President Cosgrave Wearing Papal Honour at 1926 Commonwealth Conference

[The Chief]

I just came across a photograph of President Cosgrave of the Irish Free State wearing what I assume must be a Papal honour at a 1926 dinner with Commonwealth heads, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ImperialConference.jpg
I can find almost no comment on this - I would have thought this would have caused some stir?

Regards,
The Chief

[The Chief]

Forgot to add - a most remarkable occasion in any case, as his kind hosts had sentenced him to death precisely 10 years before!~

The Chief

[The Chief]

On Monday, September 3, 2012 6:06:24 AM UTC, The Other Guy wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:54:16 -0700 (PDT), The Chief

> Why would it surprise you, OR anyone??
>

The British official position was/is that a certain personage, siting in the front, center of the photograph I linked to, was the "font of all honours." That being so, President Cosgrave was essentially saying "up yours", or words to that effect. I would have thought that worthy of notice and comment.

Regards,
The Chief

[Outis]

Doesn't the lack of any fuss about this proves your understanding to be somewhat erroneous?

[The Chief]

Hardly. It is very much still the "official position" - just take a look at the thread discussing the "Jurisdiction of the Lord Lyon" where this point features strongly.

Regards,
The Chief

[The Chief]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:11:35 AM UTC, The Other Guy wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 17:26:31 -0700 (PDT), The Chief

>
> <the.ch...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >The British official position was/is that a certain personage, siting in the front,
>

> >enter of the photograph I linked to, was the "font of all honours." That being so,
>
> >President Cosgrave was essentially saying "up yours", or words to that effect.
>
> >I would have thought that worthy of notice and comment.
>
>
>

> Are you REALLY not aware of the history of that time??

I believe I am reasonably conversant with the history of the time - certainly more than most. Enough to know that old George was very particular - a stickler even - as to "correct" dress in his august presence.
Regards,
The Chief

[Outis]

Well, if you're so knowledgeable, then the photo simply must be wrong.

[mcmil...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 1:59:54 PM UTC-4, The Other Guy wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:14:22 -0700 (PDT), The Chief <the.ch...@ymail.com> wrote:

>>I believe I am reasonably conversant with the history of the time -
>>certainly more than most. Enough to know that old George was very
>>particular - a stickler even - as to "correct" dress in his august presence.

>By 1926, ANd even earlier, what a Monarch wanted, and what the Irish were
>willing to give, were usually 2 VERY different things. I think the Irish
>invented Passive Aggressive.

All undoubtedly true, but 1926 is still early enough that I'd expect some harumphing from Buckingham Palace or Whitehall about this breach of protocol to have appeared in the archives, if not in the press. It was only much, much later that the Brits learned to deal with passive aggression by ignoring it.

Joseph McMillan

[mcmil...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:25:02 PM UTC-4, mcmil...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 1:59:54 PM UTC-4, The Other Guy wrote: > On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:14:22 -0700 (PDT), I wrote:

>It was only much, much later that the Brits learned to deal
>with passive aggression by ignoring it.

On second thought, I'm not sure that lesson has totally soaked in. Witness the Pavlovian reaction in this newsgroup to most of The Chief's posts.

Joseph McMillan

[The Chief]

It gives me some reassurance that the British are, well, still British!

Regards,
The Chief

[The Chief]

Sigh, in the "good old day", by now we would have had:

PCB posting the precise terms of the Earl Marshal's warrant, or the royal sign manual, governing the wear of orders at dinner with the "royal" family.

FV would have responded with a court ruling that the EM's warrant did not apply at private dinners, while

DH would have pointed to the practice established by the League of Nations....

Nowadays, we get contributions such a that by "Outis."

Regards,
The Chief

[The Chief]

Seems that old Liam was a bit of a serial offender - I just came across a photo of him attending another 1926 Conference dinner, in Lancaster House, hosted by then British Taoiseach Baldwin, see
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?499284-Dominion-British-Imperial-relations-mod
where President Cosgrave can be seen again disporting his Papal award, which was, I believe, the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius IX.
Incidentally his son, also Liam, who is still amongst us, was also Taoiseach, and also received the same knighthood.

Regards,
The Chief

[Turenne]

Chief, will you allow that the reason Cosgrave wore the decoration was because most of the rest of the individuals present were, and he felt a bit left out! Don't forget; when, in 1916, the British were busy fighting against Germany, he was busy traitorously treating with them. It's a wonder that he wasn't wear an Iron Cross!

RL

[Turenne]

I can't find what order Cosgrave was wearing. It doesn't seem to match any Papal decorations...

For information:

Article 5 of the Irish Free State 1922 Constitution read:

No title of honour in respect of any services rendered in or in relation to the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) may be conferred on any citizen of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) except with the approval or upon the advice of the Executive Council of the State.

In the debate on the Article in the Third Dáil/Provisional Parliament,Darrell Figgis proposed an absolute prohibition, alluding to the contemporary scandal surrounding the sale of British peerages. Kevin O'Higgins countered:

You cannot set down, I submit, having regard to the exact position under the Treaty statement, a prohibition on the British King from conferring honours in this country, but they have conceded that they will not confer except upon the advice and with the consent of the Executive Council, which in practice can be made equivalent to a complete prohibition....

RL

[The Chief]

On Sep 10, 12:05 pm, Turenne <rick.lich...@virgin.net> wrote:
> I can't find what order Cosgrave was wearing. It doesn't seem to match any Papal decorations...

It is a known fact that W.T. (Liam) Cosgrave was awarded the Grand
Cross of the Pian Order by HH the Pope in 1925, so this must be what
he is wearing. That said, I agree that the breast star in the photos
does not immediately strike one as looking like the breast star of the
Pian Order (Order of Pius IX) - but I think that just tells us that
these blurred/low resolution photos can't be relied on in such
matters.

I think we can safely assume that President Cosgrave was NOT wearing a
British order!

> RL

Regards,
The Chief

[The Chief]

On Sep 10, 11:53 am, Turenne <rick.lich...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Chief, will you allow that the reason Cosgrave wore the decoration was because most of the rest of the individuals present were, and he felt a bit left out! Don't forget; when, in 1916, the British were busy fighting against Germany, he was busy traitorously treating with them. It's a wonder that he wasn't wear an Iron Cross!
>
> RL

I still remember the surviving Kaiserliche Marine veterans who were
brought back to Ireland to take an honoured part in the parade to mark
the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising in 1966. Of course, Cosgrave
was considered by many of his compatriots to have treasonously treated
with the British in supporting the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 - that
was the whole point of the Civil War.

Regards,
The Chief

[The Chief]

On Sep 10, 8:15 pm, The Chief <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 12:05 pm, Turenne <rick.lich...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > I can't find what order Cosgrave was wearing. It doesn't seem to match any Papal decorations...
>
> It is a known fact that W.T. (Liam) Cosgrave was awarded the Grand
> Cross of the Pian Order by HH the Pope in 1925, so this must be what
> he is wearing. That said, I agree that the breast star in the photos
> does not immediately strike one as looking like the breast star of the
> Pian Order (Order of Pius IX) - but I think that just tells us that
> these blurred/low resolution photos can't be relied on in such
> matters.

Perhaps I should add that the breast star in the the photo is not
necessarily inconsistent with the Grand Cross of the Oder of Pius IX.
- The Chief

[Turenne]

No, he's certainly not wearing the Order of St Patrick.

The sash looks quite light coloured and somewhat inconsistent with the blue of the Pian Order. I suppose that could be something to do with the quality of the photo. The stripes are consistent though...

RL

[Outis]

Aye, I was being flippant. My apologies. But then I reckoned that an off-topic thread is fair game.

[The Chief]

On Sep 11, 4:24 am, Outis <ulys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 September 2012 22:53:29 UTC+2, The Chief  wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 5:16:35 PM UTC, Outis wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, 4 September 2012 18:14:23 UTC+2, The Chief  wrote:
>
> > > > On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:11:35 AM UTC, The Other Guy wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 17:26:31 -0700 (PDT), The Chief
>

> > > > > <the.chieft...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >The British official position was/is that a certain personage, siting in the front,
>
> > > > > >enter of the photograph I linked to, was the "font of all honours." That being so,
>
> > > > > >President Cosgrave was essentially saying "up yours", or words to that effect.
>
> > > > > >I would have thought that worthy of notice and comment.
>
> > > > > Are you REALLY not aware of the history of that time??
>
> > > > I believe I am reasonably conversant with the history of the time - certainly more than most. Enough to know that old George was very particular - a stickler even - as to "correct" dress in his august presence.
>
> > > > Regards,
>
> > > >   The Chief
>
> > > Well, if you're so knowledgeable, then the photo simply must be wrong.
>
> > Sigh, in the "good old day", by now we would have had:
>
> > PCB posting the precise terms of the Earl Marshal's warrant, or the royal sign manual, governing the wear of orders at dinner with the "royal" family.
>
> > FV would have responded with a court ruling that the EM's warrant did not apply at private dinners, while
>
> > DH would have pointed to the practice established by the League of Nations....
>
> > Nowadays, we get contributions such a that by "Outis."
>
> > Regards,
>
> >   The Chief
>
> Aye, I was being flippant.  My apologies.  But then I reckoned that an off-topic thread is fair game.

Off-topic? I don't think so! As PCB was apt to remind us, heraldry is
not the same as armory, it is much broader. That being so, I think
this topic is highly appropriate for rec. heraldry, and I thought I
was a public service by bringing up an on-topic topic for a change!
- By the way, anyone know how PCB is doing - have not seen/heard
anything for several years now,

Regards,
The Chief