of recent UK history has stemmed from this, as the UK has slowly devolved rule to the other nations that remain in the United Kingdom.

This was of interest, to say the least, to the Irish American community in the United States.  An article on how this was reported on can be read here:

American reporting of truce in Ireland, July 1921

Former President and current Supreme Court Justice William Howards Taft was sworn in as the Chief Justice.

On the same day, President Harding signed a new Naval Appropriations bill that reduced spending for the Navy by $80,000,000 for the upcoming year.

In fairness, the US was still winding down from World War One and now had a gigantic surplus of ships.  The American people, for their part, were growing into disillusionment about their recent role in the Great War and the thesis that it was all a big plot by industrialist was starting to gain steam.

Perhaps related, or not, the Young People's Society of Christian Endeavor concluded a meeting with a call for global disarmament by 1923.

The Bogd Khan was restored to titular head of Mongolia by Mongolian revolutionaries.

He was a Buddhist monk whose claim to power, or perhaps burden of it, was similar to that of the Dali Lama's and in fact he'd been born in Tibet and proclaimed the Bogd Khan in the presence of the Dali Lama and the Panchen Lama.  He had ruled the country as its theocratic head since the onset of the Chinese revolution in 1911, but his powers were limited due to his religious position.  During his first reign he'd been the subject of a propaganda campaign lead by the Chinese who wished to remove him and install a communist government.

In 1919 he was removed by the Chinese government as the crisis on the border with the infant Soviet Union developed.  Showing his position in the country's people, he was reinstalled, ironically, by the communist revolutionaries on this day in 1921 and would retain his position, being the last to occupy it, until his death in 1924.

The Royals. M'eh

According to the Canadian news paper the National Post about 60% of Canadians hope that Prince Harry will become the next Governor General of Canada.

The Governor General is the representative of the Queen, and we've discussed the Queen in Canada once before.  Indeed, that topic was once one of the most favorite ones here:

Queen Elizabeth II in Canada

This is a young Queen Elizabeth II in Canada, but what else does it depict?  I frankly don't know.  Its a photo from my mother's collection, and unfortunately, I no longer know the story behind it.

Does anyone stopping in here know?

Anyhow, the National Post had this headline the other day:

'Celebrities': Will Prince Harry take over the post of governor general? Canadians are hopeful, poll says

Here's hoping there isn't a next Governor General at all and that the Windsors simply fold up shop and become private citizens.

Something I don't mention here very often is that I'm a dual citizen of Canada and the United States.  Now, I'm a resident of the US and have been my entire life, but I hold dual citizenship because my late mother was from Quebec and only became a US citizen late in life.  Indeed, my father had already passed at the time.

I guess that gives me somewhat of a right to comment on this as a subject of Queen Elizabeth II, but only somewhat.  While I may hold Canadian citizenship I'm not going to pretend that I'm Canadian in the same way that somebody who really lives in Canada does.  It's a legal oddity, I guess, in my case but I will confess that I do feel a closeness to Canada in a way that most Americans are not likely to.  I have a large collection of Canadian relatives and my mother was always very Canadian.

Indeed, in a sort of way, Canadians like me, who hold citizenship because of an ancestral connection, are remnants and reminders of what Canada is and was perhaps more than current residents are, which is probably both instructive and irritating to current residents of the country.  I don't appreciate it when people whose grandparents once lived in my home state feel free to spout off in the local letters to the editor section about the way the state ought to be and I doubt born and raised Canadians appreciate being treated in the same manner. 

None of which keeps me from occasionally commenting on Canadian affairs. .  . or Commonwealth ones.

Which is what this is.

Canada is of course a fully independent nation but it's also part of the English Commonwealth and the Queen is the sovereign of the country.  The Queen of England, that is.

This is somewhat of a confusing topic for people who aren't in the Commonwealth but, to reduce it to the point where it's probably deceptive, the British Empire recognized at some point after the American Revolution that not eventually establishing political independence for colonies was a bad idea and made the residents of them very crabby.  It therefore established a dominion status for them at some point which meant that what had been colonies, like Canada, were converted into self governing dominions.  In that system, those dominions governed their internal affairs completely while their external affairs were largely governed by the United Kingdom, the mother country.  The jurisprudential concept was that there were lots of English dominions but only one Empire.

In the late 19th Century this view became highly developed and there was a lot of talk of Empire in sort of a glorified fashion, in which it was imagined that one big happy British Empire would exist with lots of happy smaller British states.  An English Commonwealth of Nations.  Naturally the mother Parliament would continue to govern foreign affairs, as it was the Parliament of the empire.

Well, this started to really fall apart after World War One.  The UK had declared war for the entire Empire in 1914 so countries like Canada and Australia, both dominions, went to war because of that. They didn't do it themselves.  They raised their own armies, to be sure, along with other dominions like New Zealand and South Africa, but after the war the obvious problem of a nation asking its sons to die in a titanic conflict that they had no say about getting into caused the British Parliament to loose that extra national status.  The Commonwealth was still real, but it became more of a cultural union with strong international economic, immigration and emigration benefits for the members.

The Commonwealth took an additional blow when Ireland basically disregarded its dominion status in the Second World War and refused to enter into the conflict.  India showed little interest i dominion status after the war.  Lots of nations joined the Commonwealth after World War Two as they became independent, but the economic advantage evaporated when the UK entered the European Community.  Ironically, it's just left.

Maybe that'll give a boost to the Commonwealth again, which had real economic features to it.

At any rate, because of this history Canada retains the position of Governor General.  That's because the Queen remains the sovereign.

What's that mean?

Well, Queen Elizabeth II has the constitutional right as the sovereign to act much in the same way, indeed beyond the same way, that the President of the United States can. She calls the Canadian Parliament into session and she approves or disallows the legislation it passes.  Therefore, she can veto any Canadian bill.

The Governor General holds the powers of the sovereign in her stead.  Queen Elizabeth, as with all the royals, has no real desire, I'm sure to open the parliaments of all fifteen Commonwealth countries nor to preside in some fashion over the legislative process of all of them.  Indeed, in modern times the Crown has been careful not to really become involved in politics anywhere, including in the United Kingdom, quite wisely.

Indeed, no modern Governor General has ever denied ascent to a bill of the Canadian parliament.  A provincial one (yes, there are provincial ones) last operated to do so in 1961 in Saskatchewan.  It'd be phenomenal if any of them did so now, although the thought of it occurring in the form of an act by Prince Harry is amusing.

It's amusing as royalty itself is sort of amusing.

The current Governor General is Julie Payett, who was appointed to that role by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  They serve at the Queen's pleasure, but in practice it tends to be a five year appointment.  So the PM could choose to appoint Prince Harry to the role after Payett runs her course in 2022.  The Queen, for her part, could turn Harry down, but that would be odd and he's in need of a job.

Does any of this make any sense in the modern world?

Well, it makes a little, but none of that does anything to remove the fact that royalty is really odd and the English monarchy is quite odd, as an institution.

People really like to imagine that the English Royal Family and all its impressive majesty and ceremony date back to ancient times.

That's because they haven't studied it.

In reality, the early English monarchs were from different royal lines, although supposedly the current Queen is a distance ancestor of one of the very first monarchs, but that's only because huge numbers of the English now are.  Early on, simply being king didn't mean you'd occupy the position until death, and death tended to come pretty early for them. Some made it into what we'd now regard as old or at least late middle age, but of the early ones, more than a few died in their 30s. 

And more than a few had to constantly fight other claimants, as it was recognized that the heads of strong families had just about as much right to the thrown as any one occupant.  About the time of Ethelred the Unready (which meant "ill advised") the practice started of trying to incorporate sacred oaths into the process of choosing an heir to the thrown so that powerful men, subject to those oaths, wouldn't take a run at the crown, but that was only partially successful. 

This whole process went on seemingly forever and even the seizure of the thrown by the Normans in 1066 didn't stop it.

King Henry VIII, the Vandal.

During the Reformation the entire process took on an odder twist when King Henry VIII, not intending to make England a Protestant country, separated from Rome to establish what he naively thought was something like the Catholic Church of England.  Henry, who was constantly distracted by the topic of what babe ought to be in his bed chambers, listened too much to some of his Protestant advisers and the country went into prolonged religious strife during and after his death.  While the Church of England was established and slid around between being quite Protestant and not so much Protestant, while being challenged by the more Protestant and while suppressing the actual Catholics, the Crown itself was worn a couple of times by Catholic monarchs, who had the embarrassing role of also being head of head of the Church of England.  Ultimately the Parliament imported the really Protestant William of Orange from Holland, who had nothing else to do, and made him king.  For this reason the current family occupying the thrown had a really, really German last name (and a pretty good German bloodline) up until World War One, when they changed their last name to Windsor.

By the Great War the powers of the Crown had been reduced to a largely ceremonial role.  Indeed while Americans still like to claim they rebelled against King George in 1774, they really rebelled against the Parliament as by that time the King's role was vague and it was really Parliament that held real power.  Indeed, Parliament held real power by the time of the English Civil War in 1642-1651, as that was the original point of the war, before it began to feature a strong religious element to it.  The Crown reclaimed some  powers during the Restoration in 1660, but by that time it was pretty clear who was really running the country.

King Charles II of England.  He got the crown back his father had lost, but he made the Parliament nervous by his heavy partying, crypto Catholic ways (ironic in light of the former) and deathbed formal conversion to Catholicism.

After World War One the Crown went into a real crisis when King Edward VIII, who was an oddball who also complained about the heavy burdens of being a prince before he was King, abdicated when he became king in order to marry Wallace Simpson. We've dealt with that elsewhere, so we're not going to here.

Okay, with all that, what's going on now?

Well, I don't really know but of all the royal families in Europe the English royal family really gets the attention. There are other royal families. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands all have them.

But no nation needs one now and frankly the history of royal families is embarrassing.

If you follow reddit you can find the surprising communities of people who are enamored with monarchy.  Indeed, there's more than one blog dedicated to following old royal families and imagining a return to an extremely conservative social order if only they had more of a role in the world.  

But that's baloney.  In truth, monarchs tended to be just as likely to be weird and icky as they did noble and saintly.  In modern royal families its easy to find the history of affairs and scandal.  And some born into it, like Harry, don't like being captive royals.

And why would we imagine otherwise?  This collection of people is born into vast wealth with no real obligations.  Idle if they wish to be, the roles they fill are only filled by the pressure of their own families or by increasingly limited constitutional roles. And some of those roles should have caused eye rolling from the onset, such as the retained English one of being head of the church in England.

So now, Prince Harry, who seemingly has never done well with being a royal, basically wants out.  But in wanting out, because he's a royal, he gets privileges that other people do not.  He may be entitled to a share of the family's vast private wealth.  He and his wife get to move to Canada simply because he's a royal.

Well, let him out, but do away with the whole absurd charade.  Having a royal family hasn't made sense for well over a century, maybe two centuries.  The English aren't defined by their royal family anymore and Canada having one, given its current culture, is flat out odd.  

There's no reason not to make Queen Elizabeth II the last royal.  The Parliament should declare it and start working on sorting out what is really theirs as opposed to Britain's. They'll still be rich.  When she dies, she should be the last one.  Everyone else can go get a job, or not.

And the American Press can focus on something else.  We haven't had a royal since the Declaration of Independence. Why the close attention to them here?

Today In Wyoming's History: October 14. Columbus and Duke William make the scene.

Today In Wyoming's History: October 14:

October 14

Today is Columbus Day for 2013.



1066. Duke William of Normandy defeats King Harold Godwinson as the Battle of Hastings.  The result of this battle would bring feudalism into England and result in the birth of English Common Law.

The Bayeux Tapestry depicting the vents of October, 1066.

And its Columbus Day for this year, 2019, as well.

At least in my part of the country Columbus Day doesn't mean much, other than Federal offices are closed.  In some parts of the country there are protests regarding what ultimately occurred with the arrival of European Americans in the New World, again, and this time to stay.  Indeed, in some localities it is Indigenous Peoples Day.

Columbus was working for the Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, of course.  They were having a big year, to say the least.  On January 2, Granada, the last Moorish kingdom in Spain, had surrendered to them, having failed to receive aid from any other Muslim power.  In an odd sort of way, Granada's experience was therefore similar to that of Constantinople, the seat of the shrunken Byzantine Empire, in 1453, some forty years earlier, which had failed to secure the support of other Christian powers against the Ottomans.

Columbus' expedition is typically claimed to have sighted land on October 12, 1492, but that date was on the "Old Calendar".  Using the "New Calendar", that date is actually October 21, 1492.

It's also the anniversary of the Battle of Hastings, one of the single most important dates in English history and the history of the English speaking peoples.  Perhaps the single most important date.  Saxon England entered the feudal world and English met French.

The Start of The Troubles. October 5, 1968

Or at least it is by some accounts.  A precise start to the violence of the 1960s and 1970s that characterized Northern Ireland in the minds of many, indeed even characterized, unfairly, Ireland itself in this period, is hard to define.

Ireland had never accommodated itself to English rule at any point, but dating back to the Middle Ages various English kingdoms and then the Kingdom of England itself had claimed sovereignty over parts or all of Ireland.  For many decades, even centuries, the claim was fairly tenuous as a rule, but starting with the Norman conquest of England in 1066 it became inevitable that the conquering spirit of the barely Francoized Norsemen would lead them on to Ireland.  That path had already been partially laid by the Saxons already and the Normans were on a global path of expansion that would lead them on to install themselves over Sicily.  In that context, Ireland couldn't be avoided.

The Normans landed in Ireland as early as 1169, or perhaps we should say as late as that, given that this was a century after their conquest of England.  This was followed by landings in 1170 and 1171, which ultimately lead to the English King Henry landing that year in an effort to establish his own Anglo Norman sovereignty but also to put a lid on Norman freebooters.  He came and went but came back and in 1175 was self declared the overlord of Ireland, a position that was intended to put himself in loose control of the various Irish kingdoms but to leave them Irish.  This soon failed and in 1177 he declared his son John Lackland the Lord of Ireland and simply co-opted the ongoing Norman invasion.  This would bring to an end the era of independent Irish kingdoms.  The fact that there were, of course, multiple Irish kingdoms doomed the Irish in and of itself, but frankly Norman military capabilities were so advanced at the time that there was really no hope for Irish resistance.

This isn't intended to be a history of Ireland, so we'll simply leap forward and note that the United Kingdom ruled Ireland, over Irish objection, until 1922.  The Irish rebelled from time to time, particularly after the English crown separated the Church from Rome and then took it into Protestantism.  This became particularly pronounced after Cromwell became the English Lord Protector and English law became increasingly hostile to Catholicism.  The Irish became impoverished serfs in their own land and constantly sought to free themselves from England.  By the 19th Century, as the English began to reform their views, slowly at first, and then rapidly later on, things were perhaps so fixed in attitude that efforts towards Home Rule were insufficient to keep a significant minority of Irish from seeking an armed separation from the United Kingdom which came in the form of the Anglo Irish War.

The dates for the Anglo Irish War itself are debated, but a person can realistically date it to the Easter Rebellion of 1916.  The rebellion was a failure and indeed rejected by the Irish, but the English overreaction to it was sufficiently harsh that a follow up, more thought out, guerrilla, and indeed terroristic, war that started in 1919 had somewhat broader support.

Still, the mixed views on England were strong enough that the compromise reached with the United Kingdom not only left Ireland as a dominion of the United Kingdom, a status that at the time meant that the United Kingdom retained foreign policy decisions to some degree over a separated Ireland, but it also allowed Northern Ireland to opt out of the Irish Free State, a position bitterly opposed by Irish Republicans and which lead to the Irish Civil War.  Northern Ireland had been a problem in the context of Irish independence for many years as its population was majority Scots and Presbyterian.  Predictably, Northern Ireland voted to opt out of the Irish Free State.

This lead to the Irish Civil War, as noted, and following that lead to a bizarre situation in which the Irish Republic basically did not recognize Ulster as legitimately separate from it but, at the same time, really did nothing about it.  Ethnic Irish in Ulster stewed about the situation but by and large accommodated themselves to it.

In 1960s a non violent civil rights movement seeking to improve the position of minority Catholics in Ulster commenced.  It was not well received in all quarters.  Irish nationalist reacted with protests nad parades in 1966 and actually dynamited an English monument in that year in spite of being quite weak. This was responded to by the formation of Ulster unionist movements that saw the republican challenge as being stronger than it really was.  An organization formed calling itself the Ulster Volunteer Force, recalling similar paramilitary forces from the pre World War One Ulster and soon Ulster unionist terrorist attacked the homes of Catholic residents.

This lead to civil rights protests that occurred into 1968.  These were met with Unionist violence.  

On this day in 1968, once such event occurred.  The Northern Irish government banned an anticipated civil rights protest but it occurred anyhow.  The government sent the Royal Irish Constabulary to confront the marchers and the RUC policemen met them with violence.  The entire thing was filmed and shown on television, sparking Catholic disgust and outrage.  Two days of rioting ensued pitting Irish nationalist against the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Thirty years of violence and the rise of the Provisional Irish Republican Army would follow.