“King George V & ‘The Six Counties’” by Joe McVeigh

 

The first person ever to refer to the occupied part of Ireland as ‘The Six Counties’ was King George V in his speech at the official opening of the Northern parliament in Belfast City Hall on 7 June 1921. (The parliament moved from the City Hall to the Presbyterian Church’s college, later Union Theological College, until they moved to Parliament Buildings at Stormont in 1932.

This is the text of King George’s speech to both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland given in person at Belfast on 7 June 1921:

“Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons:

For all who love Ireland, as I do with all my heart, this is a profoundly moving occasion in Irish history. My memories of the Irish people date back to the time when I spent many happy days in Ireland as a midshipman. My affection for the Irish people has been deepened by the successive visits since that time, and I have watched with constant sympathy the course of their affairs.

I could not have allowed myself to give Ireland by deputy alone My earnest prayers and good wishes in the new era which opens with this ceremony, and I have therefore come in person, as the Head of the Empire, to inaugurate this Parliament on Irish soil.

I inaugurate it with deep-felt hope, and I feel assured that you will do your utmost to make it an instrument of happiness and good government for all parts of the community which you represent.

This is a great and critical occasion in the history of the Six Counties, but not for the Six Counties alone, for everything which interests them touches Ireland, and everything which touches Ireland finds an echo in the remotest parts of the Empire.

Few things are more earnestly desired throughout the English speaking world than a satisfactory solution of the age long Irish problems, which for generations embarrassed our forefathers, as they now weigh heavily upon us.”

It is an interesting speech –of its time, of course. It would seem that Queen Elizabeth II studied it before making her speech in Dublin some years ago.

Prior to the negotiations which led to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921, Sinn Fein was holding out for independence and a single parliament for the whole island ofIreland. However, during the peace talks, in order to conclude a deal and, perhaps, prevent further bloodshed, Griffith and Collins and the others sent over by DeValera concluded –naively – that partition was a temporary little arrangement and that the Boundary Commission would end partition. They believed, it would return counties Fermanagh and Tyrone to the southern State and a four county statelet would be unviable. The Commission decided not to change anything.

James Craig MP for East Down and later mid – Down became the leader of the Unionist party in succession to the Edward Carson who had led the Unionist opposition to Home Rule for Ireland and never wanted Ireland partitioned. He was a junior minister in Lloyd George’s cabinet from 1917 till 1921 and was able to influence Irish policy. He was partly responsible for the choice of 6 counties rather than the nine counties of Ulster for the new statelet. He reluctantly accepted the Premiership of the new statelet and remained until his death in November 1940. He resisted Lloyd George’s attempt to have the Belfast parliament subordinate to the new parliament in Dublin. He ruled the 6 counties by remote control from Westminster with the help of a strong civil service, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the B-men.

Craig made no effort to be conciliatory. He was the man who stated in Stormont in1934: “I have always said I am an Orangeman first and a politician and Member of Parliament afterwards…all I boast is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant state.”  Craig did not share the king’s desire for reconciliation and peace on the island of Ireland. When will we get a Unionist leader who is brave enough to think about it and offer the Nationalist/republican people a generous proposal for a new agreed reunified country?

This is how the king’s speech in June 1921 continued: “Few things are more earnestly desired throughout the English speaking world than a satisfactory solution of the age long Irish problems, which for generations embarrassed our forefathers, as they now weigh heavily upon us.

Most certainly there is no wish nearer My own heart than that every man of Irish birth, whatever be his creed and wherever be his home, should work in loyal co-operation with the free communities on which the British Empire is based.

I am confident that the important matters entrusted to the control and guidance of the Northern Parliament will be managed with wisdom and with moderation, with fairness and due regard to every faith and interest, and with no abatement of that patriotic devotion to the Empire which you proved so gallantly in the Great War.

Full partnership in the United Kingdom and religious freedom Ireland has long enjoyed. She now has conferred upon her the duty of dealing with all the essential tasks of domestic legislation and government; and I feel no misgiving as to the spirit in which you who stand here to-day will carry out the all important functions entrusted to your care.

My hope is broader still. The eyes of the whole Empire are on Ireland to-day, that Empire in which so many nations and races have come together in spite of ancient feuds, and in which new nations have come to birth within the lifetime of the youngest in this Hall.

I am emboldened by that thought to look beyond the sorrow and the anxiety which have clouded of late My vision of Irish affairs. I speak from a full heart when I pray that My coming to Ireland to-day may prove to be the first step towards an end of strife amongst her people, whatever their race or creed. In that hope, I appeal to all Irishmen to pause, to stretch out the hand of forbearance and conciliation, to forgive and to forget, and to join in making for the land which they love a new era of peace, contentment, and goodwill.

It is My earnest desire that in Southern Ireland, too, there may ere long take place a parallel to what is now passing in this Hall; that there a similar occasion may present itself and a similar ceremony be performed.

For this the Parliament of the United Kingdom has in the fullest measure provided the powers; for this the Parliament of Ulster is pointing the way. The future lies in the hands of My Irish people themselves.

May this historic gathering be the prelude of a day in which the Irish people, North and South, under one Parliament or two, as those Parliaments may themselves decide, shall work together in common love for Ireland upon the sure foundations of mutual justice and respect.”

 

62 Responses to “King George V & ‘The Six Counties’” by Joe McVeigh

  1. Tam August 21, 2017 at 8:13 am #

    There was and is no “occupied part of Ireland.”

    Craig didn’t ‘rule’ NI by ‘remote control from Westminster’.

    We will we get a Unionist leader who is brave enough to offer the Nationalist/republican people a generous proposal for a new agreed reunified country on the same day that we get a Nationalist leader who is brave enough to offer the Unionist/loyalist people a generous proposal for a new agreed reunified United Kingdom.

    • huge Celt. August 21, 2017 at 9:18 am #

      What would you regard as a “generous proposal”?

  2. Gearoíd August 21, 2017 at 9:25 am #

    Tam, just because you say it, doesn’t make it so. I live in a part of Ireland occupied by the British. I live near Newry. Deluded much?

    • Tam August 21, 2017 at 9:33 am #

      Of course just because I say it doesn’t make it so. We need to look at the facts not what people say. And the fact is that there was an is no ‘occupied part of Ireland’. Newry is part of the UK.

  3. fiosrach August 21, 2017 at 9:57 am #

    And the House of Windsor is German. Not because I say it but because it is true. Ireland is a country and the U.K. is a cobbled together state – for the present.

    • Tam August 21, 2017 at 10:00 am #

      The House of Windsor isn’t German. Take your racism to an alt-right site or somewhere.

      • Bridget Cairns August 21, 2017 at 2:15 pm #

        if the royal family are British, does that make all of the people in the north Irish, as ancestry seems not to play a part on your thinking Tam

        • giordanobruno August 23, 2017 at 7:48 am #

          Bridget
          Let’s not forget those other great Englishmen Patrick Pearse and Tom Clarke.
          Wolfe Tone of course was not English. He was French.
          And so on.

        • Tam August 23, 2017 at 7:55 am #

          There’s not much logic in your question but you’d need to ask them all, Bridget. I can only speak for myself and I don’t seek to tell others what their identity is, but I’d consider them British and Irish.

  4. Brian Patterson August 21, 2017 at 10:43 am #

    With the greeted respect Tam I cannot see how calling the House of Windsor German is racism. Calling Germans “Huns” as a term of opprobrium maybe. Calling Protestants or Unionist “Huns”,grossly sectarian. But…

    The House of Wettin
    The House of Hanover
    Saxe-Coburn an Gotha. Als British als Frankfurt.

    • Tam August 21, 2017 at 10:55 am #

      You don’t see how attributing a family’s nationality to some of their ancestors rather than their own is racist?

      Would you say a family was Jamaican rather than British because, say, a great great grandfather was Jamaican?

      • fiosrach August 21, 2017 at 11:00 am #

        Some of your ancestors were British. Is that being racist?

      • Chris August 21, 2017 at 11:29 am #

        @Tam

        Somebody clearly doesn’t know the difference between racism and xenophobia.

        F.Y.I it’s neither of those.

        • Tam August 21, 2017 at 11:41 am #

          Chris it wouldn’t surprise me that fiosrach doesn’t know the difference. But it is racism.

          • Chris August 21, 2017 at 11:49 am #

            No Tam, it is you who doesn’t know the difference.

          • Tam August 21, 2017 at 11:53 am #

            But I do know the difference

  5. Brian Patterson August 21, 2017 at 10:43 am #

    “Britische”

  6. Brian Patterson August 21, 2017 at 11:41 am #

    Tam, youmight a wsell say Black American are racist for calling themselves African Americans.

    • Tam August 21, 2017 at 11:43 am #

      No I mightn’t. They choose to so describe themselves. It’s not a description used by others in a disparaging way as a means to try to deny their Americanness. Couldn’t be much more different.

  7. Brian Patterson August 21, 2017 at 11:49 am #

    Or is Nelson Mc Caysland aracist because he calls himself an Ulster Scot. Are the Kennedy’s racist when the call themselves Irish Americans? Is New England a racist entity?

    • Tam August 21, 2017 at 11:52 am #

      Of course not. Didn’t you read my reply?

  8. Brian Patterson August 21, 2017 at 11:56 am #

    Firstlay I do not see that calling someone German is in any way disparaging. The fact is that the Windsors have German blood in their veins. They would probably still be called Saxe-Coburg had they not fallen out with their cousins. They then called them a nasty name with racist intent, Hun. But if it makes you feel any better I can call them Anglo-German. Or German-English

  9. Tam August 21, 2017 at 12:15 pm #

    Of course it’s disparaging when the motive for doing so is to try to query their Britishness.

    Would you say it wasn’t racist for the alt-right to query Barack Obama’s Americanness because of his Kenyan ancestry? Or for somebody to mock Leo Varadkar because of his Indian ancestry, and refer to him as Indian rather than Irish?

  10. Hugh Britton August 21, 2017 at 12:28 pm #

    To bring it back to the point as alluded to by George V Rex – Ireland is indeed one country, and for the majority on this island the six counties is occupied by a foreign country and those it planted and imposed upon the native people that they dispossessed. These are simply the facts.
    The future is a negotiated sovereign independent non-sectarian united Ireland reflecting the views and aspirations of all on this island. Let the dialogue begin.

    • paddykool August 21, 2017 at 12:52 pm #

      That sounds like a plan ,Hugh. All the rest is smoke and mirrors .and distraction.

    • Tam August 21, 2017 at 4:06 pm #

      Hugh whether or not Ireland is one country depends what your definiton of country is. But no part of it is occupied. So neither of those is a fact.

  11. Brian Patterson August 21, 2017 at 1:36 pm #

    I was in no sense querying their Britishess. I am not anti-British/English, just anti-Royal. I do not query their Englishness any more than I would query Varadkar’s Irishness. But neither should his Indian antecedents be rejected, Something surely to be proud of. I am not a white or any other type of supremacist But the fact remains the royals have German blood in their veins. They are German English in the same way the Kennedy’s Irish Americanand Yeats Goldsmith etc were Anglo Irish. Only more so. German is a huge component in British culture and language. The clue is the word “Saxon”. Mind you Tam, for all your hypersensitiv you do not seem to havee any problem designating me and my likes as British.

    • Tam August 21, 2017 at 2:06 pm #

      I never said you were. I was responding to fiosrach and to paddykool on another thread.

  12. fiosrach August 21, 2017 at 3:06 pm #

    Your line is, Tam, that ancestors do not matter and where you are born is the relevant factor. Hence the Saxe Coburgs moved to England and became English. Likewise Kennedy or Obama. Well I’m asking you why the British did not become Irish when they moved to Ireland. You seem to think that you can designate as British even though some unionists have been here for centuries. Are they ashamed to be called Irish?

    • paddykool August 21, 2017 at 4:04 pm #

      I think this is where I came in .I have no problem with royal families as such, but like i said I am curious as to how loyalism and fan – worship of these families actually works and why me or anyone else should imagine they are worthy of some kind of worship. Some of them seem perfectly niceas individuals , some not so nice at all. If they have some hidden talents beside accumulated wealth and theft over generations , i would be even more interested .As for their purpose in the modern world….? well they do appeal to the tourist industry and the current royal family in windsor and Buckingham Palace are excellent at pageantry, there is no doubt. Whether they imagine that their position is part of god’s plan falls on deaf ears in my case , given that i have belief or knowledge in any kind of cosmic personage or guiding hand.I still find it odd that many would wish to be loyal to such a chameleonic family who readily shape-change to suit the current trends, quickly rebranding themselves for each generation. obviously royal-worship would be anathama to anyone purporting to be of a republican mindset, given that a “special “family would be seen as some kind of idiocy. That does not mean that they should be hated of course, but it does mean that their influence on anyone ‘s life should only be as valid as anyone else’s influence.It is still entertaining to wonder at their finessing of image, ,changing of name, origin story and so as they did designating “House of Windsor” as they did to stave off anti-royalist feelings in England in the late 19th and early in the 20th century.the current Queen Elizabeth ‘s consort , Prince Philip is not British, but he has English ties. In fact, he and Queen Elizabeth II are related via great-great grandmother Queen Victoria, which makes them third cousins.He was called “Philip of Greece.” and had no other name until he
      took the surname Mountbatten,from his mother’s side . He became a naturalized British citizen in 1947. giving up his rights to the Greek and Danish thrones.Had he not married Elizabeth , who knows where he might have taken his royal pedigree.It is an odd idea to have some kind of loyalty to a man who could and would fit into any society that might have him at the highest level .It is something like the loyalty of fprofessional ootballers to the biggest purse on offer.

    • Tam August 21, 2017 at 4:08 pm #

      You can be British and Irish.

      • fiosrach August 21, 2017 at 4:28 pm #

        You can’t be loyal to both and promote both interests at the same time. At least not when Britain has soldiers in Ireland.

        • Tam August 21, 2017 at 4:30 pm #

          That makes no sense. An identity is an identity. You can be “loyal” to your identity if you want.

      • Wolfe tone August 21, 2017 at 6:30 pm #

        “You can be British and Irish.”

        Lmao! Just like you can be a man or a woman I suppose.

        • giordanobruno August 21, 2017 at 7:30 pm #

          wolfie
          Yes, people generally are either a man or a woman. Well done.

        • huge Celt. August 22, 2017 at 8:18 am #

          My four kids were born and reared in England. Two support England in the 6 Nations, two support Ireland.
          Two hold Irish Passports, one has a British passport. And one has covered all her bases post-Brexit with a British and an Irish passport.

          So, yes, it is perfectly plausible and acceptable to be British or Irish, none or both.
          Imposing a Nationality on anyone is as ridiculous as imposing a Religion.

          • Tam August 22, 2017 at 8:53 am #

            Another example of the racism that lurks under the surface of many extreme nationalists.

  13. paddykool August 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm #

    NB…that should read “…..Prince Philip is not originally British..”…….and ..”…given that i have( no) belief or…”…slippsy!

  14. Hugh Britton August 21, 2017 at 5:35 pm #

    Tam, you have distorted the basic premise.

    Fact one is that the island of Ireland is historically, geographically one entity Therefore a country. Fact two is that many who reside in the northwest of the island are descendants of those who were planted there, and of those who dispossessed the natives. Rather than assimilate with the local population and traditions, as did previous invaders, they remained loyal to a foreign sovereign and culture, as was and is their right.

    If we accept that as the base line – then my problem is that I cannot understand why then they do not yearn to return to the country to which they pledge their allegiance. After all it must be as if one was in exile and unlike Moses and the Israelites, loyalty to motherland seems to be selective.

    In my youth, British subjects from the Commonwealth and the waning Empire; from the West Indies, Africa and the sub-continent of India suffered and endured all sorts of hardships and ignominy to return to Great Britain and to be intrinsically part of that country.

    So what keeps this unique group of people here in Ireland? Is it as John B.Keane would have it – fierce loyalty and love of the land, or to the richness of the language, the music of the rivers and streams? May’be the shared history with fellow Irishmen and women on the island ?

    Or Tam, is it a lost tribe wandering in the wilderness where the promised land is unobtainable, distant and lost?

    Time to take the big step. Protestants have a proud history in leading out against injustices and of forwarding the cause of Ireland. Let us speak then of Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, John Mitchel, Henry Joy McCracken, Thomas Davis and in our recent times Erskine Childers, Contessa Markievicz and Roger Casement and the many hundreds of others throughout the centuries.

    Time for a united ‘New Ireland’ with a new constitution where church and state are separated. Where equality of race, religion and freedom of worship is guaranteed. Where those declaring loyalty to the Crown are protected in law and play their part in the building of this new society. Where Orange and Green can share a new future.

    Utopia ? I think not.

    “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men”
    George Orwell 1939

    • Tam August 21, 2017 at 7:44 pm #

      Hugh, I haven’t distorted any basic premise.

      Obviously the island of Ireland is historically, geographically one entity. It’s an island.

      The British Isles are also historically a geographic entity. And still are

      It doesn’t follow that geographic entities are countries. Iberia isn’t a country. Europe isn’t. Hispaniola isn’t. The Italian peninsula isnt. Borneo isn’t. Scandinavia isn’t. The British Isles aren’t.

      The ancestry of people residing in the north west or anywhere else is irrelevant. As is your inability to understand why some people wish to remain part of the UK.

      The facts are that Ireland may or may not be one country, depending on one’s definiton of country; and no part of it is occupied.

  15. Hugh Btitton August 21, 2017 at 10:56 pm #

    Tam,
    With the greatest of respect your reply is weak, to put it mildly, the points that you have attempted to make are pedantic in substance.

    In the deep recesses of your heart I think you know that I am right. So, be part of the great forthcoming social change for our generation, and for our children’s future in the six counties, as suggested by George V. Rex Imperator.

    #UnitedIrishmen

    • Tam August 21, 2017 at 10:58 pm #

      You’re not right. None of Ireland is occupied. Clearly you don’t know what occupation means.

      • huge Celt. August 22, 2017 at 7:00 am #

        Would you concede that part of Ireland was “occupied” for the duration of Operation Banner?

        • Tam August 22, 2017 at 7:04 am #

          Of course not. Do you know what occupation means?

          • huge Celt. August 23, 2017 at 12:33 pm #

            Yes.
            The Partition of Ireland would be best described as an annexation, and then an occupation in the North.

            But of course the Imperial Powers would never acknowledge their own wrong-doings. And international law is waived for those powers.

            To my mind, there is no doubt that the 6 Counties were “occupied” for the duration of Operation Banner.
            I don’t even think thats a controversial point.

            But to claim they’re “occupied” now is ridiculous.
            Love it or loathe it, the popular mandate for the GFA agreeing the sovereignty of the North, regardless of how temporary, gave the British military presence in the North a democratic legitimacy.

  16. Hugh Btitton August 22, 2017 at 7:13 am #

    Definition of Occupation :
    “An army or foreign power that invade another country and occupy its territory, and this use of the word reflects its original Latin meaning, which was “to seize.”
    There are also forms of occupation, as with the the seizure of lands and buildings and the displacement of the indigenous species.

    Baker Wallace 1949

    • Tam August 22, 2017 at 8:09 am #

      There you go. No invasion and no foreign power.

      Military occupation is effective provisional control by a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.

      • huge Celt. August 23, 2017 at 8:42 pm #

        Would you be more comfortable with “Disputed Territories”?
        Although that would , of course, concede that status since Partition all the way up to the current day.

  17. Hugh Britton August 22, 2017 at 8:23 am #

    Military occupation for 800 years!!
    Artifical apartheid gerrymandered state from 1922 which had to be dragged kicking and screaming into 21st. Century and now seeks to return to ‘good old days’ with Brexit.
    Smell the coffee Tam !!

    • Tam August 22, 2017 at 8:54 am #

      There was no military occupation for 800 years.

      NI is neither artificial nor gerrymandered

      • huge Celt. August 23, 2017 at 8:46 pm #

        Well, it’s definitely “artificial”.
        You’re being silly now if you dispute that basic fact.
        There is no other sense or reason for the frontier of the 6 Counties other than tribal affiliation, and the resulting supremacy.
        That isn’t even a controversial point.

        Do you accept that basic point?

  18. fiosrach August 22, 2017 at 9:50 am #

    How did the British get here and get posession of land etc if not on the back of an invading army. That’s how the British mercenaries were paid – in Irish land because the English Crown was bankrupt. You put great stock in the United Kingdom. What about the English soldiers raping and pillaging before that? Where did they come from and under what authority were they here?

    • Tam August 22, 2017 at 10:19 am #

      It was the Normans and they were invited. And supported by the papacy.

      • fiosrach August 22, 2017 at 1:20 pm #

        At what stage did the English appear? Or did the Normans change their name? Before the act of union, what right had the English and their mercenaries to be in Ireland? Being supported by the pope is totally irrelevant. Straw and clutching and trolling come to mind.

        • Tam August 22, 2017 at 2:58 pm #

          They had the right of sovereignty

          • Tam August 22, 2017 at 3:00 pm #

            If you knew anything about mediaeval history you’d know that the papacy was far from irrelevant. On the contrary it was the most relevant factor.

          • fiosrach August 22, 2017 at 4:14 pm #

            I mean irrelevant to your senseless argument. The right of sovereignty. You’re having me on. It’s like arguing with a five year old.

      • Chris August 22, 2017 at 1:23 pm #

        Jaaaaaaaaaysus

        • fiosrach August 22, 2017 at 4:12 pm #

          I second that, Chris. And raise you ten.

  19. Hugh Britton August 22, 2017 at 10:30 am #

    Ah! Tam!!

    You’re a gas man!! The Edinburgh fringe festival is beckoning you. Your talent for comedy is unique. Again, I hasten to add it is the 21st. Century. !!
    Build a bridge a chara.

    Slán go fóill
    Hugh

    • Tam August 22, 2017 at 3:00 pm #

      If you’ve a point to make, Hugh, feel free.

      • fiosrach August 22, 2017 at 4:17 pm #

        Go and sit on the naughty step,Tam, until you’re told to get up.