800 years

I think the whole idea of the "800 years" comes from the Nationalist social memory that was created sometime in, I'm not sure, maybe in the 19th century? If you are looking for an exact grounding in fact I don't think it is possible.

When it is invoked especially in this day and age it is usually a generalistion or a bit of rhetoric. the fact that it is specifically 800 years is meant to imply that the oppression is ongoing and that it didin't end with the "brave boys of 1916".
If anyone can rememeber the bit in the film Michael Collins, which is the most accessible example I can think of, where the Free State Troops are taking over the barracks from the British. When Collins arrives the British officer says
something like, "you are seven minutes late MR. Collins"
to which Collins replies, "We waited 700 years you can have your 7 minutes."

I think the date it is supposed to have started is sometime in the 1200s and has to do with how the King of England's authority was first recognised and Ireland became a Lordship? (although I'm not precisely sure of the specifics here so don't quote me on that)

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

1169 was a long time ago.

Anyway blame the pope.

That's a bit crypic for me. can you expand a ittle.

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland

In 1172, King Henry II of England invaded Ireland, using the 1155 Bull Laudabiliter issued to him by then English Pope Adrian IV to claim sovereignty over the island, and forced the Cambro-Norman warlords and some of the Gaelic Irish kings to accept him as their overlord. From the 13th century, English law began to be introduced. Initially, English rule was largely limited to the area around Dublin, known as the Pale, and Waterford, but this began to expand in the 16th century with the final collapse of the Gaelic social and political superstructure at the end of the 17th century, as a result of the Tudor re-conquest of Ireland and English and Scottish Protestant colonisation in the Plantations of Ireland, which established English control over the whole island.

So less than 400 years outside the Pale.

'Some of the Gaelic Irish kings' I believe refers to an agreement that worked both ways - They paid him taxes and he supplied soldiers when the other kings got ambitious.

To the English kings, Ireland was a part of their Kingdom. The subjects here were entitled to the same rights and governed by the same laws as in England. If it had continued in this path, we would all be sitting here today as proud and happy subjects of the Queen.

It was only when Cromwell got here in 1649 that the Irish were beaten into submission and colonization started. And funnily enough, they got bashed by Cromwell because they supported the English royalty in their civil war.

He wasn't too popular at home either, he was 'sent' over here because the parliament were afraid of what havoc he would wreak running around England with his army:

In 1661, Oliver Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution.

Fratton Fred wrote:

So the English were responsible for bringing the Catholic church to Ireland.

No wonder you hate us

Ironic how these things work out isn't it.

Actually it was the Welsh (St Patrick was Welsh)

M&#250 wrote: »

The genuineness of laudabiliter is still hotly debated historically. This bbc radio documentary on the subject is very interesting.


Anyway, even if laudabiliter was genuine, Strongbow et al came to Ireland as mercenaries working for Diarmaid Mac Murrough, not as church reformers. The original plan was just to help him get his kingdom back, but he died early on and Strongbow and the boys started to run amok and henry rushed over fearing that Strongbow might set up an independent kingdom in opposition to him. The whole affair was a lot messier politically than most people with various political agenda today like to imagine.

This is one of the fascinating things with irish History. There are so many events which has shaped the way Ireland was governed. If Mac Murragh had not died, If James 1st won the Engiish Civil war, if William had lost at the Boyne. Even up to "what if Parnell had not fallen in love with a married women".

So many narrow misses.

M&#250 wrote: »

I presume you mean if Charles I had won the civil war. James I of England(James VI of Scotland) was his daddy.

You're exactly right though. The interesting thing is that had Mac Murrough lived longer and kept the Normans' superior military machine under his control, he might well now be regarded as a great icon, as the first king to unite an independent Ireland fully under his rule, rather than his current popular reputation as betrayer of the Irish to the English. But c'est la vie.

Of course, King Charles (Which is why 90% of King Charles spaniels in the UK are called Oliver!)

Interesting that the Normans are widely accepted as being English, which is not the case. They would have had their base in England, but the Native English had one or two problems of their own with the Normans. The Normans were the first (and last) conquerors of England after the Romans.

In fact, the Cornish consider themselves to be the only “True” Cornish people because neither the Normans nor Romans made it as far as Cornwall. Although the Cornish had problems of their own with raiders from errr Ireland.

(I am open to correction on the above)

brianthebard wrote:

Just a point on the Normans being the first and only conquerors after the Romans, what about the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Franks and Viking/Norsemen that came after the Romans? At one stage the Vikings held the Northern half of england, for a fairly long time afaik. And of course the Germanic tribes would make up a lot of what you call English around the time of the Norman conquest, although they wouldn't have thought of themselves as German at that stage. I would just like a clarification, not trying to be rude. (reading over it made me think it might seem like I was)

This is my opinion and may not be that accurate, but I would say that the Normans were considered conquerers because they took control of pretty much the whole country and William declared himself King (And set about building a very impressive castle in Windsor). The Vikings came and settled but were eventually ousted by Alfred the Great. The Angles and the Saxons more or less just came and settled after the Romans left and eventually became the indigenous population.

When you get back to his part of English history, there is a lot of myth and not much fact. You also need to remember that, like Ireland, England was made up of several different Kingdoms.

brianthebard wrote:

I can see what you are saying but I'm not sure it is entirely accurate. The Vikings weren't ousted, their power were reduced perhaps but they still remained. The Angles and Saxons did take over but there were people to be conquered when they arrived in England and that's what they did.

Alfred ousted the Vikings from Wessex, which was pretty much the South of England I know that much, but my knowledge of that period is pretty poor and I can’t be arsed on look it up on Wikipedia

I guess it is kind of similar to King Henry II’s invasion of Ireland. By modern standards it is not an invasion, unless you want to use it for political means. I mean, when was the last time you heard an Englishman complaining about 1000 years of Danish oppression?

joebhoy1916 wrote:

In 1169, barely a century after the Norman invasion of Celtic/Saxon Britain gave rise to the entity of England, the expansionist feudal lords of England invaded neighboring Ireland, thereby beginning a history of Irish national resistance to foreign domination, now in its ninth century. For the first 450 years after the invasion, a Hibernicized Anglo-Irish aristocracy administered the area of Dublin and its surrounding "Pale" (the ring of land around Dublin within which the English were able to enforce their rule), while traditional Irish chieftains received feudal titles from English overlords, but maintained a semblance of native Irish society. Periodically the Irish clans rose in revolt against English domination, the last and most dramatic being the insurrection of the O'Neills of Ulster against Queen Elizabeth I during the 1560s. The failed rebellion contributed a host of aristocratic Irish emigres to France, and frightened the English sufficiently to cause them to seek more secure methods of controlling their colonial territory of Ireland.

do you have a reliable source to back this up?

Saruman wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans
Anyway before the british invaded we had no civilisation, no government, no infrastructure etc... Everything we have today we have from them...

Yes, the British enabled us to build canals, world class harbours, roads, lighthouses, universities, railways , fine architecture etc. All cutting edge infrastructure of the time. A third of the British administration in India was Irish. Dublin was one of the main cities of the British isles. We should feel lucky and proud of our relationship with Britain.

Bambi wrote:

Just as well the Brits invaded the rest of western europe and made sure they built all those lovely harbours and and universities. Oh wait, they didnt. :rolleyes:

No the British did not invade the rest of Europe. In fact, in the not too distant past ( living memory of some ) the British ( along with the help of over 120,000 Irishmen ) defended themselves - and us by implication - from Europe. In a previous world war they also went to the defence of little Catholic Belgium, and also to the aid of France which was invaded. In the cold war they helped defend Europe from communism.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

And yet the Isle of Man still has it's own paliament

Ours was where the B of I opposite Trinity is now. A very fine building indeed.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

note the word STILL

Well we all know it is STILL not our Parliament. We know where the "Dail" is now..... I assume you are one of the 99.9% of Irish people who recognises its legitimacy.

Anyway, fine old building the Parliament opposite Trinity was , even though its now just being used as a bank. Beautiful architecture.....beautiful proportions and scale between the buildings etc...ignoring the modern traffic etc. Pity our modern architects ( since independence ) have not done such fine buildings which will stand the test of time.

vesp wrote:

Thats right. We ( in the smaller island of Ireland ) were integrated with the bigger island of Britain just as much as Lanzarote was integrated with Tenerife. Or the north + south island of New Zealand. It was natural for these islands to be united in a united political union, just as the islands of Japan for example are united together.

Thats complete and utter bull! Britain and Ireland are seperate nations with seperate languages, seperate customs, seperate sports, seperate beliefs - religious and political, divided by a body of water, and the majority of people on this 'smaller island' never wanted or signed up to this union. Theres absolutely no justification for making a comment like that!