Sources on Norman invasion of Ireland

Einhard

Hey all,
I'm teaching a first year history class and I want to make them more aware of historical evidence, and the need to treat sources in a nuanced, critical manner. I plan to base it on the Norman invasion of Ireland, and I'd appreciate it if the denizens of the history forum could provide some suggestions for sources that might have escaped me. I want the class to get an undertanding both of how we know that the invasion occurred, and also the difficulties that the sources can present in terms of bias, lacunae, and differing persectives. I'd also like to use some more recent sources to look at how historical events are viewd by later generations.

I'm considering using some of Gerald of Wales' writings, and I'd love to get an Irish perspective to counter this. Perhaps the invasions are treated in Irish annals or chronicles from the period? In poems or ballads? It would be great if I could offer differing perspectives, not just on the invasion, but also on irish life and culture at the time.

I plan also on using artefacts if I can get my hands on them. I know that ebay offer all sorts of cheap knock offs, so I plan to look for reproductions of Norman coins used in Ireland. Does anyone know if there were coins used in Ireland which testified to Norman control of the country, or at least part of it?

Finally, I want to use pictorial representations of the invasion, both contemporary and more recent. The Marriage of Strongbow and Aoife will give the class an idea of how the event was viewed by later generations, but it would be brilliant if there were contemporary representations too, showing events from all sides.

Not a lot to ask!:p I'd apreciate any comment on this, and particularly suggestions about sources I might use.

Thanks

Bannasidhe

Have a look at the primary resources available on http://celt.ucc.ie/publishd.html#tfirish.

The Annals are good for the Gaelic Irish perspective.

Einhard

That's great. Thanks. I remember when I was studying the Norman colony in ireland for my undergrad that there were appeals in England for settlers. I wonder if the text of any of those appeals survive. They might make a nice contrast with other portrayals of Irelad at the time.

What I'm really after is Norman portrayals of the Irish in a negative light, and justifying the invasion. I seem to remember that there was some of this in Gerald of Wales, and if there is anything else of that sort it's be great to have it.

Bannasidhe

Einhard wrote: »

That's great. Thanks. I remember when I was studying the Norman colony in ireland for my undergrad that there were appeals in England for settlers. I wonder if the text of any of those appeals survive. They might make a nice contrast with other portrayals of Irelad at the time.

What I'm really after is Norman portrayals of the Irish in a negative light, and justifying the invasion. I seem to remember that there was some of this in Gerald of Wales, and if there is anything else of that sort it's be great to have it.

Gerald pretty much wrote the books (online versions @ Topography of Ireland: http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/topography_ireland.pdf and Conquest of Ireland: http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/conquest_ireland.pdf you will find lashings of Anti-Irish statements and justifications. It might be worth having a look at the Calendar of Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 1 - 1198-1304 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=980

Or doing a search on http://www.british-history.ac.uk - most of their primary sources relating to Ireland are part of a subscription service - used to be £30 p.a. and as far as I know the sources only go back as far as 1244 so it may not be worth your while.

CDfm

I would be careful of Geraldus Cambrensis who in his "Description of Ireland," reports that the ceremony of enthroning of the king of conaill involved copulation with a white mare who is then sacrificed and cooked.

CDfm

You have got me thinking what I was interested at that age was how people died and graves are proof of death.

Strongbow at find-a-grave http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=5887495

Castles and churches was what the Norman's did too that the native Irish did not.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

You have got me thinking what I was interested at that age was how people died and graves are proof of death.

Strongbow at find-a-grave http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=5887495

Castles and churches was what the Norman's did too that the native Irish did not.

Cormac's Chapel at Cashel pre-dates the Invasion We also did some excellent monasteries...and round towers.:D

Ever wonder why if round towers were built to watch out for Vikings why so many of them are very far from either the sea or major waterways?

Oh - and apparently the story about the lovely horse has some basis in truth.

Bannasidhe

Einhard, if you really want to give the first years the WOW factor get in touch with Jesse de Burca Montague - http://www.montague.ie/education.html.

Nothing like seeing a fully armoured Norman to leave an impression :eek:.

Enkidu

CDfm wrote: »

I would be careful of Geraldus Cambrensis who in his "Description of Ireland," reports that the ceremony of enthroning of the king of conaill involved copulation with a white mare who is then sacrificed and cooked.

Actually, hilariously enough, that probably did occur. Not by the time of Geraldus, but certainly in earlier times the rite of kingship for Donegal involved being intimate in some manner with a horse. Sitting in the cooking pot of the horse survived until quite late. It's a typical Indo-European rite. In some Indo-European cultures you had sex with the land, for example a few Old Irish sources confirm the king needed "to consummate his marriage to the land".

To old Indo-European societies modern monarchs would seem uncommitted.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ever wonder why if round towers were built to watch out for Vikings why so many of them are very far from either the sea or major waterways?

I have wondered about that ?

I hope horses aren't involved.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

I have wondered about that ?

I hope horses aren't involved.

Well the round towers were watch towers but not to watch out for Vikings but for the neighbours, riding horses, come for a cattle raiding, chalice stealing jaunt.

dubhthach

Giradulus is infamous for his partisan view of Ireland, it's why you get several Irish authors writing in subsequent centuries with goal of refuting what he says. Other then details such as when certain areas were captured (and by which Norman). I wouldn't trust anything he says about general Irish society as he is intentionally playing up the supposed "barbarism" of the Irish to justify the Norman invasion.

As Enkidu mentions there is probably some truth with regards to the Cenél Chonaill inaguration cermony in a pre-Christian context. Particulary as it ties into wider Indo-European traditions.

CDfm

dubhthach wrote: »

Giradulus is infamous for his partisan view of Ireland, it's why you get several Irish authors writing in subsequent centuries with goal of refuting what he says. Other then details such as when certain areas were captured (and by which Norman).

They would refute it wouldn't they.

And Bannisidhe seems to be very accepting about the horse rituals and Enkidu implies that it was a bit more widespread than Gerald of Wales wrote.

MarchDub

dubhthach wrote: »

Giradulus is infamous for his partisan view of Ireland, it's why you get several Irish authors writing in subsequent centuries with goal of refuting what he says. Other then details such as when certain areas were captured (and by which Norman). I wouldn't trust anything he says about general Irish society as he is intentionally playing up the supposed "barbarism" of the Irish to justify the Norman invasion.

Yes, Giraldus is infamous as you say for his anti-Irish views. His reason for coming to Ireland and writing as he did was specifically to justify the Norman-English invasion and write a description of the Irish and the Irish church to further justify a 'reformation' of Irish Christianity and give grounds for the continuing presence of Norman English.

dubhthach wrote: »

As Enkidu mentions there is probably some truth with regards to the Cenél Chonaill inaguration cermony in a pre-Christian context. Particulary as it ties into wider Indo-European traditions.

This issue is dealt with in a number of publications - I just pulled out Charlie Doherty's [UCD] paper 'Kingship in Early Ireland' in which he gives some reference to where this story might have come from in Gerald's writings where Gerald attempts - for propaganda reasons - to put it forward as being contemporary to the twelfth century.

Since Gerald was at pains to show how barbarous the Irish were in comparison to his adventurous relatives, one would have to be very sceptical in accepting this as a record of a contemporary event despite the quaint drawing of the activity in a manuscript of his work dating to c.1200 (National Library of Ireland, MS 700)100. He shows an acquaintance elsewhere in his book with material that comes from the same milieu as Lebor Gabála Érenn, and it is very likely that this ceremony
has been taken from a similar source or tale. The description suggests that an Asvamedha-like ceremony was practised in Ireland at some time. It is not just the union with the horse and its subsequent killing that is analogous to Indian sources, but also the bathing of the king and the acclamation of the people.

CDfm

I think there is a bit of denial creeping in here

Enkidu

It's interesting that Giraludus wrote a "false" account of the Irish to justify Norman occupation of Ireland and Romanisation of the church and centuries later Seathrún Céitinn would right his history to justify the Norman and Irish resistance to English conquest and the Protestant Reformation.

In the first case Fitzgerald is contrasted against Maguire, one civilised following proper Roman Christianity, the other barbarous following a unruly local Christianity.

Then, in Céitinn's work, Fitzgerald and Maguire are put together as Irish Catholics against Protestant England.

Nice historical symmetry I think.

CDfm

I see, you are not discounting his account of the Cenél Chonaill inaguration ceremony.

Enkidu

CDfm wrote: »

I see, you are not discounting his account of the Cenél Chonaill inaguration ceremony.

I would doubt it was done at the time he wrote his work, but I certainly don't doubt that it or something like it occurred in 6th or 7th century Ireland, in fact it would be pretty tame considering the stuff we do know. When I get home this evening I'll dig out some of the funnier stuff.

MarchDub

Enkidu wrote: »

It's interesting that Giraludus wrote a "false" account of the Irish to justify Norman occupation of Ireland and Romanisation of the church and centuries later Seathrún Céitinn would right his history to justify the Norman and Irish resistance to English conquest and the Protestant Reformation.

In the first case Fitzgerald is contrasted against Maguire, one civilised following proper Roman Christianity, the other barbarous following a unruly local Christianity.

Then, in Céitinn's work, Fitzgerald and Maguire are put together as Irish Catholics against Protestant England.

Nice historical symmetry I think.

Well, I have to say that I disagree - and this is one of the issues I personally have with the 'flattening out' or 'equalising' of what the actual historic issues were and we get to concentrate or focus only on the tactics used. The one is done in justifying an invasion of another's territory, the other trying to overthrow what was regarded as an occupier.

So similar tactics - but with very different aspirational reasons. Keating was trying to shore up a culture very much under attack and, as he saw it, [and clearly stated] on the brink of extinction.

Enkidu

MarchDub wrote: »

Well, I have to say that I disagree

I more meant the "reversal" of the Norman position. First they came to modernise Irish culture and bring it in line with European norms. Then a descendant of this group becomes one of the most passionate defenders of native Irish culture and learning. First the groups are strongly contrasted, then seen as one.

MarchDub

Enkidu wrote: »

I more meant the "reversal" of the Norman position. First they came to modernise Irish culture and bring it in line with European norms. Then a descendant of this group becomes one of the most passionate defenders of native Irish culture and learning. First the groups are strongly contrasted, then seen as one.

I see. Well you know this happens in many countries and in many cultures. Decadents are not necessarily going to take the position of those who first arrived on the shores of wherever. Their life experiences are usually entirely different.
The American revolutionaries [like Washington and Jefferson] were almost entirely descended from people who arrived there from England as good colonial subjects.

Enkidu

MarchDub wrote: »

I see. Well you know this happens in many countries and in many cultures.

Yes of course, I'm not making a point, I just think it's kind of cool, particularly since Céitinn was such a good writer and manages to make this whole new Irish identity flow naturally from the Old Irish and Bardic literary tradition.

CDfm

Enkidu wrote: »

When I get home this evening I'll dig out some of the funnier stuff.

I shall wait.

More Giraldus Springerus please

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I shall wait.

More Giraldus Springerus please

Another grand Irish tradition - CDfm always looking for the dirt -

MarchDub

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well the round towers were watch towers but not to watch out for Vikings but for the neighbours, riding horses, come for a cattle raiding, chalice stealing jaunt.

Now I know you must be referring to my personal hero, Feidlimid Mac Crimthainn, chalice stealer extraordinare - amongst other felonious accomplishments - who deserves a thread all of his own!

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Another grand Irish tradition - CDfm always looking for the dirt -

Are you picking on us Norman's again. Some of the posters on this thread have Cenél Chonaill seeping thru their pores.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Are you picking on us Norman's again. Some of the posters on this thread have Cenél Chonaill seeping thru their pores.

I don't really want to examine or discuss some posters' pores or what seeps through 'em :eek:

Gee Bag

Here's a few of my favourites from Gerald of Wales.

Rothericus, King of Connacht, had a tame white goat that was remarkable of it's kind for the length of it's coat and height of it's horns. This goat had beastial intercourse with with a certain woman to whom he was entrusted. Th wretched woman, proving herself more a beast in accepting him than he did in acting, even submitted herself to his abuse.

Duvenaldus, the King of Limerick, had a woman that had a beard down to her waist. She had also a crest from her neck down along her spine, ike a one year old foal. It wa covered with hair. This woman, in spite of her two enormities was, nevertheless, not hermaphrodite, and was in other respects sufficently feminine. She followed the courth wherever it went, provoking laughs as well as wonder.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

I don't really want to examine or discuss some posters' pores or what seeps through 'em :eek:

I am not enjoying this. I am seeking historical accuracy.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

I am not enjoying this. I am seeking historical accuracy.

Well if it's historical accuracy you are after most posters here have Niall of the Nine Hostages leaking from everywhere

A few might have a faint whiff of Genghis Khan about them too...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8600-medieval-irish-warlord-boasts-three-million-descendants.html

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well if it's historical accuracy you are after most posters here have Niall of the Nine Hostages leaking from everywhere

Not a mention of the coronation. Anything we should, ahem, know ?

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

Not a mention of the coronation. Anything we should, ahem, know ?

Apart from us descendants of Muireadhach Muilleathan scoffing at those who smell of Niall [ Fecking Nordies (:p)] no, nothing coronation wise to see here thank you very much.....:D

dubhthach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well if it's historical accuracy you are after most posters here have Niall of the Nine Hostages leaking from everywhere

A few might have a faint whiff of Genghis Khan about them too...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8600-medieval-irish-warlord-boasts-three-million-descendants.html

Only problem though is that Trinity sort of jumped the gun on that M222 probably first arose about 2-300 years before Niall. Yeah he probably was a carrier but not all M222+ are descendants of Niall. For example men bearing Uí Fiachrach (Aidhne and Muidhne) as well as Uí Briúin (Ai, Breifne) surnames show up as M222+. Of course both these are descended from Niall's half brothers (Fiachrach and Brion) and form part of the wider Connachta.

Of course the really interesting bit is that M222+ seems to be older in Northern England/Souther Scotland then it does in Ireland. So perhaps what we are seeing is some truth in the old myth on Tuathal Teachtmár -- his mother fleeing with him in her womb to her father king of "Alba" and he returing later with an army to reclaim throne. Of course the pseudo-history puts this in 1st century AD.

dubhthach

Anyways to keep CDfm happy here some pictures, include forementioned horse and goat

Einhard

CDfm wrote: »

I would be careful of Geraldus Cambrensis who in his "Description of Ireland," reports that the ceremony of enthroning of the king of conaill involved copulation with a white mare who is then sacrificed and cooked.

Well, not sure if I could bring up animal-human intercourse in a first year class, but it's that type of exaggeration that I'm looking for, I want to be able to present them with a source which, while valuable in some sense, is still highly conentious and biased.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Einhard, if you really want to give the first years the WOW factor get in touch with Jesse de Burca Montague - http://www.montague.ie/education.html.

Nothing like seeing a fully armoured Norman to leave an impression :eek:.

That's a great idea. Sometimes I feel like dressing up in armour before heading into a class!

I'm only a student teacher so not sure if the other teachers would go for it, but it's definitely something to keep in mind for the future.

dubhthach wrote: »

Giradulus is infamous for his partisan view of Ireland, it's why you get several Irish authors writing in subsequent centuries with goal of refuting what he says. Other then details such as when certain areas were captured (and by which Norman). I wouldn't trust anything he says about general Irish society as he is intentionally playing up the supposed "barbarism" of the Irish to justify the Norman invasion.

That's the point really. The theme of the unit isn't so much the Norman invasion, as the use of evidence and source material in history. I want them to gain an insight into how important such material is, but also to view it in a critical way. The Norman invasion, while important and part of the curriculum, is really a means to an end in that sense.

dubhthach wrote: »

Anyways to keep CDfm happy here some pictures, include forementioned horse and goat

Are those illustrations from Gerald of Wales? Might you be able to point me in the direction of other such pejorative material on the native Irish?

BTW, thanks to everyone for responding.

Enkidu

Einhard wrote: »

Are those illustrations from Gerald of Wales? Might you be able to point me in the direction of other such pejorative material on the native Irish?

BTW, thanks to everyone for responding.

Yeah, it's Gerald of Wales. The picture on the top left is of a "monstrous woman" with a beard and "horned protrusions". Wikipedia have a good translation from chapter twenty:

"Duvenald, king of Limerick, had a woman with a beard down to her navel, and also, a crest like a colt of a year old, which reached from the top of her neck down her backbone, and was covered with hair. The woman, thus remarkable for two monstrous deformities, was, however, not an hermaphrodite, but in other respects had the parts of a woman; and she constantly attended the court, an object of ridicule as well as of wonder. The fact of her spine being covered with hair, neither determined her gender to be male or female; and in wearing a long beard she followed the customs of her country, though it was unnatural in her. Also, within our time, a woman was seen attending the court in Connaught, who partook of the nature of both sexes, and was an hermaphrodite. On the right side of her face she had a long and thick beard, which covered both sides of her lips to the middle of her chin, like a man; on the left, her lips and chin were smooth and hairless, like a woman"

Also fair play on working on something interesting for your class.:)

Einhard

Enkidu wrote: »

Also fair play on working on something interesting for your class.:)

Feck the class, this is for me! I don't know how they'll react to monstrous women with horned protrusions, but it defintely makes things more interesting for me in teaching it!

CDfm

The Norman's brought a clear legal system

CDfm wrote: »

I read years ago that there was a guillotine in Ireland in 1307.

Here is a woodcut depicting his execution with a guillotine like machine




So who was this guy and what did he do?

Rebelheart wrote: »

OK, a quick google under "Murcod Ballagh" and it seems the woodcut is from a book published in 1577: 'The execution of Murcod Ballagh near to Merton in Ireland 1307. This woodcut is from a book published in 1577.'

Holinshed's Chronicle?

Holinshed's Chronicle was used as a source by Shakespeare.

MarchDub

Einhard wrote: »

Feck the class, this is for me! I don't know how they'll react to monstrous women with horned protrusions, but it defintely makes things more interesting for me in teaching it!

It's important to note that Giraldus' propaganda attempt notwithstanding there is ample evidence from the record to show that the Irish church had started to 'reform' - become Romanised - decades before the Norman English invasion.

The Synod of Kells in 1152 had already re-structured the Irish church along the Roman style when 36 dioceses were established - and four archbishoprics under the Primacy of Armagh were also established. This spelled the death of the family owned monasteries but it also seriously angered the Archbishop of Canterbury who had harboured high hopes of controlling the Irish church from Canterbury.

Enter stage left Henry II and Giraldus et al...

dubhthach

MarchDub wrote: »

It's important to note that Giraldus' propaganda attempt notwithstanding there is ample evidence from the record to show that the Irish church had started to 'reform' - become Romanised - decades before the Norman English invasion.

The Synod of Kells in 1152 had already re-structured the Irish church along the Roman style when 36 dioceses were established - and four archbishoprics under the Primacy of Armagh were also established. This spelled the death of the family owned monasteries but it also seriously angered the Archbishop of Canterbury who had harboured high hopes of controlling the Irish church from Canterbury.

Enter stage left Henry II and Giraldus et al...

Also the arrival of the Cistercians bringing European style monasticism with founding of Mellifont in 1142 by St. Maelmhaedhoc (Malachy). There are at least three other abbies founded in period before arrival of Strongbow:

• Abbeydorney Abbey
• Bective Abbey
• Boyle Abbey

All sponsored by local Irish Taoisigh. It's interesting to ponder how things might have turned out in late 12th century without the normans as there were strong "Europeanising" (as in feudal Europe) factors going on both in Church and society anyways.

MarchDub

dubhthach wrote: »

Also the arrival of the Cistercians bringing European style monasticism with founding of Mellifont in 1142 by St. Maelmhaedhoc (Malachy). ..


All sponsored by local Irish Taoisigh. It's interesting to ponder how things might have turned out in late 12th century without the normans as there were strong "Europeanising" (as in feudal Europe) factors going on both in Church and society anyways.

The notion of reform goes back even further than the Cistercians arrival – when Cellach Ua Sinaig became Abbot of Armagh in 1105 he was one of the first to try and ‘reform’ the Irish church. He held a Synod near Cashel and attempted to introduce the notion of dioceses – this was a way of lessening the power of the abbots in Irish Christianity – and introduce the Roman system of bishoprics.

When Cellach died in 1129 his friend Malalchy came to be Abbot and it was he who travelled to Rome, on the way met with Bernard of Clairvoix, and Malachy became really determined to change the face of the Irish church and introduce a more Roman or European structure to Ireland. Bernard saw the introduction of the Cistercians into Ireland thus bringing great changes to the older indigenous Irish monastic system. It died out under the 'reforms'.

But not all historians see this as a positive thing by any means - many point out the value of the old Irish system and the contribution it made to scholarship and the arts and most significantly, the independence that the older indigenous Irish Christianity had from outside influences.

dubhthach

MarchDub wrote: »

The notion of reform goes back even further than the Cistercians arrival – when Cellach Ua Sinaig became Abbot of Armagh in 1105 he was one of the first to try and ‘reform’ the Irish church. He held a Synod near Cashel and attempted to introduce the notion of dioceses – this was a way of lessening the power of the abbots in Irish Christianity – and introduce the Roman system of bishoprics.

When Cellach died in 1129 his friend Malalchy came to be Abbot and it was he who travelled to Rome, on the way met with Bernard of Clairvoix, and Malachy became really determined to change the face of the Irish church and introduce a more Roman or European structure to Ireland. Bernard saw the introduction of the Cistercians into Ireland thus bringing great changes to the older indigenous Irish monastic system. It died out under the 'reforms'.

But not all historians see this as a positive thing by any means - many point out the value of the old Irish system and the contribution it made to scholarship and the arts and most significantly, the independence that the older indigenous Irish Christianity had from outside influences.

Indeed but my point wasn't that reformed was tied in with Cistercians. Instead I was pointing out that organically Ireland was already moving (moved?) to more mainstream practise when it came to Western Christendom.

Of course the papal bull Laudabiliter claims "church reform" as one of the reasons for giving Henry II a right to assume control of Ireland.

One thing to consider about the change of authroity from Abbots to Bishops been that the dioceses of course were based on the then political boundaries. So each large polity ended up with it's own Bishop. Who probably been from ruling family assumed the role of leading Abbot in that territority. (Meet the new boss same as old boss)

So for example Raphoe ties in with the Cenél Chonaill territory of Tír Chonaill. And Derry maps to Cenél nEoghain territority of Cenél nEoghain. Of course both been constutitent parts of wider "An Tuaisceart"/Over-Kingdom of Aileach.

No doubt the Bishop of Raphoe was present at the "Lovely Horse" event.

MarchDub

dubhthach wrote: »

Indeed but my point wasn't that reformed was tied in with Cistercians. Instead I was pointing out that organically Ireland was already moving (moved?) to more mainstream practise when it came to Western Christendom.

Yes, of course - that was the point I originally made as regards Giraldus and his attempt to blacken Irish Christianity. Change was already underway for decades before the Norman English arrived.

dubhthach wrote: »

Of course the papal bull Laudabiliter claims "church reform" as one of the reasons for giving Henry II a right to assume control of Ireland.

Laudibiliter is thought likely to have been the idea of the Archbishop of Canterbury who wanted English control of the Irish church. In 1155 The English Pope Adrian IV was approached by the English hierarchy concerning 'reform' of the Irish church with the idea that only rule from Canterbury could 'save ' the Irish.

dubhthach wrote: »

One thing to consider about the change of authroity from Abbots to Bishops been that the dioceses of course were based on the then political boundaries. So each large polity ended up with it's own Bishop. Who probably been from ruling family assumed the role of leading Abbot in that territority. (Meet the new boss same as old boss)

It wasn't really that simple. The point that historians make is that the very nature of the Irish church changed. The old system spawned a very different attitude to scholarship and learning and even on the ground meant a different attitude to what Christianity actually was.

Donnchadh O Corrain says:

The reform was a triumph for the administrators and a disaster for Irish literature and general culture. The reforms destroyed the social, economic and cultural base of Irish learning. Nothing replaced the greater monasteries with their schools and learned cadres.

The Gregorian reforms came to Ireland - or tried to anyway. It was never clear cut - and in fact it took centuries for the Irish church to really become truly 'Romanised'.

CDfm

dubhthach wrote: »

No doubt the Bishop of Raphoe was present at the "Lovely Horse" event.

Isn't it well known that the Bishop bought the mare from a well known horse fancier Gerallt Gymro who just happened to be over researching a book.

An interesting part of the romanising of the church was that it allowed the normans gain footholds etc in otherwise Irish area's.

Hopefully , this will illustrate it.


Look at the Diocese of Ferns & its pre-reformation Bishops.Ferns was a stronghold of the McMurroughs.

Ferns, dates from about the year 1060, and is of the Hiberno-Romanesque style, having been built by Bishop O'Lynam, who died in 1062. The bishops were indifferently styled as of Ferns, Hy Kinsellagh, or Wexford; thus, Maeleoin O'Donegan (d. 1125) is called "Bishop of Wexford", while Bishop O'Cathan (d. 1135) is named "Archbishop of Hy Kinsellagh". This was by reason of the fact that the boundaries of the diocese are coextensive with the territory of Hy Kinsellagh, on which account Ferns includes County Wexford with small portions of Wicklow and Carlow. Dermot MacMurrough, King of Leinster, burned the city of Ferns in 1166, "for fear that the Connacht men would destroy his castle and his house", and, three years later, he brought over a pioneer force of Welshmen.

and then

Ailbe O'Molloy, a Cistercian, who ruled from 1185 to 1222, was the last Irish bishop in the pre-Reformation history of Ferns. He attended the Fourth General Council of Lateran (1215) and, on his return, formed a cathedral chapter. His successor, Bishop St. John, was granted by Henry III (6 July, 1226) a weekly market at Ferns and an annual fair, also a weekly market at Enniscorthy.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06045a.htm

One of the results of the Norman invasion in the twelfth century was the foundation of Cistercian abbeys at Dunbrody (in the present parish of Horeswood) about 1175, and at Tintern (in the present parish of Ballycullane) in 1200.
In 1184, Ailbin Ó Maolmhuaidh, abbot of the Cistercian foundation at Baltinglass, succeeded to the See of Maodhóg. He attended the Fourth Lateran Council in 1216. He wrote to Rome requesting, on behalf of the Church in Ireland, the canonisation of Lorcán Ó Tuathail (St Laurence O’Toole). His successor was an English courtier-cleric, John St John, nominated by King Henry III.
The last pre-Reformation bishop of the diocese was Alexander Devereux, abbot of Dunbrody at the time of its suppression by Henry VIII. He endeavoured to be loyal both to Rome and to the king. He died in 1566 and no Catholic bishop was appointed to Ferns for fifteen years when Peter Power was appointed by the Holy See in 1582.


http://www.ferns.ie/history.shtml

So you can see how the McMurroughs "lost" control of their territory thru this method. For example, property rights accumulated with the new church structure they co-existed with.

His successor, Bishop St. John, was granted by Henry III (6 July, 1226) a weekly market at Ferns and an annual fair, also a weekly market at Enniscorthy. This bishop (8 April, 1227) assigned the manor of Enniscorthy to Philip de Prendergast, who built a castle, still in excellent preservation. In exchange, he acquired six plough-lands forever for the See of Ferns.

Now look at the list of Bishops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Ferns#Pre-Reformation_bishops

It is not totally simple as the McMurroughs allied themselves with the Butlers of Ormonde and appointies varied between those favoured by them and those of the Anglo Norman Earls of Kildare and their allies.

EDIT - and for a bit on Laudibiliter

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056226312

MarchDub

Great links CDfm -thanks...

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Great links CDfm -thanks...

They are the easy links

I have read thru the chronicles and material they come from which are not always chronological so I know the content is fairly bang on.

The Norman's operated thru a feudal & primogeniture system which needed records whereas the Irish elected leaders from eligeble clan members so didn't need the same records.

Thats why you don't find the same level of records. Also, in Ireland some titles were "titular" so our Norman's were also a bit more relaxed.

dubhthach

CDfm wrote: »

The Norman's operated thru a feudal & primogeniture system which needed records whereas the Irish elected leaders from eligeble clan members so didn't need the same records.

Well not as simple as that, as a member of Clann you needed to know your position with regardes to the Derbhfhine of the clann. This is why you had "Professional Genealogists" from an early stage whose duty was to recite genealogies. To be in the Derbhfhine ye had to be within 4 generations of a previous leader.

Primogeniture was considerably simpler in comparison, ye just need to be the senior "male line" each generation.

In manuscript form a prime example of a collection of "Gaelic Irish" genealogy is Leabhar na nGenealach which was compiled by Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh during the 17th century using pre-existing material.

Bannasidhe

dubhthach wrote: »

Well not as simple as that, as a member of Clann you needed to know your position with regardes to the Derbhfhine of the clann. This is why you had "Professional Genealogists" from an early stage whose duty was to recite genealogies. To be in the Derbhfhine ye had to be within 4 generations of a previous leader.

Primogeniture was considerably simpler in comparison, ye just need to be the senior "male line" each generation.

In manuscript form a prime example of a collection of "Gaelic Irish" genealogy is Leabhar na nGenealach which was compiled by Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh during the 17th century using pre-existing material.

Indeed. Many 'chieftains' produced books or scrolls which laid out their lineage thereby 'proving' their claim.
A good example is the 'Book of the Bourkes' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Burkes.

Interestingly, according to Katherine Simms and Ken Nicholls it was standard practice for people to have their antecedents declaimed in public going back 4 generations including paternal and maternal lines.
As marriages were made for political/alliance reasons and the Gaelic Irish had a near obsession with bloodlines it makes sense to include the mother's line to show 'good' blood (and powerful relations) on both sides.

pedroeibar1

I’m not able to suggest sources on the Norman invasion as requested , but following Dubhthach and CDfm’s posts on goats, horses and attendant proclivities and peccadilloes , I do earnestly suggest that you refrain from using the expression that the Normans ‘came in by the back door’

CDfm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I do earnestly suggest that you refrain from using the expression that the Normans ‘came in by the back door’

Don't get on your high horse.

dubhthach wrote: »

Well not as simple as that, as a member of Clann you needed to know your position with regardes to the Derbhfhine of the clann. This is why you had "Professional Genealogists" from an early stage whose duty was to recite genealogies. To be in the Derbhfhine ye had to be within 4 generations of a previous leader.

Primogeniture was considerably simpler in comparison, ye just need to be the senior "male line" each generation.

In manuscript form a prime example of a collection of "Gaelic Irish" genealogy is Leabhar na nGenealach which was compiled by Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh during the 17th century using pre-existing material.

Of course, but how bloodless was succession. ?


And don't forget that Irish laws on marriage made this all the more necessary.

Turlough O'Donnell lord of Tír Chonaill from 1380-1422 had 18 sons by 10 women and 6 recorded wives

Shane O'Neill 2nd Earl of Tyrone 4 wives

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71405982

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed. Many 'chieftains' produced books or scrolls which laid out their lineage thereby 'proving' their claim.
A good example is the 'Book of the Bourkes' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Burkes.

Interestingly, according to Katherine Simms and Ken Nicholls it was standard practice for people to have their antecedents declaimed in public going back 4 generations including paternal and maternal lines.
As marriages were made for political/alliance reasons and the Gaelic Irish had a near obsession with bloodlines it makes sense to include the mother's line to show 'good' blood (and powerful relations) on both sides.

Was there not divorce. ?


Didn't women have their own property too.

I seem to remember a certain Queen of Breffni was well endowed.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

Don't get on your high horse.

You're riding that metaphor now.

Of course, but how bloodless was succession. ?

Depends on the circumstances and how canny the leading candidate was.

Sometimes the internecine wars of succession could destroy a powerful family - During the 13th century the Uí Conchobhair's tore into each other at the exact moment the Burkes were positioning themselves to manoeuvres into real control in Connacht. By siding with first one faction, then the other, (and sometimes another other) the Burkes managed to 'help' fracture the Uí Conchobhair into 'different' clans - hence O'Connor Don, O'Connor Rua, O'Connor Sligo etc.

In other cases the front runner was pretty obvious - although this in itself could be dangerous. Would Con Bacach Ua Neill or Murrough Ua Briain (or indeed Ulick Na gCeann Burke) have been in a position to 'surrender' and be 'regranted' if there had been a serious challenger to their position within the derbfine of their respective families?

In the Burke Book of Complaints written to Elizabeth I in the 1590s they describe the situation as they saw it very well. They explain to Elizabeth that they have no issue with her being Queenie - hell - sure that's just another 'overlord'- , or paying tax to her as that's just 'tribute' or 'black rent' by another name but the imposition of English ways and English administrators was, in their opinion, a recipe for disaster.

What they wanted was to be allowed to remain living according to Gaelic ways, recognise herself as Queenie and stump up the taxes once a year (eventually...when the cattle market picks up...).

Why? In their own words 'for we are a fractious family who do fall upon each other lest the strongest of us do lead.' They were essentially saying we have this way of life, it really works for us as we will beat the leaving daylights out of each other unless the biggest, toughest, scariest, most connected, slyest and ruthless of us is in charge and bangs our heads together if we go too far. Plus, we'll all be so busy fighting him that we won't have time to fight each other....simples.

Frankly, the second son of Somerset or Devon minor gentry was not going to cut the mustard with them - they could be ruthless, scary etc etc but they were also 'using' someone else's army - and could be replaced on a whim. They were (in the eyes of the snobbish Irish) frankly oiks who were set adrift, landless, in the world to 'make their fortune' - if they were so great why did their family in Somerset/Devon kick them out? When you think about it - they were employees :eek::eek:.

Plus - they killed children. On purpose. So to the Gaelic Irish these guys were barbarians.

And don't forget that Irish laws on marriage made this all the more necessary.

Turlough O'Donnell lord of Tír Chonaill from 1380-1422 had 18 sons by 10 women and 6 recorded wives

Shane O'Neill 2nd Earl of Tyrone 4 wives

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71405982

Hugh O Neill had 6 wives - it really just meant the competition for the top spot was mighty - and really, really, careful track had to be kept of who was who's child...

Was there not divorce. ?

What does divorce have to do with who your mother is? Your Mammy is your Mammy regardless of who she may or may not be married to.

Didn't women have their own property too.

Yes - but that was completely separate from Clan land. She could will it to who she liked (The Inishbofin Cat's Home ).

I seem to remember a certain Queen of Breffni was well endowed.

*slap wrist* - No Queen's in Ireland!!!!!

And leave Dervorgilla Ní Mháelsechnaill and her bosums out of this .


Interesting article on Mrs O Rourke here:
http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume11/issue4/features/?id=290