asked the Minister for External Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in recordings broadcast by the B.B.C. of the reading of the Proclamation of Accession of the new British Sovereign, she was described as Queen of Great Britain and Ireland; and, if so, whether the Government propose to take steps to refute the assumption of sovereignty by Britain over Ireland thus implied.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Title of English Queen.
The Deputy appears to be confusing the Proclamation of Accession of the new British Sovereign which was made in London with the form used in some Commonwealth countries. No mention of Ireland was included in the London Proclamation of Accession, but in some Commonwealth countries and, later, when the styles and titles of Queen Elizabeth II were recited by the Garter King at Arms at the burial ceremony in Windsor, the British statutory form, which mentions Ireland, was used.
As the Deputy is, of course, aware, the existing statutory form of royal title was adopted by British Royal Proclamation on the 22nd June, 1948, and during the past three and a half years has been in constant use by the British Government. The assumption of sovereignty it implies is well known not to be accepted by the Irish people or the Irish Government. In view of our Constitution, which clearly sets out wherein lies the sovereignty of Ireland, and of the obvious political facts, any more formal refutation would not seem likely at present to serve any effective purpose.
With regard to the first part of the Minister's answer, is the Minister not aware that on some broadcasts from the B.B.C. the Proclamation of Accession did include the term "Queen of Great Britain and Ireland"—that is, quite apart from whatever may have been said in Canada or elsewhere?
If the Deputy is referring to the Proclamation of Accession in London, the term——
I did not refer to London. The Minister has added the word "London" of his own volition.
The Deputy has made a distinction between what happened in Commonwealth countries and what happened elsewhere.
I have not. It is the Minister.
The Deputy has just now made that distinction and I want to say this to the Deputy that the fact that it was used in certain cases must not have come as a shock to him. He knows that it was on 22nd June, 1948 that the present Royal Style and Title was proclaimed over in England. He has seen documents delivered officially to himself in which the British Monarch described himself as "King of Britain, Ireland and the Dominions beyond the Seas." He received them officially. So that it cannot be of any great surprise to him The fact is that the term "Ireland" was not used in the London Declaration, that is, the British Home Declaration of Accession. It was used in certain of the Commonwealth countries—in some of them.
I am afraid the Minister is either deliberately or mistakenly misunderstanding the supplementary question I put to him, which was, was he not aware that, apart from any proclamation that may have been read in Canada or elsewhere, the B.B.C. from its stations, not necessarily in London, but elsewhere in England, did read out a proclamation in terms that were different from the one which was published here.
That is simple enough for him anyhow.
That does not require a long speech.
I am not aware that in London——
I am not talking about London.
Where is the Deputy talking about? The Deputy is talking about the B.B.C. Where is the B.B.C. —in the moon?
All over England. The Minister has imported the word "London" into my question.
If the Deputy wants to be very slick, he wants to be at least sufficiently clear that people can understand.
Everybody else in the House understands me.
No, no, no.
The Deputy wants to appear to be surprised. I am telling him that he cannot be surprised about it. The fact is it was not mentioned in the official Declaration of Accession in Britain. I have told the Deputy, in answer to the question, that the word "Ireland" was used in certain of the Commonwealth countries. That is the answer in truth, and the whole truth, with regard to it.
Question No. 20.