11 December 1936 - 80 years ago today - Dev kicks the King out of the Irish Constitution

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,560
11 December 1936: Eamon de Valera abolished the Monarchy from Irish Law on this day. Following dramatic events across the water in Britain in which the British King Edward VIII had abdicated from the throne it was decided by Dev and his advisors to remove the role of the Monarchy from Irish Law as it pertained in the Irish Free State. It was a case of ‘England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity’ and the President jumped at the chance to make use of the Interregnum between one king and another one to get rid of their role in Irish affairs.

The role of the King in the Irish Free State was a result of the Anglo Irish Agreement of 1921 and had caused much division and strife since then. Further under the terms of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 all the Commonwealth States had agreed to act unison if there was to be ‘any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom’. In effect the consent of the Irish Parliament was necessary to effect an Abdication of a British Monarch.


De Valera upon being consulted by the British was amenable to King Edward staying on as king and marrying his fiancé Mrs Simpson (a divorcee) if that was acceptable in Britain - but that was really an internal affair. The fact was there was now a golden opportunity for the Irish Free State to sidestep out of the Monarchy as Britain was engulfed in a Constitutional Crises and consumed in its internal affairs.


King Edward abdicated on 10 December. Dáil Éireann was summoned the following day. De Valera introduced legislation to delete from the Constitution all mention of the King and the Governor General (the Representative of the Crown here) and to make provision by ordinary law for the exercise by the King of certain functions in external matters as and when so advised by the Executive Council. In effect in all but some arcane points of the signing of international treaties the role of the King was gone from the State’s affairs.


It was something of a Coup by De Valera and certainly his quick thinking and deft manoeuvring got rid of a thorny issue from the Irish Constitution that avoided a rift with the British. When the new Irish Constitution Bunreacht na hÉireann was put to the people of the State the following year there was no mention of any king in it.
 


Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,623
Twitter
No
Not at all.The civil service still get their allowance of time off for the King's birthday even today.

We have 'King's Inn' which is still suspiciously influential in a number of ways in the erstwhile Republic.

And I've heard at least twice in my life announcements that the Republic has now successfully eliminated all legal traces of pre-Republic laws in its statute book when in fact the 1861 offences against the person act still remains in force on the Irish statute book.

I suppose it guards 'home' waters against acts of piracy but it is just an example of pre-Republic law that still lingers in Irish affairs.

In fairness you'd think we'd have been able to come up with our own definition in the last hundred years or so.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,623
Twitter
No
In fact in the UK the Law Commission there has recognised that the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, signed into law by Queen Victoria 20 years before married women were recognised as legal persons able to own property in their own right, almost 70 years before the achievement of women’s right to vote probably does require updating.

So we could have a situation where the UK actually replaces a law signed into force by Queen Victoria where Ireland actually retains an outdated Act that no longer even exists in UK law.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
That was the old Empire.

We now phucked up in the nEU empire.

Big Finance is royalty now.

And snivelling gombeens like Bruton & Suds serve the nEU royalty, with the same relish that gombeens applied to serving the old royalty.
 

cb1979

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
823
The Abdication of Edward VIII and Irish Independence. | The Irish Story

On the 10th of December the abdication took place and the House of Commons met to discuss the necessary legislation. Batterbee (the Assistant Secretary of the Dominions Officer) rang Joseph Walshe (the secretary of the Dept. of External Affairs) that afternoon to ascertain what the Irish government’s intentions were. Batterbee was greatly perturbed by the lack of information coming from Dublin. The view from Britain, and supported by Walshe, was that if there were an interval between the Commonwealth legislators and the Dáil in passing legislation affecting the Act of Settlement, that during that interval the Free State could be regarded as a completely separate monarchy with a different head of state to the rest of the Commonwealth.
 
O

Oscurito

In fact in the UK the Law Commission there has recognised that the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, signed into law by Queen Victoria 20 years before married women were recognised as legal persons able to own property in their own right, almost 70 years before the achievement of women’s right to vote probably does require updating.

So we could have a situation where the UK actually replaces a law signed into force by Queen Victoria where Ireland actually retains an outdated Act that no longer even exists in UK law.
The OP is referring to the constitution.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,623
Twitter
No
A curiosity is that the Republic of Ireland was never legally declared a Republic that I can find.

This was noticed in the 1940s and a 'Republic of Ireland Act' duly appeared in 1949 but all that act did was acknowledge that the phrase 'Republic of Ireland' was an English translation of 'Eire' and still did not declare Ireland to be a Republic.

This is noted in Kelly's 'Constitutional Law' which is a course book for law students and has been for many years. I checked and it is true enough as Kelly noted.

Quite curious for all our tribe of lawyers down the years poring over this that and the other and yet none that I know of has queried why this should be the case.

I have seen occasionally the state referred to as 'Ireland' on official lists at organisations where the precise names of states would be expected and wondered whether this is because some international organisations are aware that 'Republic of Ireland' is only a translation in the same way that 'Wales' is only a translation of Cymru.

Technically Ireland may not be a Republic at all other than in name only. Which would explain a few things in fairness.
 

im axeled

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
29,289
Not at all.The civil service still get their allowance of time off for the King's birthday even today.

We have 'King's Inn' which is still suspiciously influential in a number of ways in the erstwhile Republic.

And I've heard at least twice in my life announcements that the Republic has now successfully eliminated all legal traces of pre-Republic laws in its statute book when in fact the 1861 offences against the person act still remains in force on the Irish statute book.

I suppose it guards 'home' waters against acts of piracy but it is just an example of pre-Republic law that still lingers in Irish affairs.

In fairness you'd think we'd have been able to come up with our own definition in the last hundred years or so.
perhaps any goverment dont want to, they cannot legislate against day to day stuff
 

im axeled

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
29,289
A curiosity is that the Republic of Ireland was never legally declared a Republic that I can find.

This was noticed in the 1940s and a 'Republic of Ireland Act' duly appeared in 1949 but all that act did was acknowledge that the phrase 'Republic of Ireland' was an English translation of 'Eire' and still did not declare Ireland to be a Republic.

This is noted in Kelly's 'Constitutional Law' which is a course book for law students and has been for many years. I checked and it is true enough as Kelly noted.

Quite curious for all our tribe of lawyers down the years poring over this that and the other and yet none that I know of has queried why this should be the case.

I have seen occasionally the state referred to as 'Ireland' on official lists at organisations where the precise names of states would be expected and wondered whether this is because some international organisations are aware that 'Republic of Ireland' is only a translation in the same way that 'Wales' is only a translation of Cymru.

Technically Ireland may not be a Republic at all other than in name only. Which would explain a few things in fairness.
including attacks on the shinners
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,623
Twitter
No
perhaps any goverment dont want to, they cannot legislate against day to day stuff
Curious that De Valera should have felt the need to have an excuse to remove references to King or Queen from the Irish constitution though.

One would have thought the declaration of a Republic in 1916 was explanation enough.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Dev was a nasty fúck

He created a paedophile's paradise for his mate McQuaid

Nis Nationalism was all hot air against the UK, but vile authoritarianism against his own people

Indeed that he was a Hitler fan is another window into his foreign policy

Also in the buildup to the 1932 election he let all manners of scoundrels into FF, folks interested in corruption like the O'Malleys ... and made crazy populist promises

cyp
 

IrishFreedom

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
880
Twitter
MitchfireMark
Dev was a nasty fúck

He created a paedophile's paradise for his mate McQuaid

Nis Nationalism was all hot air against the UK, but vile authoritarianism against his own people

Indeed that he was a Hitler fan is another window into his foreign policy

Also in the buildup to the 1932 election he let all manners of scoundrels into FF, folks interested in corruption like the O'Malleys ... and made crazy populist promises

cyp
Why don't you move to England if you're not happy living here?
 


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top