Are english aristocratic landlords still here?

man1

I was reading in some magazine at the weekend about the duke of devonshire still owning the harbour in youghal and owning the fishing rights for the river blackwater.
I was surprised at this and was wondering if there are any other places/estates that are still owned by the english nobility in Ireland?

I thought the state took back all this land in 1921/22.
I know there are a few anglo-irish that still have estates and castles e.g slane castle.

I have heard that a lot of buldings in central dublin are still owned by english landlords who leased them out in the 19th century for long leases? Is this true?

Also what is the status of lambay island, is it part of irish territory or not as it is owned by the barings family (of the barings bank fame)from england (who still live on it). Do they come under any juristiction?

LostinBlanch

Well AFAIK we're still paying ground rent for a lot of buildings in the city centre, including the GPO!

europerson

Is this a troll?

Many foreign people own land in Ireland. Some happen to be English. Some of those happen to be aristocrats. So what?

Lambay is Irish land owned the same way as land owned by anyone else.

Ekancone

His point was that this land was supposed to have been claimed by the state after independence and were and concessions made. No trolling, turn down your PC-o-meter.

McArmalite

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well AFAIK we're still paying ground rent for a lot of buildings in the city centre, including the GPO!

I believe they secretly paid off some british parasite a number of years ago for the GPO.

daithifleming wrote: »

His point was that this land was supposed to have been claimed by the state after independence and were and concessions made. No trolling, turn down your PC-o-meter.

Don't know why people insist on calling the treaty ' independence '. Huge tracts of land and property still remained under british landlords. Indeed with my regards to my own famliy's house and I presume all the other houses in the town, had to pay rent ( a small token amount once a year, but it had to be paid none the less ) to some dickhead in England whose great grandfather was Lord or Sir Sh!thead, right up into the 1990's - serious.

man1

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well AFAIK we're still paying ground rent for a lot of buildings in the city centre, including the GPO!

Yeah thats what I heard too. Any idea how long term these leases are? Obviously the would be 100's of different agreements.
Can we barge in mugabe-like and take them back? Can't see it happening myself but you have to agree that it is a little unfair that these Nobs still own rights to land here. (when it wasn't theirs in the first place!!)

Ekancone

McArmalite wrote: »

I believe they secretly paid off some british parasite a number of years ago for the GPO.

Don't know why people insist on calling the treaty ' independence '. Huge tracts of land and property still remained under british landlords. Indeed with my regards to my own famliy's house and I presume all the other houses in the town, had to pay rent ( a small token amount once a year, but it had to be paid none the less ) to some dickhead in England whose great grandfather was Lord or Sir Sh!thead, right up into the 1990's - serious.

Thats really surprising. Although after the French revolution some of the emigrés held their land also.

man1

europerson wrote: »

Is this a troll?

Many foreign people own land in Ireland. Some happen to be English. Some of those happen to be aristocrats. So what?

Lambay is Irish land owned the same way as land owned by anyone else.

I am not a troll, perfectly valid question/discussion.:mad:

I know lots of land is owned by english in Ireland, one of my neighbours is english and there are lots of businesses run and owned by english companies as well as german, american, dutch etc but my point wasn't that.

And regarding Lambay what county council does it come under then and for example if there is a crime committed there which police station responds to it. I read somewhere that the irish government have no claims on this island. I also read that it wasn't english land either when they were here.

Victor

You need to distinguish between indepence as a state and property ownership.

Should the new state have confiscated all land in 1922? You are applying a racist double standard otherwise.

Fratton Fred

How long does a family have to live n Ireland to be Irish?

If your great grandparents moved to Ireland and bought a farm, then eventually when it has been passed down to you 100 years later, what right has the state to take it off you?

Fast forward 80 years and the family still own that farm but rent it out to someone, are they "English" landlords?

I don't think the uestion is as black and white as the OP may think.

europerson

man1 wrote: »

And regarding Lambay what county council does it come under then and for example if there is a crime committed there which police station responds to it. I read somewhere that the irish government have no claims on this island. I also read that it wasn't english land either when they were here.

You could do with taking a look at Prof Gabriel Cooney's exceptionally comprehensive works on the archaeology and history of Lambay. I don't know what sort of sources you're reading this stuff in.

AckwelFoley

There are many decendants of these ppl that still live here among us. Isnt Slaine castle owned by The Earl & Countess of Mount Charles

europerson

snyper wrote: »

There are many decendants of these ppl that still live here among us. Isnt Slaine castle owned by The Earl & Countess of Mount Charles

It's the seat of the Marquess Conyngham, but he doesn't live in Ireland any more. His son, the Earl of Mount Charles, and his family live in a nearby house, Beauparc. No one actually lives in the Castle at the moment.

Shutuplaura

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How long does a family have to live n Ireland to be Irish?

If your great grandparents moved to Ireland and bought a farm, then eventually when it has been passed down to you 100 years later, what right has the state to take it off you?

Fast forward 80 years and the family still own that farm but rent it out to someone, are they "English" landlords?

I don't think the question is as black and white as the OP may think.

Perhaps it is Fred. Lord Lucan owned Westport and the townspeople have to pay ground rent. He's an English Aritocrat with Irish land. Lord Mountcharles, well, I think he lives in Ireland full tim so he'd be Irish in my book. Regarding westport, since Lucans disappearance they've been refusing to pay and proper order too. A park in Mallow I think, right in the centre of the town is also owned by an English lord with some titles in Ireland but doesn't live here. He sold it for redevelopment. The council couldn't stop him as far as I know. Not sure if the buyers will get planning permission for anything but it is zoned for recreational use so it can be built on/ The government buildings in Kildare street are still subject to ground rent. Its fairly minimal as it hasn't gone up with inflation but the government still pays it yerarly, something under a hundred quid I believe. Not sure if its to the Dukes of Leinster, some other Irish gentry or and English lord. Lismore Castle has bveen owned for generations by a family resident in the UK family resident in England, the Dukes of Devonshire.

Of course some of the landlords live in Ireland full or part time and may only own estatres here and not lease any of it out. Lord Donaghmore near Clonmel is sure an example I think. There is also Lord Waterford nearby who also farms his estate himself.

Its still around, somethines the family are Anglo-Irish, sometimes not. Its not really a big deal, apart from the case in Cork of some bloke with no ties to the area selling off town amenities. He may also be the bloke the OP is talking about regarding the fishing rights. That would be annoying for me if I were local and I don't think its anything to do with anti-englishness.

lightsinthebay

The Irish state never took over the land of Anglo-Irish gentry - shows how shockingly conservative Irish nationalism has often been. The things that seem to have impacted on the gentry were the encumbered estates act of 1849, which made it easier for creditors to take over indebted estates, and the various land acts after the land war, under which the British government gave low interest loans to tenant farmers to purchase properties. So the major change seems to have been before independence.

In the 1917 to 1923 period there were major farm labourers strikes in the midlands and south east, strike occupation of workplaces in Munster, and a campaign against graziers being carried on by small farmers in the West, I think perhaps any move against the gentry would have been seen as throwing the rights of property into question in general.

The IRA did burn down several hundred houses, many of which would have been of landlords, bit of a waste of resources in my book.

Worth bearing in mind also that not all of the C18 and C19 gentry were of English extraction - about 20% were Gaelic or Hiberno-Norman.

It is not racist or discriminatory at all - the descendants of thieves and exploiters should have no rights to their forefathers ill gotten gains - here, or in England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure or in Scotland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances

Fratton Fred

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Perhaps it is Fred. Lord Lucan owned Westport and the townspeople have to pay ground rent. He's an English Aritocrat with Irish land. Lord Mountcharles, well, I think he lives in Ireland full tim so he'd be Irish in my book. Regarding westport, since Lucans disappearance they've been refusing to pay and proper order too. A park in Mallow I think, right in the centre of the town is also owned by an English lord with some titles in Ireland but doesn't live here. He sold it for redevelopment. The council couldn't stop him as far as I know. Not sure if the buyers will get planning permission for anything but it is zoned for recreational use so it can be built on/ The government buildings in Kildare street are still subject to ground rent. Its fairly minimal as it hasn't gone up with inflation but the government still pays it yerarly, something under a hundred quid I believe. Not sure if its to the Dukes of Leinster, some other Irish gentry or and English lord. Lismore Castle has bveen owned for generations by a family resident in the UK family resident in England, the Dukes of Devonshire.

Of course some of the landlords live in Ireland full or part time and may only own estatres here and not lease any of it out. Lord Donaghmore near Clonmel is sure an example I think. There is also Lord Waterford nearby who also farms his estate himself.

Its still around, somethines the family are Anglo-Irish, sometimes not. Its not really a big deal, apart from the case in Cork of some bloke with no ties to the area selling off town amenities. He may also be the bloke the OP is talking about regarding the fishing rights. That would be annoying for me if I were local and I don't think its anything to do with anti-englishness.

actually, I think you have made my point for me. There are several "English Gentry" who live here and maintain the land, I see no difference between them and the descendants of people who came here as part of the plantations, their forebears were given land and 400 years later they have inherited it.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How long does a family have to live n Ireland to be Irish?

If your great grandparents moved to Ireland and bought a farm, then eventually when it has been passed down to you 100 years later, what right has the state to take it off you?

Fast forward 80 years and the family still own that farm but rent it out to someone, are they "English" landlords?

I don't think the uestion is as black and white as the OP may think.

No, they didn't " moved to Ireland and bought a farm ", they robbed it by mass murder and ethnic cleansing - as you very well know.

" Fast forward 80 years and the family still own that farm but rent it out to someone, are they "English" landlords? " No, some of them still insist on been 'british' or condensendingly 'Anglo OIrish'. Most of them speak with an accent that feigns to be a cross between an artisocractic English accent with a little of an Irish accent thrown in, they send their kids to expensive boarding schools and then probably onto university in Cambridge or Eton etc, they don't play Hurley or Football like the locals but Rugby, Cricket, Boating, Horse Jumping etc are their games and their not noted for singing rebel songs after a Celtic match down in the local pub or supporting nationalist causes like commerations of 1798, 1916 or etc.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

actually, I think you have made my point for me. There are several "English Gentry" who live here and maintain the land, I see no difference between them and the descendants of people who came here as part of the plantations, their forebears were given land and 400 years later they have inherited it.

" I see no difference between them and the descendants of people who came here as part of the plantations, their forebears were given land and 400 years later they have inherited it. ". They didn't "come" here because their was just an empty space here devoid of people for them, Again :rolleyes: " they robbed it by mass murder and ethnic cleansing - as you very well know. "

man1

Just out of interest did the british hand back all the land they "accquired during occupation" in India when they became independent? Or are there estates and land still belonging to lord this and lord that?
I don't know the answer but I suspect that the indians got back their land.
Anyone know about this?

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

No, they didn't " moved to Ireland and bought a farm ", they robbed it by mass murder and ethnic cleansing - as you very well know.

" Fast forward 80 years and the family still own that farm but rent it out to someone, are they "English" landlords? " No, some of them still insist on been 'british' or condensendingly 'Anglo OIrish'. Most of them speak with an accent that feigns to be a cross between an artisocractic English accent with a little of an Irish accent thrown in, they send their kids to expensive boarding schools and then probably onto university in Cambridge or Eton etc, they don't play Hurley or Football like the locals but Rugby, Cricket, Boating, Horse Jumping etc are their games and their not noted for singing rebel songs after a Celtic match down in the local pub or supporting nationalist causes like commerations of 1798, 1916 or etc.

" I see no difference between them and the descendants of people who came here as part of the plantations, their forebears were given land and 400 years later they have inherited it. ". They didn't "come" here because their was just an empty space here devoid of people for them, Again :rolleyes: " they robbed it by mass murder and ethnic cleansing - as you very well know. "

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.

jmayo

Shutuplaura wrote: »

Perhaps it is Fred. Lord Lucan owned Westport and the townspeople have to pay ground rent. He's an English Aritocrat with Irish land. Lord Mountcharles, well, I think he lives in Ireland full tim so he'd be Irish in my book. Regarding westport, since Lucans disappearance they've been refusing to pay and proper order too.

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.

McArmalite wrote: »

No, they didn't " moved to Ireland and bought a farm ", they robbed it by mass murder and ethnic cleansing - as you very well know.

" Fast forward 80 years and the family still own that farm but rent it out to someone, are they "English" landlords? " No, some of them still insist on been 'british' or condensendingly 'Anglo OIrish'. Most of them speak with an accent that feigns to be a cross between an artisocractic English accent with a little of an Irish accent thrown in, they send their kids to expensive boarding schools and then probably onto university in Cambridge or Eton etc, they don't play Hurley or Football like the locals but Rugby, Cricket, Boating, Horse Jumping etc are their games and their not noted for singing rebel songs after a Celtic match down in the local pub or supporting nationalist causes like commerations of 1798, 1916 or etc.

" I see no difference between them and the descendants of people who came here as part of the plantations, their forebears were given land and 400 years later they have inherited it. ". They didn't "come" here because their was just an empty space here devoid of people for them, Again :rolleyes: " they robbed it by mass murder and ethnic cleansing - as you very well know. "

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

Shutuplaura

Fratton Fred wrote: »

actually, I think you have made my point for me. There are several "English Gentry" who live here and maintain the land, I see no difference between them and the descendants of people who came here as part of the plantations, their forebears were given land and 400 years later they have inherited it.

Some are English and reside in england, living little or none of the time in Ireland. others are Irish of English origin - Anglo-Irish. Maybe I made my point badly, I'd consider anyone born and resident in Ireland to be Irish, as would most people. Some landlords are Irish but some, eg The Duke of Devonshire who's family have owned Lismore castle for generations but never really lived there are English. I'd consider it fairly black and white myself. Either way, what amount of land is involved? Not much I'd say, perhaps the state shouldn't be paying ground rent for governement buildings but its a token amount so what of it. Interesting that there are still examples of it in Ireland though.

Shutuplaura

man1 wrote: »

Just out of interest did the british hand back all the land they "accquired during occupation" in India when they became independent? Or are there estates and land still belonging to lord this and lord that?
I don't know the answer but I suspect that the indians got back their land.
Anyone know about this?

I'm not sure but I don't think it was all that widespread. The British (yes Fred, Irish too) came to India as traders and administrators and were not as interested in farming India as exploiting commercial opportunities. A fairly large part of the Indian nobility was left in place and the British ruled by patronage rather than settling large numbers of themselves on the land. The only way the Indian population colud have been controlled by a small number of Europeans was by the active collaboration/involvement of a portion of the population. People from the UK who were interested in owning a plantation in some part of the empire would have looked to Malaya or southern Africa. Mugabe in Zimbabwe uses the remnants of this planer class as his whipping boys regularly. I work with one here who still calls it Rhodesia. Her family name is Irish by the way.

Kaiser_Sma

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.

McArmalite

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.

howaya

- hi there - yes, we're still here, thanks. You'd be welcome up at the big house, you know. We've got the cricket superleague on the widescreen and there's ample jam and scones

McArmalite

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.

McArmalite

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.

I've been reading some of your ther postings on boards.ie to see what sort of a creature I am dealing with and I see you claim to be orginally from the west country of England. Well we've also had other unionists such as Pathfinder, jhalpin, Crobbyboy1798 claim to be born in England but raised in Ireland, from Carlow, riased in London but of Irish parents etc, claiming to be everything but what they are, unionists from the six counties. If anyone wants to give me odds on that he's another unionist from the six counties I'll take them .

I see on another discussion you describe yourself as a " Liberal Imperialist, although my views often verge on centrist and sometimes even right wing." Well now folks, brace yourself for the benign, benevolent, bearing the white man's burden version of the british Empire and how the ungrateful, begrudging Irish nationalist has it all completely wrong :rolleyes: As per one of his postings critising America " while the british empire used to bring stability and gaurentees to investors when it invaded, ". God help us, what british drivel are we in for ?? They just LOVE themselves don't they.

In typical unionist fashion he follows the exact same pattern as the other unionists and glosses over the atrocites inflicted on Ireland as " unfair system as opposed to 'massacre and genocide'" and then goes on to make all sorts of accusations against the Irish - " cities that were sacked, the countless civillians that were murderd, raped and enslaved and the famines that followed ". (Ooops, gotta go, but I will return. )

Kaiser_Sma

:eek: Didn't expect such an investigation.

Ok i've never been to the north (nor have i ever had the intention to go there), but i was born in england. My comment about liberal imperialism was a little out of character, and a bit of a while ago. Definently not as right wing as i thought i may have been at the time.
Definetly not a unionist as far as northern ireland is concerned, but i'd prefer if scotland and wales didn't leave tbh.

The other things are kind of taken out of context as far as i can remember.

I do believe in judging history by it's own standards, and i do think it's alot more two sided then tradionalists would have you believe. I don't like the whole 'butchers apron' that certain nations are forced to wear historicly while others (who may not be entirely innocent) are not.

I'm not some kind of ireland hating anti-nationalist either, and i certainly don't think the sun shins out of the queens arse. Though i must say i do prefer walkers to taytos.

Oh and i'm pro europe

Also i may occasionally be guilty of posting on the assumption that nobody takes any notice of my user name .
Damn now i'll have to be consistant.

Shutuplaura

McArmalite wrote: »

I've been reading some of your ther postings on boards.ie to see what sort of a creature I am dealing with and I see you claim to be orginally from the west country of England. Well we've also had other unionists such as Pathfinder, jhalpin, Crobbyboy1798 claim to be born in England but raised in Ireland, from Carlow, riased in London but of Irish parents etc, claiming to be everything but what they are, unionists from the six counties. If anyone wants to give me odds on that he's another unionist from the six counties I'll take them .

I see on another discussion you describe yourself as a " Liberal Imperialist, although my views often verge on centrist and sometimes even right wing." Well now folks, brace yourself for the benign, benevolent, bearing the white man's burden version of the british Empire and how the ungrateful, begrudging Irish nationalist has it all completely wrong :rolleyes: As per one of his postings critising America " while the british empire used to bring stability and gaurentees to investors when it invaded, ". God help us, what british drivel are we in for ?? They just LOVE themselves don't they.

In typical unionist fashion he follows the exact same pattern as the other unionists and glosses over the atrocites inflicted on Ireland as " unfair system as opposed to 'massacre and genocide'" and then goes on to make all sorts of accusations against the Irish - " cities that were sacked, the countless civillians that were murderd, raped and enslaved and the famines that followed ". (Ooops, gotta go, but I will return. )

Perhaps you should play the ball and not the man eh? How much if you don't mind me asking were your family paying in groundrents? They are normally failrly nominal aren't they?

SlabMurphy

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.

dresden8

SlabMurphy wrote: »

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.

Withdraw them? Have you ever read any history? Do you really think Ireland was comely maidens dancing at the crossroads before perfidious Albion stuck it's nose in?

Kaiser_Sma

SlabMurphy wrote: »

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Conspiracy also called the barbarian conspiracy by the romans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick for an example of the wide spread activity of raiding western britain for slaves etc.

Even if you don't trust wikipedia this is fairly wide spread knowledge

The viking longphorts in ireland which have now become most of the major cities and larger towns were originally bases for raiding coastal and inland areas especially monasteries, both on the british and irish coast. You may say that these people aren't irish, but genetically this was untrue as this paper sugests, they are an inseperable part of modern irish genetics:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n12/full/5201709a.html

I'm not excusing anything that happend later, in fact raiding was pretty much the done thing by prechristian cultures (not that becoming christians stopped slavery). I just want to illustrate that things are not as black and white as they seem.

Even the first organised invasions of ireland from britain by the so called 'saxanach', where of a force primarly composed of and definently commanded by races other then anglo saxons (flemish, welsh and french speaking normano-french) with soem exceptions probably. The english were a much loathed underclass in britain at the time, barred from the upper echelons. Thus the first land owners where primarly of french and low-land origin.

nollaig

The Burrell act of 1909 forced landlords to sell up to tenants. But generally, landlords had a large amount of land not occupied by tenants so they were entitled to keep ownership of this. Many descendants of landlords would have sold this land to the land commission who would have shared it out among local tenants. But I assume that some descendants have held onto their holding.

Kaiser_Sma

nollaig wrote: »

The Burrell act of 1909 forced landlords to sell up to tenants. But generally, landlords had a large amount of land not occupied by tenants so they were entitled to keep ownership of this. Many descendants of landlords would have sold this land to the land commission who would have shared it out among local tenants. But I assume that some descendants have held onto their holding.

I imagine those that did probably had to sell some of that land peacemeal to pay for maintianing manor houses if they had them.

SlabMurphy

dresden8 wrote: »

Withdraw them? Have you ever read any history? Do you really think Ireland was comely maidens dancing at the crossroads before perfidious Albion stuck it's nose in?

My statement said - " 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. ". As obviously you do not understand the meaning of the word if, I will supply the definiton of it -
Definition of if - in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/if

Never said or implied - Ireland was comely maidens dancing at the crossroads before perfidious Albion stuck it's nose in?. Just asked him to back up his accusations that's all.

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Conspiracy also called the barbarian conspiracy by the romans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick for an example of the wide spread activity of raiding western britain for slaves etc.

Even if you don't trust wikipedia this is fairly wide spread knowledge

The viking longphorts in ireland which have now become most of the major cities and larger towns were originally bases for raiding coastal and inland areas especially monasteries, both on the british and irish coast. You may say that these people aren't irish, but genetically this was untrue as this paper sugests, they are an inseperable part of modern irish genetics:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n12/full/5201709a.html

I'm not excusing anything that happend later, in fact raiding was pretty much the done thing by prechristian cultures (not that becoming christians stopped slavery). I just want to illustrate that things are not as black and white as they seem.

Even the first organised invasions of ireland from britain by the so called 'saxanach', where of a force primarly composed of and definently commanded by races other then anglo saxons (flemish, welsh and french speaking normano-french) with soem exceptions probably. The english were a much loathed underclass in britain at the time, barred from the upper echelons. Thus the first land owners where primarly of french and low-land origin.

Firstly this is getting WAY off the theme of the orginal post - Are english aristocratic landlords still here? - but since our friend introduced a complete red herring into the discussion, bring in alleged events which were supposed to have happened 1,500 years ago to try and deny the ethnic cleansing and gross abuses that gave rise to the english aristocratic landlords -" they took advantage of a unfair system as opposed to 'massacre and genocide' " as he states.

But anyway thank you for trying to supply the links to back up your arguement, but they don't confirm in the slightest your statements about " then why not make reparations for the irish raids into western britain (taking slaves and valuables and murdering many innocents.......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.". On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Conspiracy link the only reference to Ireland - " In the winter of 367, the Roman garrison on Hadrian's Wall rebelled, and allowed Picts from Caledonia to enter Britannia. Simultaneously, Scotti and Attacotti from Hibernia, and Saxons from Germania, landed in (coordinated and pre-arranged) waves on the island's mid-western and south-eastern borders, respectively. Franks and Saxons also landed in northern Gaul. "

So it was the entire tracts of Roman Occupied Britain that the Irish Celts engaged in with their fellow celts form Scotland and nothern England in retaking from those lovely humanitarians, the Romans. But he describes it as " a completly unprovoked attack from ireland in an alliance with other ironage nations.". Unprovoked attack - obvious complete and total nonsense buddy.And if the Celts of that age were a bit 'rough' in retaliation, I myself think it would be have been very understandable considering the cruelty of the Romans for mass slaughter, cruxifiction, torture etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick Every Irish schoolboy or girl knows the story of poor old St Patrick and nasty Niall of the Nine Hostages etc. But I'm sure, giving the practices and methods of the Celts of those days, I'm sure it was not just a one way process from Ireland, but raids coming from the other side of the Irish Sea were also as common.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v.../5201709a.html - "The correspondence of Scandinavian patrilineal ancestry in a cohort of Irish men bearing surnames of putative Norse origin was examined using both slow mutating unique event polymorphisms and relatively rapidly changing short tandem repeat Y-chromosome markers.." Absoulute bollox, stop grasping at obscure straws buddy.

You've posted a complete load of sh!te so far, absoulute sh!te, introducing a complete red herring about alleged events which were supposed to have happened 1,500 years ago and very tentative and dubious links to back it up. Enough of this red herring about supposed events 1,500 years ago that have nothing to do with the thread - Are english aristocratic landlords still here?

dresden8

Sorry to have stepped on your cloak of victimhood slab.

Carry on.

Kaiser_Sma

So it was the entire tracts of Roman Occupied Britain that the Irish Celts engaged in with their fellow celts form Scotland and nothern England in retaking from those lovely humanitarians, the Romans. But he describes it as " a completly unprovoked attack from ireland in an alliance with other ironage nations.". Unprovoked attack - obvious complete and total nonsense buddy.And if the Celts of that age were a bit 'rough' in retaliation, I myself think it would be have been very understandable considering the cruelty of the Romans for mass slaughter, cruxifiction, torture etc

"The entire western and northern areas of Britannia were overwhelmed, the cities sacked and the civilian Romano-British murdered, raped, or enslaved."
"the aims of the rebels were simply personal enrichment"

i don't think you were reading that article correctly, it had nothing to do with a liberation or retaliation, it was a mass raid of oppertunity. In order to deal with worsenign conflicts on continent, the roman garrison was far reduced in britain. Also there were never any roman attacks into ireland and there was no real intention of doing it in the future.
By this time roman britain had been in the empire for several centuries and was rather aclimatised. Most of the garrison that the mauraders fought, were probably not from italy.

My original sources weren't from wikipedia, i was jsut looking for quick online sources to cooberate what i said. If you want to learn more try reading books like 'the tribes of britain' by David Miles. It's a good background book from an archaelogists perspective and easy to read.

I'm not saying that this counteracts anyother event in history, i'm just saying that it's not as black and white as you may think. You throw around words like 'massacre and genocide' like they are confetti, without explaining why you think all the english landowners were direct contributers. I think my statement that the majority (some probably not conciously) took advantage of a compeltly unfair and biased system based on religeous or national preference was apt enough, if even a little generalised.

But back to the original topic, all the irish peerage titles are no longer recognised in the UK or here (although some false ones are still sold illigitimatly) there decendents remain, sometimes with family houses or estates (i know one or two).

SlabMurphy

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

"The entire western and northern areas of Britannia were overwhelmed, the cities sacked and the civilian Romano-British murdered, raped, or enslaved."
"the aims of the rebels were simply personal enrichment"

i don't think you were reading that article correctly, it had nothing to do with a liberation or retaliation, it was a mass raid of oppertunity. In order to deal with worsenign conflicts on continent, the roman garrison was far reduced in britain. Also there were never any roman attacks into ireland and there was no real intention of doing it in the future.
By this time roman britain had been in the empire for several centuries and was rather aclimatised. Most of the garrison that the mauraders fought, were probably not from italy.

My original sources weren't from wikipedia, i was jsut looking for quick online sources to cooberate what i said. If you want to learn more try reading books like 'the tribes of britain' by David Miles. It's a good background book from an archaelogists perspective and easy to read.

I'm not saying that this counteracts anyother event in history, i'm just saying that it's not as black and white as you may think. You throw around words like 'massacre and genocide' like they are confetti, without explaining why you think all the english landowners were direct contributers. I think my statement that the majority (some probably not conciously) took advantage of a compeltly unfair and biased system based on religeous or national preference was apt enough, if even a little generalised.

But back to the original topic, all the irish peerage titles are no longer recognised in the UK or here (although some false ones are still sold illigitimatly) there decendents remain, sometimes with family houses or estates (i know one or two).

Don't bother me, just stay with the flat earth society or whatever.

Kaiser_Sma

Wah?
Look i can't stress enough how appaling i think this system was, and i am talking about the last 100 years or so of british rule, i don't believe in aristocracy and i have no doubht that some were guilty of crimes against humanity and by involving themselves alone in such an environment of prejudace. The prime mover infact for events like the great famine. But the defiintion of genocide is deliberate and systematic destruction of another race, where as the economic and religeous prejudace of irish catholics was institutionalized bigotry.

kreuzberger

Under the terms of the British imposed treaty of 1922 the southern administration had to pay war re-parations to Britian , therefore the notion that any British lords would lose their property rights is indeed a fanciful one . Similarly the south had to also promise to maintain the employment and pension rights of all those who worked for the British regime . The British treaty most definitely did not seek to dispossess the British landlord class or hand out their properties to the Irish , only to cement British influence in Ireland as far as it could under the circumstances . People seem to be fo the opinion the rebel side won or something and this was reflected in the treaty . However the winning side do not pay reparations to a colonial power in apology for attempting to have a national democracy .
Lord Oriel still owns the ground titles to large tracts of property in Dundlak as far as Im aware . There are a few other such parasites still in possession of their estates as far as Im aware also . However many of them went on to sell their original rights over the decades to other fellow capitalists. At no stage though where they ever dispossessed of what theyd stolen from the Irish nation .

kreuzberger

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Wah?
Look i can't stress enough how appaling i think this system was, and i am talking about the last 100 years or so of british rule, i don't believe in aristocracy and i have no doubht that some were guilty of crimes against humanity and by involving themselves alone in such an environment of prejudace. The prime mover infact for events like the great famine. But the defiintion of genocide is deliberate and systematic destruction of another race, where as the economic and religeous prejudace of irish catholics was institutionalized bigotry.

you are most definitely wrong .
The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, firstly from the Greek root génos (γένος) (family, tribe or race - gene); secondly from Latin -cide (occido—to massacre, kill).

Defining genocide in 1943, Lemkin wrote:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[5]

British laws , British practice and the historical British ethos in Ireland has most surely been directed towards this end . Irish trade , Irish manufacturing , religion , property ownership , education , legal systms , language , cultural expression , sporting events , political parties all came under co-ordinated policies of attack for centuries , all were outlawed. All of this was accompanied by successive waves of aggressive military campaigns directed against the Irish nation . That this resulted in mass deaths in a holocaust you refer to as a famine ( there was no food shortage , the country was exporting an abundance of food when those mass deaths occured) should be of no surprise to anyone . Genocidal policies resulted in the creation of a potato culture , mass poverty , illiteracy , social backwardness instead of social progress and national dispossession . Genocidal policies resulted in a holocaust .
It would be of no surpise anywhere else in the world if such genocidal policies resulted in the mass deaths and floods of refugees which occured in Ireland .Excuses haveto be found , the truth cannot be admitted tio because calling what happened for what it was then entails taking a political position you do not want to take . Therefore its easier to take reuuge in being nice instead of being truthful . Political sensibilities and political correctness however demand that British sensitivities in this regard take precedence , and that Irish people call mass deaths in a country brimming with food a famine and a natural disaster . Thats like saying 6 million jews died because of a lack of oxygen .

Kaiser_Sma

Well thats rather semantic, you could say though that the intention was to eliminate or reduce irish culture and national identity. Often these were instituted as severe punishments for various rebellions alliegences and spurned by the contempt amidst the anglican and presbitarian elite for irish catholics. Though some people may have wanted irish catholics to be wiped off the face of the earth, and there is no doubht that it was british policy in ireland that caused the famine, it was not an intentional event. The reasons for exporting masses amount of food, limitning irish diets and owner ship was not to make them more suceptable to the famine, but selfishly economic and predjudaced. Certainly evil protastants never sprinkled the spores of the blight onto irish crops. If the intent was to eliminate the irish then why bother trying in vain to feed and employ them after the famine was in effect?
You like to compare it to the holocaust enacted on the jews, but the german government had clear intents and horribly grand designs, they certainly never tried to draw out their elimination with food aid, soup kitchens and the like.
These policies weren't effective, especially later on, but that doesn't make it a genocide. There certianly were genocides in english history, not that long ago, in the scottish highlands for example. There are also examples of genocides by famine, such as the 'harrying of the north' after the norman invasions.
The british empire was a largely economic entitiy at the time, it was ideological as well but this was a secondary motivator. When they oppertunity comes to exploit a people, for a profit, it is taken, indeed ever since the 1600's parliment noted the value of irish and scots as soilders and their continued existance was important to them, however limited.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

Where would we be without imported British common sense such as the above?

History is full of ironies, and one of them is that in many cases the most miserable, sleveen, conniving, barefaced shameless exploitative bastards on the issue of land ownership and tenant rights have been people of impecable native Irish stock.

It is true that many people still pay ground rent to estates that own the land on which their property is situated. Many of these estates were and are named after and are still owned by aristocratic families whose ancestors popped over here in armour and swords about a thousand years ago. Many of these estates, however have been acquired by Irish property speculators who are no slouches when it comes to extracting maximum profit from their investment and to hell with the people who live there.

One example of a native Irish property speculator with a disdain for the people who live on or near his property is the very unaristocratic midlands accountant who claims to own Dartmouth Square in Dublin. He is also an avid ground rent speculator, buying up ground rents and then sending letters to leaseholders suggesting that they buy him out for an exorbitant sum.

My understanding is that legislation was passed years ago giving leaseholders the right to buy out the ground rent from the estates that own it. I don't know if there were any price controls at the time. My parents bought out the ground rent on the house we grew up in in central Dublin. I can't imagine the Pembroke Estate charged them anything like what this other guy is trying to charge his unfortunate tenants.

So don't worry about aristocrats who go to the Ascot races in ridiculous hats screwing you over for your land rights. It's the native variety you need to be most careful about.

Victor

Snickers Man wrote: »

My understanding is that legislation was passed years ago giving leaseholders the right to buy out the ground rent from the estates that own it. I don't know if there were any price controls at the time. My parents bought out the ground rent on the house we grew up in in central Dublin.

You can buy out a lease for a multiple of something like 20 times the annual rent. If the lease has expired, buying it out might cost about one sixth of the open market value of the property (including buildings).

I can't imagine the Pembroke Estate charged them anything like what this other guy is trying to charge his unfortunate tenants.

Pembroke and others appear to be making their money from commercial development, not ground rents.

kreuzberger

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Well thats rather semantic,

Its not semantic , its the textbook definition . Id be of the opinion its yourself being semantic by pointing out there no gas chambers .

you could say though that the intention was to eliminate or reduce irish culture and national identity.

by means of attacking the foundations of everyday Irish life including language ,commerce , religion ,removing their legal rights , removing their rights to ownership of pretty much anything , the populations ability to sustain itself , educate itself or make any decisions for itself ,making the national populations ability to physically survive wholly dependent upon the British nations good will . Those are genocidal policies . Witholding that goodwill when the artificially created potato culture finds itself with no potatos in full knowlege of what that means to the population is a genocidal policy . Engaging in mass eviction from the nation is a genocidal policy .

Often these were instituted as severe punishments for various rebellions alliegences and spurned by the contempt amidst the anglican and presbitarian elite for irish catholics. Though some people may have wanted irish catholics to be wiped off the face of the earth, and there is no doubht that it was british policy in ireland that caused the famine, it was not an intentional event. The reasons for exporting masses amount of food, limitning irish diets and owner ship was not to make them more suceptable to the famine, but selfishly economic and predjudaced.

I repeat again there was no famine in Ireland . there is also ample evidence that the failure of the potato crop was seized upon by those in charge as a means of drastically reducing the national population and that they took full advantage of it . Even people who paid their rents were evicted from their properties in large numbers . Attempts by many other landlords landlords and local committees to improve the economic and food producing capacity of different areas were also outlawed at the highest authoority .

Certainly evil protastants never sprinkled the spores of the blight onto irish crops. If the intent was to eliminate the irish then why bother trying in vain to feed and employ them after the famine was in effect?

the workhouses were simply death houses , and even these were closed at the height of starvation . The only work people were given was absolutely pointless work , nothing that was of any actual benefit to anyone . Employment schemes that could have built harbours , drainage schemes etc were all proposed but banned and people put to work digging roads to nowhere while simultanously not being given sufficient food to even carry out manula labour . In other words they were deliberately worked to death as policy and deliberately prevented from doing anything to combat the holocaust that befell them .

You like to compare it to the holocaust enacted on the jews, but the german government had clear intents and horribly grand designs, they certainly never tried to draw out their elimination with food aid, soup kitchens and the like.

really ? your seriously claiming no food was provided to residents of concentration camps and ghettos despite some people surviving 9 years in them ? And as I pointed out before at the height of the starvation the work houses were closed and no food was provided to anyone .

These policies weren't effective, especially later on, but that doesn't make it a genocide. There certianly were genocides in english history, not that long ago, in the scottish highlands for example. There are also examples of genocides by famine, such as the 'harrying of the north' after the norman invasions.
The british empire was a largely economic entitiy at the time, it was ideological as well but this was a secondary motivator. When they oppertunity comes to exploit a people, for a profit, it is taken, indeed ever since the 1600's parliment noted the value of irish and scots as soilders and their continued existance was important to them, however limited

systematically removing people ( including those who had paid rents) and food from the land in massive quantities very deliberately is a genocidal policy , as were the policies which systematically reduced an entire nation of people to pauper status . During previous potato blights the administration stepped in to ensure food was subsidised and prevented export . The knowlege that mass starvation would occur was there and plicy implemented t let that take full effect . The evidence is there is that the destuction of the people is what was intended by the reaction of the British admisnistration to the potato blight , in fact they themselves described it as a policy of deliberate extermination , as well as the evidence being there that following the destruction of the nation those responsible for policy were very happy with the results .

Victor

kreuzberger wrote: »

Employment schemes that could have built harbours , drainage schemes etc were all proposed but banned and people put to work digging roads to nowhere

So how did the railways get built?

By whom and by what act were such schemes banned?

Snickers Man

Victor wrote: »

You can buy out a lease for a multiple of something like 20 times the annual rent. If the lease has expired, buying it out might cost about one sixth of the open market value of the property (including buildings).

Hmm. In the case linked to, that would make the buyout value €150, but the leaseholder's valuer claims it should be €2k while the speculator's valuer says it should be €100k!!!

I reckon 2k is a fair price. I also love the last line of the report which says that the case was adjourned to allow the speculator's valuer to "acquaint himself properly with the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act."

Victor wrote:

Pembroke and others appear to be making their money from commercial development, not ground rents.

That's probably true now. My folks bought out their ground rent back in the sixties.

MysticalSoul

Trinity, as far as I know is still owned by the English, yet we charge the English to come to see the Book of Kells . Also, The National Museum (Collins Barracks), I heard recently our ground rent for that is £1 (Stg) per annum.

kreuzberger

Victor wrote: »

So how did the railways get built?

By whom and by what act were such schemes banned?

During the era of the starvation there were approxiamtely 160 miles of railway in Ireland as a total compared to 6,620 miles in Britian . Prominent Irish figures such as Henry Drummond led a delegation to The Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel to call for infrastructure projects such as railways , drainage , harbours and fisheries to be undertaken in order to allow wages to be paid , food production to be increased and for food to be transported to areas it was needed most . All the delegations requests were turned down by governemnt .
In 1847 another proposal by Lord George Bentinck in Parliament, for a railroad building act in Ireland funded by the British Treasury was also dismissed by the administration .
Commencement of railway infrastructure projects did not begin again until some years after the starvation was over and millions had disappeared from the country.

Drummonds committee had recommended the following

that the governemnt stop the export of corn and the distilling of grain into spirits;

2) remove duties on food imports;
3) public works concentrating on rail and harbor (fishing) infrastructure and drainage projects;
4) relief committees funded in part by a 10 percent tax on landlords (20-50 percent on absentees); and 5) in part by a £1.5 million 10-year British loan on the security of Irish hardwood forests.

All but the second proposal were ignored by the Peel administration which Peel used as a pretext to push for repeal of the British Corn Laws making import of Irish corn into Britain much easier , which allowed the British administration to remove even more of the countrys food supply at a much faster rate .
Some wealthy Irish landowners who were appaled at the starvation made further attempts to have drainage projects undertaken . Sir Henry Russell and Head of the Treasury John Trevelyan vetoed the projects by introducing a further Public works rule which stated "Any public works done shall not be of a nature to benefit any individuals in any greater degree than all of the rest of the community."

They then used this rule to prevent drainage projects , the only way the food supply could be increased , on the ridiculous grounds that those who lived closest to the improved farmland would benefit more than those who lived further away . And their intent could also be found in Trevelyans letter to Colonel Routh in June 1846 in which he was already demanding that all public relief attempts be brought to an immediate stop even as the evidence of the onset of the second crop failure became clear .

"The only way to prevent these people from becoming habitually dependent on government, is to bring operations to a close. The uncertainty about the new crop [there were already signs of a second year of potato blight] only makes it more necessary.... These things should be stopped now, or you run the risk of paralyzing all private enterprise and having this country on you for an indefinite number of years."

For the entire year of 1846 the total expenditure in Ireland on rail , drainage , water powered mills , harbours and fisheries amounted to £5000 for the entire country . In other words none were carried out . And governemnt and legal intervention ensured none were carried out whilst governemnt intervention also ensured the export of food from Ireland to Britian became much easier .
Another attempt to relieve starvation was made by the Irish board of public works which was known as Circular 38 . This was yet another sensible proposal urged by some large farmers which allowed "family task work" to be paid for by those on small plots of land while simultanously having them assist in much needed drainage projects . In January 1847 the British governemnt intervened and smashed Circular 38 at the height of starvation in the winter of early 1847 . In February 1847 Trevelyan explained

It is hard upon the poor people to be deprived of knowing that they are suffering from an affliction of God's Providence."

A few months later he ordered the eviction of the elderly and infirm from the workhouses and then brought the workhouses to a close completely .

He later congratulated himself on his accomplishments and was indeed officially honoured for them during Queen Victorias gala visit to the by then suitably cleansed colony .

kreuzberger

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Well thats rather semantic, you could say though that the intention was to eliminate or reduce irish culture and national identity. Often these were instituted as severe punishments for various rebellions alliegences and spurned by the contempt amidst the anglican and presbitarian elite for irish catholics.

OK so , you admit the ruling elite hated the Irish . You admit the ruling elite introduced laws to eliminate the practice and existence of national life and the human rights of the Irish people . And like Hitler who wanted to punish the jews and the communists for the home front rebellion during world war one you claim it was done out of both bigotry and revenge . Jews and communists were reduced to slaves before hand just as Irish people were reduced to slaves . British historian Arthur Young was among many who remarked on their vistis to Ireland that tenant farmers were in effect slaves
"A landlord in Ireland can scarcely invent an order which a laborer, servant, or cottier dares to refuse .... He may punish with his cane or his horsewhip with the most perfect security. A poor man would have his bones broken if he offered to lift a hand in his own defense."

This was your legal status under British policy , a genocidal policy

We have now established both motive and methodology

Though some people may have wanted irish catholics to be wiped off the face of the earth, and there is no doubht that it was british policy in ireland that caused the famine, it was not an intentional event.

there was no famine in Ireland , there was no shortage of food being produced and exported , please stop referring to something that simply did not exist . And as Lord Clarendon who in 1847 became the sole voice of protest left at the closure of all relief efforts on governemnt instruction in the summer of 1847 stated "What is to be done with these hordes? Improve them off the face of the earth, you will say, let them die. But there is a certain responsibility attaching to it...."I don't think there is another legislature in Europe [other than the British] that would coldly persist in this policy of extermination."
At the highest level of the British aministration the intent of British policy was clear . It was a policy of extermination . They wanted the population reduced drastically .As Nassau Senior pointed out he feared the artifically induced starvation brought on by British policy would not kill more than a million people, which would scarcely be enough to eliminate the mass unemployment in a country of 3 million unemployed . Attempts to find employment for these people were deliberatly stopped , attempts to grow food to feed them were deliberately stopped , attempts to boost the infrastructure of the country to supply both food and employment were deliberately stopped . All attempts to provide relief were deliberately stopped by policy at the height of the starvation .They were unemployed and illiterate in the first place as a result of British policy deliberately destroying their national life .

The reasons for exporting masses amount of food, limitning irish diets and owner ship was not to make them more suceptable to the famine, but selfishly economic and predjudaced.

People were not made susceptible to a famine because there was no famine to be susceptible to in the first place . Just as the support for nazism by its funders like Krupp , IG Farben , Wall street etc was not done out of prejudice alone but predominantly for economic greed . The nazis dispossesed jews of their possessions out of greed . They created slave labour camps out of greed , selfishly economic and prejudiced reasons . Industrialists and financiers supported the enslavement of large sectors of the German population and others out of greed . They supported the internment , jailing and killing of trade unionists and left wingers out of greed . They supported the well ordered socities which nazism promised out of greed as there would be nothing to interfere with their persuit of profit .

British policy in Ireland very delibertaely left Irish people with 3 choices

starve to death on their farms whilst handing over their food to pay their rent

report to the workhouse to be simultanously worked and starved to death like the inmates of Auschwitz

Get out of the country by a taking a chance on an ocean journey with a 50% survival rate , accompanied by a stone age life expectancy for you and your family when you arrived on foreign shores in disease and starvation ridden refugee camps .

Your claim that it was just an accident that British polciy left people with these choices is ridiculous . That was the intent of the policies .

Certainly evil protastants never sprinkled the spores of the blight onto irish crops. If the intent was to eliminate the irish then why bother trying in vain to feed and employ them after the famine was in effect ?

why bother indeed ? Can you point out to us instances of the British adminsitration stepping in to do this ? All their intervention was directed towards preventing either feeding or employment to take place , at preventing much needed infrastructure projects and alleviation of mass starvation . At preventing social progress in order to ensure mass starvation happened . They stepped in to prevent every real attempt to alleviate starvation

You like to compare it to the holocaust enacted on the jews, but the german government had clear intents and horribly grand designs, they certainly never tried to draw out their elimination with food aid, soup kitchens and the like.

neither did the British governemnt . They even turned ships carrying food away . They offered soup kitchens in 1847 as a pretext for having the economically useless old and infirm ejected from the workhouses , only to close them down within a few months at the very height of the holocaust . Even at that a bowl of soup is not going to sustain you while you are breaking stones all day building roads to nowhere in a country with plenty of roads . You will very simply and very predictably be worked to death and that is very definitely what happened . This country is full of the mass graves from the workhouses
What little food aid there was was in the form of Indian corn which was bought from abraod and kept in governemnt storage . As food supplies dried up they released it to be sold on the market , not handed out to people for free . If youd already sold your belongings to survive that was tough . This was discontinued anyway by 1846 .
And the nazi governemnts grand aims and designs did not become clear untill after their defeat - people were told jews were being relocated to other parts of europe and resettled .Propaganda films were made showing the alleged resettlements . Of course though youll argue that people must have known , while simultaneously arguing that British policy makers did not know their policies would have such an effect . Or that people were blind to the fact British policywas creating a holocaust in Ireland .
The Wannsee conference did not take place until 1942 and even that was closely guarded secret only known to a handful which would not have been known to anyone had not the documents of a defeated Germany been discovered .

These policies weren't effective, especially later on, but that doesn't make it a genocide. There certianly were genocides in english history, not that long ago, in the scottish highlands for example. There are also examples of genocides by famine, such as the 'harrying of the north' after the norman invasions.

what policies ? there was no food aid to speak of and soup kitchens lasted only a few months . The soup was only given to people they were simultaneously working to death in governemnt workhouses . Your argument is akin to claiming because inmates of auschwitz were given food rations the germans obviously hadnt planned to kill them.

The british empire was a largely economic entitiy at the time, it was ideological as well but this was a secondary motivator. When they oppertunity comes to exploit a people, for a profit, it is taken, indeed ever since the 1600's parliment noted the value of irish and scots as soilders and their continued existance was important to them, however limited.[

the Third reich was intended to be an economic and cultural empire just like the British . It didnt get off the ground so we are left with its ideological legacy as opposed to its cultural and economic. The nazis also employed soldiers from territories thay had conquered and intended colonising also . They even praised muslims in particular and gave them their own SS division in the Balkans . In short so what ?
Profit is as good a motive to kill someone as ideology , even moreso . The fact is the Irish population was a threat to British profits , a large portion of that population openly regarded as surplus to requirements . That large portion of the population was removed by mass starvation brought about by deliberate policy decisions in a country full to the brim of food .

ryangibney123

europerson wrote: »

Is this a troll?

Many foreign people own land in Ireland. Some happen to be English. Some of those happen to be aristocrats. So what?

Lambay is Irish land owned the same way as land owned by anyone else.

this might not seem like a big deal to people who are not irish but when our people fought over the centuries for freedom and all the irish people who lost their lives and to find out that we dont have freedom if we still rent probly the most historic building in our city center just sickens me and i think that if the irish government was any use they should fight to get our history back ... so the next time u want to say something like so what just think before you type :rolleyes: