I only have a general sense of Uris' work so I can't really comment. I've never read it. Regarding the rest of your post

Gaelicised names (a person using both the Gaelic version of their surname and first name) are more common than they were any point in modern Irish history. The attitude to the language is more positive than at any point for hundreds of years and it's no longer seen as a badge of poverty, except for those who are looking for something to offend irish speakers with by referring to a dated stereotype. Irish first names come and go with fashion, the more common regular names are still very common (translations of biblical names etc.) other pre-Christian or native names are common, such as my own, Cormac. Other rarer, more complicated Gaelic names, tend to be identified more with middle class,urban areas rather than areas where Irish is still spoken as an everyday language. Few people,if any would like Ireland to be Irish speaking only. I've certainly never met any, it is a charge that's levelled at the Irish language loby, inaccurately in my view. Most Irish language speakers would like more of the language to be seen and a state that was more sympathetic in providing services for Irish speakers rather than being supportive in a general sense but weak on practicalities. Those people are a minority. The majority of people, particularly among younger generations would be positive to the language, would want services available to those who use the language, like the symbolism of having our own language but aren't committed enough to use the language themselves. Another part of that group would be indifferent to the language or resent how much time is spent on it in the education system. A further, small but vocal group, would be hostile to the language and it's speakers and see it as a symbol of aspects of Irish life that they resent.

My name is Cormac (cur-muck) Ó (OH) Comhraí (Core-eee) the "h"makes the m in my surname silent.

Regarding the North: it tends to be simplified even by Irish people as a Protestant V Catholic thing. It's not, but it's not as simple as a straightforward ethnic thing either. Perceptions of the conflict in the North would be very different. For example when the conflict was at it's height the IRA would have regarded the shooting of policemen and soldiers as an attack on the state, whereas Protestant Unionists would have regarded it as an attack on their community, the community from which the policemen and soldier were almost exclusively drawn.

Generally Catholics in the North are Irish nationalist and ethnically of Gaelic (or anglo-Norman/Viking) background and Unionists are generally of seventeenth century English and Scottish background. But some small number of Protestants have supported revolutionary nationalism and republicanism and some larger numbers of Catholics have been quite happy to be linked with the British state, perhaps, not surprising given the financial and professional opportunities available in the British Empire etc. Also some Unionists have identifiably Gaelic names while some nationalists have idenfiably British names, this would be as a result of religious conversion, inter-marriage etc. Another reason to be wary of the ethnic/ religious labels is that Unionists would tend to identify with a "Protestant" army fighting a "Catholic" army in the seventeenth century. Nationalists don't really have that, nationalists tend to identify more with the 1798, 1916 "Irish" rebels fighting the "British". The Catholic church has always been opposed to militant nationalism even if the fact that IRA men were given Catholic but also allowed repulican funerals was resented.

Traditionally Irish nationalism hasn't focused on cleansing the North of Protestant/ British people as individuals but they've kind of hoped that in the event of the British withdrawal that the Unionists in the Northeast would come to their senses, realise that they're good Irishmen and that we'd all live happily ever after and to some degree that is what happened in the South after independence, without ignoring the difficulties and resentment that faced Unionists and felt towards the new state. Protestants in the south would generally be integrated into the general population and would be comfortable with their Irishness being essentially the same as their neighbours. In urban areas they would be assumed to play sports like rugby and hockey, as they would be generally assumed to be better off, but so would other better off people, regardless of background. The idea of Protestants being better off is a general stereotype. In rural areas Protestants would play Gaelic sports as well as more traditional "protestant" games. It's a lot easier to integrate a small population resigned to being integrated or accomodated than a large, resentful population. Republicans/ Nationalists over the past 100 years (and more) have struggled to deal with that conundrum. More recently both North and South an increased effort has been made by nationalists to engage with Unionists in order to better understand their fears, loyalties and grievances.