Mary KennyInvestigating the history is often like ‘swimming through treacle’, writes Mary Kenny
Historians and commentators tend to deplore the phase of Irish history when Ireland showed deference to the Pope and the Holy See as “the days when our foreign policy was cringingly Catholic”.
The latest volume of Documents on Irish Foreign Policy has recently emerged (and, despite the dry title, these DPA archives are often fascinating) and they disclose in detail what we already knew – that the Irish state between 1948 and 1951 was often overly respectful, in its communications, with the Vatican.
But my grouse with many modern historians is that they report, but they do not explain or sufficiently clarify, the past by putting it in the context of its time.
Elucidation
The context of this florid language used by people like Sean MacBride requires elucidation (he expressed the desire to the Pope “to repose at the feet of Your Holiness the assurance of our filial loyalty and devotion as well as our firm resolve to be guided in all our work by the teaching of Christ and to strive for the attainment of social order…based on Christian principles”).
First, it wasn’t unusual to use somewhat obsequious language at this period.
In the 1990s, I was commissioned by the London Sunday Telegraph to write an obituary of the Queen Mother (who died in 2002) and I had to examine the archives and biographies of the former Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon back to the 1920s. It was like swimming through treacle. Some of the fawning language was simply nauseating: the lady was portrayed as utterly perfect in every way.
No half-objective biography appeared until Penelope Mortimer’s in 1986 – and that was initially rejected by the publishers Macmillan’s because it was seen as too controversial.
Secondly, politicians always metaphorically, or actually, bow before power. Some Irish politicians were sincerely committed in their faith, but all recognised that at this time the Vatican and the Church represented a power that was also reflected in the ballot-box.
They believed they wouldn’t get elected without the Church on their side.
Historians and commentators imply how much more mature and independent we all are today – but are we?
The question we should ask – interestingly, it’s the question that Lenin asked – is “who has the power”? And to which power do our masters nowadays defer? Money? Globalisation? The EU? Wherever there is power, a politician will be yearning to repose himself at its feet.
A French kiss and tell
Valerie Trierweiler (pictured), previously consort to the President of France, Francois Hollande, has been touring in Britain to promote the English-language version of her book about her relationship with Mr Hollande – Thank You for the Moment: A Story of Love, Power and Betrayal. The lady gave no interviews in France, as she felt she would be met with a hostile reception. Indeed so: the French media deplore her ‘kiss and tell’ memoir, even if the French public purchased it in droves.
She is not popular in France (neither is Mr Hollande, whose ‘approval’ ratings are down to 13%). The French mistress was traditionally chosen for her discretion, not for kissing and telling. Valerie herself now says that she is a feminist who is speaking for women’s rights.
Pope Francis would suggest that we do not judge others. Yet I think that if Francois Hollande had married his mistress, then telling might never have followed kissing.
