The row stems from conflicting interpretations of the Rising’s attempt to shape modern Ireland. The writings of Pearse and Connolly (and the Proclamation) all suggest that the Rising aimed to achieve Irish political and economic independence and (unusually for an Irish rebellion) social and economic revolution.

Both objectives were seen as inter-dependent. They were to be achieved through violence.

The Rising’s success in achieving Irish independence was limited – in geography by partition and in history by joining the European Union in 1973.

It also failed significantly to change the nature of Irish society. So while there is something to commemorate, there is not much to celebrate.

Despite that, the Rising remains the holy grail of Irish history and the growing centenary row centres largely on competing claims for political ownership. Since 1916, the arguments on legitimate inheritance have been based on ignoring the Rising’s revolutionary intent and concentrating instead on its nationalist objectives.

As a result, life in the Irish Free State was just as socially and economically repressive as it had been under the British. Church and state endorsed poverty, censorship and an abuse of power, which has left its victims suffering to this day. A blanket of blind nationalism concealed the Rising’s social and economic objectives. This was particularly evident in the IRA, which claimed, more loudly than most, to be the political inheritors of the Rising’s ideals. However, apart from periods in the 1930s and 1960s, the IRA ignored the Rising’s social and economic objectives and replicated its violence, without its accompanying political analysis.

The intensity of IRA violence was inversely proportionate to its degree of success. The outcome of the last campaign, for example, has included nationalist acceptance of the legitimacy of partition, the implementation of the two nations theory (Protestants cannot be Irish) and institutionalised sectarianism in Stormont.

It was not quite what Pearse and Connolly had envisaged – and that is where the row starts. What would the 1916 leaders expect of us today?

As with the best Irish splits, this row has at least three sides. (Expect a few more by next year.) In one corner is the Fine Gael government. Its attitude appears to be based on the view of its former Taoiseach, John Bruton, that the Rising was a mistake. (His argument that it prevented 32-County Home Rule, fails to recognise the social and economic objectives of the Rising.) The Dublin government has already produced a promotional commemorative video, which contains no reference to the Rising, those who took part in it, or why. Instead it highlights those well-known revolutionaries, the Queen, Paisley, David Cameron and Bob Geldof. The video also promotes Facebook, Google and Twitter. The second corner contains Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil, two parties which claim direct republican descent from the Rising. Sinn Féin says it will continue to work to make the Proclamation a reality. (Oh dear, you ask, could that be the same Sinn Féin which agreed in Stormont House to introduce Conservative Party economic policies into The North?)

Gerry Adams said recently in America: “Maybe if enough of our exiles come home we might even have another Rising.” (No, you may not suggest that all Assembly parties would fight against an anti-Stormont rising to the last drop of ink on their expense accounts.)

Fianna Fáil has complained about the government’s likely invitation to the British royal family to take part in the commemorations. They have a point. With no disrespect to the wonderful array of publicly-funded royals, it might reasonably be pointed out that the British do not invite former adversaries to their annual Remembrance Sunday ceremonies. If they did, their invitees would include representatives of Nazi Germany, the North Korean Government, the Malayan Communist Party, the Kenyan Mau Mau and Saddam Hussein’s family.

In the third corner is a wide spectrum of non-political groups, known as Reclaim the Vision of 1916. It includes artists, writers and relatives of those who fought in the Rising. It aims to be a people’s commemoration.

You will have your own view on who has the most right to commemorate the Rising. However, it might reasonably be argued that the most appropriate commemoration is not to be found in videos, speeches or flag-waving, but through developing a society which honours the 1916 ideals. Evidence from Stormont and the Dáil suggests that such a society is unlikely. That means it will be up to ordinary people to reclaim the spirit of 1916.