Are english aristocratic landlords still here?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yeah, whatever.

400 years ago most land was taken by force, it's how it happened back then. isn't there a thred somewhere about the irish in argentina? I wonder how they go it?

what, out of curiosity, was offered to the Irish if they helped Charles defeat Cromwell? land in England by any chance? thin line, the Irish lost, if they hadn't things could have been very different, but that's what history is all about.

Personally I'd be more worried about the corruption and exploitation being carried out by the Irish landowners and developers rather than a few landlords from abroad that ended up with land by no fault of their own.

" yeah, whatever " Well what else could you expect from a mindset of the cancer of humanity ( imperial britian ).

As for the Irish in Argentina, America, Australia etc. Obviously they inhabited lands stolen from the native people, it doesn't make it legititmate that they were from Ireland, but most of them had no other choice but to flee to these countires for survival. In Audsralia's case many of them were forceably taken there. Generally the vast majority of immigration was a case of survival not imperialism, they were indeed victims in their own way, if you wish to blame the root of the problem, obviously the the extortion and genocidal actions of britain is to blame.

" what, out of curiosity, was offered to the Irish if they helped Charles defeat Cromwell? land in England by any chance? " Interesting. I don't doubt that the political oppurtunists of Ireland would/did collaborate with the crown, every society has it, Vichy France ,certain native American tribes and individuals who perpetrated massacres for beads, mirrors, shiny coins etc against their own people.

Personally I'm also unhappy about " the corruption and exploitation being carried out by the Irish landowners and developers ", but I'm also concerned about corruption and exploitation of " english aristocratic landlords " as the title ofthe thread asks.

BTW for the record, I m against the paracitical class of aristocratic landlords and not harmless English new age travellers living in an old cottage on a few acres of land raising goats, making cheese etc. Despite been thought of as eccentrics by the locals, they are in fact very good and decent people and more than welcome to own and farm land in any part of Ireland as far as I'm concerned.

jmayo wrote: »

It's Castlebar not Westport.
Richard Bingham, the 7th Earl of Lucan owned extensive lands in Castlebar, and disappeared on the night of November 8, 1974.
And technically he still owns parts of it since he has not been conclusively proven to be dead AFAIK.

If we go back far enough then our Celtic ancestors probably did the same.
Then there were the Vikings, then the Normans.
Then we get into the realms of Palestine and who were there first.

Also what about Irish settlers in USA, Canada, Australia, Argentina who were given land grants by various governments ?

BTW from you knowledge of history I would presume you probably know from what stock some of major leaders of the 1798 rebellion were.

Also I take it you won't be cheering for Munster in HC final in Cardiff since they will be playing a foreign sport invented by and propogated by the English public school system

Well their's been a lot of subjects raised in this post, I understand the comparisions you are trying to make, but lets not get carried away on tangents about pre Celtic Ireland ,the Vikings, Palestine, Munster rugby etc

" If we go back far enough then our Celtic ancestors probably did the same. " Yes they probably did, it is conjecture that they may have peacefully assimilated with the pre Celtic people, but as you say they probably did. No human society or culture is without its blemish's, and probably the pre Celtic people did it to the pre, pre Celtic people and so on.

As for the Vikings etc, well I think you'd agree that the blood of these people has been well integrated into Irish society by now, (most of us I'd guess may have Viking blood in us ), they don't posscess stately homes, send their kids to college in Stockholm, Oslo etc to maintian a snobbish distance from the natives and likewise similiar to the 7th Earl of Lucan, technically own parts of land in this country. As I've stated, my own family were paying ground rents up to the 1990's so I hope you can see why I am more concerned with the the title of the thread than events which possibly may have happened thousands of years ago.

As for the Irish in Argentina, America, Australia etc. Obviously they inhabited lands stolen from the native people, it doesn't make it legititmate that they were from Ireland, but most of them had no other choice but to flee to these countires for survival. In Australia's case many of them were forceably taken there. Generally the vast majority of immigration was a case of survival not imperialism, they were indeed victims in their own way, if you wish to blame the root of the problem, obviously the the extortion and genocidal actions of britain and the landlord class are primarily to blame.

Well indeed I know the stock of many of the leaders of 1798, more credit is due to them for breaking away from the values of many of their ancestors.

As for Munster, since they seem to be followed by the almost every man in the street down south unlike the Ross Carroll O'Kelly types following the ladyboys ( Leinster ), the best of luck to Munster.

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

The whole business of historical reparations is a needlessly complicated root to go down, there are few places in the world where people are responsable for the crimes of their parents. But increasingly 'ancesteral crimes' and reparations for these are becoming more common. It frequently favours the most recent or publicly know history though. If anglo irish landowners are to be stripped of their property (mostly because they took advantage of a unfair system as opposed to 'massacre and genocide') then why not make reparations for the irish raids into western britain (taking slaves and valuables and murdering many innocents. Perhaps with inflation this could add up to millions) or the 'great conspiracy' of 367 where entire tracts of west and north britain where overran in a completly unprovoked attack from ireland in an alliance with other ironage nations. The cities that were sacked, the countless civillians that were murderd, raped and enslaved and the famines that followed relative to the population and infrastructure at the time would probably be greater then any single event inflicted apon the irish by the normans or the british empire (i could be wrong but you get the idea).
Perhaps the cities of dublin, limerick, cork and wexford should make payments to the catholic church or monastic orders for the loss of life and capital incured by the norse raids launched from them onto monestries around the isles.
It's foolish to think that people didn't profit from the negative actions of their distant ancesters. The modern people that profit, as long as they act within the law of the nation in which they live or operate are entitiled to their property.

You've made a lot of accusations there pal, care to back them up. Can you provide links, quotes, references by any chance ?? If not - withdraw them.