Talk:Casimir Markievicz

Word-for-word Translation

This article appears to be a word-for-word "translation" that pays no respect to English word order or feeling, and is completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. What do we do about it? -- JackofOz 11:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Date of marriage

According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is perhaps more authoritative, they were married in 1900.--mervyn 10:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Constance Gore-Booth hoped to study art, and finally persuaded her disapproving parents to fund her studies in 1893, when she enrolled at the Slade School of Art, in London. Having moved to Paris to further her studies she met fellow art student Count Casimir Dunin-Markievicz, a Polish widower whose family owned land in the Ukraine. They married in London in 1900 and their daughter, Maeve, was born the following year. Constance Markievicz's relationship with her daughter was strained; the couple returned to Paris in 1902, leaving their daughter in the care of Lady Gore-Booth. The child's family was reunited when her parents moved to Dublin, but from about 1908 she lived almost exclusively with her grandparents at Lissadell House." -- S. Pašeta, ‘Markievicz , Constance Georgine, Countess Markievicz in the Polish nobility (1868–1927)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 accessed 29 Sept 2007

Image

Is the 'young boy' in the painting the article identifiable? Based on photographs, it looks a lot like Markievicz's son Stanislas, and he would have been more or less the right age in 1902. Also, is the possible to obtain an image of Markievicz himself? There is one of him and his second wife on their wedding day that should be out of copyright, if someone can get hold of it. ANB (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Fake title of Count

After S. Pašeta's article quoted above, it was found that he was not a real Count but managed to use the style and title convincingly in Paris and Dublin. The historian Ruth Dudley Edwards exposed this in a 2006 essay on his second wife Constance, and is quoted in an article: "The historian says that Markievicz, who got her name from Ukrainian widower Casimir Markievicz, who she married aged 30, always knew she should never have had a title of 'Countess' but continued to use it anyway. She didn't want to incur disapproval from her family so she said he was a nobleman. She had no right to the title of Countess. A recent biography says she had a disregard for titles but she was an attention seeker and was always known as Countess or Madame," she says.78.18.211.113 (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This, I presume, is the article you refer to. It is lurid, sensational journalism of the worst sort. And Dudley Edwards is quite happy to encourage that sort of journalism. However, unless she has published this "exposé" in a peer-reviewed journal or a book published by a reputable publisher, we cannot use this. A newspaper report of a historian's expression of opinion – which is all this is – on a radio programme does not qualify as a reliable source.

Ann Matthews, in Renegades (Mercier Press, Cork, 2010, pp. 71-2) says, "In September 1900...Constance Gore Booth married the widower Count Casimir Joseph Dunin de Markievicz...On their marriage certificate Count de Markievicz is described as a Polish nobleman aged twenty-eight." No mention of him not being a real count, four years after RDE supposedly "exposed" this. I might add that Matthews is no more a fan of Con Markievicz than RDE is. We should not say that Markievicz "styled himself" a count unless and until we have a reliable source to say that the style was incorrect. Scolaire (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources suggests that Casimir describing himself as a count on a census form in 1911 is not a good enough source for Wikipedia. If other historians have bought into this, that says little for their scholarship. There were no other counts Markievicz, he was the first, self-created in Paris. De Valera was astute enough to refer to Constance as "Madame Markievicz", which said everything and nothing.78.18.204.133 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

See also Category:Counts_of_Poland, Category:Polish Counts of the Holy Roman Empire, List of szlachta, List of Polish noble families with the title of Count and Category:Russian noble families, for the absence of any Markievicz counts, barons or anything.78.18.204.133 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Over 2 years later, no new proof that he was a real count? He wasn't the first fake, nor the last.78.16.86.228 (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Over 2 years later, still no reliable source that he was a fake count? Scolaire (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You never know that out of some dusty tome in Poland might fall a dusty sealed grant of the title of Count to one of his forebears. But not yet. Sorry, but the very-well-fingered records say that there were no other Counts Markievicz/Markiewicz ever, anywhere. He was the first and last. He was a fake Count, and carried it off perfectly in France, Britain and Ireland. A Count using his title here in Ireland or Britain could get a licence to use it, but Casimir never did (See eg the Catholic and slightly-Irish Count de Salis-Soglio). He would have if he was a real Count. I'm sure that Constance thought it was all a great prank until everyone started calling her Countess and then, well, you can't step back down can you? People have to accept now that the ruse worked for a century but it was still a ruse.78.16.86.228 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

But you still don't have a reliable source to back you up, which, according to you, means you never will. Scolaire (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Polish nobility did not have titles, it's possible that a Markiewicz was a member of the szlachta who made up about 7% of the population. He certainly wasn't part of the Prussian, Russian or Austrian nobility (many szlachta got foreign titles after Poland was dissolved in the late 18th century) Sheila1988 (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It was a well-known fraud at the time, but nobody minded before 1914 because Casimir carried it off so well, and there was a saying - "Counts don't count". It's very surprising that historians didn't realise this sooner.PatrickGuinness (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Title (March 2016)

What sort of evidence would you accept as proof that Markiewicz was not a count? A signed confession? A diary entry saying he passed himself off as an aristocrat to seduce a wealthy Englishwoman? That's not how it works, as any scholar should know. On the other hand, if Markiewicz had been an authentic nobleman, there would certainly be records to prove it, as others have pointed out. Earldoms don't just appear out of nowhere: they are created by formal deeds and scrupulously recorded. They are passed down from father to son over generations. It is utterly inconceivable that there would not be documentation to support the existence of a Markiewicz title and Casimir's claim to it. This is one of those cases where the evidence of absence thoroughly refutes the proposition. The burden of proof rests squarely on those who would contend that Casimir really was a count. Joe kearns (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

All I ask is a reliable secondary source saying he was a fake. Scolaire (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've now added a citation to Burke's Peerage 1911. Will that do you? Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

My word, Scolaire, that's a really disingenuous misuse of citations. Burke's is a catalogue of the British peerage, not Russian, and you have clipped that excerpt from the entry on the Gore-Booth baronetcy. So, well done on proving that Constance was the daughter of Sir Henry Gore-Booth. Glad we got that one cleared up. Now, to get back to Markiewicz, all Burke's says is that his family name appears in the Golden Book, and all that means is that they had a hereditary grant of lands from the Tsar. It doesn't make him a count, and it doesn't alter the fact that the name is not on the list of Russian counts, and ergo that he was not a Russian count. So why not go and check that list for yourself, and if you find Markiewicz in there you can come back crowing and I'll apologize. Joe kearns (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I cited Burke's Peerage as evidence that he was in the Golden Book of the Russian Nobility, and therefore could claim to be a member of the Russian nobility. This is original research, as it relies on your interpretation of primary sources, and is not backed up by reliable secondary sources. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is a tertiary source and must reflect what is in the secondary sources. Scolaire (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't quite seem to have got your head around this primary-secondary-tertiary sources concept, Scolaire. Primary sources are not intrinsically bad, and not forbidden in Wikipedia. In fact, generally speaking, a primary source is preferable to a secondary one. What Wikipedia has a problem with is analysis and synthesis of sources. For instance, I might say that the (American) Declaration of Independence asserts the citizen's right to the pursuit of happiness, and back that up with a citation to the sacred text. That's not original research: it's a direct and factual statement of something in the document itself, and the best citation to support it is that original. But in your world, you seem to think you can trump that by referring to some amateur historian's hobby book, with a 500-copy print run, that you found in the clearance bin at The Works. So if you claim that Ann McKenna or Joseph Matthews or Liam McNulty says the Declaration "guarantees happiness to everybody", that's somehow a more solid citation. Not so. When it comes to saying what's in any document, there is no better reference than the source itself. And in that context, I can defend my Golden Book citation as being a reference to the one and supreme authority on what names are and are not in the Golden Book. But be that as it may. I'm going to delete that particular citation anyway because ultimately it proves nothing. Yes, there are two names a bit like Markiewicz, but I didn't see any genealogy connecting Casimir with either of them. In fact, I only included the citation for the convenience of anyone who might be inclined to use it to prove that he was in fact some sort of noble. You, to be specific. Because, frankly, your reference to Burke's proves nothing at all about Casimir except that he was married to Constance. The mention of the Golden Book is completely noncommittal - perhaps intentionally. The only thing we know for sure about him - from the secondary sources at the Russian Nobility Association - is that he was no count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe kearns (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That's all bluster. Several reputable books say that he was a count, not a fake count. Your web page does not say that he was a fake count. That is your interpretation of the list on the web page, which is a primary source. The Lady Fingall book and Burke's Peerage specifically say that he was in the Golden Book of the Russian Nobility. No secondary source says that he was not. Scolaire (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Burke's peerage does not explicitly say that Casimir was in the Golden Book, and in any case would not be authoritative with regard to Russian nobility. Lady Fingall's memoir does say as much, but it is a third-hand "as told to" account of a piece of hearsay, and does not state how Lady Fingall came to this opinion. There is absolutely no reliable evidence that Casimir Markievicz was a count, and the absence of his name from the complete list of Russian counts proves that he was not. You are using Wikipedia to perpetuate a falsehood, for reasons I can only guess at. All I am interested in is the truth. I made my edits in good faith and backed them up with solid citations, and I want you to reinstate them. If you don't, I will refer the matter to DR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe kearns (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think DR would be a good idea. Scolaire (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright then. So before we call for a third opinion, why don't you take a few minutes to set out your argument. Because at this point, we have compelling evidence that Casimir was not a count and absolutely nothing backing up your assertion that he was. In fact, I don't see how it's even possible for you still to hold that belief. But instead of addressing the facts of the matter, you're preoccupied with laying down the law on Wikipedia citations (as you see it). If you were interested in finding out the truth and making this article reliable, you would look at the evidence and address the questions it raises instead of quibbling over whether a source is primary or secondary. The Russian Nobility Association site, incidentally, cannot possibly be construed to be a primary source: it's essentially a work of academic research. The primary sources are the original records of genealogy and heraldry on which the Association's research was based. But regardless of its order of originality, when I cite "a list of all the Counts of the Russian Empire" and make the observation that the name of Markiewicz isn't on it, that's not my interpretation, it's a plain statement of fact, like saying there is no letter eth in the modern Roman alphabet. Furthermore, when I reinstate this section again, I will include, with citations, the additional information that Casimir's title was researched by the Russian Foreign Ministry before his marriage to Constance, and found to be bogus. And also that his son, Stanislas, knew he was no count. So there are my cards on the table: let's see yours. Joe kearns (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. I am not asserting, and I haven't asserted, that Casimir was a count. What I have said is that all of the many books, articles and web pages dealing with Casimir, Constance or the revolutionary period in Ireland refer to him as a count. If we say that he "claimed to be a member of the Russian nobility", "styled himself Count Markievicz" or "affected the title of Count Markievicz", all of which are in this edit, we are going against what the sources say. We can't do that. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If we cite "a list of all the Counts of the Russian Empire" and make the observation that the name of Markiewicz isn't on it, that's not our interpretation, it's a plain statement of fact; but if we say that he "claimed to be a member of the Russian nobility", "styled himself Count Markievicz" or "affected the title of Count Markievicz", then we are interpreting that list to make a statement based on it that is not in it, and that is original research. Being a work of academic research does not affect whether a thing is a primary or a secondary source, by the way. There are many excellent collections of published primary sources that result from painstaking academic research. I would consider any list not accompanied by commentary to be a primary source. But it doesn't matter whether you agree with me on that or not. What matters is that the web page in question says nothing whatever about the status or the morality of anybody who is not on the list. To make statements such as I have quoted based on the list is synthesis, and that is not allowed per policy.

Talking about including additional information the next time you revert savours of a battleground mentality. Instead, why don't you present the information here on the talk page so we can discuss it? Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't stated your case, Scolaire. The books that refer to Casimir as a count do so because he pretended to be one, and was widely believed - and perhaps more so, because Constance compounded the pretence. When I say he styled himself Count Markievicz, I'm not depending on the list of Russian counts. I haven't even bothered to provide a citation for that because there's no question about it: the dogs in the street know that he styled himself Count Markievicz; the very books you refer to prove it, and we wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise. The question is: did he have the right to style himself thus? And the evidence is that he did not, no matter how many gullible contemporaries and careless biographers accepted it. Have you noticed the tendency in more recent publications to tactfully avoid using the title? Frankly, I no longer care what you consider to be primary, secondary, tertiary or quaternary. Your main criterion for judging the validity of a resource seems to be whether or not it supports your dewy-eyed view of the "Countess". Here are two more references for you to look at (and no doubt dismiss): Lauren Arrington, Revolutionary Lives: Constance and Casimir Markievicz, pp 21-22; and Donal Nevin, James Connolly: "a full life", p589 in the 2005 edition. If you have even the ghost of a case, this is your chance to make it. Otherwise, I will be inserting an expanded section on Casimir's use of the title, and if you revert it I will report you for "edit-warring", as you call it. Joe kearns (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally! A good quality secondary source that deals with the validity of the title. Arrington's book most definitely should be cited in the article, and it affords an opportunity to cite the Russian nobility web page as well. Note that any edit should be confined to the facts presented in the source, and not include personal (and negative) observations such as the "claimed" and "affected" phrases that I quoted above. Note also that Arrington herself, despite her knowledge of the facts, continues to refer to him as "the dashing Polish Count" (page ix). Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the article accordingly (and the Nevin ref). Thank you for going to the trouble of finding the sources, and thank you also for not reverting before I had an opportunity of looking at them. Scolaire (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added it to the Constance Markievicz article, too. Scolaire (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Scolaire, that looks very balanced now. Regarding Arrington, I sometimes find it impossible to say whether she is being sincere or ironic, or just stating how she thinks others see things. For example, when she says of the utterly callous murder of Constable O'Brien at Dublin Castle that "the righteousness of this act seems to be unquestionable", I find it hard to believe that anyone could really think so. Anyway, I'm glad we got the title issue straightened out, but I have a question about sources regarding Constable Lahiff, and I've added a new section at Talk:Constance_Markievicz#Constable_Michael_Lahiff if you wouldn't mind having a look. Joe kearns (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Scolaire, how about eating a little crumb of humble pie for ignoring that 2006 article listed above that you said was "..lurid, sensational journalism of the worst sort."! Seems as if you could be prone to Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Secondary source, author even notable enough to be on wikipedia.78.16.95.94 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian army service

He also served for a time in the Imperial Russian Army in WW1, who were fighting his wife's "gallant allies" in 1916. Can someone flesh this out? (Did he enlist as a Count?) A 2012 article: ."Not long after returning to the Ukraine, Markievicz was one of the many Poles living in Russian territory who joined the Tsar's army in the First World War in the hope that Poland would be granted independence after the conflict.".78.17.38.186 (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

References