Michael Collins’ clandestine love and war


Michael Collins August 1922

Discussion of Collins’ personal life and intimate relationships continues to make news headlines, even today.

In the months leading up to his death, controversy on that subject erupted: in the rhetoric of his political opponents.

Here are some excerpts on this topic, from the book
“The Assassination of Michael Collins:
What Happened at Béal na mBláth?”
(Paperback or e-book at: http://www.amazon.com/Assassination-Michael-Collins-Happened-mBláth/dp/1493784714)

Michael Collins was a clever, politic man; clever enough to outmanoeuvre an army on his trail, for years on end.  No scandal concerning a woman was ever attached to his name for the first thirty years of his life.  …  

              It is to be supposed that a man who could run a guerrilla campaign, under the very noses of Dublin Castle, could manage to exclude unwanted spectators from his sex life. Evidently he did manage his personal intimacy, as men of good character in those days were expected to: without noise, without publicity, without exploitation of the innocent, and without scandal.
                   The period for which we are asked to believe that he carried on affairs with more than one British noblewoman, is from the time of the Treaty negotiations on.  This is when he became overwhelmed with the most mind-boggling workload of his remarkable career.  In addition to this, he was spending every weekend possible, and many weekdays, with Ms Kiernan (as their correspondence abundantly documents.)  In view of all this, that he either would or could have indulged in an on-going sexual liaison with a notorious London society siren (or two,) in the full glare of publicity which his frequent meetings at 10 Downing Street now suddenly trained on him … This is in itself beggars belief.
                     But that anyone would ever catch him doing it?  That for the first and only time in his life, he would have failed to keep private, anything which he did not wish to be known, anything which it would behove him to conceal . . . This is demonstrably incongruous, and entirely contradicts his modus operandi, in every other comparable question.”



Let me anticipate everything that may be said about this book . . .

Excerpt from the book:

“Of course, this must be expected to spark more dispute and inquiry.  That is precisely what it should do.  If this entire work were to serve no other purpose, it would be worthwhile for that reason alone.  Anyone who can prove this wrong, and/or offer a better explanation, is welcome to do so.  In the process, they might hopefully shed yet more light on a murky conundrum of history.”