Irish troops

Jesus. wrote: »

Not quite. The Confederation was set up years before he was killed and it pledged allegiance to him. 1690 was the same deal. They were fighting for a British King also. The United Irishmen were the first separatists.

The confederates did profess loyalty to the king, but they also called for self-government for Ireland. By "self-government" I think they meant an independent Parliament and a similar relationship to England as Scotland (at the time, pre-Act of Union) had. Whether you call that "separatism" or not is up to you. I would't myself, but I would say that they wanted a greater degree of separation, or a greater degree of independence.

The also wanted toleration of Catholicism, and full civil rights for Catholics.

I think that, to some degree at least, their royalism was not a fundamental principle but a strategy; they say it as the best way to achieve their objectives (self-government, toleration, civil rights). I think their royalism was fairly conditional, so, and one of the conditions was a commitment by the king to greater separation for Ireland. And in fact the confederation eventually split over whether the king had given sufficient guarantees that these objectives would be granted, and over the question of whether he could be trusted to honour the guarantees he had given. So a very qualified royalism, them.

riffmongous wrote: »

I don't know much about Wellington's non military career but did he have much to do with Ireland besides being born here? I mean Cliff Richard was born and lived in India as a kid but I doubt he's claimed as Indian too often? And there are many other examples from the empire times

He was a member Irish Parliament, after the abolition of the Parliament and his return from India he had a senior position at Dublin castle. He was certainly a liberal in terms of his views on Catholic Emancipation.

Jesus. wrote: »

1690 was the same deal. They were fighting for a British King also.

This is true. And the great hero of that conflict, on the Irish side, was a chap called Sarsfield. He had/has some interesting family connections.

His brother married the daughter of one of the (very) many mistresses of King Charles II, ie King James II's brother. So clearly the Sarsfields moved in the same circles as royalty.

A grand-daughter from that union married into the Bingham family of Anglo-Irish gentry. I suspect, as Sarsfield was the Earl of Lucan, that this is how that peerage came into the Bingham family. Those of a certain age may remember the Lord Lucan (family name Bingham) who disappeared in the early 1970s having killed his children's nanny.

Anyway, back to the Eighteenth century Binghams: a few generations later, one of them married into another aristocratic family namely the Spencers. A direct descendant of that union was Lady Diana Spencer, born in 1962.

As she was a direct descendant of Patrick Sarsfield's brother it follows that in the fullness of time, ie not very long now, the great x8 or perhaps x9 nephew of Patrick Sarsfield will ascend the throne of Great Britain.

Wonder what all the GAA clubs named Sarsfields will make of that

Young Blood wrote: »

To some extent, there seems to be a whitewash of Ireland's role in British history. The Duke of Wellington for example, was an Irishman who served as Primer Minister in Britain yet there barely is a mention of him in school just because he was Anglo-Irish. Why exactly is there debate surrounding his origins?

Where is there a debate surrounding his origins? There is none.

There is a popular misconception, now widely discredited thanks in small part to Boards.ie that he once bitterly denounced his Irish origins by commenting "Being born in a stable does not make a man a horse"

But as is now becoming more widely known that was not said BY him, but it was said ABOUT him. By none other than Daniel O'Connell.

So it was not a case of Wellington denying his origins, it was O'Connell belittling them.

And anyway, isn't there a sodding great obelisk in Phoenix Park still called The Wellington Monument? If you're a Dub you can see it from just about anywhere on the river in the city west of O'Connell Bridge.

If you're a culchie you can see it out the window of your train as it pulls into Heuston when you come up for the match or the shopping.

That's hardly sweeping him under the carpet now, is it?

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The relationship of the Anglo-Irish to the Irish is about as distinct as the Anglo-Indian to the Indian. Or Anglo African to the African.

I would love to hear that explained, the surnames in my family last 2 generations include Connell, Walsh, Kavanagh, Black, O'Reilly, Bennett, De Lacey, Brodigan, and O'Rourke that in my view is about average in Ireland and represents a complete mix of Irish and Anglo-Irish.