Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: The Scotch-Irish, or Ulster-Scots
Source:
LF
URL Source: http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/re ... t.cgi?ArtNum=48373&Disp=29#C29
Published: Oct 28, 2016
Author: Vicomte13/nolu chan
Post Date: 2016-10-28 10:56:27 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 1595
Comments: 8
The Scotch-Irish, or Ulster-Scots
[nolu chan] I have moved this discussion here as it was off topic where it was. In any case, it is my belief that perceived inaccuracies should not be left unchallenged.
Vicomte13 #29http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48373&Disp=29#C29
#29. To: nolu chan (#27)
If my time in Scotland taught me anything, it is that the people are Scots, and Scotch is a golden nectar of the gods given to the people.The Scotch-Irish did not come from Scotland. They came from Northern Ireland. They were the Presbyterian descendants of the Scots who migrated to the "Irish Plantation" launched by James I in 1606, whereby he authorized the Protestants of Scotland to invade Ireland and take what they pleased from the Catholics.
They did, but they only got so far before the native Catholic Irish resistance stopped their momentum and drove them into their Ulster bunker, where they remain today.
Ulster did well for awhile, but then the English in the early 1700s, ever greedy for London interests, imposed laws on Ulster that effectively broke the textile industry, creating massive unemployment, and emigration from Ireland to America.
The men who came over were not Scots, they were from Ireland. And the Americans of the period, and those people themselves, called themselves Scotch- Irish or just Irish, not Scots-Irish.
Today, people punctilious about Scottishness, insist on the Scots being called Scots, not Scotch. That's fine.
But the particular group that emigrated to America in the 1700s are not properly called "Scots-Irish". They were, and are, properly called "Scotch- Irish", because that's what they called themselves, and because they are not Scots, they are Irish. The word change indicates that important difference. Scots don't like to be called Scotch. The Scotch-Irish are not Scottish, however. They're Irish. Protestant Irish. The Orange. The Ulstermen.
The use of the offensive word, to Scots, today, highlights that difference. The English Parliament did not break Scotland with its tariffs and rules. But it DID break Presbyterian Ireland, destroyed its economy, prompting a great deal of animus between the Irish Presbyterians and their English government, causing massive immigration to the Americas, where they settled on the frontiers as Scotch-Irish - and thought (and still think) of themselves as Irish in origin, not Scottish. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are descended from the Scotch-Irish. When they referred to their ethnicities, which was rarely, it was within the context of the internecine Irish rivalry, and they identified themselves as being of Irish extraction.
The Scottish are Scots. The Presbyterian Irish who came over in the 1700s are Scotch-Irish.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-10-27 10:57:13 ET
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Much of this appears to be the opinions, perhaps researched from writings, of someone who has never lived in Northern Ireland or Scotland, almost certainly an American. By way of background, I was resident in Scotland for three years, and resident in Northern Ireland for a couple of years, and got married to a local in Northern Ireland.
The Scotch-Irish did not come from Scotland. They came from Northern Ireland.
As stated previously, scotch is a liquor. Scots are people.
Scots who settled in Ulster are Ulster Scots.
They would never use the term scotch to refer to people.
Northern Ireland is not, and never has been, part of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the UK.
The terms Northern Ireland and Ulster are not really interchangeable. Northern Ireland contains six counties. Ulster contains those six and three more in the Republic of Ireland. Ulster refers to one of the four provinces of Ireland, and it is a term which predates the partitioning, and the existence of Northern Ireland.
I am not punctillious about calling Scots, Scots. Scots are. They will invariably correct the errant use, invoking the nectar of the gods story. I have seen it and heard it many a time to correct a Yank misuse of scotch. It is done in a jovial way, but they enjoyed doing it.
The use of the offensive word, to Scots, today, highlights that difference.
It is not offensive. The Scots laugh at the display of Yankee ignorance and take the mickey out of them, give them stick, etc.
They were, and are, properly called "Scotch-Irish", because that's what they called themselves, and because they are not Scots, they are Irish. The word change indicates that important difference. Scots don't like to be called Scotch. The Scotch-Irish are not Scottish, however. They're Irish. Protestant Irish. The Orange. The Ulstermen.
Really? In Northern Ireland?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-18769781
This only reinforces my opinion that you could not possibly have lived there.
They are not Irish. No one who calls himself Irish would think of flying a Union Jack. Those who call themselves Irish flaunt the tricula. Ulster Scots will proudly claim being British.
As for the Ulster-Scots, the Ulster-Scots Agency is located in Donegal. They should have a reasonable idea of whether they are Scots or a liquor handed down from the gods.
In a publication of the Ulster-Scots Agency in Donegal, Ulster-Scots and the Declaration of Indepedence, they state,
One account from Ulster writer the Rev. W.F. Marshall records the far-seeing contribution of the Scots-Irish (Ulster-Scots) in the struggle for American Independence, with General George Washington reportedly stating: "If defeated everywhere else I wll make my last stand for liberty aong the Scotch-Irish of my native Virginia".British Prime Minister at the time Horace Walpole was less flattering, with a jibe to King George III and the British Cabinet: “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson . . .!” Walpole may have been specifically referring to Scotsman the Rev. John Witherspoon, the only clergyman to sign the Declaration, but he will have been highly conscious of the role of the Ulster-Scots in the revolutionary struggle.
Washington, a Yank, may say scotch, but no self-respecting Scot is going to call himself a liquor, even if it was handed down from the gods. Using scotch to refer to the people is an Americanism that Scots like to make fun of.
The Ulster-Scots came from (originated in) Scotland, exactly as their name implies. Centuries later, the descendants of the Scots, and the native Irish have largely not integrated. It is not a matter or religion, or how to complete the Lord's prayer.
The Scots arrived in Ireland as Imperial Storm Troopers. They mixed with the Irish about like the storm troopers mixed with Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker.
The Orange? You think that signifies Irish? That refers to the Dutch-born King William of Orange. He defeated the army of Catholic King James II at the Battle of the Boyne (1690). The apprentice boys (men) like their annual parade past Catholic areas flaunting Union Jacks. And their King Billy pins.
Marching for King BillyThe Orange Order is a 'fraternal' organisation, named for William of Orange, the Protestant Dutchman who seized the thrones of Catholic King James II back in the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688.
Two years later, 'King Billy' saw off James for good at the Battle of the Boyne, near Dublin. He is revered by the Orange Order as a champion of his faith and the man who secured the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland.
The 'marching season' is a period of events from April to August, with the highpoint on 12 July when Orangemen march to commemorate William's victory.
For many Catholics, these marches are triumphalist and sectarian - a means of very publicly 'rubbing in' a historical wrong - with some traditional Orange routes passing through or by staunchly Catholic and nationalist areas.
Some of those marches have been re-routed but some remain contentious. At Garvaghy Road in Portadown, County Armagh, Orangemen make an annual protest at not being permitted to parade along the route they want to take.
Efforts are made to reduce problems around contentious parades with re-routing and highly visible policing.
The English Parliament did not break Scotland with its tariffs and rules. But it DID break Presbyterian Ireland, destroyed its economy, prompting a great deal of animus between the Irish Presbyterians and their English government, causing massive immigration to the Americas
Really? Potato famine.
#2. To: nolu chan (#1)
My wife wrote her Master's Thesis on Scotch-Irish immigration to America from the Ulster Plantation.
They were a specific people that immigrated in a specific time, and were called specific things in America, which is the only place where they exist.
Scotch-Irish, like Pennsylvania Dutch (who are not Dutch but German) are American terms, for a particular, identifiable, immigrant group in America.
What the Scots call themselves in Scotland today is irrelevant. That the Scots laugh at the use of "Scotch" is irrelevant.
The proper name, from an historical research perspective, for this particular immigrant group, is "Scotch-Irish". That is the term by which they were referred in the historical record - not "Scots-Irish", because the people who making the immigration records were Americans, not Scottish, and were not sensitive to Scottish sensitivities, and did not give a damn.
Further, the people who immigrated from the Ulster Plantation, as it was called, were not Scots at all. The people who came into Ulster were, but the people who left Ulster for America did so three generations later. They were born in Ireland, were tied to the Irish economy. They were not Scots any more than the Norman conquerors of England in 1066 were Vikings.
Their great-great grandparents were Vikings, but they were Norman-French.
And the Scotch-Irish who emigrated to America were Irish, not Scottish, and they did not name themselves that - they were called that by the Americans into whose land they came.
If you're going to write about the Scotch-Irish and submit it for a grade to historians, you will need to use the correct terminology, which does not relate to modern Scottish sensitivities about the term for them. The Americans of Irish origin who came from the descendants of the Ulster Plantation are properly called "Scotch-Irish", historically and at present. "Scots-Irish" would be a modern anachronism, a revision of the historical record to reflect modern Scottish sensitivities that have no relevance to the Protestant Irish immigration to America.
The Potato Famine drove the CATHOLIC Irish into the Americas. The breaking of the Ulster Plantation textile economies by Parliamentary action in the early 1700s, 100 years after settlement, is what drove the Protestant Irish to emigrate to America, in droves. America called them the Scotch-Irish.
That is the actual history.
If you disagree, well, I can send you my wife's thesis on the matter. She got high honors.
She's French and doesn't CARE about the sensitivities of the Irish, OR the Scots, OR the Americans, for that matter. She used the historical record, and her research is what caused me to amend my own vocabulary.
Arguing with me about this because of your modern experience in Scotland is very much like the yahoos who argue law with you. They really don't know what they are talking about. You do.
In this case, flip the roles. You're the yahoo here. Don't dig deeper. I don't like this.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
Scotch-Irish, like Pennsylvania Dutch (who are not Dutch but German) are American terms, for a particular, identifiable, immigrant group in America.
Scotch used for a group of people is an American bastardization of the correct terms. It has no application whatever in the UK.
What the Scots call themselves in Scotland today is irrelevant. That the Scots laugh at the use of "Scotch" is irrelevant.
Only to ignorant Yanks. As I said, whoever came up with this crap was very likely to be an American.
Dig it.
#4. To: nolu chan (#3)
Yes, Americans. The Scotch-Irish and Pennsylvania Dutch (but particularly the Scotch-Irish) are of very great importance to AMERICAN history. They're just an asterisk to the history of the British Empire, but had an outsize role in our Revolution, because they - premier of all groups - really hated the British, and went over en masse, as a cultural unit, to the Revolutionary cause.
The Scotch Irish came in the early 1700s to an America whose coastlands had already been settled for nearly a century. They had to head inland, to "Indian Country". Accustomed to fighting the Catholic Irish, they were fighters, and fiercely fought the Indians, carving their farms out of the woods up and down the spine of Appalachia.
When the British government declared the Proclamation Line of 1763, closing off everything West of the Appalachians to settlement in favor of the Indians, it was the Scotch-Irish who found themselves cut off by law from the lands they were already expanding into.
They were the most doggedly anti-British race in the Revolution.
By contrast, the Highlander Scots in America were the most pro-British Tory (and, other than the French fringes in New England) the most Catholic of all of the Revolutionary era Americans.
The Highlander Scots were prominent among the Tories and United Empire Loyalists who migrated to settle Upper Canada, still British territory, after the British were defeated and driven from America.
The Scotch-Irish went on in America to be prominent - the Daniel Boones and Andrew Jacksons. Nearly half of Irish Americans are Protestant, and that is not through conversion. Catholic Irish stay Catholic. The Catholic Irish came in the potato famine. The Protestant Irish are the Scotch-Irish, the firebrands of the Revolution, the Indian fighter and frontiersmen. Quintessentially American.
The British would have been better off if they had treated the Ulster Plantation better. By breaking Ulster, they essentially exported a whole population of people resentful of Parliament and British rule...to America.
This race has an appropriate name in America: Scotch-Irish.
The Scots who went to Ireland are properly called "Ulster Scots", and later "Scots-Irish", to reflect modern usage. But "Scotch-Irish" was the correct Queen's English usage of the time of settlement in America, and therefore remains the proper term for those immigrants.
To quote Queen Elizabeth I regarding somebody: "We are given to understand that a nobleman named 'Sorley Boy' and others, who be of the Scotch-Irish race..."
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
This race has an appropriate name in America: Scotch-Irish.
You lost it. What you mean is most Americans do not know any better.
The Scots who went to Ireland are properly called "Ulster Scots", and later "Scots-Irish", to reflect modern usage.
Any one who went to Ulster, or any other county of Ireland, in the 19th century or before, went to Ireland. That's where Ulster was. Three counties of Ulster are still in Ireland (Cavan, Monaghan, and Donegal). You say those who went to Ireland are properly called "Ulster Scots."
Yep. That's what they call themselves. And this is not a pic from the middle ages.
It wasn't until the 20th century that Ireland was partitioned and Northern Ireland came into existence. Previous to that, all 32 counties of Ireland were Ireland, including all of Ulster.
Until after an Irish constitution change following the Good Friday agreement brokered with the assistance of Bill Clinton, the Irish constitution continued to claim all 32 counties as part of Ireland.
And if they did not go to Ireland, why the hell would purebred Scots be called Scots-Irish or Scotch-Irish?
The Irish tag is appended because they were Scots who had settled in Ireland, not because they had intermingled so much with the Irish that they had started a new race.
But "Scotch-Irish" was the correct Queen's English usage of the time of settlement in America, and therefore remains the proper term for those immigrants.
And where did you dredge up this nonsense?
To quote Queen Elizabeth I regarding somebody: "We are given to understand that a nobleman named 'Sorley Boy' and others, who be of the Scotch-Irish race..."
What you did is quote a Patent issued by Elizabeth I. That is is like citing a Federal law and saying you are quoting the president who signed it into law.
This is your evidence for the correct term at the time of the settlement of America. Your quote is decades before even Jamestown was settled. If it went back much further, it would come from the Middle Ages. Of course, when the colonies were settled is irrelevant to when the Scots went to Ireland.
Your quote is from Patent Roll, 15° Elizabeth 1572, Chancery, Ireland. That's 1572 A.D. But, you knew that.
12. Letters patent, granting denization to “ Sorley Boy :”—We are given to understand that a nobleman named “Sorley Boy,” and others, who be of the Scotch-Irish race, and some of the wild Irish, at this time are content to acknowledge our true and were right to the countie of Ulster and to the Crowne of Ireland, to profess due obedience to us and our crown of England or Ireland, and to swear to be true subjects to us and our successors, as other our natural subjects, born in the English pale, be or ought to be, submitting themselves to our laws and orders, upon condition that they may be received as denizens of England and Ireland,- and we (being willing by all gentle means to bring the strayed sheep home again to the right fold, and to maintain peace and quietness in the realm, and to refuse none that will acknowledge their duty) are content that any “meer Irish,” or Scotch-Irish, or other strangers who claim inheritance, or shall hold any lands, or be resident in any place which is within our grant made to Sir Thomas Smyth and Thomas, his son, new Colonel of the Ards and Claneboy, who will be sworn to be true lieges to us and our successors (as the denizen strangers do swear in the Chancery of England), before the said Thomas Smith, junior, or the Bishop of Down, accompanied with other discreet persons, and from that day be content to hold their lands of us and the said Colonel, and shall yearly pay to us 20S. for every plowland as all Englishmen, followers of the said Smith, pay, shall be reputed and taken for denizens and not for meer Irish; and that the said Smith, or the Bishop of Down, may take the said oath during the space of seven years; and upon a certificate of the Colonel of any person or persons having taken the said oath, the Lord Deputy or Chancellor shall cause letters of denizenship to be passed to him or them (including twelve in each patent, if it should be considered convenient).--April 14, 15°.
Presumably, the correct term for the people of Ireland has not been determined to be "wild Irish." I wonder why your quote ended where it did. And it speaks of "Scotch-Irish" as "strangers." You left out that part as well. Strangers is a term for foreigners.
The Ulster-Scots trace their roots to settlers who came from Scotland. They went to America from Ireland. The first migrated to America in large numbers in the 18th and 19th centuries. Your quote of Elizabeth I is from the 16th century.
When going that far back, reference is made to the Gaelic people. It is not a mix of Scottish and Irish, but a common race of Celts who spoke different dialects of a common language, Gaelic.
And nobody consults with a foreign country or race to determine the correct terminology for a country or race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland
Ulster Plantation (1606 onwards)Prior to its conquest in the Nine Years War of the 1590s, Ulster was the most Gaelic part of Ireland and the only province that was completely outside English control.
Your stupid quote predates any English control of Ulster. It comes from before England had colonized Ulster or America. It predates the existence of an Ulster Scot, much less an Ulster Scot who went to America.
And you are trying to pass this crap off as contemporary to the settlement of America?
As for fairly contemporary English usage, in the seventies I saw Kiwi shoe polish for sale in the UK. The color was nigger brown. Apparently, that was still just standard custom in the UK and Australia in the seventies. Just because somebody English used some term about others does not mean it was an acceptable term, even when it was used. See also, Edwin Brown, the Australian rugby player, d. 1974. The old stand raised in his honor, destroyed in 2008, would not use his playing name when rebuilt.
The first law of digging holes is, when you are in up to your neck, stop digging.
#6. To: nolu chan (#5)
Hoss, the English have ruled Ireland, Ulster included, since Henry Plantagenet invaded in the 1200s.
Really, you do a good job on the American legal stuff, and when people get emotional on you because they don't like what you're saying, you make them look like fools.
I like you and respect you for your legal writing. What you're doing here, with this Irish thing, is what they do when they are writing you. You really don't know this part of history. And you're emoting.
I'm embarrassed for you so I'm not going to slap back with authority the way you do when you handle the fools who come after you with emotion.
I'm just going to wish you peace and let it go and walk away from this topic, and forget the whole episode. We all have our weak spots and moments. You're having one, and it's best to just let this one die.
#7. To: nolu chan (#1)
People that get all worked up about this are obviously unaware of the creative spelling used back then and even later.
Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin,a pretty noted writer himself,who said "Anyone who can only spell a word one way is lacking in creatiity."?
When speaking in accents,the words "Scots" and "Scotch" sound alike,so that would only add to the modern day confusing.
Nobody was confused back then because they all knew exactly what group you were talking about.
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
What you're doing here, with this Irish thing, is what they do when they are writing you. You really don't know this part of history. And you're emoting.
I see you have broken into your dance, declared victory, and that you are taking your ball and going home.
In support of equal opportunity, I am declaring victory, and that in response to my posting documjentary proof on the original thread that you did not know what you were talking about regarding the civil war, you dropped not one, but three steaming turds on the thread. I will make my final comments on this thread and then move on to the remaining turds of thought you left on the other thread.
Your defense of your blather of scotch properly referring to people and your citing of a 1570 administrative document as evidence of contemporary thought at the time of the settlement of the American colonies is embarrassing.
It is as embarrassing as your losing an argument on facts and law, and again assuming the position that something is not the law because you find it did not meet your moral approval, such as the Constitution of the United States.
It is embarrassing that the post a misleading snippet quote with no source or link to the document from 1570. Nor can I give you the benefit of the doubt for what you tried to do. You are a lawyer.
It is amazing how you can witlessly change the subject. Of course, a 1570 document would not make one tinker's damn to the bastardized Americanism Scotch-Irish as the Ulster-Scots did not yet exist, nor had the American colonies begun with Jamestown.
Your misuse of the term scotch continues as an embarrassment, surpassed only by your defense of the indefensible.
Hoss, the English have ruled Ireland, Ulster included, since Henry Plantagenet invaded in the 1200s.
Hoss, you have lost your mind. Read some history, cite, link, and quote sources for that brain fart.
Your fantasy that the English maintained control since the 1200's is misplaced. By the 14th century, "The English-controlled area shrank back to the Pale, a fortified area around Dublin."
They passed legislation, but Since the government in Dublin had little real authority, however, the Statutes did not have much effect.
By the 15th century, "direct English involvement in Ireland was greatly reduced."
In the 16th century, "The attempt to impose English authority more firmly on Ireland is given new impetus by Henry VIII in the 1530s."
In the 17th century, "The rebellion of O'Neill and O'Donnell collapses in 1603, but they are allowed to keep their hereditary lands in Ulster," and Ulster, until this time the most Catholic and Celtic region of Ireland, begins now to be transformed into a Protestant stronghold as the English set about the process of plantation."
"The Crown did not attempt to assert full control of the island until the rebellion of the Earl of Kildare threatened English hegemony. Henry VIII proclaimed himself King of Ireland and also tried to introduce the English Reformation, which failed in Ireland." and "the military and political defeat of Gaelic Ireland became more pronounced in the early seventeenth century, sectarian conflict became a recurrent theme in Irish history."
And I did not pull that out of my butt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_(1169%E2%80%931536)
The third was the murder of William Donn de Burgh, 3rd Earl of Ulster in June 1333. This resulted in his lands being split in three among his relations, with the ones in Connacht starting the Burke Civil War, rebelling against the Crown and becoming new Irish clans. This meant that virtually all of Ireland west of the Shannon was lost to the Dublin administration. It would be well over two hundred years before the McWilliam Burkes, as they were now called, were again allied with the Dublin administration. In Ulster the O'Neill dynasty took over and renamed Clandeboye in the earldom's lands in County Down, and in 1364 they assumed the title King of Ulster.The Black Death rapidly spread along the major European sea and land trade routes. It reached Ireland in 1348 and decimated the Hiberno-Norman urban settlements
The fourth calamity for the medieval English presence in Ireland was the Black Death, which arrived in Ireland in 1348. Because most of the English and Norman inhabitants of Ireland lived in towns and villages, the plague hit them far harder than it did the native Irish, who lived in more dispersed rural settlements. A celebrated account from a monastery in Cill Chainnigh (Kilkenny) chronicles the plague as the beginning of the extinction of humanity and the end of the world. The plague was a catastrophe for the English habitations around the country and, after it had passed, Gaelic Irish language and customs came to dominate the country again. The English-controlled area shrank back to the Pale, a fortified area around Dublin.
In the background the Hundred Years' War of 1337–1453 between the English and French dynasties drew off forces that could have protected the Lordship from attack by autonomous Gaelic and Norman lords. Gaelic resurgence (1350–1500)
Additional causes of the Gaelic revival were political and personal grievances against the Hiberno-Normans, but especially impatience with procrastination and the very real horrors that successive famines had brought. Pushed away from the fertile areas, the Irish were forced to eke out a subsistence living on marginal lands, which left them with no safety net during bad harvest years (such as 1271 and 1277) or in a year of famine (virtually the entire period of 1311–1319).
Outside the Pale, the Hiberno-Norman lords adopted the Irish language and customs, becoming known as the Old English, and in the words of a phrase coined in later historiography, became "more Irish than the Irish themselves." Over the following centuries they sided with the indigenous Irish in political and military conflicts with England and generally stayed Catholic after the Reformation. The authorities in the Pale grew so worried about the Gaelicisation of Ireland that, in 1367 at a parliament in Kilkenny, they passed special legislation (known as the Statutes of Kilkenny) banning those of English descent from speaking the Irish language, wearing Irish clothes or inter-marrying with the Irish. Since the government in Dublin had little real authority, however, the Statutes did not have much effect.
Throughout the 15th century, these trends proceeded apace and central government authority steadily diminished. The monarchy of England was itself thrown into turmoil during the last phase of the Hundred Years' War to 1453, and the Wars of the Roses (1460–85), and as a result, direct English involvement in Ireland was greatly reduced. Successive kings of England delegated their constitutional authority over the lordship to the powerful Fitzgerald earls of Kildare, who held the balance of power by means of military force and widespread alliances with lords and clans. This, in effect, made the English Crown even more remote to the realities of Irish politics. At the same time, local Gaelic and Gaelicised lords expanded their powers at the expense of the central government in Dublin, creating a polity quite alien to English ways and which was not fully overthrown until the successful conclusion of the Tudor conquest.
Tudor settlement: 1494-1601A significant attempt to establish English control in Ireland is made by Henry VII in 1494. He dismisses the earl of Kildare from his post as lord deputy, and sends Sir Edward Poynings in his place with a full contingent of English administrators.
Poynings summons a parliament at Drogheda in December 1494. This passes much legislation to assert English supremacy, including even the reenactment of a statute of 1366 forbidding marriage between English colonists and the Irish. But its two most significant measures relate to the Irish parliament.
These acts, subsequently known as the Statutes of Drogheda (or more informally as Poyning's Law), remain in force until 1782. For nearly three centuries they limit any form of Irish independence.
The first decree states that no Irish parliament may be summoned without prior notice to the privy council in England, and that no legislation passed by an Irish parliament is valid unless submitted to the privy council. The second declares that all laws passsed by parliament in England apply also to Ireland. The extent to which these statutes have any meaning depends on the size of the very variable pale around Dublin. But they are securely in place.
The attempt to impose English authority more firmly on Ireland is given new impetus by Henry VIII in the 1530s. After he has declared himself head of the church in England, with the Act of Supremacy of 1534, it is natural to take the same step in Ireland - particularly as the English king is as yet known only as the 'lord' of Ireland, implying that the supposed grant of the island to Henry II by the pope makes him in a sense the vassal of Rome.
Both anomalies are amended. The Irish parliament passes an Act of Supremacy in 1536, following it with another measure in 1541 recognizing Henry as king of Ireland.
The Tudor intention is also to transform the Irish chieftains into hereditary peers on the English system, with a right to sit in the parliament in Dublin. An early example is the granting of the earldom of Tyrone, in 1542, to Conn O'Neill. But the precariousness of any such settlement is revealed when Conn's son, Shane, leads an armed rebellion early in the reign of Elizabeth I.
The last years of Elizabeth's reign are troubled by the far more serious uprising, between 1594 and 1603, of Conn O'Neill's great-grandson Hugh in alliance with other chieftains of Ulster. Hugh's main ally in the rebellion is the chief of the O'Donnells.
Flight of the earls: 1607
The rebellion of O'Neill and O'Donnell collapses in 1603, but they are allowed to keep their hereditary lands in Ulster. O'Donnell is even created earl of Tyrconnell, to match O'Neill's earldom of Tyrone. But the two Celtic and Catholic earls find life intolerable in an Ireland organized along Anglo-Saxon and Protestant lines. Their ancient lands are divided now into counties, and are garrisoned by English troops.
Tyrconnell engages in secret negotiations with Spain, of which word reaches the English court in 1607. Shortly afterwards Tyrconnell and Tyrone surprise everyone by secretly embarking on a ship, with their families and other clan leaders, and sailing to France.
This event, subsequently known as the flight of the earls, is a disaster for Ulster. The English, legitimately accusing the earls of treason, declare their massive territories in northern Ireland to be forfeit. They amount to the six counties then known as Donegal, Coleraine, Tyrone, Armagh, Fermanagh and Cavan.
Ulster, until this time the most Catholic and Celtic region of Ireland, begins now to be transformed into a Protestant stronghold as the English set about the process of plantation. It is not their first attempt at this form of settlement in Ireland, nor will it be the last. But it proves the most lasting in its effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland
The Norman invasion of the late 12th century marked the beginning of more than 800 years of direct English rule and, later, British involvement in Ireland. In 1177 Prince John Lackland was made Lord of Ireland by his father Henry II of England at the Council of Oxford. The Crown did not attempt to assert full control of the island until the rebellion of the Earl of Kildare threatened English hegemony. Henry VIII proclaimed himself King of Ireland and also tried to introduce the English Reformation, which failed in Ireland. Attempts to either conquer or assimilate the Irish lordships into the Kingdom of Ireland provided the initial impetus for a series of Irish military campaigns between 1534 and 1603. This period was marked by a Crown policy of plantation, involving the arrival of thousands of English and Scottish Protestant settlers, and the consequent displacement of the pre-plantation Catholic landholders. As the military and political defeat of Gaelic Ireland became more pronounced in the early seventeenth century, sectarian conflict became a recurrent theme in Irish history.The 1614 overthrow of the Catholic majority in the Irish Parliament was realised principally through the creation of numerous new boroughs which were dominated by the new settlers.
- - - - - - - - - -
I'm just going to wish you peace and let it go and walk away from this topic, and forget the whole episode. We all have our weak spots and moments. You're having one, and it's best to just let this one die.
Well, that's that. We have both let it go. We can move on to one of the other dumps which defaced that other thread.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]