Why Prince Albert’s Dublin statue has to go

Sir, – Rory Crotty (Letters, February 13th) calls for the statue of Prince Albert to be left where it is in the grounds of Leinster House. He supports this by saying that Ireland’s colonised past is just as much a part of our national story as our post-independence past. That much is true.

However, having a statue of a well-known person on display is a statement by the people of an area that they hold that person in the highest of esteem, and regard them as someone they are proud to have associated with their area. Crotty goes on to say that the British monarchs enjoyed broad support and acceptance in Ireland. That may have been true of the lord mayor of Dublin and the likes of his Dublin City Albert Memorial Committee, which commissioned the statue, but most certainly did not apply to the general population of Ireland, particularly outside of Dublin.

Prince Albert’s main claim to fame is as the consort of Queen Victoria, who was known in Ireland as the “Famine Queen” and who in the words of Benjamin Disraeli “had no love for Ireland”. The royal visit to Ireland in 1849 was described as “illuminating a graveyard”, a phrase used to highlight the contrast between the triumphant celebrations in Dublin for the royal visit, and the devastating starvation, death and forced emigration being experienced by much of the rest of the country at the same time. While the monarchy did support some famine relief efforts in a small way, it could – and should – have done a lot more to help its starving subjects in Ireland.

Do the people of Ireland really wish to state to the world that the memory of Prince Albert is something that they hold dear to them, and that they are proud to commemorate his association with our country? – Yours, etc,