Jackie Kennedy’s letters: they also belong to future history

The letters, at auction, might well have fetched five million dollars

It was altruistic and decent of the Vincentian Order in Dublin to return to the Kennedy Archive the letters sent by Jackie Kennedy to Father Joseph Leonard of All Hallows between 1950 and 1964.

It has been reported that the letters, at auction, might well have fetched five million dollars – “the sale of the century”, according to one auctioneer.  Originally, the Order was planning to sell the letters to raise funds for the college, but Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, Jackie’s daughter, objected.

So returning the letters to the Kennedys is indeed the decent thing to do, although, personally, I still hope that some archivist with the Vincentians has made a photocopy of these letters, in which the then Mrs Kennedy described so much of her personal and political life to her priest friend.

Yes, at present, these letters are private: the author of the documents, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis died only in 1994 and copyright lasts for 70 years after an author’s death.

However, in the fullness of time, their content really belongs to history, and 70 years from Jacqueline’s passing, in 2064, they will then pass properly into the realm of history, and they should then be available for an Irish historian to examine.

We do not know what the Kennedy archive will do with the letters: they are free to destroy them if they so wish. I am not suggesting they will be destroyed, but they could disappear from view. The Kennedy archives have a reputation of being very careful about what they release to the general public.

Historians have a role in historical social inquiries

I have come to see that historians make a hugely important contribution to our understanding of national – and social – life. They are under-valued, while lawyers are over-valued.

Every enquiry and report published in this country over the past twenty years, whether into national, religious or social issues, has been written and composed by lawyers. Every time a new enquiry or tribunal is announced, lawyers are almost automatically appointed to its composition.

Yet particularly where a historical issue is being examined, surely a historian’s forensic eye should be brought to bear on the proceedings? Only a good historian can provide an analysis of the social context of a case under examination.

Susan Lohan of the Adoption Rights Alliance has called for the Government to widen its remit in its commission of inquiry into mother and baby homes: State maternity hospitals and their role in private adoptions should be included. “We would like to see a full investigation into everything that happened in every institution, be it mother-and-baby homes, county home or a State maternity hospital such as Holles Street in Dublin,” she told a conference in Cork.

Quite so: the inquiry should indeed be as wide as it needs to be. But when it comes to be written, a social historian should also put adoption and the issue of single mothers into a balanced historical context.

Explaining that it was once considered catastrophic – in all societies – to be an unwed mother, and that adoption was considered to be the best solution for both mother and child will also help to heal hurt or aggrieved feelings by both adoptees and biological mothers.

The law tends to emphasise “rights”: history tends to bring understanding, and, as the French say – to understand all is to forgive all. Tout comprendre – c’est tour pardonner.

Pro-life language used for royal baby

The announcement that Kate, Duchess of Cambridge is expecting a second baby has been greeted with much joy, particularly in America, where it has been big TV news.

I am very interested in the use of language in connection with pregnancy, and I notice that the BBC uses such respectful phrases as “the as yet unborn boy or girl”, when discussing the sibling that young Prince George will soon see. The expected baby already has his (or her) line-up to the throne noted – he or she will be fourth in line – although Kate is not yet 12 weeks pregnant. (She is inclined to acute morning sickness, poor girl, but that usually abates after 12 weeks.)

Interestingly, no one in the public realm refers to this “as yet unborn boy or girl” as “a foetus”. It wouldn’t be kind. It wouldn’t be respectful to a person who is already fourth in line to the throne. Significant, indeed, that when a prince or a princess is expected, respectful pro-life terminology is applied to their being, from the beginning. They are never a “foetus”. They are always “the as yet unborn boy or girl”.