Can someone explain the Irish peerage system to me?

dr gonzo

I understand how it works in the UK and i believe theres some legality issue under the constitution and yet theres still hereditary Irish peers.

Some are obviously British families and have always been, therefore i assume those are just British peer titles of Irish places, not a whole lot we can do about it if a British lord continues to style himself after an Irish place hes probably never seen but what about the Irish people with titles, like your man in Slane? Those i really dont get.

So can anyone help me navigate this quagmire? Is it illegal but tolerated? is it legal and still used? Has an Irish peer a right to style himself or herself as a lord or lady in Ireland? etc etc

Cheers.

Denerick

I think it is still recognised as a title in Britain - e.g., Lord Longford, who was a prominent British politician in the 90s. Tony Benn, who campaigned ferociously in the early 60s to have the right to refuse his title, was a leading light in the passing of the 1963 peerage act. According to wiki, since Ireland was not included in this bill which gave individuals the right to forsake their official hereditary title, Thomas Pakenham is formally known as the 8th Earl of Longford despite refusing to acknowledge it himself.

Pakenham is the author of two very good books on the Scramble for Africa and the 1798 rebellion. He is Lord Longford's son but as far as I know does not use the title. His family has some impecable connections in Britain (his sister is Antonia Fraser, an historian and novelist who was married to Harold Pinter). I believe he is now involved with a non profit organisation that promotes tree's. A suitable hobby for an aristocrat

delta_bravo

One thing I never understood was why we didn't abolish the ground rents of the peers after independence. I remember my parents saying they had to pay £100 to some Earl if they wanted to own the land "under" the house. It has happened before that people get letters from soliciitors in England looking for large sums of money in ground rents

dr gonzo

delta_bravo wrote: »

One thing I never understood was why we didn't abolish the ground rents of the peers after independence. I remember my parents saying they had to pay £100 to some Earl if they wanted to own the land "under" the house. It has happened before that people get letters from soliciitors in England looking for large sums of money in ground rents

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

I may have just hijacked my own thread. Back on topic.

testicle

dr gonzo wrote: »

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

I may have just hijacked my own thread. Back on topic.

CJ Haughey owned an island off the Kerry coast.

dr gonzo

testicle wrote: »

CJ Haughey owned an island off the Kerry coast.

Jebus, im learning all sorts of stuff tonight. Thats unreal.

brianthebard

Denerick wrote: »

I think it is still recognised as a title in Britain - e.g., Lord Longford, who was a prominent British politician in the 90s. Tony Benn, who campaigned ferociously in the early 60s to have the right to refuse his title, was a leading light in the passing of the 1963 peerage act. According to wiki, since Ireland was not included in this bill which gave individuals the right to forsake their official hereditary title, Thomas Pakenham is formally known as the 8th Earl of Longford despite refusing to acknowledge it himself.

Pakenham is the author of two very good books on the Scramble for Africa and the 1798 rebellion. He is Lord Longford's son but as far as I know does not use the title. His family has some impecable connections in Britain (his sister is Antonia Fraser, an historian and novelist who was married to Harold Pinter). I believe he is now involved with a non profit organisation that promotes tree's. A suitable hobby for an aristocrat

He has a book on the boer war too, he's quite good.

Simarillion

To understand the Irish peerage you need a brief breakdown of the entire peerage system
It is divided into 5 Peerages:
England
Scotland
Ireland
Great Britain (between the 1707 and 1801 Acts of Union)
United Kingdom (post-Act of Union 1801)

It gets even more confusing because you can hold titles within several peerages and that ranks you differently.

Most Irish titles are within the Irish peerage, and that entitled them to sit in the Irish House of Lords. This ended in 1801 when the Act of Union which abolished our parliaments and merged them with Westminster. We then had the right to have 32 peers sit in the House of Lords, the 4 major Anglican clergy of Ireland and 28 peers elected form amongst the Irish peerage.

To get the vote through the House, several (in reality not very many) Irish peers were raised to a higher peerage in the new Peerage of the United Kingdom giving them the automatic right to sit in Westminster.

Following the troubles during the '20s and independence, Irish peers who did not hold UK peerages lost their right to sit in Westminster, those holding UK titles could continue to sit until 1999.

The majority of Irish peers were Irish people from Irish families, there are several now whose families could be considered British, as they left during the Civil War for a variety of reasons, and have now grown up and live in the UK


As regards ground rents, they own the land that these houses were built on, it is the same as paying any sort of rent and is built into any contracts involved.
Lambay Island is owned by members of the Baring family of Barings Bank, and have owned it since 1904, quite a few of the larger islands, particularly around Cork are in private hands.

Legally the Irish government does not recognise the title of the Irish peerage, however titles are usually acknowledged out of respect.
It is usually a choice whether you make public knowledge of your title or not. Henry Mountcharles the owner of Slane Castle is the Marquess Conyngham
Thomas Pakenham is the Earl of Longford and famous author
Michael Morris is Baron Killanin and was president of the IOC
Redmond Morris son of above is a film producer and the present Lord Killanin

PatsytheNazi

delta_bravo wrote: »

One thing I never understood was why we didn't abolish the ground rents of the peers after independence. I remember my parents saying they had to pay £100 to some Earl if they wanted to own the land "under" the house. It has happened before that people get letters from soliciitors in England looking for large sums of money in ground rents

dr gonzo wrote: »

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

I may have just hijacked my own thread. Back on topic.

Hope the mod wouldn't think I'm trying to drag the subject off topic but I'm just providing a piece of info that might help. People had to pay ground rents to English landlords as it was part of the terms of the Treaty. From what I vaguely remember the ground rents were payable for 100 years from the passing of an act in Westminister in the late 18 century.

walrusgumble

dr gonzo wrote: »

Jebus, im learning all sorts of stuff tonight. Thats unreal.

Didn't John Lennon own an island off Mayo?, some hippy resort

Simply Red fella, he own's fishing rights in Donegal

booo. down with that sort of thing:p

tricky D

dr gonzo wrote: »

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

This has nothing to do with peerage. The purchase was a regular private transaction and was even advertised in The Field.

Archaeology is permitted on the island, but like any other private lands, permission is required (unless construction uncovers the site). The fact that there is so little public access, if anything, helps preserve the archaeology.

mathepac

There's a bunch of articles here (as well as an alphabetical index of reams of family names, etc). This is probably the best known and most widely recognised repository of peerage information, Irish, British, Scottish and UK.. http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/ireland/page93.aspx

Just to follow on on the entertainers listed above there was a rumour many years ago that Paul McCartney's ancestors were Irish peers whose immigration to Liverpool was triggered by their peerage being extinguished in Ireland, leaving them penniless.

CDfm

The Irish Peerage was linked to the Irish House of Lords and were feudal titles.

They are hereditary and do not confer any rights or priveledges in Ireland except snob value.

What Patsy said about groundrent was not strictly true. Land/property ownership can be held be freehold or leasehold.

Freehold means you own it outright whereas leasehold means you are a tenant.

Ground rent was payable on property where one person owned the building and another the ground it was built on-hense ground rent.

A property held subject to freehold is more valuable and there is a groundrent purchase scheme in place.Many housing developments up into the 70's were built this way.

A typical landlord in Dublin would be Dublin Corporation.

Property gets bought and sold all the time - nowdays people get mortgages.

InTheTrees

Wasn't it routine for the english to convert irish royalty into english nobility?

It doesnt mean those nobles suddenly became "english" does it? They werent even old english or normans, they were the old Irish kings.

CDfm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Wasn't it routine for the english to convert irish royalty into english nobility?

It doesnt mean those nobles suddenly became "english" does it? They werent even old english or normans, they were the old Irish kings.

That happened alright.

The system was called surrender and regrant - the Fitzgeralds of Kildare did this.

Surrender and Regrant

As Henry II had done before him, Henry VIII took a surrender of their lands from the Irish kings (by this time called "Taoiseach",- or "Chieftain" instead of "Rí",- or "king"), and re-granted their lands back to them as "Earls". The English laws of succession were subsequently supposed to apply; for example, the eldest son, as heir at law, succeeding to the title. This gave rise to internal clan conflicts as the successor chosen by the clan sometimes competed with the successor according to English law.
http://ocillin.com/Tenure/english.html

InTheTrees

CDfm wrote: »

That happened alright.

The system was called surrender and regrant - the Fitzgeralds of Kildare did this.

It was widespread. There was no way the english were going to tolerate an island of little kingdoms so they assimilated if they could.

Look at the Flight of the Earls, that wasnt a bunch of english aristocrats running off to france, they were Irish royalty.

CDfm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Look at the Flight of the Earls, that wasnt a bunch of english aristocrats running off to france, they were Irish royalty.

We do seem to romantisize them a bit but they did know how to look after themselves.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

We do seem to romantisize them a bit but they did know how to look after themselves.

On the other hand though they do come in for a lot of misunderstanding on exactly what happened.

After the Treaty of Mellifont the were left with little choice but to leave - or be servants of a monarchy they despised - and maybe try and re-group. Correspondence from Hugh O'Neill back to Ireland suggests that he was trying to organise an army to bring back into Ireland. Or at least this was his stated intention - but he died, possibly of malaria, before he could do this.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

On the other hand though they do come in for a lot of misunderstanding on exactly what happened.

What were they like as Lords and what were the lifestyles of the people in society like

After the Treaty of Mellifont the were left with little choice but to leave - or be servants of a monarchy they despised-

what was the content of the treaty and who took over. Family members ???????

and maybe try and re-group. Correspondence from Hugh O'Neill back to Ireland suggests that he was trying to organise an army to bring back into Ireland. Or at least this was his stated intention - but he died, possibly of malaria, before he could do this.

Was this a real aspiration and how did they fair abroad.

Did they prosper and where are their heirs.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

What were they like as Lords and what were the lifestyles of the people in society like
what was the content of the treaty and who took over. Family members ???????

Was this a real aspiration and how did they fair abroad.

Did they prosper and where are their heirs.

These are huge questions so let me try and shrink it down. Prior to the Battle of Kinsale the issue in Ulster – as it had been in the rest of Ireland – was the attempt to hold on to the “Gaelic’ way of life i.e traditional Irish titles, local chieftains, autonomous land ownership, Brehon laws. This aspiration saw itself in opposition to the English monarchy which sought a more feudal, lordship system with the monarch in total control and [significantly] taxes going directly to the crown. Ulster was the last holdout in this – and the defeat of the Ulster chieftains [aided by others from around the country, like The O’Sullivan] at the Battle of Kinsale essentially ended this. The Treaty of Mellifont which they were then obliged to sign spelled out the end of the Gaelic way of life, Hugh O’Neill and others were to surrender ‘Irish” titles like ‘The O’Neill’, ‘The O’Donnell’ and hold only the English title of Earl. The lands of their people were forfeited to the crown and they could no longer operate as lordships independent of the crown in the old Gaelic style.

Shortly after Tyrone and Tirconnell negotiated a secret deal with the Spanish and when this was revealed [the usual, spies] to the authorities in Dublin Castle it seems attempts were made to assassinate Tirconnell [Red Hugh’s successor Rory] – this was a claim made by Tirconnell himself who narrowly escaped being killed. Departure appeared to be the wise choice in order to avoid prison and possible death. They hoped to gather an army for invasion.

A propaganda war then ensued at the departure of the Earls in the hope of stifling support for them within Ireland with the English authorities putting around the word that they had ‘abandoned’ their people and had no justification for fleeing their native land. This was in response to the now fairly widespread belief that the Earls went to gather a foreign army to take back to Ireland and fight again. The English were always good – it must be said – at being able to tap into the Irish tendency to easily turn on each other, although in this case it does not appear to have succeeded as contemporary accounts show continued support for the return of the Earls. The Lord Deputy Mountjoy vandalised the O’Neill inauguration site at Tullaghoge. A proclamation went out from James I in Nov of 1607 denouncing in no uncertain terms the Earls and all who went with them and calling them traitors and even questioning their ‘lawful descent’ as true aristocracy. This was aimed at the continental courts and the papacy.

The Plantation of Ulster began shortly afterwards in 1609.

For a number of convoluted reasons – some of them the European politics of the time – a continental army never did aid them in their hope of a fresh invasion.

Owen Roe O’Neill [nephew of the Great Hugh] did return in 1641 for the rebellion of that year. By then he was a General in the Spanish Army. He had been about nine years old at the time of the departure of his family.

Yes, they have successors living today on the continent.

[I know – this is maybe a too long post. But you did ask!]

CDfm

ok -so what was life like in the Gaelic way of life if you were at the bottom of the pile.

There must have been a little more to life then playing hurling and hunting deer Cuchulain style or being a saint. Someone had to milk the cows.

Judgement Day

CDfm wrote: »

ok -so what was life like in the Gaelic way of life if you were at the bottom of the pile.

There must have been a little more to life then playing hurling and hunting deer Cuchulain style or being a saint. Someone had to milk the cows.

Now come on, no revisionism - you know the whole island was just one big happy commune before the wicked Brits Normans arrived.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

CDfm

On the basis that there were more peasants than everyone at the top and Silken Thomas was the only one with the Silken Hose.

Who was who in the hierarchy.

Was there any involvement support from the diaspora at the Battle of the Boyne , 1798 etc.

JuliusCaesar

Regardless of whether the titles originate from Irish royalty or British titles, we are now living in a Republic where citizens are supposedly equal. That's the reason that titles were abolished.

The reason they are still used is more to do with doffing the cap than respect. Lord Whatsit of Slane should certainly not be known by his title - he was born into a Republic.

ballsymchugh

dr gonzo wrote: »

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

I may have just hijacked my own thread. Back on topic.

what i think is a crying shame is that the taxpayer has to pay groundrent for out national parliament.

Cavehill Red

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Regardless of whether the titles originate from Irish royalty or British titles, we are now living in a Republic where citizens are supposedly equal. That's the reason that titles were abolished.

The reason they are still used is more to do with doffing the cap than respect. Lord Whatsit of Slane should certainly not be known by his title - he was born into a Republic.

He goes by Henry. Not his fault if others call him Lord mistakenly.

CDfm

ballsymchugh wrote: »

what i think is a crying shame is that the taxpayer has to pay groundrent for out national parliament.

If you think that the principle of private property ownership like home ownership , and landownership law is wrong or needs diluting then thats an argument.

When you change things like property ownership -they create precedents and consequences and the constitution is there to reign the politicians in.

So while you may disagree with heriditary rights you may open the door to attacking the rights of ordinary people to inherit or indeed people in council houses with parents acquiring a right to residence in it.

You cant just cherrypick the rules you want and who you want them to apply them to.

JuliusCaesar

CDfm wrote: »

You cant just cherrypick the rules you want and who you want them to apply them to.

But the law can be changed! (Can they not just buy it out?)

CDfm

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

But the law can be changed! (Can they not just buy it out?)

You can change the law - but for commercial premises that provide an annnual income who does that impact on. Say the income stream has been sold to a pension fund to provide income for pensioners, then , by changing the law on property you may affect the value of pensions.

So doing what you say can mean that John in Naas putting 100 euro into his pension fund every week can have the value of it affected.Its not just faceless people who are affected by it. It cant just be converted on the basis of who may have owned it pre 1922. Time has moved on.

So they would need to pay fair market value that would compensate the owners.

Life has moved on since then.

Report of an all party commitee on private property

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Ninth%20Progress%20Report%20Private%20Property.pdf

And by the way, who does the Dail pay groundrent to. ? I have looked it up and prior to its use as the Dail it was owned by the Royal Dublin Society who owned the Natural History Museum and National Gallery also.

I cant find any reference to it and as far as I can see the proprty was bought outright by the state in the mid 1920's.

CDfm

ballsymchugh wrote: »

what i think is a crying shame is that the taxpayer has to pay groundrent for out national parliament.

Can you provide a reference for this ?

man1

dr gonzo wrote: »

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

I may have just hijacked my own thread. Back on topic.

I thought Lambay island wasn't officially part of Ireland (or maybe I am wrong??), isn't it owned by the Barings family and wasn't part of Ireland even before independence.

CDfm

man1 wrote: »

I thought Lambay island wasn't officially part of Ireland (or maybe I am wrong??), isn't it owned by the Barings family and wasn't part of Ireland even before independence.

It may be private property but is part of Ireland.

You may be confusing it with the Saltee Islands -owned by the Neale Family and this quote from Time Magazine in 1944.

But like the Saltees it is an important bird sanctuary.

Since December 1943 the Saltees are privately owned by the Neale family. Prince Michael the First died in January 1998 and is buried in the family vault in Bannow Bay, Co.Wexford. He has been succeeded by his eldest son Michael the Second. http://www.salteeislands.info/

For more http://www.salteeislands.info/Michael%20the%20first%20Page.htm

Europe had a new royal house last week. In Dublin newspapers appeared a personal pronouncement: "I, Prince Michael Neale, landowner, will assume the title of Prince of the Saltees at the conclusion of the war. Also I wish it to be known that no one will be permitted to enter the Saltee Islands without a permit issued by me." Anybody caught interfering with the millions of birds or their eggs which inhabit those islands will be severely dealt with.
Prince Michael Neale is Eire's No. 1 manufacturer of cattle dip. As a County Wexford farmer's son, he used to lie on a cliff top in the long grass and gaze south across St. George's Channel to the tiny, haze-blue Saltee Islands. Since his first name was legally Prince, it was easy for a farm boy to daydream: "Some day I'll own those islands and become a real prince." He took to calling the Saltees "Paradise."
By last year he had sold enough dip to buy the Saltees. He began planting 3,000 trees, developing his domain as a luxury tourist resort. He also talked about recruiting a private army.
But last week Prince Neale had a right royal headache. To a reporter the Dublin prince-presumptive confided: "My wife, a Liverpool woman, is a bit shy about using the title of Princess. . . ." He added thoughtfully: "Anyone who does not call me Prince will be ignored."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,775231,00.html#ixzz15La81mL7




On the Leinster House ground rent issue - it is a myth and there is no ground rent payable.

Dáil Éireann - Volume 229 - 15 June, 1967
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Leinster House Ground Rent.
25. Mr. M. O'Leary asked the Minister for Finance the ground rent paid annually by the State in the case of Leinster House; and whether the ground landlord is an Irish national.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. J. Gibbons): There is no ground rent payable in respect of Leinster House.
Mr. S. Dunne: May we take it that it is freehold?
Mr. J. Gibbons: These matters are vested in the Commissioners of Public
Works.

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0229/D.0229.196706150020.html

EDIT - Sorry for being so pedantic. I get so hung up on detail

CDfm

How do you define Irish Peerage.

So OP - who are we talking about and why ?

Here is a definition that encompasses everything and lists the various different

So you have Gaelic and Post Gaelic Definitions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_clans

Here is something than encompasses everything

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] "AT ARM'S LENGTH - Aristocrats in the Republic of Ireland"[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Anne Chambers chose fourteen Irish Chiefs and Peers representative of the Gaelic, Anglo-Norman, Elizabethan, Jacobite, Cromwellian, Williamite, Victorian and Edwardian-created aristocracy/ ruling class in Ireland and elicited their opinions on a range of issues of historical and present-day interest. She recorded the fate and fortunes of families descended from the Gaelic Chiefs she interviewed and of those who superseded them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Chiefs/ Peers interviewed:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]O Brian (Conor), Lord Inchiquin, 32nd great-grandson in descent from Brian Boru.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]O Donovan (Daniel), lord of Clan Cathal.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Mac Sweeney Doe (Thomas Sweeney), 21st Chief of Doe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Mac Donnell (Count Randal), 25th Chief of the Mac Donnells of the Glens[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Edward Plunket, 19th Baron of Dunsany[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Desmond Fitzgerald, 29th Knight of Glin[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Brigadier Denis Fitzgerald (deceased)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Jeremy Browne, 11th Marquess of Sligo[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Brendan Parsons, 7th Earl of Rosse[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Earl of Mount Charles[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Thomas Packenham, 9th Earl of Longford[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Redmond Morris, 4th Baron Killanin[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]John Kilbracken, 3rd Baron Kilbracken[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Honourable Garech Browne, son of the late Lord Oranmore and Browne.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"At Arm's Length: Aristocrats in the Republic of Ireland" was launched by Dr. T. K. Whitaker in the Heraldic Museum, Kildare Street, Dublin, September 14, 2004.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]From left: Madam Mac Sweeney Doe, Mac Sweeney Doe, Anne Chambers, O Brian/ Lord Inchiquin - President of the Standing Council of Irish Clan Chiefs & Chieftains, The Hon. Garech Browne, Count Randal Mac Donnell of the Glens, Mac Sweeney Doe.

http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id34.htm
[/FONT]

Here is a site with lots of links to the various types off it

http://www2.smumn.edu/facpages/~poshea/uasal/noble.html

So what defines an Irish Clan

I found this explanation and link

Irish Chiefs and the Modern Clans Irish Chiefship is a sticky business by any account. The vast majority of Irishmen and women, whether in Ireland or around the world, are not represented by a Chief. It is a sad fact, and one that does not have to be continued. There are three methods for an Irish family to have its Chief recognized. At present, only 19 Irish families have representation by a fully recognized Chief. There are another 150 families that have organized themselves into clans. This is to clarify the differences.
There are two aspects of recognition with regard to Irish Chiefship. It is important to remember and differentiate between the two, for that is how much of the confusion surrounding the issue starts. The main difference is between "Chief of the Name" and "Chief of the Clan". As stated, there are three organizations that recognize and work with Irish clans. They are:

• The Genealogical Office and the Chief Herald of Ireland
• The Standing Council of Irish Chiefs and Chieftains
• The Clans of Ireland

The Genealogical office and the Chief Herald are the official entity of the government in Dublin. It is concerned with recognizing those who are "Chiefs of the Name" and thus, the title of "The", not with the conduct of the clans themselves.
The Chief Herald, due to the republican nature of Ireland, can only give courtesy recognition to a Chief, but does maintain its power of recognition. The Chief Herald recognizes only those families who can prove direct descent from the last know inaugurated Chief. Further, descent must be derived via primogeniture descent, not with tanistry, or via female lines.
The proof is difficult and in many cases impossible. With the destruction of the Irish Order by 1609, most families lost their inauguration ceremonies within a generation or two, or saw the line of Chief sail away to France, Spain or the New World. Thus only 19 families have ever been given courtesy recognition as being Chiefs of the Name. Recognition comes with no privileges within Ireland, except some heraldlry privileges. But on the Continent some are recognized as Princes and the rest as Counts.
The Standing Council of Irish Chiefs and Chieftains is the next body. This organization has a direct relationship to the Chief Herald, as membership to this council is only given after courtesy recognition by the Chief Herald.
Where this body differs from the Chief Heralds office is that they are not concerned with any recognition nor with genealogical proofs. Instead the Council is focused on Irish culture. The Council puts its efforts into saving aspects of ancient Irish life, language and history. Many of these Chiefs are very active in their clan organizations as well as other Irish preservation organizations.
The Clans of Ireland. This organization, which was at one point an official branch of the Genealogical Office, is focused on the clans themselves. The Clans of Ireland are not in the business of recognizing pedigrees or lines of descent. They do not give the title "The" to the head of a clan. Instead the Clans of Ireland recognize what the clan organizations themselves do. If a clan does not have one of the nineteen "Chiefs of the Name", then that organization can select one of their own to become "Chief of the Clan".
Herein lies the major difference. Courtesy recognition from the Chief Herald entitles a person to be known as "The X, Chief of the Name" and use a noble coronet on their arms. Recognition from Clans of Ireland is recognition purely as "Chief of the Clan X". There is no coronet or nobility associated with this office in Ireland.
Some of the most famous families of Ireland are not represented on the Standing Council of Ireland. And many people would like to change the system of recognition. There are a number of possible solutions to give the families without recognized Chiefs of the Name, representation on the Standing Council. Each proposal is based on either traditional methods used in the same situation in ancient Ireland or the methods used in Scotland, the Gaelic cousin to Ireland.

1. The election of a Ciann Cath, or war leader. This would allow a family to select one of its members who does descend from the general line of the ancient Chief. That line would become the recognized, leaders of the family for a prescribed period of time, years or even generations. After the period of time, that line would be given full recognition of "Chief of the Name". This is the method used in Scotland.
2. An election using a derbhfine, or basically a council of those members of the family that represent the entire leadership of the clan. The ancient definition of the deibhfine was the family of the Chief down four generations. More recent organizations have included all those with noble titles, knighthood, or who were armigerous in their own right. Land ownership, nobility of office or leadership within the clan could also account for the makeup of these derbhfines. The derbfine would meet and select the new "Chief of the Name".
3. A very ancient and legal, under Brehon law, method is the Iarfine selection of family leadership worldwide. After every four generations, a family Chieftain could be selected. Eight Chieftains could then select a next level chieftain and on up until there is one Chieftain elevated to "Chief of the Name".

NOTES
[1] The ancient form of Irish kingship/leadership selection based on family lines as opposed to father-son descent.
[2] In Scotland, the same type position would probably give the “Chief” a chapeaux of office above his arms, and in Italy and Spain the coronet of a Patrician or Patron could be used.
[3] Having a coat of arms of their own.
www.doyle.com.au/chiefs.html



http://www.clanmcshane.org/chiefs.html

The next thing is heraldry & geneology, and while titles have no modern day use, but the concept of heritage and family is important to some more than others

History of the Office of the Chief Herald


Irish Heraldic Authority

The Chief Herald of Ireland is the State’s authority on all heraldic matters relating to Ireland.
The earliest reference to a herald of arms for Ireland is to Chandos Herald, the herald of John Chandos. Chandos Herald was appointed “Ireland King of Arms” in 1382. Chandos had a number of successors, who appear to have been regarded as members of the English College of Arms, up to the time of Edward IV of England (1442 – 1483). The last recorded incumbent was Thomas Ashwell. It is not known whether the post continued after him.
In 1552 the Office of Ulster King of Arms was created by Edward VI, who recorded the event in his journal as follows:
Feb. 2nd. There was a King of Arms made for Ireland, whose name was Ulster, and his province was all Ireland; and he was Fourth Herald of Arms, and first Herald of Ireland
It is not certain why the name of the Irish province of Ulster was attached to the post. However, the Anglo-Norman earldom of Ulster had been vested in the English Crown since the reign of Edward IV, and it seems probable that the title was chosen to reflect this connection.
The first Ulster King of Arms was Bartholomew Butler, who by Letters Patent of 1 June 1552, was granted 'all rights, profits, commodities and emoluments in that office … with power … of inspecting, overseeing and correcting, and embodying the arms and ensigns of illustrious persons and of imposing and ordaining differences therein, according to the Laws of Arms: of granting Letters Patent of Arms to men of rank and fit persons; and of doing … all things which by right of custom were known to be incumbent of the office of a King of Arms'. The post continued until the death of its last incumbent, Sir Nevile Wilkinson, in 1941. Thomas Sadlier, Deputy Ulster, continued to operate the office until 1943.
In 1943 heraldic responsibility passed to the Irish State. Dr Edward MacLysaght, styled Chief Genealogical Officer to which was later added Chief Herald of Ireland, succeeded to the functions and powers of Ulster King of Arms. The old title of 'Ulster' was attached to the existing post of 'Norroy King of Arms', a member of the English College of Arms.
Further information on Heraldry in Ireland is available for download here:
The History of Heraldry in Ireland Heraldry_in_Ireland.pdf (0.15 MB, Adobe PDF)

Manuscript title page of 1607 Visitation of Dublin.

Quick Links

• Contact the Office of the Chief Herald
• Genealogy Advisory Service
• Organisation Chart, Office of the Chief Herald

http://www.nli.ie/en/history-of-the-office-of-the-chief-herald.aspx

So OP -what aspects are you looking at ??

who the fug

Denerick wrote: »

I think it is still recognised as a title in Britain - e.g., Lord Longford, who was a prominent British politician in the 90s. Tony Benn, who campaigned ferociously in the early 60s to have the right to refuse his title, was a leading light in the passing of the 1963 peerage act. According to wiki, since Ireland was not included in this bill which gave individuals the right to forsake their official hereditary title, Thomas Pakenham is formally known as the 8th Earl of Longford despite refusing to acknowledge it himself.

Pakenham is the author of two very good books on the Scramble for Africa and the 1798 rebellion. He is Lord Longford's son but as far as I know does not use the title. His family has some impecable connections in Britain (his sister is Antonia Fraser, an historian and novelist who was married to Harold Pinter). I believe he is now involved with a non profit organisation that promotes tree's. A suitable hobby for an aristocrat

Interesting OT bit

The 7th Earl was beaten up at Eton for supporting the rising, and he spent all his life in Ireland, very much a republican

CDfm

My understanding is that following the Act of Union Irish Titles were in effect courtesy titles and a prestige thing.

After the Act of Union and the disollution of the Irish House of Lords, an Irish Lord did not have an automatic right to sit in the British House of Lords but 28 were elected , very much in the same way graduates elect Senators to the Senate.I read somewhere that following independence there was some discussion about these elections as they ceased.

So the rights to a title after 1800 were the rights to vote. If an Irish peer , the Longfords for example, had an English title also the could have a seat in the House of Lords based on that. Lord Longford's right to sit in the House of Lords was as Baron Silchester in the Peerage of England (Great Britain).

So even after 1800 they had no power other than prestige.For example, take the Baronet of New York http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Baronets#Johnson_Baronets.2C_of_New_York_.281755.29*, I dont see New Yorkers getting hot under the collar over that. If anything, its a historical oddity. The ones we see in Ireland are the ones that stuck around after independence. So if its part of their heritage and identity -it should not bother me if someone is Baron of Ballymucksavage.


So the Earl of Longford has no additional rights or priveledges over anyone else - though it may be handy booking a seat in a resteraunt.

goose2005

CDfm wrote: »

ok -so what was life like in the Gaelic way of life if you were at the bottom of the pile.

There must have been a little more to life then playing hurling and hunting deer Cuchulain style or being a saint. Someone had to milk the cows.

There were many slaves and serfs in old Ireland. Part of the reason that Gaelic chieftains get such a good press is that the poets and scribes who wrote history depended on the taoisigh for patronage - once English lords arrived, that support vanished.

CDfm

goose2005 wrote: »

There were many slaves and serfs in old Ireland. Part of the reason that Gaelic chieftains get such a good press is that the poets and scribes who wrote history depended on the taoisigh for patronage - once English lords arrived, that support vanished.

Do we have any idea of numbers and what their lives were like.

Did the serfs and slaves defect to the normans ?

MarchDub

goose2005 wrote: »

There were many slaves and serfs in old Ireland. Part of the reason that Gaelic chieftains get such a good press is that the poets and scribes who wrote history depended on the taoisigh for patronage - once English lords arrived, that support vanished.

Actually that's not entirely true. Many of the poets were more like 'wandering minstrels' and wrote whatever they wanted. There are even examples of 'dependent' poets writing pejoratively about their chieftains - the poets were a fairly powerful body.

And I don't know why you think that 'support' vanished with the arrival of the English . Here is an early poem [in translation] concerning one poet's opinion on the establishment of the English lordships. The poet even throws out a punch at the strong castles being built to support Norman English presence against any attack.

Numerous be their powerful wiles
Their fetters and their manacles
Numerous their lies and executions
And their secure strong houses.

CDfm

The Lords, Bards (Poets) and Druids (Priests) were the ruling classes - the elite & ruling classes.They ruled over someone -the masses. They also enforced their power.


You had wars, usurpings and feuds.

So who were the masses and what kinds of lives did non peers have from the Gaelic lords.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

The Lords, Bards (Poets) and Druids (Priests) were the ruling classes - the elite & ruling classes.They ruled over someone -the masses. They also enforced their power.


You had wars, usurpings and feuds.

So who were the masses and what kinds of lives did non peers have from the Gaelic lords.

I know you keep going back to this question - but really this is more of a sociological question than one for historians.

History gives us 'some' insight into life at the time through the various written records but what you are asking is other than that. History is more concerned with the record of events and the pattern of cause and effect - not the everyday life of people.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

I know you keep going back to this question - but really this is more of a sociological question than one for historians.

History gives us 'some' insight into life at the time through the various written records but what you are asking is other than that. History is more concerned with the record of events and the pattern of cause and effect - not the everyday life of people.

Its more out of interest than anything else. Cos to be a peer there had to be non peers.

One of the issues in England after the plague was that in pre-plague england a serf couldnt just up and leave their master. In post plague england they did just that and because of the serf shortage they were not sent back so I just wonder what really happened.

Were the Irish really decimated including the serfs or did they switch sides for better terms and conditions. Was their more to life than plantations and did the Gaelic Chiefs have popular support.

So that would be a big feature in my book.

I mean if the Lords used the tactic in England why not in Ireland.

The 1381 Peasants in England Revolt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_peasants%27_revolt_of_1381 & http://marxists.anu.edu.au/history/england/peasants-revolt/story.htm

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Its more out of interest than anything else. Cos to be a peer there had to be non peers.

One of the issues in England after the plague was that in pre-plague england a serf couldnt just up and leave their master. In post plague england they did just that and because of the serf shortage they were not sent back so I just wonder what really happened.

Were the Irish really decimated including the serfs or did they switch sides for better terms and conditions. Was their more to life than plantations and did the Gaelic Chiefs have popular support.

Let's get some terminology straight - there were technically no 'serfs' as such in Ireland because Ireland did not have the feudal system prior to the Anglo Norman invasion. In fact this was one of the major stress points for the English monarchy - the 'conquered' Irish did not automatically accept the crown's position and then willingly pay the required taxes and feel that they owed 'fidelity' to the overlord.

The Irish law tracts tell us a lot about the stratification of Irish society. The poets and Druids had special positions and there was no central over-lordship. The bó-aire farmer - considered by some to be the equivalent of a middle class - seemed to do fairly well based on descriptions of their personally owned goods. But we can't really know how everyone 'felt' about it all. Slavery was important because value of property is expressed in how many cumals [slaves] it is worth. We have no idea how many slaves there were anywhere in Europe - yet we know that the Vikings made a very good living out of slavery.

The sense of extended family - known as the Tuath - seemed to be very strong in Ireland from what can be gleaned from writings - with loyalty going to that with individual family chieftains rather than to anything or anyone outside of that kindred connection.

One interesting thing for me was when I first read Giraldus Cambrensis' account of life in Ireland at the time of the Norman English invasion - now taking into account that historians are agreed that he was in fact writing pro-invasion propaganda. But some of his observations are worth looking at. He remarks that everyday life in Ireland differed from England in that it was virtually impossible to tell the classes apart based on the behaviours of each. The lower classes did not give any special respect to the upper classes but all mingled without any idea - to an outsider like him - of who the 'elites' might be. Sounds like Ireland - doesn't it?

CDfm

Its an interesting thing isn't it.

A hisorical occasion - MarchDub stuck for an answer

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Its an interesting thing isn't it.

A hisorical occasion - MarchDub stuck for an answer

What?

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

What?

It is ok MD. It is the history forum so this landmark moment is recorded.

I have found this article on line which gives some insight to the structure of society so that I can get more of a feel for what it was like. This article mentions the shortage of serfs to work the land & thus indicating a tribal structure.

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/simms.pdf

I mean, if the wealth of a chief was measured in serfs and cows - how many serfs and cows did Diarmuid McMurrough or whoever.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Its an interesting thing isn't it.

A hisorical occasion - MarchDub stuck for an answer

CDfm wrote: »

It is ok MD. It is the history forum so this landmark moment is recorded.

Now I am really confused - what are you talking about? Can you fully explain?

sopretty

Slightly off topic here but I used to socialise with Thomas? Pakenham's son (not the eldest son unfortunately or I might have invested more time into these encounters!). We politely referred to these occasions as 'piss-ups'.....
This one night, after closing time, we all bailed back to the castle to raid the wine stash as we couldn't get more drink anywhere else. We had a great time drinking wine in the library, falling asleep randomly scattered around the 'house' parts of the castle and all woke up feeling somewhat the worse for wear the next morning to have strong coffee made for us by the mum!

Lovely family! :cool: Never met the Dad though (the fella who wrote the Boer war book).

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Now I am really confused - what are you talking about? Can you fully explain?

I am teasing MD.

Though I am trying to get a handle on what it meant to be an Irish Lord in terms of land, property & people.

For example , the country was sparsely populated and there were no towns. So was it tribal and how did it work.

A Lord provided protection , essentially , this was his basic function. There is little reason to take over land without it giving you a yield in terms of money or power.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I am teasing MD.

Though I am trying to get a handle on what it meant to be an Irish Lord in terms of land, property & people.

You mean to tell me that my carefully thought out and well crafted reply to you meant little more than a non answer? Bejapers- I wouldn't want to be in your class professor!

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

You mean to tell me that my carefully thought out and well crafted reply to you meant little more than a non answer? Bejapers- I wouldn't want to be in your class professor!

I am trying to work out in my mind if they were




or



I was really struck by how small the walled city of Derry was when I visted it.

So really, were they medieval princes or tribal chiefs or what.

There is very little written about the lower classes or women in Gaelic society.

Population size in the different centuries would be a good thing

http://www.jstor.org/pss/30005209

Johnmb

Picture A. We were never a feudal country. By the time we were fully controlled, feudalism had changed considerably from what it was at the start of the invasion, and even then, we weren't conforming, hence all the trouble, rebellions, act of union, etc over the few centuries that we were conquered for.