I’m indebted to Patrick Kidd’s TIMES DIARY of 5th October, though I don’t have the full text, for pointing out a clanger dropped by Ms Goodwin, who wrote the script for a TV series on the late Queen Victoria, played by a very fanciable actress, or as today’s custom dictates “actor.” ( Ten years from now historical works with jokes about what a Bishop said to an actress will require footnotes for students.)
Ms Goodwin’s clanger had Sir Robert Peel telling Victoria that he did not shoot. Apparently, in real life, some well heeled but foolish man once promised Peel that if he could on one day shoot a specified number of separate birds, live and in the wild, he would give him £300 or guineas, I forget which. Whereupon Peel went out with his fowling pieces and bagged the lot within a few hours.
You may remember the American based philosopher Seamus Murphy of the Society of Jesus whose IRISH TIMES piece in its “Rite and Reason” column is invoked by a group trying to resurrect Trinity College Dublin’s Loyal Orange Lodge. Father Murphy’s corner-boy sneers at Connolly and Pearse were accompanied by the assertion that Daniel O’Connell had never shot a man. In fact, in 1815, in Dublin, O’Connell fought a duel in which he shot John D’Esterre dead.
In that same year O’Connell was arrested on his way to Ostend, to accept a challenge to a duel by Robert Peel. Peel then accused O’Connell of arranging for his arrest, out of cowardice.
There was no love lost between Peel and O’Connell. Loyal Orange Lodges, marching, or still in utero, might be interested to know that O’Connell called his challenger “Orange Peel.”
I understand that “dropping a clanger” is a polite substitute for a term used in the British Army (which I expect some intellectual to assure us, “never shot anybody). The original is “dropping a ballock”. I do hope somebody can think what would happen if Daisy Goodwin met Seamus Murphy SJ.
By George, I’ve got it! “WHEN DAISY MEETS SEAMUS – Falsus in Uno, Falsies in Tandem, Clangers in Omnibus”
Considering that the “Victoria” TV show was something of a fantasy anyway, you can imagine that the script -writer felt free to make up as much “history” as she could get away with….thus the Peel clanger…. There’s no doubt that the lead actress and her theatrical consort were two very attractive individuals that might easily adorn the walls of teenagers in popstar fashion…but there the resemblance to the real -life queen and her fella abruptly took a fantastical turn .Tiny , as Jenna Coleman was, at five feet, two inches, she absolutely towered over the the “real” Victoria whose four feet ,eight inches must have presented her as hobbit-sized.. Then there’s her “beauty” to contend with .There’s no real easy way to put it , but the real Victoria would best be described as “comely”…maybe! . She was hardly one of the beauties of the ages even though this fiction presents her so.
I’ d expect somebody to spring to the defence of the shameless Seumus, a false witness if ever there was one. Our rude forefathers and their loving partners used swear by what they held most dear, what the Romans called “testis” and the vulgar call “ballock.” “Testis” then came to mean “witness”.
Later, Christians came to swear by the Mass, and like a good Taig I held a Missal in my
right hand when I joined An Forsa Cosanta Aitiuil (the part-time reserve of Oglaigh na hEireann) in 1957.
Our separated, Reformed Brethern swore on the Bible, Old, New or combined Testaments.
Having seen your photo of Daisy Goodwin I cannot but forgive her trespassing on the historical record and realise it was without malice.
I don’t think that Fr Murphy needs anybody to ‘spring’ to his defence, but I would make a couple of points. Firstly, in the article in Rites & Reasons to which you refer, his reference to O’Connell never having shot anybody is within the context of the Rising. He could have been more precise in his language, but I suspect he is aware of the duel to which you refer. Secondly, he doesn’t resort to name-calling or ad-hominem argument as you do. That is one sure-fire way to lose respect from your readers, as it suggests you have nothing real to offer against the argument at hand.