PC: Irish Monarchy after 1921?

[GlobalHumanism]

Is it plausible that as apart of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the Irish High-King Monarchy could be revived and serve as the Head of State of the Free State instead of George V? ("High King" only for the cultural implications but it doesn't have to be)

Everything else, except the ability of George V to appoint a Governor General of Ireland would stay the same in the Treaty.
And to make it work said King would marry into the House of Winsor but the nation would have maybe a distant decendant of Brian Ua Neil or some other Irish noble as the new HoS?

If it is plausible, do you think it could have averted or at least mitigated the Irish Civil War?
Might Michael Collins been able to serve as Governor General in such a situation?

 

[Ian_W]

Its a Global Humanism post, so the only option is to see if we can make it more of a joke.

Whats the difference between an Irish King and an Irish High King ?

An Irish High King has more than one house where the roof doesnt leak.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

Its a Global Humanism post, so the only option is to see if we can make it more of a joke.

Whats the difference between an Irish King and an Irish High King ?

An Irish High King has more than one house where the roof doesnt leak.

it's a PC.
if it's not possible, so be it.

 

[Ian_W]

it's a PC.
if it's not possible, so be it.

You posted it.

Its not possible.

 

[shiftygiant]

Is it plausible that as apart of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the Irish High-King Monarchy could be revived and serve as the Head of State of the Free State instead of George V?

Everything else, except the ability of George V to appoint a Governor General of Ireland would stay the same in the Treaty.
And to make it work said King would marry into the House of Winsor but the nation would have maybe a distant decendant of Brian Ua Neil or some other Irish noble as the new HoS?

There hasn't been a King or High King since Norman Conquest or Ireland (bar two people attempting revivals in the thirteenth and fourteenth). Why would the Irish Free State revive it when they can have a directly elected official? And given how the GG was opposed as a subversion of republican principles, why would the Irish agree to have a Monarch?

And on the bolded: hahahahahahahahahahahaha

What do you think the purpose of a GG is?

 

[GlobalHumanism]

There hasn't been a King or High King since Norman Conquest or Ireland (bar two people attempting revivals in the thirteenth and fourteenth). Why would the Irish Free State revive it when they can have a directly elected official? And given how the GG was opposed as a subversion of republican principles, why would the Irish agree to have a Monarch?

And on the bolded: hahahahahahahahahahahaha

What do you think the purpose of a GG is?

I think the purpose would be to placate to both Lloyd George's unwillingness to grant Ireland full independent status, (hence George V being kept as the Head of State), and the Irish nationalists desire for cultural independance from the Brits.
Seems like a Irish Monarchy could do both?
but your right the GG would be a joke in such a situation.

 

[shiftygiant]

I think the purpose would be to placate to both Lloyd George's unwillingness to grant Ireland full independent status, (hence George V being kept as the Head of State), and the Irish nationalists desire for cultural independence from the Brits.
Seems like a Irish Monarchy could do both?
but your right the GG would be a joke in such a situation.

The 'Monarch' would immediately be seen as a stooge for the British Goverment, much like the GG was, and removed ASAP. The Irish Nationalists opposed the Monarchy because of their Republican principles- they aren't going to abandon it just because Lloyd George gave them some fuck, who might not even be Irish, and told them this person was King.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

The 'Monarch' would immediately be seen as a stooge for the British Goverment, much like the GG was, and removed ASAP. The Irish Nationalists opposed the Monarchy because of their Republican principles- they aren't going to abandon it just because Lloyd George gave them some fuck, who might not even be Irish, and told them this person was King.

Ok ok. Fair enough.
True, It probably would be a King Faisal in Egypt type situation, but do you think it's plausible that such a solution could be proposed by the Brits if the Republicans scoffed at George remaining the head of state? I personally don't see why not? An Irish Kingdom (even one that's a stooge) was better than George V I'm sure.

just because Lloyd George gave them some fuck, who might not even be Irish, and told them this person was King.

excellent use of words

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I suspect that the Irish might have accepted Dominion status, and a retention of the monarchy if Home Rule had happened earlier. It was on the agenda for 1914, but the government got distracted by WWI. I don't know if even that would have been early enough, but leaving the pressure cooker sit with no release valve for another 5 years (or more) surely didn't help any.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

The 'Monarch' would immediately be seen as a stooge for the British Goverment, much like the GG was, and removed ASAP.

Not if they chose the Stuart Pretender at the time.

The question is, could the British do anything to so disgust, enflame, etc. the Irish with a POD after 1921 (the POD for the PC) that the Irish would think of having the Stuart Pretender as a figurehead monarch? (I figure they're not going to make him or her the real power.)

Edit: Sorry, it went extinct after 1807. (In British accent) Too bad, would have for a quite comical show.

 

[Gonzo]

IIRC some Irish Republicans proposed giving the throne of Ireland to Prince Joachim of Prussia.

 

[white crowe]

If it is plausible, do you think it could have averted or at least mitigated the Irish Civil War?

How do you even imagine this might happen?

 

[GlobalHumanism]

How do you even imagine this might happen?

I'm looking at it as a way to play to both sides of the civil war. (Anti Treaty vs Pro)

A catholic Irish King that was chosen by the Free State, instead of one imposed by the Brits (along with a GG), might help quell notions that the Pro-Treaty folks were selling the rebellion down the river while also saving face for the Anti-Treaty leaders since they could ensure an extra degree of Irish sovereignty with an Irish born Head of State

 

[Arkenfolm]

Not if they chose the Stuart Pretender at the time.

The question is, could the British do anything to so disgust, enflame, etc. the Irish with a POD after 1921 (the POD for the PC) that the Irish would think of having the Stuart Pretender as a figurehead monarch? (I figure they're not going to make him or her the real power.)

Edit: Sorry, it went extinct after 1807. (In British accent) Too bad, would have for a quite comical show.

You could have this guy, the Jacobite pretender in 1921.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

Honestly I can't see a situation where Ireland has any monarchy other than the English one. Republican sentiment was too high and the few possible candidates that were suggested were unlikely at best. Since the monarchy would only be a powerless figurehead in any independent Ireland, if you're going to replace the monarchy why not simply get ride of them completely and become a republic?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

If people can talk about the modern state of Israel bringing back the monarchy, I don't see what's so insane about the Irish doing the same.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

The Irish Nationalists opposed the Monarchy because of their Republican principles...

Uh, no, the Irish Nationalists, such as John Redmond, were not republicans. They supported continued attachment to the House of Windsor under Home Rule. When war was declared in 1914, Redmond famously proclaimed in Parliament that Irish Nationalists would join Irish Unionists in the fight against Germany; Home Rule could wait for victory. His son served on the Western Front for four years.

The republican Irish were the Irish Republicans (De Valera, Collins, et al). Conscription fed Irish discontent, and after the Easter Rising, Irish Nationalism lost nearly all of its support to the Republicans.

 

[HARRY]

Without the Easter uprising in 1916 in all likelihood Ireland would have gotten home rule in 1920 as many of the opponents of it from 1912 had perished in the trenches.

Maybe the heir apparent to the British throne could be restyled the Prince of Wales & Ireland it that case.

 

[Evan]

You could have this guy, the Jacobite pretender in 1921.

And let's not forget, his father had just lost his existing crown in the 1918 German Revolution! Of course, calling in a German prince just after the war - and one who'd served in the army at that - would annoy the British even more...

 

[shiftygiant]

Uh, no, the Irish Nationalists, such as John Redmond, were not republicans. They supported continued attachment to the House of Windsor under Home Rule. When war was declared in 1914, Redmond famously proclaimed in Parliament that Irish Nationalists would join Irish Unionists in the fight against Germany; Home Rule could wait for victory. His son served on the Western Front for four years.

The republican Irish were the Irish Republicans (De Valera, Collins, et al). Conscription fed Irish discontent, and after the Easter Rising, Irish Nationalism lost nearly all of its support to the Republicans.

aaaaaaaa I knew I got something wrong. Thank you for the correction.

On the bolded, this is probobly important- if the Nats won out in the end (No or a far shorter World War), then King George with a GG isn't out the question. Obvious question is who, but this would be the extent of the Monarchy continuing in Ireland.

You could have this guy, the Jacobite pretender in 1921.

Jacobite restoration is a load of over-romanticized guff that died a long time ago and only exists as a wistful fantasy.

Of course, the big question is if the Irish People would be willing to accept a German Prince who commanded a German Army, which is going to be a big pill to swallow.