Sir, - In reply to Medb Ruane's letter (November 22nd) in which she criticised my comments on Kitty Kiernan in my review of Michael Collins (November 9th), I would like to point out that although I claimed that Kitty was politically naive I did not imply that she was a "Longford gombeen", a comment which could be seen as defamatory!
I agree that my information on Kitty came from her correspondence with Collins. But I would rather read the words of the historical character rather than rely on the secondary sources which can often be tainted with the passage of time. Ruane's article on Kitty Kiernan (November 5th) was informative, I would have liked to have had the opportunity to use that material in my book.
But the beauty of history is that it is constantly evolving and changing as new material emerges. I did not research Kitty Kiernan, as she was a minor character in the biography of Lady Lavery, only illustrated when necessary to set the Collins/Lavery relationship in context. Regarding my omission of the story of Hazel and Kitty embracing at the graveside, (in fact, it is not John Lavery's evidence but was quoted by Meda Ryan in The Day Michael Collins was Shot), it was edited out when more interesting material came to light on Hazel's actions at Collins' graveside.
Further, to her comment that I suggested that Lavery was "in love" with Collins, Ruane claims this was my personal opinion and it was not based on historical fact. It is based on previously unpublished material from Lady Lavery's own collection in which Collins refers to her in terms of affection. Ruane is quick to condemn my opinion. She embraces Todd Andrews's statement that he found no basis whatsoever for a romantic attachment. Had I had access to his statement I would have used it in my book. I presented all the material I discovered regarding people's opinion of the nature of the Collins/Lavery relationship although much of it was contradictory and I let the readers draw their own conclusions.
Regarding the ongoing debate on the incorrect footnote, my publisher, Antony Farrell, has already addressed this issue (November 27th). Ruane points to my sources material gathered for Eoghan Harris's film (collected in the 1970s which included interviews with contemporaries); regarding Hazel, she points out that I state she was theatrical and prone to distorting facts; and also that I use the testimony of Shane Leslie whom I describe as given to embellishing the truth, as if she is implying that they are not valid source material.
I would point out, that as she herself reveals, I did not try and deceive the reader. I quote a recent review in the London Times by James Mackay, biographer of Collins: "Sinead McCoole is far too scrupulous an historian to jump to any dramatic conclusions." Sadly it is the nature of women's history that one is hampered by the lack of primary material and is often forced to rely on less important sources.
In conclusion, I wish to state that despite Ruane's assertion, I never set about "staging a catfight, based around Collins' affections. As part of my critique of the film I stated, although it was not quoted, that I felt Jordan was correct in choosing to use this earlier period of Collins's life. The love triangle of Boland, Collins and Kiernan was less complicated than introducing Lady Lavery as another love interest.
Ruane's letter concludes that she would forgive film makers for presenting women as one dimensional characters. I disagree. This is the 1990s not the 1940s; it is clear that the Kitty Kiernan character is used in the film merely is the foil to the violence, a light interlude. Perhaps Ruane should also use her critical faculty to challenge Jordan for his lack of research into the character of Kitty Kiernan and overlooking her political activities that Ruane herself researched and illustrated in her recent letter to The Irish Times. - Your, etc.,
11 Mount Pleasant Place,
Ranelagh, Dublin 6.