pea-colonialism & post-cocks

In class today, we touched briefly upon the scene in which Kate and Edith encounter Paddy (O'Conor) sleeping in the saddleroom on pg. 56. I'd like to connect a close reading of this passage with with a nearby mention of the ever-enigmatic peacocks on the opposite page, in light of our discussion of the post-colonial situation of Ireland.
To begin with, it feels important that Paddy is here referred to as O'Conor, lending a momentary legitimacy to his name. It is not nickname (short for Patrick, yes?), it his family name--his inherited name. Kate and Edith come in to "find the door ajar" (suggesting the permeability of space) "...the shafted sun lay in a lengthened arch of blazing sovereigns." The quality of the light in this description largely depends on which definition of "sovereigns" we privilege. It at once implies monarchy and power, but also money (the sovereign was a gold coin equal to one pound sterling, although prior to 1914). The sunlight falls on the fern bedding where Paddy rests his head, accompanied by the vivid description "It might have been almost that O'Conor's dreams were held by hairs of gold binding his head beneath a vaulted roof on which the floor of cobbles reflected an old king's molten treasure from the bog." As we discussed in class, this description equates Paddy with the old Irish Kings, seeming perhaps to legitimize his heritage, even as words like "binding" remind us of his mute and powerless post-colonial situation. Does the light serve a revelatory purpose, erasing distinctions between colonizer and colonized, or does it reinforce hierarchy and class distinctions by invoking monarchic images?
So with these questions in mind, I turn to the next page to read: "Now, through a veil of light reflected over this plate glass from beneath, Edith could dimly see, not hear, a number of peacocks driven into view by some disturbance on their side and hardly to be recognized in this sovereign light. Their eyes changed to rubies..." Again, the light (though reflected this time--undermining?) reveals (to the eyes, not the ears, importantly) the wildness or majesty of the lowest level of the Castle hierarchy (one step below Paddy, in fact). But again, this revealing is problematized by the invocation of rubies, reminiscent in their objecthood of the sapphire cluster. So something about money or possessions seems essential to the dismantling of hierarchies, or the upholding of them. But as usual, I begin to run on, so I open up the discussion for other opinions.