Talk:Bram Stoker

Origins of Dracula

In 1890 he met the Hungarian professor Arminius Vanbéry, who told him the legend of the Romanian prince Vlad Tepes, better known as Dracula. This person became Count Dracula the vampire in Stoker's fictional novel. In the same year Bram started to write his book Dracula, which he finished 7 years later. For his book he studied the culture and religion of the people on the Balkan and explored the life of the historical person Vlad Tepes.

The Dracula article contradicts almost everything in this paragraph. --Paul A 01:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This passage caught my eye: Stoker's inspiration for the story was a visit to Slains Castle near Aberdeen. The bleak spot provided an excellent backdrop for his creation. I am unfamiliar with any documentation to back up this claim. Zahir13 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Was Stoker gay?

Is an academic analysis of Dracula's very obscure supposedly homoerotic themes sufficient evidence to label Stoker as a homosexual or bisexual? Is there any biographical evidence? -Willmcw 05:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Given that Dracula is a monsterus villain it might just as well be used to support the theory that Stoker was homophobic (not that I think he was either mind you) -Adventuresofthestarkiller 03:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph dealing with Schaffer's homoerotic interpretation of Dracula. This is a controversial interpretation of the work from a literary perspective and even more questionable as a commentary on Stoker's life. As it was the only reference to literary interpretation in the article I don't think its inclusion was consistent with NPOV. This material would be better suited to the Dracula entry.

I think this article in general dwells overmuch on Dracula, so I hope someone who knows more about Stoker's life and other works can make additions to those areas. CKarnstein 20:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to read a biography (credible or otherwise) that suggested he was homosexual. It would seem unlikely given there isn't any evidence outside of a modern, controversial interpretation of Dracula. His marriage to Florence and the fathering of a child would further militate against the possibility.

Besides the homoerotic literary interpretation of Dracula, some see it subconscious in Stoker's hero worship of the poet Walt Whitman (whom Stoker thanked for the love and sympathy given him "in common with my kind") and the actor Henry Irving. — Walloon 07:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There were and are a lot people that hold Whitman and his work in the highest regard that are straight. He was particularily popular in that era. — 63.167.159.217 13:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, it's not unusual to write a letter of admiration to a writer one likes. It's that "in common with my kind" that has people wondering what he was saying to Whitman. — Walloon

I think you are reading way to much into that phase. Too often we let 21st-century views interpret 19th-century concepts. "My kind" could have been anything - a man, a student, a poetry lover, et al. — 63.167.159.217 12:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And his friendship with Oscar Wilde. 67.208.5.2 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

re His marriage to Florence and the fathering of a child would further militate against the possibility. Consider the how a homosexual would have been treated at that time being married and having a child would have been a good idea

What about the findings of Sinead O'Brian - are they not credible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.50.148 (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Florence Balcombe

Was his wife's maiden name Balcome or Balcombe? It is spelled "Balcome" in the Oscar Wilde article. -- Robertbyrne 20:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Vampire novels

Despite the claim, Dracula was not the first. It was preceded about ten years earlier by Camilla, also the first novel to feature a female vampire, allegedly based on the Countess Barothy. --K D Faber

Dracula was most likely the 4th vampire book and Carmilla the 3rd by 48 years.

Dracula by Bram Stoker - 1897

Carmilla by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu - 1871

Wake Not the Dead by Johann Ludwig Tieck - 1823

The Vampyre: A Tale by John William Polidori - 1819

The first "novel" appears to be The Vampyre which was based on an unfinished story by Lord Byron created the same weekend that Mary Shelley came up with "Frankenstein". There seems to be a lot of disagreement as to whether Polidori actually wrote it or just "stole" it, but he and Lord Byron did have a falling out and Byron released Polidori who was his personal physician. -- K. L. Satterfield

Nosferatu

With "Nosferatu", the vampire film has come full circle from creature of dread to the sex object of "Fright Night" & back, with occasional digressions into the absurd, with Leslie Nielson and George Hamilton (the only Dracula with a perfect tan--though David Boreanaz's Angel might qualify there, too, the only one on the set of a sun lotion commercial). --K D Faber

Death

Nothing in here about his death. I seem to remember he died in poverty and his work wasn't recognised until later.--Crestville 12:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

He died in London. The first movie based on Dracula was made a decade after his death. Dragix 20:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

religion

regarding this sentence:

He was a member of the Church of Ireland and attended the Clontarf parish church (St John the Baptist) at Seafield Road.

It was added by an anon user who was doing the same for other people on Wikipedia from the same church. I imagine the anon user personally is affiliated with the Church in some way and happens to know this bit of trivia. The problem is it leaves a lot of unanswered questions - was he religious, or did he go occasionally on holidays - is this significant or not? What exactly is Stokers religious background? If you are going to mention it then it needs to be clarified, otherwise it can leave the impression that he was a pious church-going person when he really wasn't (I don't know). -- Stbalbach 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that mentioning his church membership, and the particular church he attended, implies that he was "a pious church-going person". It is not necessary to go into making judgements about how often he went to church (that information is probably not available), and how personally religious he was (probably no one's business). For an Irishman in the 19th century, one's church affiliation in itself was a social indicator. My only quibble with including the information about his church membership is that it should be placed less awkwardly within the present article. — Walloon 16:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Many facts lead to implications. We can't go around removing facts because we aren't sure what inferences might be drawn from them. As for this fact, the religion of a subject is undoubtedly relevant in a biography. If there is more info to add about his religious beliefs then we should add it, but we shouldn't erase all mention because we don't know if it's comprehensive. I agree with Walloon that it could be placed less awkwardly. -Will Beback 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I found one reference on google that said his parents were members of the Church of Ireland, so we can assume he was born into the Church of Ireland and attended that church as a child. -- Stbalbach 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good change. Since he lived in London in his later years he was obviously not a life-long member of the parish. -Will Beback 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

From Dracula's Crypt: Bram Stoker, Irishness, and the Question of Blood, by Joseph Valente:

Because they were stoutly Church of Ireland, Stoker and his family were eligible for a wide range of sectarian advantages, but they were by no means members of the Ascendancy, or even the true bourgeoisie, to whom their professional-management aspirations must have seemed decidedly arriviste.

So, as I said, for a 19th-century Irishman, religion was a social indicator. — Walloon 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't he into the occult?

I read somewhere that he was in Golden Dawn, or into Thelema or some other mystic/occult society like those. Anyone know if is true? It would be worth documenting if it's factual. Note I think I saw this an a very Christian right oriented documentary of Aleister Crowley, so it's possible BS. — 69.231.233.152 12:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Belford wrote in her biography Bram Stoker and the Man Who Was Dracula,

It was widley rumored — but never substantiated — that Stoker was a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, a secret society that practiced ritual magic, founded in 1888 by a London coroner and prominent Rosicrucian Freemason named William Wynn Westcott. . . . According to R. A. Gilbert, historian of the Golden Dawn, Stoker was an outside observer with a number of close friends who were members, and he might have learned about the rituals if they broke the oath of secrecy.

— Walloon 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Links

Hi all, I'm the co-founder and editor of a free on-line journal devoted to Gothic and horror studies. (The Irish Journal of Gothic and Horror Studies) I've been stupid enough to start adding links to relevant pages without realising I was getting messages telling me to stop! I have only added links to pages that were relevant but now I'm wondering should I remove some or should I go to each page's discussion section and post a request to add a link? I'd be grateful if someone could advise. Many thanks.IrishGothicJournal 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your link look perfectly OK to me. I've had a look at the Irish Gothic site and it is clearly academic in intention and practice - with stuff by respected Eng lit profs and doctors. It's not a pay site, or a promotional site or a shopping site or a restricted membership site, therefore I have no idea why it is being treated as spam. Colin4C 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick note

See User:Bobmazz. 69.201.182.76 05:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Was Stoker from Fairview, Marino or Clontarf?

Open to correction but I had understood that The Crescent was in Marino, or some say Fairview but not Clontarf. Can this be validated? SeoR 23:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be Fairview, though close to Marino. SeoR 02:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's Fairview. Marino ends at Malahide Road. Clontarf begins at Howth Road. The Crescent links those two boundaries, but is contained within Fairview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extopia (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to find any evidence online as to whether The Crescent was ever located in Clontarf. Perhaps someone can post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.42.30 (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncollected

This may sound like a stupid question, but what are the criteria for determining whether certain stories are "uncollected"? I ask because several of the stories listed in the "uncollected stories" section have appeared in various short story collections. For example, Dover Publications has a collection of 14 Stoker stories that includes "The Dualitists," "The Crystal Cup," "The Chain of Destiny," and "The Judge's House." I also remember seeing "The Judge's House" in at least a few other short story collections over the years. Any enlightenment, anyone? Z Wylld 21:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

An uncollected story is any story that did not appear in any of the short story collections published by Stoker or his wife.

These include:

Under the Sunset (1881)

Snowbound: The Record of a Theatrical Touring Party (1908)

Dracula's Guest (1914) Published posthumously by Florence Stoker

The Judges House is definitely not an uncollected story since it appeared in Dracula’s Guest.

Pmcalduff 03:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cause of death

Any information on the cause of Stoker's death? The biography by Daniel Farson concludes that he died of syphilis. Has this been corroborated? Z Wylld (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish

Does this mean that I can now alter the Bronte sister pages so that they are described as Hiberno-English writers? Eroica (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.122.99 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hermetic Order?

The page asserts that Bram was rumored to be a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, but that there is no conclusive evidence for this. However, the page on the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn lists Bram as a "known member". So was it a rumor or a known fact? Both pages cite the same two books; can anyone with access to either of these books confirm this one way or another, and fix the appropriate page?

71.62.148.133 (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A question of Ethnicity and Geography

Bram Stoker was born in Clontarf, Co. Dublin to Irish Parents. He was raised in Ireland, baptized in Ireland... I am at a loss to see him credited here as an English Writer

Good to see that at least The British Encyclopedia Online got his Nationality right[1]

Daresay this is somthing that needs to be adressed in the WIKI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.247.83 (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Found in a barn in Pennsylvania

Wow that was lucky! Is it just a joke? It doesn't seem to mention his wild barn dance nights anywhere on the article. I don't find an article for the publication "Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual" on the wiki and couldn't find the barn story except as reproduction of this article. I must poke around in the attic tomorrow. ~ R.T.G 02:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No it is not a joke and you obviously did not look very much. I found numerous websites that confirm the "1988 Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual" and that Robert Latham was one of the editors. It was also easy to find mentions of the manuscript find in the barn in Pennsylvania including the one that I added today. The world is a marvelous place, unique finds like this happen all the time. Many of the editors here add items based on WP:RS, you will want to read thoroughly WP:AGF before removing sourced edits in the future. That isn't to say that hoaxes don't happen but you will want to do much more research before mocking sourced edits. MarnetteD | Talk 18:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Another avenue that you did not pursue was to find the editor that made the edit and ask them about it. If it is an editor that has a history of vandalism then it might be removed. If, as in this case, it is an editor of long standing reliability asking them about the edit is the proper thing to do before removing the item in question. MarnetteD | Talk 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also a newer mention in Bram Stoker's Notes for Dracula: a Facsimile Edition By Bram Stoker, Robert Eighteen-Bisang, Michael Barsanti, Elizabeth Miller (2008)[2], see p. 286. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Another source, Bram Stoker and the Man who was Dracula, By Barbara Belford, (1996) p. 269[3] --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And of course it might help to include the barn story source. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google for "dracula manuscript pennsylvania" will also find a confirming Wall Street Journal article here, wherein it is revealed the Pennsylvania barn version of the manuscript had a different ending and is now owned by Paul Allen. Studerby (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I presume searching the edit history of a cult authors article for one small peice of text to be ridiculous. The Barbara Belford book is inaccessible. The book presumeably based on Stokers own notes, provided here as a search for the word un-dead, does not return any hits when searching the word barn [4] and the un-established sci-fi rag is hardly stand alone good referencing. Even if it was I see little or no information. It reminds me of the 100-year old Britannica on Wikisource, does not give a lot of information. I am not fully convinced that the finding of it in a barn is untrue but it is easy to see that as it is presented here, it is only a rumour. How could such an interesting titbit not be easily referenced? About Dracula? I searched for the story about Dracula by the way not the fanzine. Dracula is more notable than the fanzine so where is the story? It would have been headline news on every english-language paper and re-run endlessly every time the film was remade. Load of rubbish. Smells of that craic on Jimbo Wales talk page at the minute. Tales of fish. Produce one proper source for such a digestable story. It doesn't appear on the large Dracula article... ~ R.T.G 23:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Outdent

Dracula' manuscript sale raises questions Article in: Sunday Gazette-Mail, May 26, 2002 ,By Tom Berg

The Orange County Register SANTA ANA, Calif. - The curse of Dracula? A disheveled man standing in a locked bookstore with one shoe on and one shoe off wonders.

He is 60-year-old John McLaughlin, and - until early May - the owner of the original 1897 manuscript of Bram Stoker's "Dracula." He is pacing, occasionally stooping to pick up his cat, named "C'mon," and struggling to understand how his fictional vampire slipped from his grasp.

See, first he asked Christie's auction house to sell his manuscript. And they tried. Interest was so keen that The New York Times, CNN and National Public Radio told of it.

The president of the Canadian chapter of the Transylvanian Society of Dracula got word on her computer weeks in advance. The president of the Count Dracula Fan Club stopped by Christie's to view it.

A Boston College history professor, who teaches classes on Dracula, grew excited that the sale would allow him to view the long- secluded document.

Even a Christie's auctioneer estimated the manuscript would take $2 million, according to one London newspaper.

But when the April 17th auction rolled around, no one bit. Not one person bid.

Disappointed, McLaughlin waited to get his manuscript back. But then things took an odd twist. Two weeks after the auction, CNN announced his manuscript had sold.

When McLaughlin called Christie's, they said they sold the manuscript two days earlier, under an obscure clause that allows them to sell items after the auction. Christie's won't explain further.

"I cannot reveal any more details," says spokeswoman Bendetta Rux, who acknowledged that no one bid at auction, but someone paid $941,000 for it later.

McLaughlin took home $850,000 from the sale - his minimum price - but far less than the $2 million to $3 million he'd hoped for, and less than $1 million to $1.5 million value estimated by Christie's.

"You can use the word 'screwed' in the paper, right?" McLaughlin says, summoning his feelings.

The story of Dracula's manuscript, it seems, is almost as mysterious as its main character, a blood-sucking Transylvania count.

McLaughlin tells the tale, roaming the aisles of his now-closed store, "The Book Sail," among stacks of letters from Houdini, original flea circus artwork from the 1920s, Steven King proofs, animation pages hand-corrected by Walt Disney, even an ape doll covered in rabbit fur that was used in the movie "Son of Kong."

For 35 years he's collected the detritus of pop culture - old pulp fiction, posters, comic books, sheet music, playbills, true crime stories, penny dreadfuls from England and risque Tijuana 8-pagers from Mexico.

"See, I wanted to open a museum at one time," he says.

Dracula came to him in 1984 in a phone call from another book collector.

The 529-page manuscript had been lost for 80 years in a clothes trunk in some East Coast barn. That made it a rare find, with its hand-written title page and 20 other pages signed off by Stoker.

"It took me about 45 minutes to make up my mind," says McLaughlin, who has removed one shoe because a matchstick had fallen inside, but still paces.

He won't say what he paid for it, but he will say this: "A few years after I bought it, someone offered me one million cash in suitcase for it. That's untraceable money. I didn't do it. I don't want anyone to think I would do it."

McLaughlin believed he'd get more than $850,000 for his manuscript. He questions the procedure that produced no bids for such a high-profile item, then sold for his minimum two weeks later.

He admits that the contract allowed Christie's to sell after auction, but insists there are irregularities, beginning with the fact that they never called him to ask about the sale.

"That is inexcusable," he says.

Indeed, Christie's spokeswoman Rux says in one interview, "If something fails to sell during the sale and an offer comes in after, of course Christie's would contact the consigner to see if they want to sell at that price."

But when later told that McLaughlin never got called, she says, "The only thing I can really say is, the whole after-sale happened totally in accordance with what's stipulated in the contract."

McLaughlin's attorney, Maziar Mafi, says, "We will examine this to see if the manner this auction was conducted in nullifies their contractual right to sell this thing post-auction."

Like Dracula himself, it seems, this is a sale - and a tale - that won't die. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't find anything in the Orange County Registar [5]. The only place this reference, The Sunday Gazette-Mail could be found was encyclopedia.com. The fact that major publications have covered dozens of articles on Dracula but do not mention The Barn... ~ R.T.G 00:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I managed to over look the Wall Street Jounrnal ref the first time and I asked on the refdesk where someone produced it again WP:RD/Humanities#Bram_Stokers_Dracula_was_lost_and_found_in_a_barn_in_Pennsylvania. That's a useable source but it differs significantly with the current tale in how many pages and wether it is the original manuscript. Obviously still an old wives tale to me but I would rely more strongly on the Wall Street Journals take than on the old sci-fi rag, and it gives the owner to be Microsofts Paul Allen. ~ R.T.G 00:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that it was put up for auction at Christies and the background details prove it was consigned by a California book dealer. Even the BBC covered it. Overall, it seems that the "barn" question isn't really that important anyway. Attic, cellar, or barn are all the same. My guess is that the buyer wanted to keep his ownership private, if possible. But the story does have the makings of a good mystery movie ;)--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You try and find that information on the Christies site... missing. When such a story is largely ignored by the press there is instant room for speculation and the sources provided here are black on one page and white on the other while the rest of them who are always rattling on about these sort of stories are pretending this one never happened. Well, I am going to go and watch the X-Files or something. Wish me luck, I might find a pot of gold under the hedges later... ~ R.T.G 01:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish?

Don't you mean British? Stoker proudly carried a British passport and was born in what was then the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". So how can he be a Irish national?Twobells (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Updated his nationality accordingly with mention to contemporary Republic Of Ireland.Twobells (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but by that logic George Washington would also have to be listed as British, since America was a British colony. I've edited it to say Irish, though perhaps Anglo-Irish would also be apt.--Evilsbane9 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. Another Brit trying to claim an Irishman for his own. He was born in Clontarf and spent half his life there, if he didn't like it surely he would have moved sooner. Back then, whether you lived on the island of Ireland or Britain, you were obliged to carry a British passport. Mark Sheridan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So he was British. The ayes have it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.116.9 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. He was ethnically Irish and described himself as so. Mark Sheridan (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Shall we start from the beginning, removing nationalism from the discussion; no one is trying to claim Stoker for one country or another. Lets look at the historical facts: he was born within the state of Great Britain and Ireland; an independant Ireland was not formed until 1921 (ish), it was not an independant state within his lifetime. He died before enough support was gained that initiated the civil war/war of independance. It seems some are attempting to twist historical fact in the name of modern nationalism. Being born in the Great Britain and Ireland would generally make you British, your ethnic background doesnt really come into that (unless you were like some French kid being born in GB&I and then of course you wouldnt be etc).

In regards to Mark Sheridan's argument that is Stoker didnt like Ireland he could have moved - that doesnt even engage the argument, am sorry; if Stoker had of moved sooner or never had, would not change said facts.

As for ethnicity, four major ethnic background comprised GB&I; describing yourself as one of them doesnt really distract from the status of your nationality. He died before the Easter uprisng or the war so how can him and his works be attributed to a nation that simpley didnt exist - i.e. the modern Republic of Ireland. The article even states that he believed that an Ireland should be a Dominion (i.e. home rule) within the British Empire i.e. on par with the likes of Canada etc; if that had happened in his lifetime then yes i would agree to call him Irish over a Irish born British subject or whatever. Just to further touch on the subject of ethnicity and describing one as so - the Austrian-Hungerian Empire, the Imperial Russian Empire, the USSR etc etc had various ethnic backgrounds within their people - that didnt mean they were not subjects or nationals (not in the meaning of the word nationalist) of said state.

It is not taking anything away from him, his work, or from modern Irish people, Irish hertige, the modern state or historical one; we are simpley stating facts - he was born within the GB&I.

A compromise to appease both the people looking for historical accurecy and those wanting to argue along nationalist lines would be to simpley mention both. Its rather a sad day when modern politics get brought up into an article dealing with such a great writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.87.120 (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Anon, by your consensus you branded all Irish people from 1801-1921 as British nationals. So, the million people that fled Ireland during the potato blight were British - effectively proving the majority of the Irish-American population frauds.

The Irish Parliment agreed to merge with the nation so they agreed to point you are attempting to disagree with, so you initial position is debunked by historical fact. As for the sad attempt in your second point; Americans also have English-American and Scottish-American as ETHNIC BACKGROUNDs - ethnic background is different to nationality (i would suggest you look at some of the other examples i mentioned). Also note that Irish people fled to parts of the British Empire as well as the United States.86.4.87.120 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ireland is a completely different place: different culture, different history, differest race. AND it's completely unconnected to the UK. So the Irish ethnicity existed during the British occupation and all the other countries who decided to wreak havoc upon the country during the past millennia.

Irish people are not of a different race (go look up what it means and the rather fine graphic example available on said article), they have a rather shared history with the English/Scotish/Welsh/British and a mixed culture. To state that Ireland, as its modern counterpart is what your talking about, is unconnected to the UK seems to miss the fact that Ulster is part of the UK and at one point the entire island was, and before the "occupation" Ireland had the same monarch as the rest of the Three Kingdoms.

Ethnicity does not disappear just because a certain population belongs to a nation; has the English, Scottish, or Welsh ethnicty disappeared because these people belong to the United Kingdom? What about the Irish in Northern Ireland, have they stopped being Irish because they are British? Ethnicity and nationlilty are different.

Irish history is interwound with that of the English, Scottish and British History for allot longer than the 1801-present period is. For a simple point the Irish sided with the Royalists over parliment during the war of the Three Kindoms, they accepted the Stuarts as their moncarch (unsure if they had the same relationship with the Tudors) and crowned Charles II before the English did.86.4.87.120 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm babbling and this isn't a personal attack or anything, but if he's British - or "Anglo-Irish" if such a race exists - then go ahead and pop on over to Michael Collins, Padraig Pearse and plaster British across their page. Oh, and while your at it take down the Irish American page. Surely JKF had a tattoo of the Union Jack on his ass! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 14:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

See again here you desend in nationalism instead of looking at historical fact and without attempting not to be bais; what is the difference between Stoker and Collins? Stoker was born and died within the British Empire, he supported the Home Rule act of establishing Ireland as a Dominion within the British Empire - not as a sepetate foreign body - and wanted to keep the same monach. Collins fought and died as a Republican; its not the same to compare a man who wanted peaceful home rule initated and someone who fought for the creation of a seperate country; they both had different outlooks.

Am sorry but can we now remove Irish nationalism from this dicussion and look at the historical facts and Stoker's literature.86.4.87.120 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A further point, since you brought JFK and Irish-Americans up; excluding JFKs Irish ETHNIC BACKGROUND, what nationality was he? I think you will find that his ethnic background and his nationality do not match up.86.4.87.120 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll cave to your ludicrous allegations. He's Irish and the page says that, so it should stay like that.

I like how you manage to contrdict yourself in the matter of two sentance.

So what is so ludicrious? That you are simpley wrong on so many points? Which part are you confused by: That the island of Ireland has a shared and connected past with the rest of the British Isles? The historical fact that it shared the same monach as the other two kingdom for several hundred years? That the Irish government willinging joined the UK?

I'll stop you there. Firstly, the Irish governmant never have and never will willingly joined the mess that is the United Kingdom.

You can try and rewrite history all you want, but the facts do not support you. Do you want to pretend that Irish and British/English and Scotish history is not interwind nor that the Irish shared the same English/Scottish monarchy? Its a pity that nationalists like attempt to twist history.86.4.87.120 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, we reached consensus long ago that he self-identified as Irish and the country did exist at that time, just as Scotland, Wales or England are countries today.

What consensus, where is it? So now you have changed your argument from arguing about race and ethnicity; your quite correct Ireland, along with England, Scotland and Wales are all countries however they comprised the NATION of the United Kingdom of GB& Ireland; nationality....86.4.87.120 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

People like you are the reason that the UK, outside the disillusioned US, isn't very popular - no offence intended to the democratic and open-minded people that live in the UK. I will be busy all this week, and most likely unable to add to this arguement, so I'm trying to get my message across in this post. |||| Mark Sheridan (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

... and your open minded ... wow! Its people like you that give yanks a bad name. Its quite funny so far three people have disagreed with you ... yet you are claiming that you hold consensus. More people than you so far in this discussion have disagreed with your opinion, yet you are talking about democracy. If you were so opened minded, you wouldnt be a clear cut wannabe republican out to rewrite history.86.4.87.120 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on an American published source - Encyclopædia Britannica - because of its name sums up your pathetic racist attitute.86.4.87.120 (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That the author was a British national? That Americans have many ethnic groups that comprise their population? That JFK was an American but with a Irish ethnic background? That there is a major difference between republicans who fought and a writer who wanted the country to remain in the British Empire? That while having a seperate culture, Ireland shares hers to an extend with its neighbours? That Irish people are not a seperate race to English, Scottish or Welsh? That ethnicity is not nationality?

Nothing pretty ludicrious there.

So can we know remove nationalist talk and get back to the facts?

While being Irish, this author was also British; this should be mentioned.86.4.87.120 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to argue with you further . . . so, gooobye. Mark Sheridan (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

get a life u anti-irish prude, writin this on my fone - will not bother typin out more for nxt 3 days on business trip.

Urs insincerely Mark Sheridan (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How can one be anti-Irish when one is probably more Irish than a yank; my father is Irish and other relations come are related to British families in the north. So now can we remove your ignorance and racism from this discussion and proceed with FACTS and LITERATURE?86.4.87.120 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether Stoker was a British 'citizen' during his lifetime doesn't detract from the fact he was born and reared in Ireland. Michael Collins was also a British 'citizen' during most of his life so could 'technically' be called 'British' in wiki. It would, of course, be ridiculous. Bram Stoker was Irish and whether his country was under the political jurisdiction of the UK, US or indeed China doesn't change what his country is today. It is indeed very noticeable that on French, Italian, German, Spanish or any other language wikipedias there is no controversy about the indentity of old Irish writers. They are all recognised as being from Ireland and hence Irish. Yet on the English wiki we have those who incessantly try to claim famous Irish people under a British identity. The rest of the wikipedia language communities are wrong, of course, and the Brits are right. ;)

I find it peculiar but on the side of hilarious that there should be over 2000 words taken up to argue the tits and tats of something that is, essentially, simple.

If WP confirms these, among others:

Dylan Thomas, Richard Burton (Mrs Jenkins' lad) and the singer Tom Jones? Welsh.

Graeme Garden, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Billy Connolly? Scottish

Michael Caine, Sting, Cliff Richard and Mervyn Peake? English

Spike Milligan, Brendan Behan, James Joyce, Bob Geldof? Irish.

The established standard is clear, notwithstanding any other unresolved deviations from it.

We describe people based upon their country of birth or of their citizenship derived from their parent(s).

In the case of those who were born in one of the countries that form the British Isles, their nationality is of that country. No matter if they were born in the United Kingdom, we still call them English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh.....

We don't take the nationality of their passport, or their domestic arrangements, into account.

Persons' nationalities do not change unless they take deliberate action to alter their natural citizenship (T S Eliot, Craig Ferguson, etc).

Bram Stoker was born in Ireland. Not England, Scotland, or Wales. He did not renounce his country of birth. Ergo, he is Irish, just as Thomas, Burton, Jones are Welsh and Garden and Connolly are Scottish, et bloody cetera.

You can use my IP as Identification, but it doesn't indicate my nationality. And now, there are even more words.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.201.12 (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a point: for the person how stated that the Irish aren't a race here is a rather fine example of what race actually means from the Oxford English Dictionary http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0682260?rskey=K2dYei&result=2#m_en_gb0682260. Are there any sources that show that Stoker 'proudly' carried a British passport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.101.251 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Stoker and Thornley; the names of his parents are both ethnically English (these are not Gaelic names, hes not an O'Brien, a McCarthy, a Kennedy, a O'Connor; an ethnic Irishman) and he was brought up in the Anglican sect there. Along with his British passport. This seems to be more a case of the Irish (and romantic Yanks) whinging about "the Brits" in Ireland and then trying to claim all of the fruits of the very thing they most love to whinge about. They do the same with Robert Boyle. - 90.219.249.8 (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what his name has to do with anything or the fact that he belonged to the church of Ireland. I am Irish and I can assure you I am not whinging nor do I have a problem with the British. I just have a problem with Irish writers/people born during the Act of Union being exclusively termed as British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.12.178 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)