Anglo- Irish

rbrbrb

Anatomy Boy wrote: »

religion was not an indicator of wealth.

You just pulled that out of your arse. You could be almost certain in the 1800's and earlier that if a person was Catholic they were poor.

McArmalite

rbrbrb wrote: »

You just pulled that out of your arse. You could be almost certain in the 1800's and earlier that if a person was Catholic they were poor.

Agreed. What the hell did A Boy think the Penal Laws, no RC's need apply etc were for ?

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If by Anglo -Irish the OP means the "Ruling Class" then you could ask the same of the UK. Where has the ruling class gone?

Factories are no longer owned by rich industrialists, the boardroom is no longer the exclusive realm of Lords and the landed gentry. The social revolution has meant that the "Ruling Class" is no longer a ruling class anywhere.

The fact that the gradual disappearance of this ruling class has coincided with a reduction with the number of "Protestants" in Ireland is probably no more than coincidence at most.

" you could ask the same of the UK. Where has the ruling class gone ? " It's super rich Arabs in Knightsbridge

TedB

rbrbrb wrote: »

You just pulled that out of your arse. You could be almost certain in the 1800's and earlier that if a person was Catholic they were poor.

Not necessarily so. There was a Catholic 'aristocracy'. Daniel o'Connel owes much of his success down to a rich Catholic Uncle who funded his education. Never mind his great estate in Kerry.

There were Catholic landowners and from the late 18th century onwards, Catholic professionals. There were restrictions on what they could own but what you say is a blatant falsehood. Unfortunately, too much of the discussions on this forum rely on half baked generalisations and assumptions. Which is the main reason why I don't post here too often. The other reason is the disproportionate number of extreme Republicans on these boards, such as our good friend McArmalite.

Exile 1798

TedB wrote: »

Unfortunately, too much of the discussions on this forum rely on half baked generalisations and assumptions. Which is the main reason why I don't post here too often. The other reason is the disproportionate number of extreme Republicans on these boards, such as our good friend McArmalite.

Yes, because your posts are such a fine example of truth, without generalisation or political spin...

TedB wrote: »

Around a quarter of their number fled in terror following the Civil War when met with IRA barbarity (Burning down their homes, general terrorist tactics) The remaining dwindled down into tiny numbers during the Catholic theocracy.

A surprising number can be found in certain parts of Dublin, but by and large they died out when the priests and philistines came to power.

Keep in mind that this was your first response in the thread - what kind of tone do you expect to set for any debate with bitter, scornful, hate filled nonsense like that?

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

" you could ask the same of the UK. Where has the ruling class gone ? " It's super rich Arabs in Knightsbridge

And Russians, Indians and Albanian mafia I believe.

TedB

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Yes, because your posts are such a fine example of truth, without generalisation or political spin...



Keep in mind that this was your first response in the thread - what kind of tone do you expect to set for any debate with bitter, scornful, hate filled nonsense like that?

I like to be bombastic and make no excuse for it. I should think it is better to be bombastic and intellectually honest, than neutral and intellectually dead.

Fratton Fred

rbrbrb wrote: »

You just pulled that out of your arse. You could be almost certain in the 1800's and earlier that if a person was Catholic they were poor.

The same would also apply to France, Spain and Portugal. In England on the other hand, if someone was poor you could be almost certain they were a protestant.

CDfm

Lots of them emigrated for many of the same reasons that Catholics did. Ireland was fairly dirt poor.

I was friendly with a few of families growing up and in my teens. In the aftermath of both world wars there was a demand for a professional middle class inn England - for example - the family I know were a Dentist and Chemist.

So there was a level of economic migration.

The forces and civil service also will have returned home and you will have had natural wastage of those that retired here and whose families hadnt.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The same would also apply to France, Spain and Portugal. In England on the other hand, if someone was poor you could be almost certain they were a protestant.

The significant difference was that in Ireland the poor did not share the same religion or national origin [with a few exceptions] as the wealthy class whereas in those countries you mention, they did. It was this difference in ethnic and religious background that produced an "alien" aristocracy and caused friction and resentment in Ireland.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

The significant difference was that in Ireland the poor did not share the same religion or national origin [with a few exceptions] as the wealthy class whereas in those countries you mention, they did. It was this difference in ethnic and religious background that produced an "alien" aristocracy and caused friction and resentment in Ireland.

Their educational and career interests would also make emigration to the UK easier.I think this movement preceeded independence with the formation of a catholic middle class being another factor.

freedom of info

me_right_one wrote: »

They all began talking with accents like those off "Friends" and joined Fine Gael

did you ever hear of erkine childers, or even martin mansergh

i was brought up in a church of ireland family, i have been an atheist now for 20 years plus, i speak with a strong dublin accent, and guess what i am a member of fine gael, nothing whatsoever to do with religion,

do us all a favor, get over yourself

CDfm

freedom of info wrote: »

do us all a favor, get over yourself

Thats Beyond the Pale

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

The significant difference was that in Ireland the poor did not share the same religion or national origin [with a few exceptions] as the wealthy class whereas in those countries you mention, they did. It was this difference in ethnic and religious background that produced an "alien" aristocracy and caused friction and resentment in Ireland.

Interesting article by L.Perry Jr.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKX/is_3-4_38/ai_111265621/pg_3/?tag=artBody;col1

.....During the 1870s roughly 6,500 men and women owned estates of 500 acres or more. Most of the 4,000 owners with properties valued at 500 [pounds sterling] or more were of course descendants of the old Anglo-Irish Ascendancy, but they considered themselves Irish; and so we will use that label without prejudice. Even to generalize about the 337 estates valued at more than 5,000 [pounds sterling] runs the risk of distortion because there are so many exceptions to any rule. (7) According to a government survey of 1872, roughly 71 percent of these landlords lived on their estates or elsewhere in Ireland. While the richest owners were mostly Anglicans, some 43 percent of all proprietors were Roman Catholics, 48 percent belonged to the Church of Ireland, and 7 percent were Presbyterians......

Morlar

TedB wrote: »

I like to be bombastic and make no excuse for it. I should think it is better to be bombastic and intellectually honest, than neutral and intellectually dead.

Slinging insults around the place does not equal 'bombastic'.

Also the choice people have is not between slinging insults or being 'intellectually dishonest'.

TedB

Morlar wrote: »

Slinging insults around the place does not equal 'bombastic'.

Also the choice people have is not between slinging insults or being 'intellectually dishonest'.

Personally I think its better to sling insults than engage in a pointless quoting war where no new points or information is brought forward. As I said, talking to vegetables would be more fun.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Interesting article by L.Perry Jr.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKX/is_3-4_38/ai_111265621/pg_3/?tag=artBody;col1

That article may shed some light on the breakdown of landlords,though the information is not very specific. For example of the 43 pc who were catholics how did their estates compare in terms of size or worth to those who were not ? The article sheds no light on the breakdown of the poor, the majority of landlords were not catholic and likewise the majority of poor were. I think that would be one source of the friction that was being referred to.

Morlar

TedB wrote: »

Personally I think its better to sling insults than engage in a pointless quoting war where no new points or information is brought forward. As I said, talking to vegetables would be more fun.

Personally I think if someone resorts to insults rather than responses that speaks volumes about them.

Fratton Fred

Morlar wrote: »

That article may shed some light on the breakdown of landlords,though the information is not very specific. For example of the 43 pc who were catholics how did their estates compare in terms of size or worth to those who were not ? The article sheds no light on the breakdown of the poor, the majority of landlords were not catholic and likewise the majority of poor were. I think that would be one source of the friction that was being referred to.

TBH, I quoted that article to demonstrate that being Catholic did not equal being poor. There were plenty of Catholics around that were doing very nicely.

Was the fact that tha majority of Landlords were not catholic cause the friction, or was it the excuse used for a straight forward class struggle? I was thinking of the Guinness and Protestants thread where a few posters stated that Arthur Guinness called his brew "Guinness' Protestant Porter" as if this was an indication of the Guinness protestantness, when in reality, it was a nickname given to the beer by Wolfe Tone to discredit Guinness.

Creating a distinction between Catholics and Protestants helped those seeking social change every bit as much as it did those trying to keep the status quo. I would argue that it also helped the catholic Church in Ireland as well, without this huge divide, would Ireland have become the devout Catholic country it did once Protestant rule was overturned?

Why else would the knives have come out so quickly for Parnell otherwise?

rbrbrb

TedB you're clearly trying to rewrite history. You cannot deny that the Catholic population of Ireland were treated as 2nd class citizens and kept in poverty due to the penal laws and other forms of discrimination. You can throw up a few examples of rich Catholics but they were clearly the exception to the rule and proportionaly they were insignificant.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was the fact that tha majority of Landlords were not catholic cause the friction, or was it the excuse used for a straight forward class struggle?

The phrase 'class struggle' is more of a modern one with all sorts of connotations which do not apply to Ireland of this timeframe. Later in the context of the Dublin lockouts etc but not the land war.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Creating a distinction between Catholics and Protestants helped those seeking social change every bit as much as it did those trying to keep the status quo.

I would argue that the 'distinction' was not just one of perception - it was a very real difference in the standard of living between the two and this actual difference was the primary motivation of those who were seeking the change. For example I do not have the data to hand but I would be interested to see what percentage of Protestants were tenants ? I can not say how the differences in standards of living would have helped those who sought to keep the status quo.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would argue that it also helped the catholic Church in Ireland as well, without this huge divide, would Ireland have become the devout Catholic country it did once Protestant rule was overturned?

Why else would the knives have come out so quickly for Parnell otherwise?

I wouldn't argue with that at all. I think the effect of all of the efforts down through the years to brutally suppress the catholic faith in Ireland did more to re-inforce it than anything else.

Fratton Fred

rbrbrb wrote: »

TedB you're clearly trying to rewrite history. You cannot deny that the Catholic population of Ireland were treated as 2nd class citizens and kept in poverty due to the penal laws and other forms of discrimination. You can throw up a few examples of rich Catholics but they were clearly the exception to the rule and proportionaly they were insignificant.

That is true, but a very simplistic way of putting it. When it came to the peasant classes, their religion didn't really matter, they only had very limited rights all across the UK. The Penal laws probably affected the wealthier Catholics more than it did peasants. I believe the Penal laws also affected presbytarians every bit as much as it did Catholics as well.

If the catholic church was so victimised, why did they openly support the government in the 1798 uprising?

Morlar wrote: »

The phrase 'class struggle' is more of a modern one with all sorts of connotations which do not apply to Ireland of this timeframe. Later in the context of the Dublin lockouts etc but not the land war.

I used Class Struggle for want of abetter term really. I suppose Land war is a better term.

Morlar wrote: »

I would argue that the 'distinction' was not just one of perception - it was a very real difference in the standard of living between the two and this actual difference was the primary motivation of those who were seeking the change. For example I do not have the data to hand but I would be interested to see what percentage of Protestants were tenants ? I can not say how the differences in standards of living would have helped those who sought to keep the status quo.

I wasn't trying to imply it was only perception, but that it was spun by the reformists for their own needs. In the rest of Britain where nationality or faith was less of an issue, there was a stronger trade Union movement campaigning for workers rights. it was workers against landlords whereas in Ireland it was irish Catholic peasants against the Protestant ruling class.

Morlar wrote: »

I wouldn't argue with that at all. I think the effect of all of the efforts down through the years to brutally suppress the catholic faith in Ireland did more to re-inforce it than anything else.

Which is not to dissimilar to how the Penal Laws came about in the first place. If the Holy See had minded it's own business the oppression of Catholics may never have happened.