"Seems to me that she is fairly highly regarded within her profession."
Now you really are joking.
Having dismissed statements by Asquith, Bonar Law Churchill, Redmond, Carson, and others involved at the time, and from The Proclamation and cabinet notes.... as "opinions" you are now defending your use of a self-confessed "revisionist historian" a tabloid journalist cum-thriller writer as some sort of expert - do you know what "revisionist" means?.
This lady described the leader of the Rising as a "Latent homosexual, latent paedophile, unhinged, a man with a death wish".
Look as I might, I can't see a mention of her being qualified in any way as a psychoanalyst, which would be necessary for anybody to make such a statement (apart from a tabloid journalist of course!).
I feel a touch of the Victor Meldrews coming on - "I don't ****** beleeeeeeve it".
At a time when the Easter Week Heroes are being lauded to the skies by the Irish press, media, historians, educationalists... and the Irish people in general, this tabloid journalist has decided (with no corroborating evidence), that the leader was a latent homosexual/pedophile - you may describe her as "respected" - I suggest she if looking for a story - it's called "headline hunting" in the trade.
You are doing exactly what Keith has become noted for - you are making rules as to which piece of information is permissible and which is not, and using whoever you wish to try and make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
It really is not your day, is it?

Back to the real world.

The logic of the Rising
From Ireland's Civil War Carlton Younger (1968)
To call Pearse and his comrades a minority is not quite the truth. They were leaders whose potential followers had not yet realised that they wanted to follow. The people wanted change, release from the ubiquitous Dublin Castle and the right to govern themselves, but majorities invariably want change to be gradual, want to keep grasping familiar props with one hand while they reach for the unfamiliar with the other. Tradesmen and shopkeepers like to see new customers on their thresholds before they relinquish their old ones. So the majority of the Irish still believed in Redmond's national¬ism, not seeing that this was outmoded, that Home Rule was obsolescent before it was even implemented, that new young leaders were breaking new ground and seeing ahead of them, far away as yet, and beyond innumerable barriers, a promised land.
The Easter Rising of 1916 was not a matter of impatience, of reluctance to wait until the end of the war for Home Rule. In 1912 even Pearse had thought the Bill acceptable, but the desire for independence had mounted, outstripping the lab¬orious passage of the Bill. Its provisions of a bi-cameral Par¬liament in Dublin with little more power than a County Council no longer went far enough, but it might have been tolerated as a stepping stone to complete independence had the threatened amendment on partition not cracked the stone in two. Even as it stood, Pearse and his friends were sure that England would leave the legislation to moulder rather than engage in fresh struggles with the intransigent Orangemen.
The Rising was a travesty of what it might have been but, perhaps because it was a travesty, triumph flowed from it. Skilled professional revolutionaries would never have won the hearts of the people, and, without their faith, their conviction, there could have been no effective fight for freedom in the subsequent years. It was the ardour, the dedication, the heroism of the young rebels in the face of inevitable disaster, and finally the cold, professional savagery with which they were met, that won them their day. For the people saw at last that all the complexities of past years were meaningless, that the issue was as clear and as substantial as Waterford glass. That was the real consequence of the Rising."
Jim Carroll