Talk:Irish head of state from 1922 to 1949

message: 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)
thread_title:  Communications, and World War II 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where's the verb? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
thread_title:  "British Commonwealth" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Receiving letters of credence 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have reversed a rename made in 2018 by  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".
# 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). 
# "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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  title of this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: , 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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  but forking can be avoided by WP:SUMMARY. jnestorius(talk) 13:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge SCHMERGE

message: 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)
thread_title:  Timing of constitutional changes in 1936 vis-a-vis new constitution 

message: 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)
replies: text: A 3  column table sounds like a good idea Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Table of monarchs end date 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statute of Westminster and de jure sovereignty