Talk:Éamon de Valera: Difference between revisions

Éamon de Valera received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Pace International Law Review

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".

• Support, assuming "de Valera" also in Irish. Redirection will take care of searches for "Eamon...", i.e. without accent. David Kernow 02:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as per the usage on the official english language version of the Áras an Uachtaráin website, http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=35&lang=eng. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that his name is listed the same way in the irish language version as well, http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=35&lang=ire, --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per Boothy--Aldux 16:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, other websites also use the version without accents, such as the BBC and RTÉ. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
before 2006 (except one thread)

Re the most recent changes reverted back:

1. de Valera and others chose to put a fada on the e in his first name. The article simply reflected that widespread usage when referring to him.
2. Dev is 100% wrong. His nickname was always deV, reflecting his name, which was spelt with a small d and a capital v. FearÉIREANN 20:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know an awful lot about this matter, but a couple of years ago I was given a copy of a book called "Dev and his Alma Mater" ([sic], about his times at Blackrock College), by the author, a priest who was a contemporary of de Valera. In the book he uses the version "Dev" throughout, and querying him about the fada on the E he assured me that de Valera himself spelt the name without one! I have seen examples with fadas, but only when the writing was in Irish itself. What do you think? --Kwekubo 20:17, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dev was also used in Kevin Boland's Up Dev . In that case, and in others, it was the typesetter who was responsible. Texts physically written by people who knew deV and historians, as opposed to typeset or typed by others, use deV. As to the fada, deV made a point of using an Irish spelling of his name, hence the one 'n' not two, the normal english spelling of Eamonn. I have come across deV's signature in various documents in the National Archives and other papers, and he used the fada until his eyesight failed in the 1950s because while he could still do his signature in one go while effectively blind, he was hopeless at knowing where to put the fada in at the end as he had no visual guide as to where he had written the E. And if he stopped having written the E to add in the fada, he then had difficulty knowing where to write the amon as he could not see the É to join the rest to. FearÉIREANN 21:07, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re 'Dev' (and 'De Valera', moreover), what do you think about this [1] image? Cill Ros 00:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, jtd. So shall we move the article to Éamon de Valera, then? -- Kwekubo 19:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Can we solve this issue of the spelling once and for all and perhaps have a vote on it? Even the article is no longer consistant. The intro uses a different spelling to the article title and infobox and this is frequently an issue with reversion (although not always the primary reason). Djegan 11:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Eamon de Valera did put an accent on the E, it is pretty much always anglicised by removing the accent. I think it should be at Eamon de Valera. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De Valera died in Linden Convalescent Home, Blackrock, not Lynden as spelt in the article(I should know, the housing estate that now occupies the site is right beside my house.)

I can't believe how POV the sections ofthis article on the Treaty and the Civil War were. From reading what was here, you'd think that DV single handedly started the civil war instead of being dragged unwilling into it. And is there any evidence that he wouldn't even read the treaty when it was brought home? Isn't this a little, petty anyway? I've been looking aorund the Collins article and several others as well and it seems to me as if certain people are trying to re-fight the Irish civil war on wikipedia. The anti-treaty side were probably mistaken, but they do not deserve to be caricatured or demonised either. Jdorney 22:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful to read Maurice Moynihan's "Speeches & Statements of Eamon de Valera" book about the Civil War period. The only reference ever provided for the allegedly vitriolic speeches are from the newspapers. Included in Moynihan's book is de Valera's letter to the newspapers which challenged the allegations. They were also raised in the Dáil by Kevin O'Higgins and were rebutted there as well. SoldierofDestiny.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Contemporary accounts record that when shown the Treaty de Valera refused to read it, instead going into a rant along the lines of "how dare they sign it without consulting me, their president!" The sources are both supporters and opponents of de Valera's. All are agreed that the issue with him was not the contents but the fact that it had been signed without reference to him. There would have been a split on the Treaty anyhow, but it was de Valera's siding with the Anti-Treaty side that gave it public credibility. He was regarded as the embodiment of the Republic. Large numbers of people would have sided with whichever side he picked. He had little impact in the conduct of the civil war but he bore direct responsibility for personalising the split. Even his supporters regard his speeches as inflammatory in the extreme. He himself admitted that the biggest mistake he ever made was his stance on the Treaty. He personalised the split. He swung a large bulk of republicans the Treaty. He deliberately falsified the whole debate on the Oath of Allegiance when he knew what the oath didn't mean what he said it meant because he was the one who suggested the bones of the wording to Collins. He used grossly inflammatory language. Even if greatest supporters admit that his behaviour at the time was reprehensible. So did he. He never forgave himself for how he behaved at the time, and said that to W.T. Cosgrave in the 1960s.

De Valera has got an unfair press for his later political career. However it is hard to find a single redeeming quality in his behaviour over the Treaty. Others on the anti-treaty side were motived by high ideals and principle. De Valera, according to friend and foe alike, acted with immaturity, tantrums and cynicism. It is hard to find a single redeeming feature in his actions at the time. Lemass, his biographer Lord Longford, Fianna Fáil leaders, and figures like Martin Mansergh, all spoke of de Valera's actions in 1922-1923 as his least glowing period. He himself was always haunted by it. By the 1970s, when in the last years of his presidency he began to get confused and ramble a lot, he forever talked about his bitter regret over what he did during the Treaty debates and afterwards, and how it was the biggest mistake of his life. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The General Registry Office of Ireland have provided what appears to be a certified death certificate on the internet[2] as a sample of their modernisation plan. Djegan 16:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the name of the page to Éamon de Valera, as that is the proper spelling of the first name, not Eamon.

63.164.145.33 11:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Amazing how this basic fact of de Valera's existence is rejected in this article because one editor here is convinced that the rest of us are as ignorant when it comes to spelling Éamon, Seán, Ciarán etc correctly. For instance, a quick Wikipedia search has no less than 596 entries under the name 'Seán'(with accent): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Se%C3%A1n&fulltext=Search. Yet one poster here is adamant that Éamon de Valera was not dev's real name, even though dev's grandson's name, also Éamon, is spelt correctly on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89amon_%C3%93_C%C3%BAiv Maybe we could have a reason why Wikipedia is institutionalising idiocy when it comes to dev's first name? El Gringo 04:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions repeatedly expressed by Demiurge re his analysis of WWII era geopolitics are just that--opinions. There are no citations or sources.

He continually skews everything to favour the Irish government whose refugee policy was genocidal in nature.

As far as whether or not the US entering the war earlier would have been a good thing is self-evident to any sensient human being on the face of the earth, and if Demiurge chooses to disagree, he will have to provide SOURCES and CITATIONS as he routinely demands of others.

He is clearly behaving as a censor in this matter, and I have no intention of backing down. The war dead, who might have survived, had it not been for Irish and Irish-American selfishness and hatred during that period of time demand no less from posterity, and as an Irishman I can do no less than oblige.

Brandubh Blathmac 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge, Jtdirl, et al: I am not going to engage in a revert war at this time. I have contacted the necessary outside individuals to review this matter, and have advised them as to what they can expect to hear from you (boilerplate nonsense) regarding this matter.

As the Irish say, when the Good Lord created time, he made a lot of it, so I am willing and am going to wait for these individuals to review this matter. Brandubh Blathmac 00:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly from the last set of reverts, the pieces in question are Brandubh's para re. refusal to admit refugees - should prob be put back with a citation and reword a bit more neutral. Comment re. weather provided to allies - given that Eire was also providing access to weather until 1943, this can perhaps be phrased a bit more neutral, as it stands it all sounds quite pro-allies. The info re. US entry into WW II has, however, in my opinion little significant bearing on this article and is best discussed elsewhere. In other words, IMHO both parties are 'partly' in the right here Bridesmill 01:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that User:Brandubh Blathmac is a sockpuppet of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, against whom this RfC is currently in progress. Demiurge 08:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume only that the RfC seeks comment - RfC is not in my understanding a campaign against an individual but rather an avenue towards resolution of conflict - that is what I am proposing in this case. The piece appears in its current view somewhat hagiographic; if indeed there was some restriction on refugees that should be stated - right, wrong, or otherwise - if it happened to gloss over it would be dishonest. To reiterate though, there is also no place here to attempt to reinterpret or vilify. Bridesmill 15:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridesmill - I am sorry to have disappointed you earlier. I was not being "disingenuous"; I was genuinely grateful to have what I thought was an ally against a clear collusive effort by several individuals (all from Ireland) to pre-emptively censor me and to clearly be acting in collusion using boilerplate nonsense to preemptively rv anything I wrote. If I had written the Declaration of Independence Demiurge would label it "sockpuppetry". And I am not a Marshall Plan expert but according to the Marshall Plan wikipage the Plan was "to rebuild Europe".

So why would a neutral country which suffered no damage during the war, and which worse yet, had allowed the German embassy (in violation of the Free State's own neutrality) to possess potentially anti-Allied communications equipment until 1943(!!), and which, worse still, refused to accept more than a handful of refugees during the entire Holocaust, have been eligible for $133,000,000 worth of Marshall Plan loans, which it could never afford to repay, w/o friendly congressmen as I suggested?? I guess you know better.

• Maybe for the same reason that other neutral countries such as Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland got $70 million, $347 million and $400 million respectively, and even the belligerents Germany and Italy got $1.4 billion and $1.2 billion respectively? There is nothing unusual about Ireland's receipt of Marshall Plan funds, and certainly nothing that needs to be explained by Rms's conspiracy theories. Demiurge 11:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have added (since the page is protected) to de Valera's page re characteristics of neutrality:

• Unwillingness to permit Jewish refugees from the Holocaust into Éire during or after the war (see [[3]],

[[4]]).

At the "first Irish holocaust memorial day on 26th January 2003", Justice Minister Michael McDowell apologized for "a culture of muted antisemitism in Ireland which discouraged immigration by Europe's shattered Jews. He said that "at an official level the Irish state was at best coldly polite and behind closed doors antipathetic, hostile and unfeeling toward the Jews."" ([[5]].)

Respectfully submitted.

Brandubh Blathmac

• Already covered in The Emergency and History of the Jews in Ireland (as a matter of fact I added it into the latter article, so much for Rms's claims of "censorship"). That "victims.org.uk" site is not an acceptable source by the way. If you can find a reference relating to DeValera himself and Jewish refugees, then it can go in. But if you're just going to shovel in all the negative references to the Irish state you can find regardless of relevance, or depict Ireland as uniquely prejudiced against Jewish refugees (it wasn't -- other countries including the US and UK also behaved in a similar manner), or put in your usual bigotry about "Irish Catholic disloyalty" then I'll revert. Demiurge 11:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the article, it states:

"See also

• List of illegitimates"

There isn't even a webpage for "List of illegitimates" and even if there was a wikipedia webpage, de Valera should not be on it because there is no PROOF that he was illegitimate.

I think that this should be removed from de Valera's webpage. It is not a NPOV. I would remove it myself if the page weren't protected. Bcsurvivor 17:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did - the page linked to was AfD'd if I recall correctly.Bridesmill 17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Manual of Style: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known." No-one talks of Edward de Valera, the Irish statesman. They all talk of Éamon de Valera. If that means the article should be moved to Éamon de Valera then we should do so, and start correcting all the links without delay. David | Talk 09:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its simply laughable having the article under "Eamon de Valera" and then using "Éamon de Valera" in the text as if people would not notice. Djegan 10:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no absolute rule. Look at Bobby Sands which begins with his full name Robert Gerard Sands. If you think the article is better at Éamon de Valera then I agree with you: let's move it now. David | Talk 10:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far to often Irish names are accented by mistake and ignorance. A move would premature without consensus and a vote maybe neccessary. For such a prominant article its not something that should be decided by two people on a Wednesday morning. Djegan 10:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I think the intro to the article is fine for now. I've advertised the debate over whether to move the article to Éamon de Valera in a few places so that we can see what the consensus is. David | Talk 10:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both the BBC and RTÉ refer to de Valera without the accent on the E - and for RTÉ it's not a matter of convenience, seeing as their own name has the same kind of accent in it. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look through Department of the Taoiseach website, and the English version uses Eamon de Valera. The Oireachtas debates online don't look to be any use as in those he's (as you'd expect) referred to as Mr. de Valera or President de Valera. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we are putting up a Wikipedia:Requested moves do we not require a template per steps for requesting a page move?
Djegan 11:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google of the Irish Statute Book shows that their are approximately 30 out of 105 instances that use "É" as apposed to "E" [6]. Not an exact science though as google appears to be crude at distinguishing between accents, so my count is visual as seen.
Djegan 11:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Death Certificate as referred to above previously, uses "Eamon De Valera" in the column "Name and Surname". Djegan 11:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dev's name is a mess. The official [www.president.ie Irish presidential website] refers to him as Eamon De Valera (no accents, capital D for Dev). The [Fianna Fáil] website refers to Eamon de Valera and Eamonn deValera (the latter clearly the product of some half-educated party hack), the NUI (where he was chancellor) as Eamon de Valera. On his grandson Éamon Ó Cuiv's departmental website, we've got Éamon de Valera, so that's how his own family spell it. The same spelling can be found on RTÉ's bio/profile of Éamon Ó Cuiv

I tried to track down an image of Dev's signature to see how he wrote his name and came up with

• Éamon de Valéra on this (well, I think that's a fada on the first E) 1948 document
• Eamon de Valéra (can't see the fada on the first E) on this ebay item

It would be nice to see Wikipedia setting the record straight. Whatever is decided, I would strong recommend that the ridiculous Éamon de Bhailéara be deleted from the article. The subject never used this name, was never referred to by this name, and as a google search suggests, exists solely on the internet because it was included here.

I wouldn't take the death cert as a source. This is clearly a copy from the original register and the official probably doesn't know his a**e from his elbow. My have a copy of my own birthcert, for example, which contains a number of spelling mistakes not contained in the original. They even got one of my first names wrong! For decades, even native Irish speakers found it difficult to register their details in Irish. There was also widespread ignorance on the use of fadas, (RTÉ avoided it for years).--Damac 11:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agreed on your points - whatever version we use here it should have some level of use by the person in question and/or official records and not simply a fad version, or a most common usage wikipedia rule decides to sanction blindly by a quick google search. Djegan 12:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged the "Éamon de Bhailéara" spelling with {{fact}} for now. However we end up titling the article (I personally think it should be a spelling used by the man himself) it seems that "Bhailéara" is not sourced. The fact template should give anyone who disagrees ample notice that they need to cite sources. --Craig Stuntz 14:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes recently some concerns have been raised that Irish translations would not meet wikipedias policies, see Irish manual of style and Irish wikpedia noticeboard. Djegan 14:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do think that Irish names used by the person in question should be included whether or not they are translations. Or non-Irish names, for that matter. If the person calls themselves a certain way, we should report that. --Craig Stuntz 18:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some documents from National Archives of Ireland regarding de Valera [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Of these the second (inludes Irish and English translation of order) and fourth (foreign letter) are the best as they include typefaces that include accents so it would not simply be an issue of the "É" been unavailable for the typist. The final is handwritten in. Djegan 14:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of Irish people simply have no idea what the correct form of their name as Gailge is, so its not supriseing that such mistakes are widespread even with figures such as Dev. Indeed its only the the last five or more years that I have seen people use the (correct) form of Ó Connor instead of O'Connor. The first form is an indicator of accent, the second is a meaningless form given by the English and Irish people not literate in Irish during the early 1800's onwards.

Fact of the matter is you cannot translate any language easily into another. This is why so many of us still go by woeful mis-translations of our correct names (either via semi/illerate ancestors, confused English officals without the grace of Gailge, not to mention simple ignorence even in the 18th and 19th centuries over what the correct form was even among Gailgeors!). This is why you have surnames such as Green instead of Ó Fathaigh/Fahy, Mortimer instead of Ó Muircheartaigh/Murtagh, Crystal instead of MacGiollaChriost/Gilcreest/Kilcreest and a long line of other gems that drive people daft! Fergananim 17:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is simply find out which form he most commonly used himself. Nuff said.

Fergananim 17:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted Jtdirl's change which again puts his abandoned and little-known birth name first. The standard wikipedia policy is to put the usual name first, and then make a note of previous names: see for example Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Blythe at birth) and Gerald Ford (Leslie Lynch King at birth) both of which start with their usual name. David | Talk 22:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political articles on Wikipedia overwhelmingly put the registered name first, then the colloquial version second. For just one of thousands of examples, as in Tony Blair which starts "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born 6 May 1953)". That is also the form used in the vast majority of biographical articles on Wikipedia. See Cary Grant which starts "Archibald Alexander Leach (18 January 1904 – 29 November 1986), better known by his screen name, Cary Grant . . ." Nor does the Bill Clinton article call him "Bill Clinton". It calls him "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton". The normal method of naming is to use the legally registered name first. De Valera's legally registered name was never "Eamon", just as Blair's registered name was never "Tony Blair", and Grant's was never Cary Grant but remained "Archibald Leach". Clinton was originally "William Jefferson Blythe" but was changed legally. If it hadn't been changed legally, then the article would start with the Blythe name. But as it was legally changed, the name Clinton is used. Similarly we use Prince Henry of Wales, his registered name, not Prince Harry of Wales, the informal version. Strangely, while David wants to use the unregistered name first here, he makes no attempt to follow the logic of his position and insist that Blair, like de Valera, have an unregistered name put first. Maybe he doesn't actually understand how names are used in the thousands of Wikipedia biographical articles. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland, as in Britain, does not have a formal system of registration of names. In order to change ones' name, one simply starts using the new name; providing this is not for the purpose of fraud, the change has then happened. Legal declaration of the change is by means of a deed poll which is a unilateral document. So therefore Eamon de Valera's real name was actually Eamon de Valera. As far as the other examples you show, they are not of people who have changed their names, but of people who have a familiar and shortened version of their full name by which they are normally known. Eamon de Valera was not a shortened version of Edward George de Valera but a changed version of it. David | Talk 23:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on all counts. Ireland has had a system of registering names since the 1860s. So has Britain. That is what one does when one registers a birth. Names can be legally changed through a legal case of in Britain still or by a ruling of the monarch. Both applied in Ireland until December 1936 (One of the last acts de Valera did with King Edward VIII was as Minister for External Affairs to request a change of name for an Irish citizen, a request the King granted.) Now one goes to court, which is how Lord Mountcharles, whose personal name was Henry Coyningham, changed his name to "Henry Mountcharles", prior to beginning his political career. You don't seem to know the law. Just calling yourself a new name is as worthless as a three euro note. You have to get the legal permission to change one's name by deed poll. Just because one can change one's name at a whim on Wikipedia does not mean that one can do it in the real world. It doesn't work like that.

And deV himself interpreted "Eamon" (or rather "Éamon", which he actually used — I have a copy of his signature and he always included a fada) as a gaelicised version of Edward. On two occasions I have seen he signed his name Éamon Seoirse de Valera! He only began using "Éamon" as opposed to "Eddie" when he joined the Gaelic League in the early 1900s. Prior to then, according to his family, he was known usually as "Eddie de Valera' and by one relative as "George de Valera". FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is you who are wrong. The registration of birth is just that: a registration of a birth, and everything in the registration is of the facts at the time. In specified circumstances the birth can be reregistered because changes in facts are backdated. At present, one does not need to go through any legal formalities to change one's name in Ireland, as this document from the Irish Courts shows: "people who change their surnames by adopting a new surname which has no connection with their former one, may experience some difficulty when they produce a birth certificate in which their surname differs from the one in usage. It is advisable therefore to prepare at the time at which the change is made a formal deed poll or affidavit indicating that you have ceased to use the former surname and that henceforth wish to be known by the assumed name." Note the 'advisable' - it's not 'compulsory'. Changing peerage names is bound to be different. David | Talk 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again 100% wrong. Henry BTW did not change his peerage name. He changed his personal name, and for a simple reason. He may be known informally as Henry Mountcharles but that was not his name. When he ran for the Dáil he would have to use his legal name, the name he was registered with, Henry Coyningham. Few people would have recognised that name, so he had to go through a legal process to change is name from Henry Coyningham to Henry Mountcharles to enable Henry Mountcharles to appear on the ballot paper. Legally one cannot change one's name without going to court, which is why transsexuals have gone to the Irish courts to change their names. They could not simply adopt a new name and hey presto, that was their name. Since the 1860s the legal name of a person is the name they are registered with at birth. That is the law. One cannot use another name in any legal sense without changing it under the required legal process. That is the law. In law the word "advice" actually means mandatory, as in the requirement that that Taoiseach advise (ie instruct in a binding manner) the President on who to appoint as attorney-general. In only rare occasions does advice mean "non-binding" and even there, it is usually taken to mean "you better think long and hard before ignoring this". Your grasp of law is somewhat shaky. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW to be allowed to call himself Sean Dublin Bay Loftus, Alderman Sean Loftus had to change his name by deedpoll. And when he became Sean Dublin Bay Rockhall Loftus, again he had to change it by deedpoll. He couldn't simply call himself that. Legally, calling yourself something else isn't worth the proverbial paper it is written on. One can create variations of one's language based on language (post 1922) but one cannot legally call oneself something different in terms of creating a new name that can be used on bank accounts, driving licences, etc. A new name to be used in any legal context requires a legal change, prior to 1936 either by deedpoll or by order of the King, after 1936 exclusively by deedpoll. It was by deedpoll that David Sutch got to use the name "Screaming Lord Sutch". If he hadn't legally changed it he could not have used it in any legal context, such as standing for election. No matter what he called himself he would remain simply "David Sutch" and would have to use that name on ballot papers, driving licences, tax forms, passports, etc. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Sean Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus and Screaming Lord Sutch changed their name by deed poll was so that they would be listed that way on the ballot papers otherwise they would only have been listed by their legal names and additional words would not have been used. In the case of Éamon de Valera, we need to ignore all the incorrect and falsely propogated errors that have been folllowed by others who never checked his name properly in the first place. I have two copies of his signature, one of which (from around 1920) I have here while the other I need to find, and the man himself used the fada, so we should do the same no matter what he did for his own convenience in later years due to failing eyesight. Following him, and his family tradition as used today too should mean we go with Éamon de Valera. ww2censor 14:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was registered at birth under the English form of my name and without any deed poll or affidavit I've a social insurance number and card, bank accounts, driving licences, plane tickets, an entry in the voters' register, a passport, German and Greek residence permits, degrees, etc. etc. all under the Irish version of my name. As far as I'm concerned the name I use is my name, and nothing else. I'd imagine the same applies for Eamon de Valera.--Damac 11:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]