The recent deaths of former Catholic bishop Eddie Daly and Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster, elicited different responses.
The late Duke received a fulsome tribute from Tom Elliott, who appeared to equate the quality of the Duke’s life with the amount of money that he had. “He owned vast areas of land across the United Kingdom and was recognized by Forbes Magazine because of this”. In an odd non sequitur, the MP for Fermanagh-SouthTyrone added that the Duke was “a man of the people who always looked out for the vulnerable”.
There can be little doubt that former bishop Eddie Daly looked out for the vulnerable. The unforgettable scene where he waved a blood-stained handkerchief on Bloody Sunday, leading a group carrying a dying young man, presents that in stark terms. The last twenty-five years of his life were spent as chaplain to the hospice in Derry, supporting those receiving palliative care as well as those who loved them. The outpouring of affection and sadness from so many people in Derry and beyond at his death made one thing clear: here was a life well-lived.
How the Duke of Westminster was a man of the people who looked out for the vulnerable isn’t quite clear. He inherited vast wealth, he attended enormously expensive private schools in England, emerging with two O Levels. He joined the Territorial Army and received promotion after promotion. Some commentators have spoken of him as having ‘served his country’ : this usually means engagement in armed conflict, invariably abroad in someone else’s country. It’s not clear if the Duke ‘served’ his country in this way, but he was a major figure in the British Territorial Army.
A number of sordid tales concerning the Duke have been printed in recent days, but it would be fair to say that most people know him for his vast wealth. That’s understandable: if a man walks into a room and you’re told this is the third richest man in the UK, you’re likely to observe him more closely than if you hear he earning £35,000 a year. We’re all impressed by money, however acquired.
There are a number of stories told about Eddie Daly but the most unforgettable story comes with that image in which he attempts to protect a dying man. Throughout his life as a priest, Eddie Daly preached non-violence and spoke fearlessly to those who engaged in it, both republicans and state forces. And his work in the Foyle Hospice earned him the undying gratitude of those he served there.
De mortuis nil nisi bonum – speak no ill of the dead is a decent dictum to follow. Rather than focus on the two men, we might be better to consider the public reaction to their deaths. In this case the admiration of Eddie Daly tells us much about the Catholic and nationalist community, and the things they value. And in this case the dmiration of the Duke of Devonshire tells us much about the Protestant and unionist community, and the things they value. The difference is inescapable.
Hmmm well this is disappointing Jude,
Because Tom Elliott and the Newsletter speak favourably about a mans wealth, you now label a whole community as only valuing money and status.
While setting up the nationalist community as valuing morality.
Plenty of Catholics/nationalists covet money along with the Protestant/Unionist people. Just as there’s plenty morally good prods as well as Catholics.
Yourself and Jessica seem to believe in ethnic stereotypes.
Rubbish, Scott. I will say more later.
It’s not rubbish: this is what you said
“In this case the admiration of Eddie Daly tells us much about the Catholic and nationalist community, and the things they value. And in this case the dmiration of the Duke of Devonshire tells us much about the Protestant and unionist community, and the things they value.”
“It’s not rubbish: this is what you said”
MT, I’ll let Jude speak for himself but I would agree that the Protestant Community is much more economically conservative than the Catholic community. The only Socialist party made by Protestants is the PUP and they get next to no votes. The DUP and UUP has always been parties for the rich (well, the Protestant rich anyway). They are both parties the likes of the Duke of Westminster would’ve voted for.
A Protestant security guard (and former RUC man) and a few others are interviewed in Susan McKay’s book and they say that Protestants are dedicated to “respectability”. What they basically mean is Middle/Upper class Protestants (Like Tom Elliot) look down their noses at working class people. Such people would also tend to look up to the likes of the Duke of Westminster, aka Money, Wealth, Titles, Status, etc. Protestant voting patterns obviously prove this. Working class Protestants either don’t vote or they do as they are told by their “Uppers”, like the old DUP tactic of “Oh, if you don’t vote for us then you’ll let Sinn Fein/SDLP in….”. The Protestant working class (and Upper Classes too) are the type that would go starry eyed if they were ever “honoured” to be in the presence of a British Royal, a Lord or a man who is knighted.
So yes, I would say most Protestants do admire those kind of things like Wealth, Status, Knighthoods, etc much more so than Catholics.
I cant remember the quote exactly but the Protestant security guard ( who worked at the Belfast Met or Tech as it was then known) says something like “I see it every day. I see Catholics getting educated, empowering themselves and then contributing to their communities. This College is mostly Catholic and fair play to them. They are here day and night. They don’t leave their communities like Protestants do, they stay behind and use their education to help their community out of poverty. I know of Protestants who grew up on the Shankill who got educated and did well for themselves but they now deny they were ever from the Shankill. They move away and get embarrassed if anyone brings up that they came from the Shankill”…..
Right then. Scott, I may not have been as clear as I should. I agree – there are plenty of money-grubbing nationalists/republicans as well as unionists. But I am attempting to point out the contrast between the characteristics of a man admired by Tom Elliott (former UUP leader) and Arlene Foster (present DUP leader) and those of a man admired by nationalists/republicans. One man was enormously (obscenely?) wealthy, got out of here at about the age of seven, led a life that included considerable excess of various kinds. The other was a man who showed real courage and compassion and adopted a consistent anti-violence line, and spent his entire life caring in one way or another for others. And stayed here. This, set alongside the decision by unionist politicians politicians to give his funeral a wide berth (because, I think it’s reasonable to assume, they either thought their followers wouldn’t like it or because they personally didn’t want to pay their last respects to Eddie Daly) makes it hard to draw any other conclusion in this case than that unionist politicians believe their followers will approve of admiring the hugely rich and keeping at arm’s length a life of exemplary courage and service. Like you, I know we can’t say ‘All nationalists are like this, all unionists like that’; but the signals from unionist politicians are dismaying.
So, Jude, I’m still a touch confused.
As I said below, the initial article makes no mention of the funeral, although this did become the main focus of Talkback, which I have just listened to. But the facts I think we can agree on are these.
Following two deaths this week, a number of tributes were made to both men.
Some of the tributes made with regard to Bishop Daly were made by Protestant Churchmen, and Unionist Politicians.
Some representatives of the Protestant Churches attended Bishop Daly’s funeral.
No Unionist politicians attend his funeral.
One man was immensely wealthy.
One dedicated his life in service to his community.
One tribute in particular, and in regard of the wealthy man, was made by a Unionist politician.
Now, so far, so good.
To the above I think we can add that no negative comments were made by either Protestant Churchmen, or Unionist politicians in regard of Bishop Daly.
And this is where I become confused.
On the basis of these facts you seem able to draw a conclusion about what Protestants and Unionists value, and how this is very much different to what Catholics and Nationalists value, and do so with the very strong implication (I shall put it no more strongly) that Catholic/Nationalist values are more admirable.
And I just don’t see how you draw that conclusion from those facts.
“Like you, I know we can’t say ‘All nationalists are like this, all unionists like that’; ”
Well that’s that cleared up then Jude, that was my main issue with your piece. I was not alone in reading it that way either so perhaps a bit more care is needed with your words.
I think it’s plainly clear that many various representatives of the Unionist/Protestant community was there and that the death of Father Daly was felt and mourned by my community just as much as yours Jude. To be honest I don’t like using the yours and mine community tags because I consider everyone from NI my fellow countryman including yourself Jude.
Trying to claim anything, especially someone who had just passed and saying he belongs to us’uns and he belongs to use’uns and are one is better than your one is frankly ridiculous.
I’ll let the DUP defend why they didn’t go to the funeral, but that’s a bit of a red herring as the funeral isn’t mentioned in your piece. My opinion is yes they should have gone, but please don’t label me or “community” for there actions.
There sins are not mine Jude.
“Because Tom Elliott and the Newsletter speak favourably about a mans wealth, you now label a whole community as only valuing money and status”
Scott, Tom Elliot is elected by the Protestant Community…..he has made his views well known for many, many years…..
That’s irrelevant Ryan, his views don’t universally apply to all Protestants/Unionists. In fact no individuals does.
I like to be treated for what I am, which is a individual and not told what my views and values are by the opinions of one elected representative who only shares one of my many political positions which is Unionism.
“That’s irrelevant Ryan, his views don’t universally apply to all Protestants/Unionists. In fact no individuals does”
That’s irrelevant?? how the hell is that irrelevant Scot, explain to me? Tom Elliot is ELECTED, he puts his name down and thousands, tens of thousands of Protestants actually, vote for him to REPRESENT THEM. That’s politics and democracy. That’s the whole point of an elected politician, they represent the views of those who elect them. Why would tens of thousands of protestants vote for Tom Elliot if they didn’t generally agree with his views and outlook? It doesn’t make sense Scott.
When Sinn Fein ran for election in the 1980’s, Unionists weren’t shy about ranting about how their voters “Supported the Gun Man”. To be honest, that’s a fair judgement to make for then. Do I believe all Sinn Fein voters back then supported Violence? No but the reality is most of them maybe did because SF at that time supported violence, as did all political parties with the exception of Alliance and the SDLP. The DUP/UUP was very cosy with the UDA/UVF and even made Ulster Resistance. Of course DUP/UUP may have SAID they opposed violence but their actions told a different story. It was the UUP who demanded internment for Catholics which was often very violent and which understandably lead to a swelling of IRA ranks. My Uncle was interned on the Maidstone Ship but had absolutely no involvement with the IRA but as he told me: “I wasn’t in the IRA when I stepped onto the Maidstone but I certainly was when I stepped off”.
But the same logic applies to Tom Elliot today Scott. It is a fair Judgement to make that all of his voters agree with his general lookout and beliefs. I know before I vote I think about how certain politicians view things, hence why I voted SDLP back in May’s Assembly Election instead of SF who I usually voted because of the issue of abortion.
Well firstly Ryan, Tom Elliott won 25,000 votes out of a rough estimate of around 730,000 total Unionists. So even if your argument of a political representatives views reflect universally his whole electorates then Elliot only speaks for 3% of the total unionist electorate. Hardly a representation of Unionist majority.
Secondly if we follow your logic that lending your support to a person or organisation, then means that the actions/views of that person or organisation are attributed to you then the following statement would be true.
Because Priests and the Catholic Church hierarchy molested and covered up that molestation, then anyone who attends Mass or claims to be a Catholic (through there support of the church) doesn’t care if children are raped or if it’s covered up.
This follows the same logic you are applying to Unionists.
I don’t believe this to be true BTW, but perhaps you do? It’s your argument after all.
While I agree there is a marked difference in the reactions given to the 2 men’s deaths from Politicians etc I think your last 2 sentences are unfair.
You can’t paint entire communities, religions or any large group with one brush.
Right then. Scott, I may not have been as clear as I should. I agree – there are plenty of money-grubbing nationalists/republicans as well as unionists. But I am attempting to point out the contrast between the characteristics of a man admired by Tom Elliott (former UUP leader) and Arlene Foster (present DUP leader) and those of a man admired by nationalists/republicans. One man was enormously (obscenely?) wealthy, got out of here at about the age of seven, led a life that included considerable excess of various kinds. The other was a man who showed real courage and compassion and adopted a consistent anti-violence line, and spent his entire life caring in one way or another for others. And stayed here. This, set alongside the decision by unionist politicians politicians to give his funeral a wide berth (because, I think it’s reasonable to assume, they either thought their followers wouldn’t like it or because they personally didn’t want to pay their last respects to Eddie Daly) makes it hard to draw any other conclusion in this case than that unionist politicians believe their followers will approve of admiring the hugely rich and keeping at arm’s length a life of exemplary courage and service. Like you, I know we can’t say ‘All nationalists are like this, all unionists like that’; but the signals from unionist politicians are dismaying.
See my response to Scott, Michael. I am sorry if that’s the impression I’ve conveyed; but there is a marked contrast between the two men and the reactions of the politicians of unionist and nationalist politicians – based, I should think, on their take of their followers. Again, apologies if I’ve suggested ‘All unionists X, all nationalists Y’.
Jude
“Again, apologies if I’ve suggested ‘All unionists X, all nationalists Y’.”
Much appreciated.
Jude, as my great grandmother Frances Lucy (who married a Protestant btw, who later converted to Catholicism) use to say: “The Proof is in the Pudding”…..
“Jude, as my great grandmother Frances Lucy (who married a Protestant btw, who later converted to Catholicism) use to say: “The Proof is in the Pudding”…..”
Was everyone to afeared to correct her?
“Was everyone to afeared to correct her?”
There was nothing to correct MT.
“There was nothing to correct MT.”
Eh? She got the saying wrong it’s not “the proof is in the pudding”: it’s “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”.
Jude, whilst I completely agree with you regarding the politicians reactions your last 2/3 sentences seem to suggest the entire unionist community feels one way and the entire nationalist community feels another. Going by others comments im not the only one to think this. Maybe steer clear of sweeping generalisations.
It is however very sad that once again when unionist politicians/leaders have been presented with an opportunity to reach out the hand of reconciliation and friendship they have spurned the chance.
Hopefully ordinary unionists can see through this.
“Hopefully ordinary unionists can see through this.”
Not just see through it Michael, do something about it.
I’m not too sure that it shows the difference between the “two communities”, Jude. That might be a bit of a sweeping statement. It certainly tells us a lot about Tom Elliott and his own personal value system.Another thing you say which I wouldn’t agree with , which probably just popped out as a quick generalisation, was…”we’re all impressed by money, however acquired”. I wouldn’t agree with that at all.I’ll agree that many are really impressed by money , but I have never been. Now if you talked about something like skill , talent or say,”love and kindness”…that would impress me greatly.
As for the two gentlemen you’ve compared .They are obviously from very different places . Bishop Daly is very impressive as being a selfless very self-deprecating individual ,while the Duke is simply a product of privilege ,as you point out.That privilege has been built on the back of a succession of violent escapades in the past, no doubt. It comes from the same place that royalty accrues power. You don’t acquire that kind of land dosh without a bit of thievery and chicanery in your history. I’m afraid I don’t hand down any accolades to someone whose only claim to fame is that he has a big bankroll…which he didn’t make by his own skill.Now …if he had the arse hanging out of his trousers and could paint like Goya or blow a horn like Miles Davis, I might perk up and take a little notice…but to simply have a big pile of cash to sit on ….no he wouldn’t make the grade , I’m afraid.
De mortuis nil nisi bonum. Tigim leat go hiomlán. Permit me to pose a question about another statement:
“He owned vast areas of land across the United Kingdom and was recognized by Forbes Magazine because of this”.
How did he come to own vast areas of land? It is said that Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, his 25-year-old son will inherit the £8.3bn estate.
This comes at a time when a few acres of Mount Stewart, the Irish seat of the Vane-Tempest-Stewart family, will be thrown open to the general public. Rose Lauritzen regards Mount Stewart,
“…like a relation or a best friend and having experienced so much pleasure all my life surrounded by the exquisite thousand acres…”
It is perhaps time to reflect on the word, austerity and the phrase, austerity policies. Austerity policies are political choices, conceived and advocated by a few individuals far removed from a world of repossessions, homelessness, zero hours contracts or economic migration. It seems that for some, nostalgia is what it used to be. Success is relative, it means more success and just a few relatives.
“…In our dreams we see old Harrow and we hear the crow’s loud caw
At the flower show our big marrow take’s the pride from evil and war
Cups of tea and some dry sherry, vintage cars, these simple things
So let’s drink up and be merry for the captains and the Kings…”
Jude,
I was enjoying your article as always until I read the last couple of lines. It’s unfair to blanket the Protestant and Unionist community like that. You’re implying that Protestants are not impressed by selfless people who spend their lives serving others. It’s those kind of indiscriminate statements like the one you made which attracts the criticism of being sectarian but I know you’re not, having read a lot of your articles.
It reminded me a bit of an awful statement Jeffrey Donaldson made the other day on Nolan. Unfortunately it was thrown in at the end of a contribution and missed by Nolan who had started to interrupt him. When talking to a caller about former members of the IRA being in Government he said, “The Unionist Community doesn’t vote for paramilitaries.” I could sense the distain in his voice towards Catholics when he said it. You’re not of that ilk Jude but it wouldn’t be the first time carelessly selected words got you in trouble. Just looking out for you mate!
How sensitive the Protestant/loyalist community seem to be to any implied criticism.
Possibly, Philip, you don’t realise it is the function of a blogger such as Jude, to poke a stick in your beehive just to provoke a reaction.
How regularly would you read a column you totally agreed with every day?
Sherdy, I’m not at all sensitive and I am one of the biggest critics of Unionism and let’s face it there’s plenty of room for that but Jude’s blanket comment wasn’t justified. Thankfully no-one picked up on it during the Talkback discussion. By the way I don’t read Jude’s column because I agree with it but because he mostly hits the nail on the head and it’s refreshing to read a well articulated Republican view which cannot be found in the establishment media but this time he used a sledgehammer on the nail!
Don’t worry, Philip – I can take care of myself, I promise you. See my response to Scott.
Interesting points DR C, though I should add that perhaps the deceased Duke is being lauded by the unionist community (or rather by elements within it) given the Duke’s connections with Northern Ireland i.e. the old Anglo-Irish network?
I find that link saddening, AM – he is a toff, lives in England, Duke of W’minster – but he’s really a Fermanagh lad. Sorry, toff.
find that link saddening, AM – he is a toff, lives in England, Duke of W’minster – but he’s really a Fermanagh lad. Sorry, toff.
There it is chippy Irish Republican!
“I find that link saddening, AM – he is a toff, lives in England, Duke of W’minster – but he’s really a Fermanagh lad. Sorry, toff.”
Are we just slinging insults now Jude. Poor form
I’m no lover of inherited wealth but there is an aspect to the late Duke of Westminster that is worth noting.
The story goes that he suffered long term depression & at least one nervous breakdown because he never wanted to inherit the family wealth with all the pressure that came with it. The fact that he died at the relatively young age of 64 (looking 10 years older) with the best medical attention money can buy would tend to corroborate this story.
We can vent our understandable anger at such obscene & inherited personal wealth but this little tale about the late duke made me pause & wonder. What if you didn’t want all this wealth? What if you wanted to be a train driver or a doctor? But duty called. Not many can stick two fingers up to centuries of family tradition & say ‘Stick the family business. I’m off to find meself!’
After all he didn’t ask to be born into such wealth.
How does it feel to be that trapped? No money would compensate for the fact that you could never do what you really wanted to do with your life. He was trapped in much the same way as someone feels they are trapped earning £20,000 with 3 kids & a mortgage. the only difference being is that the duke probably paid £20,000 for a couple of new suits.
Don’t get me wrong. The cynic in me says ‘he could have walked away & taken that job as a train driver. Given most of the money away. Naw, He liked the money. Brought up with it. Couldn’t live without it.’
I doubt he would have been allowed to walk away. He would have spent his life fighting legal battles with his family.
So spare a thought for those who never wanted to to be stinking rich. It wasn’t the duke’s fault that his ancestor killed loads of Englishmen for William the conqueror & was given all of Cheshire as a reward for his hard work.
Sorry Jude this article tells us more about you than the people who feature in the article.
Both of these men were privileged both didn’t have to worry were the next penny comes from.
You obviously revere the late Bishop because he suits your political beliefs whereas the Duke of Westminster clearly doesn’t suit your political beliefs.
Perhaps in due course we will find out what both of these people were really like and then we can judge them more accurately.
Sorry – rushing now, Robert. But you are talkiing rubbish.Back later.
Does that pass that for a constructive argument on this blog?
I hope you’re not on your way to talkback again I was going to write and just then I hear on the radio that the very topic of your article is the top story. You’re a prophet Jude. I hope you’ve got your body armor on!
Don’t try that tedious old one, Robert – this tells more about you, etc. ‘Both of these men were privileged’ – one was, indeed. I knew Eddie Daly and while he didn’t live in poverty, his life was several billions short of the Duke’s. ‘
You obviously revere the late Bishop because he suits your political beliefs’ – no I don’t. I revere him because he was a man of consistently compassionate principles. My sympathies, as you’d probably agree, tend to land somewhere between nationalist and republican; Eddie Daly was strongly anti-republican.
Do you know if the Duke of Westminster was or wasnt a compassionate and principled man he could be an even more principled man than Bishop Daly. But since he is part of the British establishment he has to be suspect unlike Bishop Daly.
forbes had him the 68th richest man on earth last week.
this week hes the 68th richest man in the graveyard,such is life.
It is true that Prods do tend to love the Big House. Centuries of conditioning. They’re fooled into believing that ‘these are our people. They keep the other crowd in their place & see us right.’
(I know of what i speak my ancestors were Land Stewards for the Anglo-Irish for many generations.)
The fact that history has shown this notion to be a falsehood hasn’t shifted this stubborn belief. Prods looked at the old duke & believed all’s right with the world as long as he has his money & his big houses. The truth is the old duke hated his wealth, it depressed him, gave him a nervous breakdown & killed him at 64.
It’s a moral tale for our time. Maybe one day the Prods will wake up & reach for the pitch forks as they once did.
And not one Unionist attended Bishop dalys funeral not even the DUP mayor of the city he served with such Bravery. Shame on her and all of them.
Now if this is true (I’m not saying it’s not, I just don’t know) then this deserves much criticism.
I’m subject to correction on this ,but there seemed to be a notable absence of political unionist representatives at Bishop Dalys funeral yesterday .The D U P Mayor of Derry and Strabane failed to attend citing a “prior engagement “.According to the B B C,the D U P press office stated that that none of its members would be attending .No representatives from from Mike Nesbitts party or Alliance were conspicuous by their presence.Given that Bishop Daly was unequivocal in his condemnation of I R A ,violence,why was their such a noticeable lack of attendance from the political unionist community?This was in stark contrast to the local Protestant churches all of whom sent representatives along with Lord Eames.
As others have pointed out I think it is a stretch to extrapolate from Tom Elliott to the entire protestant and unionist communities. A lazy generalization.
And I don’t see how Elliott’s latter remark is a non-sequiter as it did not immediately follow the former remarks and the former was not being offered as evidence of the latter.
Here is Arlene Foster on Bishop Daly:
“Bishop Daly devoted his life to serving and helping others, quietly undertaking a wide range of charitable works in the local community.”
During the darker moments of our recent past Dr Daly made a significant contribution by arguing that violence should be rejected and by articulating a vision based on respect and tolerance.”
What does this tell us about the values of the protestant/unionist community I wonder.?
‘A lazy generalization.’ – mmm. One that unionist politicians would appear to have made, in their suddenly full timetable during the time of Eddie Daly’s funeral.
Jude
Surely Arlene’s tribute to Edward Daly must also (based on your theory) tell us something about the Prods. Or does your theory only apply to Tom Elliott?
Jude
May I respond to two of your comments?
The first is this:
“In this case the admiration of Eddie Daly tells us much about the Catholic and nationalist community, and the things they value. And in this case the dmiration of the Duke of Devonshire tells us much about the Protestant and unionist community, and the things they value. The difference is inescapable.”
and the second your reply to Scott.
“Rubbish, Scott. I will say more later.”
My father recalls a former minister of ours, conducting a funeral service many years ago; and, as is customary at many Protestant funerals, speaking at the committal. He said something like this:
“As you leave the graveside today, men (the mourners at a graveside would have been almost exclusively men at that time), you may be asking what our brother left behind. May I say this to you, ‘He left everything; let us pray.'”
I remember too the day my father’s friend, and Roman Catholic cleric visited our house and spoke with the Presbyterian mourners gathered for my grandfather’s wake.
Each of us are equal in death, and I am sure that each of us, Protestant, Catholic or other, each having been influenced by the various stands of Christianity in Ireland, will be familiar with the words:
“Naked came I out of my mother’s womb,
and naked shall I return thither:
the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away;
blessed be the name of the Lord.”
Each of us, from whatever community experience the same loss and pain in death – and of course it very much matters how we live, and it very much matters how we treat our fellow human beings, and, I would say, how we honour our Creator; each of us know these things.
And so I am at a loss to try to understand what it is about the reported comments of one man about another, which is sufficient to “tell(s) us much about the Protestant and unionist community, and the things (we) they value.”
What I do know, however, is this, the visit of that Roman Catholic cleric on that day, many years ago now, is still remembered, and still appreciated. It was shared sorrow, and it was shared Christian love – as to the differences, the only difference that day was between the shape of the Cross he wore, and the shape of the one fixed to the wall in our home.
That’s a sincere and even touching tribute to the funeral, PF – maith thú – well done. Briefly: I think politicians do and don’t do things with at least part of their mind calculating its impact on their electorate. I’m guessing that all unionist politicians stayed away from Eddie Daly’s funeral because they thought it would play badly if they went. I conclude from that (i) that they failed to show good leadership by going; (ii) that their reading of their electorate shows same electorate as being more than a bit short on generosity. I really wish it were otherwise and I think, as Mark Carruthers implied, they missed an opportunity. Nationalists/republicans are thirsting for a bold, generous gesture from unionism. No sign yet.
Which is all very well, Jude, except that your initial piece mentioned nothing of decisions by politicians to attend or not attend funeral – it was about wealth, status, power and the lack of, or rejection of these things.
On that point I could have found some agreement with you, but unfortunately the article went on to draw conclusions about “the Protestant and unionist community”, and the things we value.
Surely it is clear, that it is simply not possible to draw such conclusions about a community based on a comment by a single politician? If you think it is, may I appeal to you to reconsider?
Are other of your more recent concerns, noted in the reply above, valid – yes, I think they are; might Unionist politicians have attended the funeral, yes, I think they could have, but that concern runs parallel to the problem of stereotyping.
And (and the difficulty with conversations like this is that it can turn into a point scoring exercise, which is not my aim), it is also important to remember that leaders/ministers in each of the three main Protestant (and not necessarily Unionist, remember), have spoken highly of Bishop Daly. In the case of the CofI, two statements are available here:
http://ireland.anglican.org/news/6489
http://ireland.anglican.org/news/6490
On the other point:
“Nationalists/republicans are thirsting for a bold, generous gesture from unionism.”
And perhaps that is part of the problem…
The community I know doesn’t really do grand gestures – even within our own community(s). We tend towards the pragmatic, “Thank you, and that’ll do ye ’til you’re better paid,” approach, if you see what I mean. And I suspect this spills over into the political arena, hence the “businesslike” talk and so on.
My own view is that gestures are all very well, but largely unnecessary, and perhaps the best work and the real work is done between individuals, from the grassroots up.
You see, and for example, while I can fully respect Martin McGuinness for meeting the Queen, and can understand how difficult that would have been for him, I didn’t really expect him to, and I don’t really think he needed to; what is more important for me is that the peace holds for my children.
Another of the things I learned at home was to lower my expectations and get on with the job in hand – we can be a dour lot!
And maybe all this does is highlight some of the ways we need to know each other better.
I’d agree with you Jude, on that point about unionist leaders staying away because of how it might play with some of their more bitter constituents, who possibly saw Eddie Daly as some spawn of Satan simply because he was a Roman Catholic…(this virulent strain , no doubt , exist but what of moderate unionists…surely there must be some who should have been represented?!)….and yes , I heard the radio programme and Mark Carruthers rightly made the point that unionism missed a trick and an opportunity of out- reach by not sending a rep. That’ is one thing political unionism appears to be incapable of doing …that out-reach business.They really have aproblem doing that and at heart it is the real beginning of grown-up politics.it is sadly missing.
“I’m guessing that all unionist politicians stayed away from Eddie Daly’s funeral because they thought it would play badly if they went. I conclude from that (i) that they failed to show good leadership by going; (ii) that their reading of their electorate shows same electorate as being more than a bit short on generosity.”
Now that point is accurate.
This was a perfect opportunity for the political representatives of unionism to show some interest in reconciliation and to reciprocate the efforts made by Martin McGuinness time and time again over many years.
They did make some effort in issuing statements and opening a book of condolences etc…
That not one could show there face in contrast however is stark and was another opportunity lost.
The gestures which were made however are a move and that should be acknowledged as there have not been many to date.
It would suggest that there is a desire emerging within political unionism to make more of a concerted effort.
What I find interesting about this, is whether these moves are a result of pressure being applied from either their constituents below them or from their political masters above them across the water.
Or is it genuine, and while there is an understanding that it would have been the right thing to do, there is also an understanding of the consequences of decades long encouragement of bigotry which would inevitably been the end of the political career of the first unionist politicians to break the mould and embrace reconciliation in this way.
Like it or not, such blanket criticism of the unionist community is not unwarranted and indeed there are few such communities on this planet who would fit the bill for such criticism so well and it is not out of spite that we say these things, but a harsh reality that nationalists in Ireland have had the misfortune to have to endure over many generations.
It would be like the white community in the deep south run for decades by white supremacists and the KKK, who know perfectly well their black neighbours were discriminated against, and even those in the white community who believed it was wrong and detested it, would keep their heads down and say nothing about it.
Which is all well and good to say they feared to speak out. But don’t in later generations think it can simply be forgotten and put down to naughty predecessors and nothing to do with us. It requires gestures and public demonstrations by community representatives to show leadership and give good example.
If a black priest, widely respected in the deep south by whites and blacks alike, dies and the white political leaders while making positive statements but not one shows their face at the funeral. It would be obvious that they still felt uncomfortable mingling with that community and still hold strong feelings preventing them from taking that final step.
Until the political leadership within unionism take the plunge and make such gestures, then don’t expect the nationalist community to have a positive opinion of unionism or to defend individuals within it. This encouragement to change has to be driven by the good people within the unionist community who should not be asking for easy options to get around having to face up to them.
It wasn’t easy for Sinn Fein to take the steps they have done either, but they make them all the same.
Unfortunately, in today’s world , success is judged on the size of your bank account.
But then, by that standard, Mother Theresa was a total failure in life.
Well not if you judge her by the money she put into the bank accounts of the church!
Though she certainly failed in many other respects.
Possibly a more apposite segue than you realised, Jude, in writing about these two deaths.
In the case of the late bishop, unionist politicians thought it would have been infra dig for them to have attended his funeral.
In the case of the late Gerald, his family may well think it infra dig to have unionist politicians attending his funeral!
People like Elliott venerate the wealthy, especially the English gentry who acquired their ill gotten gains simply because of birth. I loathe all the dukes, earls, duchessessessess, kings and queens in the world, especially the bunch of spongers across the water. Unionists, particularly the orange section, worship inherited wealth, their banners are pock marked with various wastes of space, they buy into the whole class structure, fooling themselves into thinking they are British while the truth is they occupy a lower level than their English/Scottish/Welsh equivalents.
Gregory, as usual, gave a very good account of himself on Talkback. He reminds me, somehow, of Darby O Gill and the little people. The amount of manoeuvring that he can do on the head of a pin is nothing short of awesome. I gathered that unionists don’t necessarily attend funerals as a mark of respect. They may do it in other ways. And dare anybody tell them what to do and how to do it. I wonder if he ever attended a funeral of a relative recently or is that not the way unionists do things?
It is inbred in the expats to tug the forelock to the big house. Some have grown out of it and are labelled Lundy,socialist or even communist so they have learned to keep quiet. Anonymous keyboard comments give them a secure outlet
Long may it last. I may be of the opinion that both men came from big houses and should be judged when stripped of their worldly goods.
yep,6ft of earth makes them all the one size.i would agree both were from big houses with skivvies in attendance from breakfast till supper time.saying all catholics and nationalists revere bishops simply isnt the case.
Perhaps the greatest irony of all this is that father Daly was respected by all People in NI for his stance on non violence and his efforts to bring our communities together.
No sooner is he buried his death and the death of the Duke of Westminster are used by Jude (who says he’s a admirer of Father Daly) as a political football to make differences in our communities and drive us apart.
Father Daly was consistently a peacemaker and a unifier from what I can see.
I’m afraid the same can’t be said of you this day Jude.
If speaking the truth as I see it is to be a war-monger and divider, we live in an odd state…
War monger, no
Divider, yes
Praise and admiration for Father Daly was nearly universal in NI before you chose to drive this wedge between people, Jude.
Perhaps you should reflect on whether Father Daly would use your description of prods/unionists community as one that only admires money.
UH-UH,Scott ‘your description of prods/unionists community as one that only admires money’ – try sticking with facts.
Sorry Jude but were did I stray? I genuinely don’t see it.
You made reference to Tom Elliott saying that the duke owned lots of land and was extremely wealthy. You spoke at length about the Dukes wealth along with his TA service, perhaps you meant that it’s was his military service. This is why I assumed that these were the things that to put it in your words…
“And in this case the dmiration of the Duke of Devonshire tells us much about the Protestant and unionist community, and the things they value. The difference is inescapable.”
Perhaps you can make it clear to me then what the Protestant and unionist community values.
Jude everybody knows what you meant you have a certain track record in doing this once is an accident twice is unlucky third time well…
‘You have a certain track-record’ – oh dear. You mean I’ve disagreed with you in the past, Robert? Well, I mean, that’s it. I’m clearly in the wrong. All the time.
Its nothing to do with me its about what you have wrote, you deal in generalizations complain when people supposedly “misinterpret” and “twist” your words. That is your responsibility not mine.
On first glancing at Tom Elliott’s description of the Duke of Westminster as ‘a man of the people’, Esteemed Blogmeister, one assumed it was done so in the ‘tongue in cheek’ mode.
There is, after all, a long tradition of ‘tongue in cheekiness’ among Buachailli On Eirne: call it natural-born, erm, erney.
Its most famous sample is contained in the lyrics of the county’s signature tune:
-Buachaill on Eirne me ‘s bhreagfainn fein cailin deas og/ I’m a boy from the Erne and I could charm a nice young girl.
-Ni iarrfainn bo spre lei ta me fein saibhir go leor / I wouldn’t ask for a cow dowry as I am rich enough.
And so on, in that vein of Erne-side irony. Or, was it?
With the revelation that the recently deceased Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor spent his earliest years in Ely Lodge, Lough Erne, this, ergo, throws a stately manor in the works. Being adjacent to the Marble Arch Caves this formative spell in Fermanagh meant that London was a home from home for the future Duke of Westminster.
Truly a Buachaill on Eirne, if not THE original Boy from the Erne, even if his moolah was of the inherited variety, thus ruling out all possibility, regretfully, of its being earned. Ever.
It certainly makes one peruse the lines of the eponymous song about the newly non-anonymous boy, with a different perspective.
-Buachailleacht bo, mo lao, nar chleacht me ariamh/ A cowheard, my pet, I’ve never been accustomed to be.
(One should rather think not, Westminster, old bean).
But it is the following line from the original text which really concentrates the mind, not to mention banishing the last temptation of tongue to remain in cheek, knowing what one knows more today than one knew as recently as last week.
-Ach ag imirt ‘s ag ol is le hogmhna deasa fa shliabh/ But playing and drinking with nice young women on the mountain.
Hmmmm.
Indeed, hrrrrrrrrrr.
To fully appreciate just how eerily prophetic this lyric actually is (considering the original predates the birthday of Hausfrau Saxe-Coburg-Goth: yes it is that antique, and is generally accepted in antiquarian circles of a reputable stripe to have been originally committed to parchment by goosequill dipped in bilberry ink somewhere in the vicinity of Lough Erne, if not indeed, on an island lodge itself) one must fast forward to March 10, 2008.
This was the fateful day when the New York Times reported that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer had patronized an elite escort service run by Emperors VIP Club. The ensuing scandal led to Governor Eliot Spitzer’s resignation on, erm, St. Patrick’s Day, 2008.
Now, apart from the fact that unlike Tom ElliotT Eliot Spitzer was – one ‘l’ of a dude, one comes, sadly, to the Fermanagh connection, fer Fed Ex sakes.
Also implicated in the scandal was (gulp) the Duke of Westminster aka the (gasp) newly outed Buachaill on Eirne. By way of collateral damage he was compelled to resign his post as Assistant Chief of Defence Staff, thereby (sob) relinquishing responsibility for 50,000 reservists and 138,000 cadets of the non-terrorist Territorial Army-o.
It is at this juncture that one may proceed to deconstruct the original lyrics of the eponymous ballad. Take for instance, the reference to ‘le hogmhna deasa fa shliabh/ with nice young women on the mountain’.
This particular reference to a high immoral ground has caused literary detectives, both from the post-modernist and pre-neanderthal schools of prosodic deconstruction alike, much chin stroking. So much so, it became what is known in the groves of academe, as a Big Smiggy. (Smig being the leprechaun for chin).
Let there be no more mystification: the topographical puzzle has been toppled.
As one glance at the loci belli (theatres of operation) favoured by the elite escort service of the Emperors VIP Club will verify. In each and every case the location of choice (by such shapely stalwarts as Intellectual Irma, Highbrow Hannah and Cerebral Sal) was a high rise erection, a skyscraper in the Big Apple: call it Rumpy Pump Tower as distinct from Trump Tower, for discretion’s sake.
For skyscraper, read ‘sliabh’.
The upper classy Duke of Westminster was naturally drawn to the high altitude and the class of business model on offer at the Emperor’s VIP Club:
-Each model’s registered introduction fee has been placed on her page and is symbolized by the number of diamonds on her page.
(As distinct, presumably, from the soles of her feet, though a dude could get lucky, not least a dude of the ducal variety).
-3 diamonds, for instance, represents 1,000 dollars per hour while 6 diamonds signifies 2,000 dollars per hour, or escalating beyond. Fees/ diamonds vary according to individual education, sophistication and ambiance created by each of the (business) models.
One scurrilous daily rag of the Red Top classification stooped so low as to report that the original Buachaill on Eirne once went so far as to hire two hostesses both at the same time and also, simultaneously, going forward. The hideous headline read:
-So many cheeks, so few tongue !
The implication being obvious: given the literary bent of Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor who went on to marry a direct descendant of the Russian poet, Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkhin, no less a lass, that the 6th Duke of Westminster came equipped to Rumpy Pumpy Tower with……a copy of Fermanagh’s signature novel by the eminent writer, Seamas Mac Annaidh, in his back pocket edition:
:
-Mo Dha Mhici.
Poor show by the unionist parties for not attendin the funeral.
MT
I fully agree. They should have been there.
Attendance by unionist party representatives at Bishop Daly’s funeral was clearly the civil thing to do, but sadly their civility is often absent. For all Bishop Daly stood for however, his association with Bloody Sunday is head and shoulders above everything else. That day’s victims were vilified as armed gunmen, nail bombers, rioters etc. and it took decades to exonerate them. The purposeful failure to attend Bishop Daly’s funeral suggests the truth of that is still too hard to swallow for some.
Another 6 diamond contribution, you young pretender. Long may your buckle swash.
Grma, fiosrach…
PF, a quick word to the wise. If you refer to Catholics as Catholics, rather than Roman Catholics, everyone will still know what you mean. Honestly. No big deal however.
Freddie
You draw to my attention something I had almost forgotten, that the ‘Roman’ prefix has been used to communicate a degree of disrespect towards others in the past – if I have added to that feeling, albeit unintentionally, please accept my apologies.
If it is of any help, I have used both descriptions on this website.
No offence intended, and I do hope that the bigger point is received – that of friendship.
A gracious response, PF. Maith thú – well done.
But then ,Freddie, what about “catholics” as in those described as including a wide variety of things in their repertoire or simply being all-embracing in matters of taste? Maybe better to stick with the description “RCs” to avoid any further confusion.We already know what Protestants are …They’re the ones who protest about everything …aren’t they?
paddykool
“They’re the ones who protest about everything …aren’t they?”
Yep! And at times it is an admirable quality!
No Surrender!
Exactly PF!!
all this eddie daly,not giving him his title(bishop)seems to be trying to bring him in as if he was an ordinary punter when he was nothing of the sort.he was part and parcel of the catholic church in ireland and part of the cover up thats still going on.he made the choice to stay with this outfit and be promoted through the ranks same as yer man the duke did on his side they will be good enough company for each other in my opinion.
Bishop Daly and the Duke of Westminster simply cant be compared. I know the topic is the reaction from the public/politicians to both their deaths but still these two characters were miles apart. One dedicated himself to the Teachings of Christ and his local community (both Protestant and Catholic, btw), the other dedicated himself to a life of Wealth, Status and Ease which he had not earned due to his own efforts but due to his family (who most likely stole it from other peoples in the distant past. Indeed the very jewels in the British Crown were stolen from India and Africa). As I had to tell our MT many times, the greatest criminals that ever existed in Britain sat in the House of Lords and House of Commons. You can find far more decent people in a British prison compared to some of the cretins who sit on the Red/Green benches.
To my knowledge (I’m open to correction as always) but not a single Unionist politician has come out to pay tribute to Bishop Daly. Even Derry’s Unionist Mayor (Do you think there will ever be a Sinn Fein Mayor of Lisburn or Larne? That’s the equivalent) refused to attend his funeral, nor did any Unionist politician. This is despite Bishop Daly’s opposition to all violence, including the IRA’s. Why? Why are Unionist politicians quite obviously snubbing this man? Well my belief is they side with the British soldiers who committed Bloody Sunday. The disgusting and vile abuse Bishop Daly has received from Unionists on facebook really is like something out of the 17th Century. But when Bloody Sunday actually occurred it was gloated over by many Unionists. Many moderate Unionists wrote of how they were shocked to see Unionist teachers, Businessmen, etc having an air of indifference to Bloody Sunday. Many instantly backed the British soldiers and gave the impression they supported it. Susan McKay wrote of her teacher allowing kids to chant and laugh about Bloody Sunday at school. She even got into an argument in class with a teenage pupil who gloated and said it was a pity more weren’t murdered that day (a regular boast on Unionist facebook pages).
I also think religion plays a part here. Its no secret that Unionist politicians despise Catholics, not because of their politics but because of religion. It was Lord Brookebrough (an NI prime minister) that said that 1% of Catholics were Unionists but he still didn’t trust even that 1%. His grandson is interviewed by Susan McKay (he is also a wealthy land owner, like the Duke of Westminster, and worked in Banking). His grandson denies his grandfather ever said such things about Catholics. When McKay points out the evidence that proves he obviously did, his grandson changes the topic. McKay then says she gets the impression from that point onwards that the grandson doesn’t want to talk about his grandfather’s many anti-Catholic speeches. Again we see this crude and deluded denial from prominent Unionists.
Bishop Daly spent his life working for peace and justice. Unionist politicians of today seem to be opposed to those values just as much as the Unionist politicians who were around when Bloody Sunday happened. We have debated reconciliation on this blog many times before and even a blind man could see its Unionism stopping it and opposing equality. I fail to see how this tactic could ever strengthen the Union. Indeed it weakens it greatly. Are Unionist politicians just stupid? Or just too bigoted? I tend to think both…..
Chuid eile i síocháin/Requiesce in pace Father Daly.
Ryan
“To my knowledge (I’m open to correction as always) but not a single Unionist politician has come out to pay tribute to Bishop Daly.”
I already posted Arlene’s tribute to him, maybe you just didn’t bother to look!
I suggested it might tell us as much about protestant/unionist attitudes as Tom Elliott’s remarks but sadly Jude did not respond to that point.
Nor will he ever respond again
“I suggested it might tell us as much about protestant/unionist attitudes as Tom Elliott’s remarks but sadly Jude did not respond to that point.”
It does indeed gio.
It suggests there is a realisation that their bigotry will not be tolerated going forward.
It suggests a gradual realisation that they need to make some effort towards reconciliation. something that has been disgustingly lacking to date.
It suggests that while such statements are to be welcomed and are most definitely signs of movement, there is still a strong abhorrence, perhaps even fear of being seen among the other community.
It suggests that much more scrutiny and soul searching is needed to determine how almost 20 years on from the Good Friday Agreement this can still remain the case.
Is it fear of the paramilitaries they have encouraged and still associate with while tolerating their continued militarism in case it is ever once again needed for has political unionism really turned its back on militancy or is it still playing to both sides?
Is it association with the sectarian orange order which so many are members off?
Is it simply the truth that the vast majority of unionists are brought up to distrust or despise Catholics and they fear the political consequences of the stigma from being the first to make such a visual move?
These are the questions is raises for me gio, but as a “im not a unionist” brand of unionist, none of the above probably matter much to you do they no matter what the truth actually is?
Gio,
I honestly cant find that tribute, could you post the link again? I don’t know whether I’ve just overlooked it or I need to get back to specsavers and get a new pair of glasses but I cant find it.
There wasn’t a single Unionist politician at Bishop Daly’s funeral. I don’t think that’s a coincidence Gio. The Mayor of Derry didn’t bother to turn up either. Yes, there is a DUP Mayor of Derry. As I mentioned previously could you imagine a Sinn Fein Mayor of Larne or Lisburn?? A Republican parade wouldn’t be tolerated in Lisburn, never mind a Sinn Fein Mayor. Despite the history of gerrymandering/discrimination in Derry by Unionism, in the interests of reconciliation, the Nationalist dominated council elected a DUP Mayor. But yet that same DUP Mayor snubs Bishop Daly because, lets just admit it, the man was a Catholic.
Ryan
Come on. I just googled Arlene Foster and Bishop Daly and there it is in the first result.
I think there was also something from Gregory Campbell, though I know that does not fit the narrative.
Now I do agree with you that Unionism should have been represented at his funeral.
That was disgraceful really.
The comments from unionists on here and elsewhere suggest that the unionist community do not approve of the failure of their leaders to pay their respects.
Thanks PF.