I

By the time of the outbreak of the Irish War of Independence in 1919, diplomacy had evolved as a male profession that women were rarely a part of, except in the traditional role of diplomatic wife. Ireland, as part of the British empire, did not have a separate Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and, therefore, women's involvement in the practice of diplomacy was not an issue. In Britain, women were prevented from applying for diplomatic positions in the Foreign Office because of a stipulation in the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919. The 1919 act removed disqualifications from the exercise of public function and from being appointed or holding a position in the civil service on the grounds of either sex or marriage, but section 1(a) of the act gave the government power to reserve exclusively to men any posts in the civil service, including those overseas and in foreign countries.Footnote ¹ Across the Atlantic, the US State Department did not exclusively prevent women from applying for jobs; however, by 1919 no women had successfully been employed in a diplomatic position.Footnote ² The realms of diplomacy remained similarly closed to women in most countries, with the notable exceptions of Uruguay, which appointed a woman to one of its legations in 1912, and Norway, which appointed a female secretary to Mexico in 1914.Footnote ³

The field of gender and diplomacy first emerged in the late 1980s; however, it has grown substantially in recent years. In 2012, Diplomatic History published a special issue on gender, sexuality and foreign policy. The journal adopted a biographical approach, concentrating on individuals who impacted American foreign policy through the influence of emotion, sexuality and gender.Footnote ⁴ In 2016, Glenda Sluga and Carolyn James made a substantial contribution to the field of gender and diplomacy with their edited volume, Women, diplomacy and international politics since 1500.Footnote ⁵ The range of articles in the volume demonstrated that women have acted as diplomatic agents and have influenced foreign policy since the sixteenth century through dynastic and familial ties and as official diplomats. Sluga and James reject the claim that women were absent from high politics and argue that the lack of scholarly engagement with the theme of gender and diplomacy has resulted in the depletion of women in ‘the core historical narratives of international politics’.Footnote ⁶ More recently, in 2017, Jennifer A. Cassidy edited Gender and diplomacy, a volume that examines the role of gender in international relations in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Most interestingly for this study is Anne Barrington's article, ‘From marriage bar towards gender equality: the experience of women in Ireland's Department of Foreign Affairs, 1970–2000’, which is one of the few articles that explored the role of Irish female diplomats.Footnote ⁷ Barrington joined the DFA in 1977 and served as Irish ambassador to Japan and Tanzania. As a working Irish diplomat, Barrington was, as such, an insider, with first-hand knowledge of the internal culture of the DFA.Footnote ⁸ She has found that ‘while diplomacy…is gender neutral, the institutions in which diplomacy is practiced within were, and are, not’.Footnote ⁹

Barrington's article notwithstanding, there are few studies that explore the role and experiences of women in Ireland's DFA.Footnote ¹⁰ Dermot Keogh's seminal work on Irish diplomacy, Ireland and Europe, 1919–1948, makes fleeting references to some of the women in this article, ‘Annie Vivanti, an Italian novelist and a friend of Mussolini, was the first to join the cause in the French capitol’, and ‘In Madrid, a Miss O'Brien was running an information bureau.’Footnote ¹¹ More recent works on the history of Irish diplomacy mention the diplomatic achievements of women in similar vein; Gerard Keown has correctly summarized that ‘Both Cáit Ní Ceallaigh and Mairead Gavan Duffy were active as agents in their own right, while Nancy Wyse Power in Berlin was the daughter of Jennie Wyse Power, in whose Dublin restaurant the 1916 rebels had met.’Footnote ¹² But he does not broaden his analysis to include the women's roles abroad. Michael Kennedy's 2002 article, ‘“It is a disadvantage to be represented by a woman”: the experiences of women in the Irish diplomatic service’ is the only published work, to date, that has significantly explored the role and experiences of female diplomats between 1919 and 1922.Footnote ¹³ This article will correct this lacuna in Ireland's diplomatic historiography and engage with the topic of gender and Irish foreign policy during Ireland's revolutionary period, 1919–22. It will examine the appointment and role of women working to achieve Irish independence abroad and demonstrate that women were active diplomatic agents during this period.

The emergence of women working in the Irish diplomatic service began with the establishment of a separate Irish foreign service on 21 January 1919 when the provisional, albeit illegal, government of the Irish Republic, Dáil Éireann, held its first meeting in the Mansion House, Dublin. The nucleus of a separate Irish administration was established, which included a DFA with Count George Noble Plunkett appointed minister for foreign affairs. Gaining recognition of the Irish Republic from foreign nations became the first objective of the new DFA; indeed, it became a primary aim of the revolutionaries between 1919 and 1921. To achieve this goal, Irish envoys were posted throughout Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, with the instruction to distribute Irish propaganda abroad, to maintain contact with the Irish diaspora and those sympathetic to the Irish cause, and to secure official recognition by the government of the host state of the independence of the new Irish Republic. In turn, Dáil Éireann hoped that this recognition would translate into support at the Paris peace conference and bring further legitimacy for the new republic and its self-governing status. Prominent revolutionaries were sent abroad to implement this foreign policy agenda. Seán T. Ó’Ceallaigh and George Gavan Duffy were appointed to Paris to lobby for Ireland's admission to the peace conference, Séan Nunan and Harry Boland were appointed as envoys to the United States, Art O'Brien was appointed Sinn Féin representative in London, Michael MacWhite was posted to Switzerland as Irish representative, Eamon Bulfin was Irish representative in Argentina, and Frank Egan became Irish representative in Chile. Patrick J. Little was an Irish roving agent throughout South Africa and Latin America. All of these men had common interests; they were members of various Irish republican organizations, including the dominant nationalist party, Sinn Féin, and most had been involved in the events of the 1916 Easter rising. The republican credentials of these first Irish diplomats influenced their appointments.

II

Against the background of political upheaval and turbulence in Ireland and few financial resources, the nascent DFA was open to the idea of women serving abroad. Both Irish men and women had proved themselves willing to participate in the campaign for Irish independence. From the 1890s, women had joined various cultural and political organizations including the Gaelic League, the Irish Citizens Army, Sinn Féin, and Cumann na mBan (the Irishwomen's Council). These organizations played a crucial role in the radicalization of Irish nationalism. Approximately 300 women were involved in the 1916 Easter rising, seventy-seven were arrested, imprisoned, and upon release would also partake in the Anglo-Irish War of Independence from 1919 to 1921.Footnote ¹⁴ Immediately after 1916, republican women such as Nora Connolly, Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, Margaret Skinnider, and Nellie Gifford travelled to the US to provide first-hand accounts of the Easter rising to the American public. From 1918, these lecture tours were used to campaign for Irish independence and accordingly, women were active in pressing Ireland's case abroad.Footnote ¹⁵

Annie Vivanti, an Italian author, served on the Irish delegation to the Paris peace conference. Vivanti was born in London in 1866 to an Italian father and a German mother; she was well travelled and had lived in England, Switzerland, the US, and Italy. In 1907, she married John Chartres, a British civil servant, and they both became involved in the Irish republican cause in 1917.Footnote ¹⁶ Vivanti was appointed to the Paris delegation because she was a well-known figure in continental Europe and she put the Irish delegation in contact with friendly writers and journalists. Gavan Duffy reported to the secretary of Dáil Éireann, Diarmuid O'Hegarty, in June 1919 that ‘the only publicity you can count on here is what you can get through personally friendly writers and journalists; this is where Mrs Chartres has been useful’.Footnote ¹⁷ Vivanti assisted the Paris peace delegation only for a short time, and in June 1919 she returned to Italy. Vivanti secured a British visa and en route to Italy, at the request of Ó’Ceallaigh, she presented Ireland's Case, a pamphlet outlining Ireland's argument for independence, to the respective German, Austrian, and Hungarian ministries in Geneva.Footnote ¹⁸

Vivanti's work for Irish independence did not end on her return to Italy and she continued to cultivate contacts, communicating with high-profile journalists and politicians. Through her connection with Gabrielle D'Annunzio, an Italian journalist and nationalist, Vivanti successfully organized a meeting between Ó’Ceallaigh and Benito Mussolini in September 1920. Although not yet the political force that he would become in later years as Italian prime minister from 1922 until 1943, by 1920 Mussolini and his political party, Fasci de Combattimento, were gaining support and his potential influence is most likely what attracted the Irish delegation to meeting with him. Ó’Ceallaigh reported to O'Hegarty that due to Vivanti's influence, Mussolini was a ‘thoroughgoing friend and supporter of ours’. Their meeting resulted in Mussolini promising ‘to give us the fullest support possible at all times’.Footnote ¹⁹ Although this support never came to fruition, the meeting demonstrates Vivanti's effectiveness and influence in European political circles. Certainly, without her connections and diplomatic skills, Ó’Ceallaigh would have failed to gain a meeting with Mussolini. Vivanti worked towards the achievement of Irish foreign policy goals in a unique way.

Cáit Ó’Ceallaigh, wife of Seán T. Ó’Ceallaigh, and Mairead Gavan Duffy, wife of George Gavan Duffy, also assisted the Paris delegation in an informal capacity. Both women were from devoted nationalist families. Ó’Ceallaigh, formerly Mary Kate Ryan, was an active member of the Gaelic League and supporter of Sinn Féin. The Ryan family, particularly the Ryan daughters, were actively involved in the nationalist movement; Agnes co-founded the Belfast branch of Cumann na mBan and Min and Phyllis were stationed in the General Post Office during the 1916 Easter rising. They, with Cáit, were arrested and imprisoned in Mountjoy Prison in the aftermath. While Cáit was politically active, she did not take an active role in the rising, but her name and her association with leading political figures made her a target of British forces.Footnote ²⁰ Similarly, Gavan Duffy was a daughter of A. M. Sullivan, a prominent nationalist and journalist. Sullivan was active in the Young Ireland movement and in later years he became a Home Rule MP for Louth. Sullivan was proprietor of The Nation newspaper and became a prominent propagandist for Irish nationalism in the late nineteenth century.Footnote ²¹ Both family dynasties provided the women with significant contacts within the nationalist movement.

Both Sean T. Ó’Ceallaigh and George Gavan Duffy made reference to their wives in reports to Dublin, which indicates that Dublin officials were interested in the work of diplomatic wives on behalf of the Irish independence cause.Footnote ²² On 17 June 1919, Mairead Gavan Duffy arrived in Paris. Diarmuid O'Hegarty wrote to Ó’Ceallaigh: ‘it is very fortunate that Mrs Gavan Duffy was able to get across. From what you say regarding your requirements, I have no doubt but that she will be of great assistance.’Footnote ²³ Similarly, Cáit Ó’Ceallaigh travelled to Paris in 1920 to assist her husband in his negotiations with French officials.Footnote ²⁴ Ó’Ceallaigh was well suited to such a role. She graduated with a First Class Honours BA in Modern Languages from UCD in 1902 and a teaching qualification from Girton College, Cambridge, England. After gaining teaching experience in England, Ó’Ceallaigh returned to Ireland in 1909 and lectured in languages in her alma mater. Judith Harford has argued that ‘The early decades in the life of the university were shaped both by its Catholic identity and its nationalist stance…Many of the early academics and students would significantly shape the consciousness of the emerging nation.’Footnote ²⁵ Furthermore, Roy Foster has identified a pattern of emigration among emerging radical nationalists: ‘a sojourn to England at school or college could predispose young people to extreme opinions’.Footnote ²⁶ Ó’Ceallaigh corresponded to Harford's and Foster's assessment, and by the time of her return to Ireland, combined with further developments in Dublin in 1916, Ó’Ceallaigh was a strong nationalist supporter, establishing ‘her own nationalist salon at 19 Ranelagh Road’ in the succeeding years.Footnote ²⁷ Her nationalism and training and fluency in modern languages were essential prerequisites for admission to the Dáil Éireann diplomatic service. In the summer months of 1920, while on holiday from her academic job, Ó’Ceallaigh joined her husband in Paris. The delegation lacked a suitable translator and Ó’Ceallaigh's fluency in French was of vital assistance. Previous to her travelling to Paris, she had acted as messenger between Dáil Éireann officials in Dublin and her husband, communicating instructions and policy to Ó’Ceallaigh in Paris.Footnote ²⁸ Therefore, she was trusted by both her husband and the Dublin administration with confidential and important information. Evidently, members of Dáil Éireann had a certain expectation that wives would also promote Irish independence when accompanying their envoy husband's abroad.

In September 1920, George Gavan Duffy was appointed Sinn Féin roving envoy, travelling throughout Europe distributing propaganda, fostering contacts with people sympathetic to the Irish cause and gathering information on the post-war international situation. He established his headquarters in the Via Veneto in Rome and Mairead followed her husband to Italy in February 1921.Footnote ²⁹ Rome was an attractive mission for the DFA; not only could a representative cultivate ties between Ireland and the Vatican, but a number of Irish communities, primarily religious, were located in Rome, and they offered an opportunity to distribute and disseminate Irish propaganda to a wider audience. Furthermore, the Paris delegation had fostered contacts in Rome the previous year when Ó’Ceallaigh met with Mussolini and other Italian journalists. In September 1921, Count Patrick J. O'Byrne was appointed representative in Rome; however, he was unable to take up the position officially until December. On 20 September 1921, the DFA wrote to Mairead Gavan Duffy explaining the position in Rome: ‘We have agreed that Count O'Byrne will take up duties there about the 1^st December. Seoirse [George Gavan Duffy] was good enough to promise that you would look after the Bulletin in the meantime.’Footnote ³⁰ And so for a second time Mairead Gavan Duffy was expected to fill a diplomatic position, albeit in an unofficial capacity. She distributed the Irish Bulletin to sympathetic supporters of the Irish cause in Rome. This was a Dáil Éireann publication detailing the repressive actions of British crown forces in Ireland and the activities of the War of Independence and circulated to ‘opinion-formers outside Ireland’.Footnote ³¹ Gavan Duffy also observed the British situation and in September 1921, she reported that ‘There is a new British Ambassador to the Quirinal [official residence of the Italian head of state]…This is a pity, as Buchanan, the last man was a perfect fool.’Footnote ³² Gavan Duffy immersed herself in the activities of the British representatives in Rome and had come to know their personalities and characteristics. She continued in her report: ‘Could you find out what sort this man is; he has already interfered here by writing to a Florentine paper saying that the English do not kill Irishmen, just the other way!’Footnote ³³ Gavan Duffy counteracted British propaganda by increasing the publication and distribution of the Irish Bulletin. She also proposed to publish ‘special issues’ highlighting the Irish political situation when needed:

It is evident that Gavan Duffy struggled to contain the British propaganda machine in Rome and disseminate Irish propaganda through effective channels.

In October 1921, Gavan Duffy wrote to Arthur Griffith who had been appointed minister for foreign affairs the previous August, reporting that British representatives were influencing Vatican policy towards Ireland: ‘You must remember that the English representative at the Vatican is one of their most clever diplomatists, and added to this the Vatican believes what it likes to believe.’Footnote ³⁵ Since her arrival in February, Gavan Duffy had attempted to foster relations with the Irish communities in Rome, and she became particularly friendly with Dr John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College. Hagan, without the authority of Dáil Éireann, had attempted to gain Vatican support for the republican cause. But due to the British propaganda machine in the Vatican, he was viewed in Vatican circles as an ‘extremist’. Gavan Duffy wrote to Griffith asking for the support of Dáil Éireann in Hagan's mission to represent Ireland at the Vatican. She argued that

Arguing her case further, Gavan Duffy also wrote to the president of Dáil Éireann, Éamon de Valera: ‘I would like to urge the necessity of supporting the Rector of the Irish College. One would not exaggerate the importance of the work he has done here.’Footnote ³⁷ Gavan Duffy was evidently gaining more confidence in her role in Rome and although de Valera did write to the Rector thanking him for his work, neither the Dáil, nor the DFA, offered him any official support.Footnote ³⁸

Gavan Duffy vigorously pursued her role as unofficial diplomatic representative in Rome. For the duration of her tenure, she continued to monitor the Italian press for British propaganda, to cultivate cultural and political connections with the Irish College in Rome, and to distribute a weekly Irish Bulletin to those supportive of the Irish case for independence. Keogh has argued that ‘Rome was the European capital where Dáil Éireann propaganda was most effective.’Footnote ³⁹ This is supported by Gavan Duffy's claim to Griffith that ‘It will interest you to know that our [Irish] bulletins are on the whole very well quoted.’Footnote ⁴⁰ Although Gavan Duffy worked hard at pressing Ireland's case abroad, at no time did she view herself as an official diplomatic representative. She told Griffith that she would ‘have everything in order’ for Count O'Byrne when he arrived in Rome in December 1921, suggesting that she had no difficulty with O'Byrne adopting the position of Irish representative in Italy and continuing her work.Footnote ⁴¹ It is unclear if Gavan Duffy received a wage or salary for her work, or if the DFA viewed it as an addition to her husband's role of roving envoy, but it is clear that Gavan Duffy crafted a role independent of her husband in Rome. She was a diplomatic agent in her own right, working beyond the responsibilities of a diplomatic spouse, yet officials in the DFA did not recognize her as such.

Similarly, Alice Ginnell accompanied her husband, Laurence, to the United States and South America in1920. Laurence Ginnell rose to prominence within the nationalist movement in the aftermath of the 1916 rising and was elected a Sinn Féin MP in the 1918 general election. By 1919, he received his full republican credentials when he was appointed the first Dáil Éireann director of propaganda.Footnote ⁴² Similar to Cáit Ó’Ceallaigh and Mairead Gavan Duffy, Alice Ginnell was active in the republican movement. Residing in England, Alice visited Irish republican prisoners after Easter 1916 in Lewes and Aylesbury. Recalling the period 1916–17, Helena Molony wrote to Ginnell: ‘We all of us realized the great risk you ran going from prison to prison to get information about the prisoners and the publication of that evidence was of great propagandist value to the Republic.’Footnote ⁴³ Ginnell was a member of Sinn Féin and Cumann na mBan. On her return to Ireland in 1917 she was elected secretary of Cumann na dTeachtaire (League of Women Delegates), a coalition of female Sinn Féin members.Footnote ⁴⁴ Therefore, both Ginnell's republican credentials were well-established when they set sail for the USA in July 1920.

By December 1920, Laurence Ginnell had established offices in Chicago where he distributed The Bulletin and started the Irish Relief and Reconstruction Fund. There is little information on Alice Ginnell's role in Chicago; however, in December 1920 she travelled to New York to enquire if Muriel MacSwiney would accompany her to Chicago to receive the freedom and hospitality of the city. While in New York Ginnell also met with Harry Boland, Dáil Éireann representative to the United States.Footnote ⁴⁵ Ginnell's access to MacSwiney and Boland, both of whom were recognized as prominent republican figures, demonstrates her reputation in the republican movement as a loyal and trustworthy insider.

Almost exactly a year after arriving in the US, the Ginnells sailed for Argentina in July 1921 to undertake a speaking tour of South America. They were well received and Laurence was invited to a number of public functions in Buenos Aires, including Te Deum in celebration of Peruvian independence, and a number of newspapers published interviews with him.Footnote ⁴⁶ Alice Ginnell assisted her husband in these endeavours; she gave and attended receptions with Irish-Argentineans and state officials, fostered contacts with the Irish religious community in Buenos Aires, and, most importantly, she managed the press and spoke to journalists about her husband's role in South America. In August 1921, the Associated Press were running a story that Laurence Ginnell insisted on an audience with Foreign Minister Pueyrredon; Alice Ginnell spoke with the journalist and ‘After a great tussle with him Mrs G got him to omit the part about L.G.'s insistence on his reception either officially or privately.’Footnote ⁴⁷ Ginnell was aware of the importance of crafting a positive image of Irish representatives in the foreign press. The couple's diplomatic manoeuvrings were successful, particularly among wealthy Irish-Argentineans, and by October Laurence Ginnell had launched the Dáil Éireann Republican bond drive for £500,000.

Alice Ginnell was not the only woman working towards Irish independence in South America in this period. Anita Bulfin, sister of Dáil Éireann representative Eamon Bulfin, assisted him in Argentina and worked with the Ginnells on their arrival. Bulfin was particularly influential in launching the Irish Bulletin in Buenos Aires. Patrick J. Little, roving envoy in South America, reported to Robert Brennan, under-secretary for foreign affairs, the difficulties of establishing a press bureau in the region. Alice Ginnell was also aware of these difficulties and Little reported that ‘Mrs Ginnell urged me to help at Propaganda and Organisation.’Footnote ⁴⁸ Consequently, Little employed Anita Bulfin in this role: ‘I found Miss Anita Bulfin had time, and has the right ideas, and something of the family gifts for clear writing.’Footnote ⁴⁹ It is clear that Ginnell's role in Argentina was the traditional social role of a diplomatic spouse, managing her husband's engagements and accompanying him to official functions, while Bulfin provided administrative and journalistic skills to the delegation.

Bulfin also accompanied the Ginnells to official functions because of her fluency in Spanish. Ginnell recalled an engagement in the city of Rosario, Argentina, in October 1921. A banquet was held for Laurence Ginnell at which the vice-governor, mayor, and secretary representing the chief of police were present. ‘Because she could speak Spanish, Miss Bulfin sat beside the Vice-Governor. At first he was a very difficult proposition because he felt that he should not have come…Miss Bulfin said afterwards “I think if I succeeded in making him talk, I could make anyone talk.”’Footnote ⁵⁰ Bulfin's linguistic skills were of clear importance at these social engagements in explaining Ireland's case for independence.

It is revealing that in Alice Ginnell's accounts of her time in Argentina, she describes the diplomatic activities in the plural. ‘We’ and ‘us’ are used repeatedly and it is clear that she did not view these activities as her husband's alone, but as theirs, they were a diplomatic team. Ginnell played a smaller role than Gavan Duffy, Vivanti, and Ó’Ceallaigh but her Bureau of Military History witness statements support the argument that these women valued their roles abroad as representatives of the Irish Republic. They may have been posted abroad to accompany their diplomatic husbands, but each had established independent roles in the nationalist movement prior to 1919. They brought specific language, administrative, and public affairs skills to the Dáil Éireann diplomatic propaganda machine and the trust placed in them with secret and confidential information is of vital importance. The activities of Vivanti, Gavan Duffy, Ó’Ceallaigh, Ginnell, and Bulfin demonstrate that Dáil Éireann not only accepted the involvement of women in implementing policy objectives but expected their assistance. They helped to convey throughout Europe and South America Dáil Éireann's message that Ireland was an independent republic. Their role in Irish foreign affairs, however, was temporary; they were not employed in formal roles and, moreover, they did not view themselves as official Irish representatives. Just two women were employed in official capacities by the DFA: Nancy Wyse Power and Máire O'Brien.

III

Like other diplomats in the Irish foreign service, Nancy Wyse Power was an active nationalist and supporter of the Irish cause for independence. Her father, John Wyse Power was a journalist, a founding member of the Gaelic Athletic Association and an active member of the Gaelic League.Footnote ⁵¹ Nancy's mother, Jennie Wyse Power, was an active nationalist and suffragist.Footnote ⁵² Born in Dublin in 1889, Nancy secured a First Class Honours BA degree in Celtic Studies from UCD in 1912 and completed a doctorate on Celtic philology in 1920 from the University of Bonn.Footnote ⁵³ Later she recalled that ‘Discussions on Irish politics were in my ears from the time I could hear anything as both my parents had been actively engaged in public affairs.’Footnote ⁵⁴ It was Jennie's political activism in particular that contributed to the political development of the Wyse Power children. She joined the Ladies Land League in 1881 and helped to raise funds for the Irish National Land League, which aimed to reform the landholding system in Ireland and she remained throughout her life a staunch supporter of Charles Stewart Parnell. She was also a member of the Dublin Women's Suffrage Association and a co-founder of the two leading Irish women's nationalist organizations: Inghinidhe na hÉireann (Daughters of Ireland) founded in 1900, and Cumann na mBan founded in 1913.Footnote ⁵⁵ Similar to the Ryan family, the Wyse Powers were connected to prominent members of the nationalist movement. The family's restaurant at 21 Henry Street, Dublin, ‘was a rendezvous for Irish nationalists’ including Arthur Griffith, John MacBride, Seán T. Ó’Ceallaigh, and Henry Dixon.Footnote ⁵⁶ The leaders of the Easter rising signed the Proclamation of the Irish Republic in the Wyse Power residence on 24 April 1916.Footnote ⁵⁷ In this context then, it is unsurprising that Nancy Wyse Power immersed herself in nationalist politics. In the years following the Easter rising, both Nancy and Jennie were actively involved in Cumann na mBan. Nancy was elected to the Cumann na mBan's executive committee in 1917 and she became one of two honorary secretaries; she also took Constance Markievicz's place on the Sinn Féin executive after the latter's arrest in July 1918. Mother and daughter worked on Constance Markievicz's election campaign in 1918 and both were active throughout the War of Independence, providing food and first aid to flying columns, sheltering men ‘on the run’ and establishing Irish Republican Army (IRA) offices in the family home. Their actions brought them to the attention of the British authorities, but neither were ever arrested, allowing them to continue in their roles.Footnote ⁵⁸

Nancy Wyse Power possessed the relevant requirements to be an Irish representative abroad. As noted above, she was a prominent nationalist and supporter of Sinn Féin, she was highly educated and fluent in German. In 1921, de Valera appointed Wyse Power to Berlin to establish and manage a press office ‘on the understanding that she should be in control for a certain period’ until John Chartres, husband of Annie Vivanti, could take over later in 1921.Footnote ⁵⁹ It was envisaged that Wyse Power would return to Dublin when Chartres arrived in Berlin later in the year.

Máire O'Brien also came from a republican background. O'Brien's father, James Francis Xavier O'Brien, was a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. He was involved in the failed Fenian rising in 1867, and he was a nationalist politician and treasurer of the Irish National League of Great Britain after the family's move to London in 1888. After her father's death in 1905, O'Brien and her family relocated to Ireland and it was here that she became involved in nationalist politics.Footnote ⁶⁰ O'Brien was not a member of any republican or women's organization. She had wished to join Cumann na mBan but she was advised not to by members of the organization ‘as I might be found more useful if I was not openly identified with the organisation’.Footnote ⁶¹ Nevertheless, in 1915, O'Brien began working for Cumann na mBan in an unofficial capacity; she recalled that she was ‘always at their disposal and gladly did anything they asked me to do, such as carrying despatches, etc.’Footnote ⁶² During 1916, she was on holiday in Barcelona and Mallorca and she undertook propaganda work and collected funds for the Irish Republican Prisoners Fund, a financial relief organization for the dependants of imprisoned republicans, organized by Sinn Féin, the IRA, and Cumann na mBan.Footnote ⁶³ She continued this work on her return to Dublin in early 1917.Footnote ⁶⁴

The combination of her knowledge of Spanish and republican credentials made her another obvious choice for the Dáil Éireann's foreign service. In 1920, she met with Robert Brennan and Desmond FitzGerald, director of publicity, to alert them about the importance of distributing Irish propaganda in Spain. She travelled to Barcelona with Madge Barry, a member of Cumann na mBan, and distributed propaganda for the Irish Republic.Footnote ⁶⁵ It was here that she met with Gavan Duffy. He agreed with the need to disseminate propaganda in Spain and he reported to Brennan that ‘She [O'Brien] would be very useful as a Press Agent in Madrid. She is keen on trade and could act in that direction too. She says she knows Spanish well enough to translate the [Irish] Bulletin. She seems very competent and wide-awake and would hold her own.’Footnote ⁶⁶ Despite this, Gavan Duffy was also aware of the possibility of Spanish dissatisfaction with a woman representative. He wrote, ‘in Spain (of all countries) it is a disadvantage to be represented by a woman, for girls and women are treated as dolls, and, if they claim to be taken seriously are thought disagreeable’.Footnote ⁶⁷ Thus, it was decided that a male envoy should be appointed to Spain to work with O'Brien. Art O'Brien, Irish representative in London, was recommended by Gavan Duffy because he could speak Spanish and had political and diplomatic experience from his appointment in London since October 1919. Art O'Brien, however, refused to go to Spain, stating that he held an ‘exceptional position’ in London and ‘it is very important to have someone in charge who has a thorough grip on all the diverse reins’.Footnote ⁶⁸ Máire O'Brien was unaware of Art O'Brien's refusal to leave London and she travelled to Madrid on the assumption that O'Brien would take control later in the year.Footnote ⁶⁹

Both Wyse Power and O'Brien were qualified for their respective positions, particularly in terms of their loyalty to the republican cause and their linguistic skills, and as such were employed on that basis. The corollary of this, however, is that the DFA did not regard either of them as diplomatic representatives; they were press agents and as such they were not official representatives of the Irish government. In spite of this, however, Wyse Power and O'Brien solely assumed responsibility for their respective press offices until a man was made available to take on the position of Irish representative, revealing an inherent gendered view of Irish foreign affairs. Yet, regardless of how the department viewed their roles, both women established, operated, and managed the diplomatic machine abroad.

IV

Upon her arrival in Berlin on 16 April 1921, Wyse Power established a press office and immediately began work making contacts with people sympathetic to the Irish cause. These included Agnes Smedley, an American journalist and writer, Frau Agatha Grabisch, secretary of the German-Irish Society, John T. Ryan, an American who was engaged in sabotage in the US during the First World War, St John Gaffney, the former US consul-general in Munich who was forced to resign because of his anti-British position during the First World War, Michael O'Brien, an Irish Celtic Studies Ph.D. student, and Professor Julius Pokorny, Professor of Celtic Studies.Footnote ⁷⁰ It was hoped that Wyse Power could rely on the German-Irish Society to help her produce the Irish Bulletin; however, after her assessment of the situation in Berlin, she deduced that ‘The society was riven by infighting and…none of its members were suitable to edit the Bulletin.’Footnote ⁷¹ Pokorny was the only member trusted by Wyse Power temporarily to translate the Irish Bulletin into German.

By May 1921, Wyse Power had translated and distributed two editions of the Irish Bulletin. She was poorly provisioned from Dublin and the delay in the postal service exacerbated the situation. Wyse Power remained in contact with her mother, Jennie, and without this communication she would have remained ignorant of the political situation in Ireland; the DFA had not contacted her with any information since she had left for Berlin. Consequently, the intelligence published in the Irish Bulletin was gained from the newspapers Ó’Ceallaigh sent from Paris and the few English newspapers that she obtained in Germany. Wyse Power also interviewed a number of German newspaper editors and she reported that ‘The papers are taking things up fairly well – better than I had anticipated – and I am not dissatisfied with the results up to the present.’Footnote ⁷²

Máire O'Brien also experienced difficulties establishing a press office in Madrid, although for different reasons. She reported in June 1921 that she had established offices in Madrid and had employed a ‘staff of three boys’.Footnote ⁷³ She also employed the help of Eric Sala, who worked for the Catholic Spanish newspaper, El Debate. She reported to the department that ‘He [Sala] is well acquainted with our cause, and knows what sort of information is needed in Spain, and what the papers are likely to publish. He revises my translation and presents the material in the form he thinks will be most acceptable to the press.’Footnote ⁷⁴ By June, O'Brien was issuing the Irish Bulletin three times a week. However, despite the help of her staff, she also reported that ‘With regard to the general situation in this country, I have had little grasp of it so far, the Bulletin and “Address” [Message to the Free Nations of the World] have taken all my time.’Footnote ⁷⁵ Furthermore, she also encountered challenges in establishing contacts with Spanish newspaper editors and she noted that out of twenty newspaper offices she visited, only five people spoke with her.Footnote ⁷⁶ She attributed this difficulty to Spain's allegiance to England. She reported that ‘In Madrid it is not easy to manage the press. They are, in many cases afraid of England.’Footnote ⁷⁷ Despite the challenges O'Brien experienced, she continued to distribute Irish propaganda and make acquaintances with Spanish people sympathetic to Ireland's situation.

Both Wyse Power and O'Brien assumed much of the responsibility in their respective offices. Wyse Power returned to Dublin on Chartres's arrival in Berlin in June 1921, only to be reassigned to Berlin three months later as Chartres's personal assistant. Chartres's grasp of German was limited and O'Driscoll has noted that ‘These shortcomings were to a certain degree compensated for by Nancy Wyse Power's decision to remain in Berlin as his assistant.’Footnote ⁷⁸ Although Wyse Power had established the press offices, spoke fluent German, and had made contacts in Berlin, she was appointed to a subordinate role. Nevertheless, Chartres was called away at various times between 1921 and 1922. During these absences, Wyse Power assumed responsibility for the Berlin office. In Chartres's absence, she continued to watch the German press for information about Ireland, translate and disseminate Irish propaganda, and report back to the department on the political climate of Germany. She revealed that ‘the place was full of British spies and German spies. You did not know who was a spy. The whole thing was like a detective story.’Footnote ⁷⁹ Wyse Power was frustrated with Chartres's long absences and the constant change in leadership. The situation was aggravated in October 1921 when Chartres was summoned to London to serve as secretary to the Irish Treaty delegation. She complained to de Valera that ‘It is quite impossible for any man to keep in touch with the political feeling of a foreign country if he is to spend four weeks in London, one week in Berlin and then another four in London.’ She finished her letter stating, ‘it might have been better to leave the matter untouched, rather than conduct propaganda in this haphazard manner’.Footnote ⁸⁰ Wyse Power maintained the smooth running of the press office until Chartres's return in January 1922. Upon his return, Chartres wrote to the department commending Wyse Power on the work she had undertaken in his absence.Footnote ⁸¹ O'Driscoll has observed that in 1919 Berlin was not a primary political objective for the DFA; however, by March 1922, the Irish propaganda machine was accelerating.Footnote ⁸² There was increasing interest in the Irish situation in Berlin, 1,200 copies of the Irish Bulletin were issued, and German newspapers printed long articles from them.Footnote ⁸³ This increased diplomatic activity in Berlin was in no small part due to Wyse Power's activities; she established Irish diplomacy in Berlin and cultivated and increased German interest in Ireland.

O'Brien's experiences echo Wyse Power's. She maintained the running of the press office in Madrid, translated and disseminated the Irish Bulletin, and attempted to strengthen Irish–Spanish cultural ties through a series of lectures on Irish–Spanish history, modern Irish literature, Irish art, Irish music, and Spanish–Irish trade.Footnote ⁸⁴ The department was satisfied with O'Brien's work and Brennan wrote to her, saying that ‘I think the programme of lectures which you sent is an admirable one and the idea is excellent.’Footnote ⁸⁵ Despite this, however, O'Brien was overwhelmed by the workload in Madrid and failed to make any political connections. This can be attributed to two reasons, first, the propaganda side of the work took up most of her time, and secondly, Gavan Duffy's assertions were correct – as a woman she struggled to be taken seriously in Spain's patriarchal society. A memorandum entitled ‘Ireland and Spain’ written by an Irish Jesuit priest, Father Cahill, in September 1921 remarked that ‘Although Miss O'Brien is exceptionally clever and devoted, and has done wonders considering her opportunities, it is clear that a woman is much handicapped especially in Spain. Hence I think that though she should remain at her post, a man should be sent as Representative or Consul.’Footnote ⁸⁶ Indeed, O'Brien admitted to the department that she struggled to gain the necessary introductions and ‘much more could be done if a man could be spared for Madrid’.Footnote ⁸⁷ Her frustration was compounded by the fact that she understood the fomenting anti-colonial feeling in Spain, particularly with regard to British-occupied Gibraltar, and how this response could be used positively by Irish representatives: ‘a good deal might be done with politicians here by a delegate. If Gibraltar…were sufficiently rubbed in, it would, I think make impossible the Anglo-Spanish alliance for which the Marques de Lema is working.’Footnote ⁸⁸ The department's secretary, Robert Brennan, repeatedly told O'Brien that the situation was being looked into but ‘It is not easy to find a person who is just suitable for the post at short notice.’Footnote ⁸⁹ Art O'Brien's refusal to be appointed representative to Spain seriously hampered the propaganda work; nevertheless, O'Brien continued to press Ireland's case and persisted in attempting to make contacts with people in Spain sympathetic to the Irish cause.

Although both women were evidently qualified to perform their diplomatic responsibilities, as noted previously, DFA officials did not view them as diplomatic agents. It is unclear, particularly in O'Brien's case, why they were not granted the title of foreign representative, like the other (male) diplomats. In a DFA report, Brennan outlined that ‘press bureaux have been established in Germany, Switzerland, Spain and Rome and the organisation of similar bureaux in South Africa, Australia, Chile and the new Argentine is under way’.Footnote ⁹⁰ It would seem sensible that all of the representatives working in the various press bureaux would hold the same title of press agent. However, in Rome and Switzerland George Gavan Duffy and Michael MacWhite respectively were given the title ‘Irish representative’, Patrick J. Little in South Africa was ‘Irish envoy’, in Australia James Donovan was ‘acting State Secretary of the Self-Determination League for Ireland’, in Chile Frank W. Egan was ‘honorary representative’, and in Argentina Eamon Bulfin held the title of ‘Irish representative in Buenos Aires’.Footnote ⁹¹ Therefore, the only two press agents who were not given diplomatic status were Wyse Power and O'Brien, demonstrating a lack of respect toward their diplomatic abilities on behalf of DFA officials. Despite this slight, Wyse Power and O'Brien were active participants of the Irish diplomatic machine. They were not merely bystanders but engaged in the same responsibilities and duties as their diplomatic colleagues abroad.

V

The signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty on 6 December 1921 brought an end to the War of Independence. However, the Treaty partitioned the island of Ireland and declared that all Teachta Dálas (members of parliament) were required to take the Oath of Allegiance to the British crown. As a result, in June 1922 civil war erupted throughout the island between the Provisional Government forces and anti-Treaty forces (also known as ‘irregulars’). Unsurprisingly, the Treaty devastated the DFA. Many prominent diplomats were also Teachta Dálas, and therefore voted on the ratification of the Treaty. A number of high-profile Teachta Dálas, including de Valera, were opposed to the Treaty and anti-Treaty politicians and representatives abroad resigned from their position. Robert Brennan resigned and Seán T. Ó’Ceallaigh, Harry Boland, and Art O'Brien were dismissed from the foreign service because of their anti-Treaty position.

Máire O'Brien also opposed the Treaty and consequently resigned from her position in February 1922. George Gavan Duffy, the incumbent minister for foreign affairs and a signatory of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, wrote to O'Brien: ‘I am very sorry that you cannot see your way to continue working for the Government in Madrid. In the circumstances I have no alternative but to accept your resignation.’Footnote ⁹² O'Brien intended to remain in her post until March; however, she was offered a position to work with Robert Brennan for the anti-Treaty forces in Dublin and so in mid-February she travelled to Ireland. Gavan Duffy was displeased with O'Brien's course of action and argued that her early departure ‘will be thus causing the Government not only inconvenience, but considerable expense, and your previous record of excellent work should entitle me to expect that you would have taken a more proper course’.Footnote ⁹³ O'Brien's successor, Ormond Grattan Esmonde, arrived in Madrid in September 1922 and found ‘a partially dismantled office…with a Spanish servant and clerk’.Footnote ⁹⁴ Esmonde concluded that ‘My predecessor, Miss O'Brien, had deliberately left affairs in a state of confusion for political reasons.’Footnote ⁹⁵

Throughout 1921, O'Brien's gender clearly impacted her ability to conduct propaganda in Spain, a country unreceptive to women in public life. Despite this, O'Brien's accomplishments included publishing the tri-weekly Irish Bulletin and issuing it to ‘hundreds of prominent Spaniards in every walk of life throughout the country’; translating, publishing, and supplying Ireland's Declaration of Independence and the Message to the Free Nations of the World to every Spanish Deputy; establishing a series of lectures on Irish–Spanish relations; and publishing various pamphlets detailing the political situation in Ireland.Footnote ⁹⁶ O'Brien's diplomatic skills can be recognized by her employment as Robert Brennan's secretary after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Between 1922 and 1923, O'Brien carried IRA despatches and her flat at No. 1 Herbert Street, Dublin, was used as IRA headquarters and ‘as a clearing-house for despatches and guns, as it was considered a very safe house…there were guns and field-telephones and IRA files and documents for safe-keeping, and they were never captured’.Footnote ⁹⁷ O'Brien's former role in Madrid facilitated her appointment as a propagandist during the Irish Civil War. Indeed, her accomplishments were acknowledged over twenty years later by Art O'Brien who wrote ‘your work in Madrid during that time was of the greatest value to us in giving the priests and people of Spain a true appreciation of the reason for and aims of, our struggle against England’.Footnote ⁹⁸

Unlike O'Brien, and notwithstanding her strong nationalist background, Wyse Power was one of the few diplomats, and indeed few women, who was in favour of the Treaty and so remained in her position in Berlin in 1922. The policy objectives of the remaining Irish representatives abroad became somewhat blurred after December 1921, however, owing to the political confusion in Ireland. Gavan Duffy detailed the dilemma for Irish foreign affairs in a department memorandum: ‘Propaganda, in regard to England which has abandoned its savagery in Ireland and has signed…a Treaty of peace…must be consistent with the situation thus created, so long as the British Government faithfully observes its compact.’Footnote ⁹⁹ It is clear from Gavan Duffy's memorandum that he was unsure of the direction Irish foreign policy would take in the new climate of peace in Ireland. In February 1922, Chartres asked the department for clear guidelines on the type of information that should be published in the Irish Bulletin and if ‘authentic recent news’ should be printed, even if it showed the British Government in an unfavourable light.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ Gavan Duffy responded: ‘let me make it clear that there is no intention whatever of suppressing either news or comment’.Footnote ¹⁰¹ Therefore, Chartres and Wyse Power continued to publish and distribute the Irish Bulletin in Berlin.

Due to the shortage of diplomatic staff in early 1922, Chartres was appointed to Paris temporarily to replace Ó’Ceallaigh. Charles Bewley, trade representative in Paris, enquired of Gavan Duffy if he could take over Chartres's position while he was in Paris. In his autobiography, Memoirs of a wild goose, Bewley makes his suspicions of Chartres clear. On Chartres's appointment as Irish representative in Berlin, he argued that ‘There was nothing…to qualify him as representative of the nascent Irish state’, and described him in the following terms: ‘In an armchair, reading The Times, sat a middle-aged man with a monocle attached to a black ribbon, whom I would have taken for an English tourist if I had not known him to be the Irish Representative “envoy”.’Footnote ¹⁰² His disregard extended to the staff of the Berlin office, continuously describing Nancy Wyse Power as Chartres's ‘secretary’. Evidently, Bewley did not feel that the ‘secretary’ had the right qualifications to manage the press office, but Chartres lobbied in support of Wyse Power:

Ultimately, Wyse Power took control of the press office in Chartres's absence. By March 1922, she reported that ‘The interest in Irish affairs has so increased that the papers now print long articles from our [Irish] Bulletin, although, when we started first, only the shortest of paragraphs received publicity.’Footnote ¹⁰⁴ The foreign press was evidently more comfortable to publish Irish news after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty than it had been previously.

Affronted by Chartres's dismissal of him taking over as Irish representative, Bewley took a course of action against the Berlin office. Bewley claimed that the Irish Bulletin in Berlin contained ‘lengthy and eulogistic biographies of de Valera and the most prominent Irregulars’Footnote ¹⁰⁵ and he reported to Ernest Blythe, minister for trade and commerce, that the staff of the office was sympathetic to the anti-Treaty side.Footnote ¹⁰⁶ He justified this course of action in the following terms: ‘As the Government was paying for Chartres’ services and for the issue of the Irish Bulletin I thought it had a right to be informed in more detail about the value it was getting for its money.’Footnote ¹⁰⁷ Bewley's calculated attack against Chartres and his staff resulted in Gavan Duffy questioning the loyalty of the staff in Berlin. The August and September 1922 editions of the Bulletin were halted and in October 1922 Chartres was informed by the department to ‘be ready to hand over to someone else by the middle of next week’.Footnote ¹⁰⁸ Chartres's appointment was subsequently terminated and both he and Wyse Power returned to Dublin. Wyse Power was transferred to the Home Service but the following year both she and Chartres joined the Department of Industry and Commerce. Bewley was appointed Irish representative in Berlin where he remained until February 1923. Bewley's attack on the Berlin office clearly demonstrates the fragility of the DFA after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The staff of the department was decimated, and those that did remain in the service of the department were viewed with suspicion by the slightest mention of disloyalty.

VI

George Gavan Duffy assessed the situation in Irish foreign affairs in a memorandum in June 1922:

This was the state of affairs in the DFA in June 1922. Desmond FitzGerald, former minister for publicity, took control of the newly titled Department of External Affairs in September 1922. By this time, none of the women discussed in this article were working in a diplomatic capacity. Ó’Ceallaigh, Ginnell, and O'Brien fought on the anti-Treaty side, Wyse Power followed Chartres to the Department of Industry and Commerce and Gavan Duffy, Vivanti, and Bulfin faded from Irish political life.

The women discussed in this article contributed to the early phase of Irish foreign policy to varying degrees. Comparisons can be made between them: almost all were highly educated, some to university level; they possessed linguistic skills; they were politically knowledgeable, and were involved in the republican movement. Despite their qualifications, the DFA did not intend for any of them to work in a permanent diplomatic role as representatives of the Irish Republic. The intention to employ women temporarily until men could undertake the running of the diplomatic machine abroad demonstrates a certain amount of disregard for the abilities and qualifications of these women. Despite this, they demonstrated considerable diplomatic skill under difficult circumstances owing to both their gender and the international situation in the post-war period. Fred Halliday has argued that ‘Nationalism…seeks to mobilize women in support of its goals, independence and the consolidation of a specifically-defined post-independence regime.’Footnote ¹¹⁰ Throughout history, at times of war, gender norms have been suspended and women have been called upon to help in the war effort. This was the case during Ireland's revolutionary period. Women were actively engaged militarily, politically, and indeed diplomatically. Undoubtedly, the women discussed in this article equally contributed to the Irish cause for independence as their male counterparts. When Irish independence was officially established and the Irish Free State came into existence, the gender norms that were suspended during the War of Independence were re-established and re-enforced and women once again returned to the private sphere. Consequently, the historical record has ignored their involvement; they have become Ireland's forgotten diplomats.