Were Protestants driven out of the Free State/Republic?

Sound of Silence

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's good to see the catholic education system has achieved its desired outcome.

Its strange how the natural assumption is that protestants=British, catholic=Irish.

Demonstrates nicely how although not driven out, protestants weren't exactly wanted in the "Republic" of Ireland.

I've went into this in detail in another thread. I'm a product of the Catholic Education system and was born and raised in the heart of Republican South Armagh. Take that as you will.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81374251&postcount=161
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81249434&postcount=107
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81260436&postcount=109
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81302486&postcount=133

Are you perhaps claiming that Protestant Schools in the North have regularly preached a policy of Religious and Political Tolerance? Have they worked hard to identify Northern Ireland as a Nation with a diverse identity? I'd imagine that the topic was given as much attention as any topic which happened to not be on the curriculum.

The Protestant population in Ireland isn't particularly large, so perhaps you could forgive someone for being slightly ignorant of how such a group would describe themselves. People on this forum also tend to insist that Northern Nationalists should identify themselves as British. Whilst I would disagree with them, I could forgive them for not knowing that I personally would tend not to identify myself as such, because there is no mechanism in the Irish Education system to cope with us, and I wouldn't expect there to be.

Fratton Fred

Sound of Silence wrote: »

I've went into this in detail in another thread. I'm a product of the Catholic Education system and was born and raised in the heart of Republican South Armagh. Take that as you will.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81374251&postcount=161
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81249434&postcount=107
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81260436&postcount=109
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81302486&postcount=133

Are you perhaps claiming that Protestant Schools in the North have regularly preached a policy of Religious and Political Tolerance? Have they worked hard to identify Northern Ireland as a Nation with a diverse identity? I'd imagine that the topic was given as much attention as any topic which happened to not be on the curriculum.

The Protestant population in Ireland isn't particularly large, so perhaps you could forgive someone for being slightly ignorant of how such a group would describe themselves. People on this forum also tend to insist that Northern Nationalists should identify themselves as British. Whilst I would disagree with them, I could forgive them for not knowing that I personally would tend not to identify myself as such, because there is no mechanism in the Irish Education system to cope with us, and I wouldn't expect there to be.

I wouldn't hold the north up as a model or indicative of anything, other than an outright oddity.

That doesn't get away from the fact that in Ireland, despite numerous prominent protestants, to be Irish means to be catholic, which is a belief that stems directly from the policies of Archbishop McQuaid.

Even Revelheart, who has been outspoken about the catholic church still considers, it appears, that protestants are British and mot Irish. There has been 90 years of blatant indoctrination in this country that was an attempt to make this a pure catholic country.

Yes, there have been protestant presidents, but how many were elected? Would David Norris have been subjected to a smear campaign if he was catholic?

I have my doubts.

ardmacha

Its strange how the natural assumption is that protestants=British

This has feck all to do with the Catholic education system, much of which is very clear that everyone in Ireland is Irish, while Protestant schools often emphasised the opposite. You might all well blame boards, as one can run into flak here for declaring that Protestants are Irish!

But there is no doubt that some Protestants did not consider themselves Irish, rather they regarded themselves as superior to Irish people and the very existence of the State was offensive to these people. If these people left than it is hardly surprising and not especially regrettable.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Even Revelheart, who has been outspoken about the catholic church still considers, it appears, that protestants are British and mot Irish. There has been 90 years of blatant indoctrination in this country that was an attempt to make this a pure catholic country.

You can support this nonsense? Of course not. I have consistently said the opposite, focusing on the Anglo-Irish loyalists/unionists/colonial community who by their own definition are British. Ironically, your insistence that this group of British herrenvolk settler-colonial repining malcontents in Ireland, à la the French Pied-Noir in Algeria, are synonymous with "Protestants" reveals your own indoctrination within the British nationalist system.

I have never said nor implied they are synonymous because I quite simply do not believe it. I do, however, fully appreciate why British nationalists like you want to portray the entire conflict in Ireland as rooted in early modern religious beliefs, and therefore unsolvable, rather than as a political problem of British colonialism, and therefore solvable. The last thing British nationalists, whose identity depends upon what Ian Lustick termed the unquestionable "ideological hegemony" of the existence of the United Kingdom, would like to concede is that there is an entire nation of people in Ireland who reject all British political claims over Ireland as the solution would therefore obviously lead to a loss of British political power in Ireland.

Far better to write it off as an unsolvable problem of irrational, superstitious disgruntled Papists who, whether they like it or not, are really British and would be happily British were it not for those dastardly "nationalists", the bad taigs/Fenians. Portraying it thus has much the same function as calling the Irish "rebels", namely to portray all opposition to the new British colonial order as marginal and the British order as acceptable to all but unreasonable people.

pedroeibar1

You’re a bit off the mark with some of those ideas FF. Where I grew up many Protestant neighbours looked to London and saw their affinity there, even up to the 1970s. It was fine to play as kids, but as teenagers a Protestant girl was discouraged from going out with a Catholic boy. Going to separate schools did not help integration, nor did such activities as Sunday school, a different set of boy scouts and rugby instead of GAA. In retrospect I can see good reason for a siege mentality, given the school teaching of the era.

Anyone with doubts need only read the book on the Fethard boycott.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wouldn't hold the north up as a model or indicative of anything, other than an outright oddity.

Agreed. I add that the orange flag and the black flag boys are uncouth tribesmen.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That doesn't get away from the fact that in Ireland, despite numerous prominent protestants, to be Irish means to be catholic, which is a belief that stems directly from the policies of Archbishop McQuaid. .

It predates McQuaid by at least a century. For example, in the mid 18c the then bishop put an end to the friendship between Fr. Michail Walsh and his neighbour, the CoI Bishop Graves.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Even Revelheart, who has been outspoken about the catholic church still considers, it appears, that protestants are British and mot Irish. There has been 90 years of blatant indoctrination in this country that was an attempt to make this a pure catholic country. .

Rebel heart’s views are – at best - phrased in diatribes and are ignored by most, as illustrated by the lack of interest in topics such as ‘Hidden Histories’ which has very poor response. Those views are not an indicator of anything, other than hatred persists.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, there have been protestant presidents, but how many were elected? Would David Norris have been subjected to a smear campaign if he was catholic? .

They were elected, if only by the houses of the Oireachtas, which required considerable support and backing. It is probable that in an open election they would have got in. Norris’s failure had nothing to do with his religion, it was a mix of things, from political ineptitude to his sexual orientation. Gallagher is I believe a Catholic and look at what happened to him. Both would not have made good presidents.

jonniebgood1

No more references to individuals please- keep it on topic or messages may be removed.

Moderator.

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That doesn't get away from the fact that in Ireland, despite numerous prominent protestants, to be Irish means to be catholic

Since when? Have you got evidence for this?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, there have been protestant presidents, but how many were elected? Would David Norris have been subjected to a smear campaign if he was catholic? I have my doubts.

Norris got as far as he did precisely because he was different in a colourful way - gay and seemingly affable in a conservative country. In reality, despite his "colour" the guy has been traipsing around Dublin for decades getting ridiculously paid for sitting in an elitist undemocratic assembly (which, incidentally, your British state insisted upon back in 1921 precisely to give greater rights to its Anglo-Irish supporters) that has no place in modern Ireland. He wouldn't get elected in a general election because, to put it kindly, he's not cut out for that sort of roughness, meeting people outside TCD and the Irish House of Lords/Seanad Éireann, meeting working people with their feet on the ground.

Ultimately, however, Norris was not elected because there were fundamental questions about his attitude to child abuse. There's "different" and there's just wrong. That you are trying to ignore this and suggest it had something to do with his religion is alas unsurprising given your political views on things Irish. Oh, and his suggestion that he would be open to Ireland becoming part of the British Commonwealth didn't exactly endear him to many people either. No doubt you'll try and write opposition to his politics on that issue to be mere "anti-Protestant", too. :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Rebelheart wrote: »

Since when? Have you got evidence for this?

You obviously don't read boards very much then. I've seen nnumerous references on here, as well as comments made to protestants I know, such as "Who do you support when Ireland are playing England?"

Rebelheart wrote: »

Norris got as far as he did precisely because he was different in a colourful way - gay and seemingly affable in a conservative country. In reality, despite his "colour" the guy has been traipsing around Dublin for decades getting ridiculously paid for sitting in an elitist undemocratic assembly (which, incidentally, your British state insisted upon back in 1921 precisely to give greater rights to its Anglo-Irish supporters) that has no place in modern Ireland. He wouldn't get elected in a general election because, to put it kindly, he's not cut out for that sort of roughness, meeting people outside TCD and the Irish House of Lords/Seanad Éireann, meeting working people with their feet on the ground.

Ultimately, however, Norris was not elected because there were fundamental questions about his attitude to child abuse. There's "different" and there's just wrong. That you are trying to ignore this and suggest it had something to do with his religion is alas unsurprising given your political views on things Irish. Oh, and his suggestion that he would be open to Ireland becoming part of the British Commonwealth didn't exactly endear him to many people either. No doubt you'll try and write opposition to his politics on that issue to be mere "anti-Protestant", too. :rolleyes:

I don't necessarily disagree with that. The upper house is outdated but whilst it is there, it needs people like Norris to prevent it being an extension of the Fianna Fail/Fianna Gail hegemony. I believe the president should be someone who is a bit radical as well. His views (Which were, I believe, mis understood as a result of Mr Norris being "Too" clever with his comments) were obviously the root of his downfall, but I'm still not convinced that conservative Ireland (onservative as a direct result of catholic rule here) would have been comfortable with a protestant president.

Blaming the British for it and also refering to the "British" Commonwealth though shows just how out of date your views are. Welcome to 2012.

I'd like an explanation on what you think my political views are on things Irish as well. Being anti the anti English brigade does not equal being anti Irish, by a long shout. If it did, I would be starting numerous bull**** threads about what a bunch of bastards the Irish are:rolleyes:

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

. . . but I'm still not convinced that conservative Ireland (onservative as a direct result of catholic rule here) would have been comfortable with a protestant president.

Well, they managed to put up with Hyde and Childers without evident discomfort.

Of the nine Presidents of Ireland, two have been Protestant. Relative to the proportion of Protestants in the population of the Republic, that's a substantial over-representation of Protestants in the office. Granted, a pool of nine is hardly statistically significant, but in light of this the fact that one Protestant in the 2011 election was among the six unsuccessful candidates is hardly very convincing evidence of an anti-Protestant bias.

Fascinating factoid of the day: Since 1938, the success rate of Protestants seeking the presidency has been 67%. The success rate of Catholics seeking the presidency has been 41%. Protestantism would appear to be a positive factor, not a negative one.

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, they managed to put up with Hyde and Childers without evident discomfort.

Of the nine Presidents of Ireland, two have been Protestant. Relative to the proportion of Protestants in the population of the Republic, that's a substantial over-representation of Protestants in the office. Granted, a pool of nine is hardly statistically significant, but in light of this the fact that one Protestant in the 2011 election was among the six unsuccessful candidates is hardly very convincing evidence of an anti-Protestant bias.

Fascinating factoid of the day: Since 1938, the success rate of Protestants seeking the presidency has been 67%. The success rate of Catholics seeking the presidency has been 41%. Protestantism would appear to be a positive factor, not a negative one.

Neither of whom were elected and in particular, the Church showed their respect for Hyde at his funeral.

Whilst maybe not indicitive of the people of Ireland, I'm pretty sure this sent a message to the protestant population that they were outsiders and despite the position that Hyde held, the cabinet were more worried about what the bishop thought than paying their respects in a normal manner.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Neither of whom were elected . . .

Childers was elected. But don't let the facts of history stand in the way of the chip on your shoulder!

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

Childers was elected. But don't let the facts of history stand in the way of the chip on your shoulder!

Of course. I stand corrected.

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's good to see the catholic education system has achieved its desired outcome.

Its strange how the natural assumption is that protestants=British, catholic=Irish.

Demonstrates nicely how although not driven out, protestants weren't exactly wanted in the "Republic" of Ireland.

good of you to assume Irish = catholic, did you get that from your Catholic schooling?

this Irishman went to a nondenom school and got his ideas under their watch.

Solair

I have C of I relatives and I spoke to them about this. They didn't seem to think anyone left because they were forced out by anything.

A lot left because like other Irish people at the time, they struggled to find jobs in the 20s and 30s. There was the same emigration pattern to North America and Australia / New Zealand that the rest of the population saw.
I haven't really heard of anything nasty other than against rural landlords who'd been evicting people during the 1800s. Then again my Protestant relatives were working class and Republican and would have been involved in the land league and later the urban ones in the lockout and stuff.

You can't really just assume all Irish protestants were of one social class or political persuasion.

Also speaking to a C of I clergyman in Cork he reckoned that a huge % of the pre independence population were English expats and moved because they were civil servants or military personnel. They were unlikely to hang around as they'd no ties to the place and were just relocated to the UK. You have to remember vast numbers of people worked for the state and it was controlled exclusively from London since the act of union.

He said some of Cork's larger C of I churches would have mostly been full of English soldiers during the 1800s and early 1900s.

During the 20th century a lot of my Protestant relatives married Catholics too. So I suspect that may have driven numbers down as in the past neither church was too keen on mixed marriage. These days it's a lot more live and let live! Both churches are very friendly with each other and religion is much less of a big deal to most people.

Balmed Out

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's good to see the catholic education system has achieved its desired outcome.

Its strange how the natural assumption is that protestants=British, catholic=Irish.

Demonstrates nicely how although not driven out, protestants weren't exactly wanted in the "Republic" of Ireland.

Im interested to know what part of the coutry leads you to believe this. I went to the closest secondary school to where I grew up which happened to be a protestant school. I have always since had protestant, methodist, born again etc etc friends all of whom would be considere Irish by themselves, by all their catholic friends and from what I can tell the wider society.

One thing I have noticed is that some have had family traditions of going to English universities and many of those have emmigrated choosing to remain after finishing their education but they still would see themselves as Irish and are viewed as Irish in Britain.

old hippy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's good to see the catholic education system has achieved its desired outcome.

Its strange how the natural assumption is that protestants=British, catholic=Irish.

Demonstrates nicely how although not driven out, protestants weren't exactly wanted in the "Republic" of Ireland.

My ex left Dublin and went to college over here in the UK, she was patronised on a night out and teased that she shouldn't be having any wild nights out as "a good little Catholic girl", to which she smiled sweetly and replied that actually, she's a Presbyterian girl

I think inaccurate assumptions are made, both sides of the pond, Fred.

None of my family, CofI or otherwise, had to endure much bigotry. Or so I'm told. That's not to say there isn't. But mostly from ignorant people. I remember being told to "piss of back to the Republic" at a close family member's funeral in NI.

An Sionnach Glic

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, they managed to put up with Hyde and Childers without evident discomfort.

I'm surprised that Ernest Blythe is so often ignored in these type of discussions. An Ulster Presbyterian, he held the second most powerful executive job in the Free State for the first ten years of its existence (i.e. Finance Minister) and went on to run the Abbey Theatre when he left politics. And he was very much elected. Were there any Catholics in the cabinets of Stormont? (I'm not trying to be smart, I'm genuinely curious).

HavingCrack

An Sionnach Glic wrote: »

Were there any Catholics in the cabinets of Stormont? (I'm not trying to be smart, I'm genuinely curious).

There was an Education Minister called Pheilim O'Neill who was suspected of being a Catholic I think..

ejmaztec

I read a potted history of the Musgrave family on the internet a few years ago, but can't for the life of me find the webpage now. With what was going on around Cork with regards to violent action against some protestants after independence, they were seriously thinking of getting the hell out, but decided to stay. They seem to have done well since.:eek:

I don't think they had any Catholics on the board of directors for decades, and I get the impression that this only changed in the last twenty or so years (no doubt someone will tell me if I'm wrong on this.)

A retired guy who had a SuperValu franchise about thirty odd years ago was telling me that, when he first started the franchise, one of the Musgrave people asked him what his religion was because he couldn't work it out from the surname.

An Sionnach Glic

HavingCrack wrote: »

There was an Education Minister called Pheilim O'Neill who was suspected of being a Catholic I think..

Suspected? I'll take that as a no, so.

pedroeibar1

ejmaztec wrote: »

.................They seem to have done well since.:eek:

I don't think they had any Catholics on the board of directors for decades, and I get the impression that this only changed in the last twenty or so years (no doubt someone will tell me if I'm wrong on this.)

In Ireland Musgraves has a bit less than 20% marketshare. They have sizeable operations in the UK and also in Spain, are doing well and probably will do better, as their retail model / store size is the direction retailing is going - compare with for example the decline of Carrefour and other hypermarket chains.

I would not be surprised if the Catholic / board thing is true; quite normal as Musgraves remains a family company, despite being founded about 150 years ago. It always has been a very private company, with three lines of the family – now representing about 100 shareholders - retaining about 75% of the equity, the balance being owned by senior executives & employees. On leaving the company an executive has to sell the shares back to the co; there was a court case about this 7 or 8 years ago based on an alleged share undervaluation.

A very interesting company, did a study on them some years ago; they also are a huge supporter of Irish food producers, from memory it was about 70% of all supplies at that time.

The Idyl Race

An Sionnach Glic wrote: »

Suspected? I'll take that as a no, so.

Gerry Newe was a Catholic, a Unionist senator, and was appointed Minister of Community Relations in Faulkner's government.

There is an interesting reference to Newe in Stormont's Hansard by Gerry Fitt in 1963.

http://stormontpapers.ahds.ac.uk/stormontpapers/pageview.html?volumeno=55&pageno=190&searchTerm=golf

An Sionnach Glic

The Idyl Race wrote: »

Gerry Newe was a Catholic, a Unionist senator, and was appointed Minister of Community Relations in Faulkner's government.

There is an interesting reference to Newe in Stormont's Hansard by Gerry Fitt in 1963.

http://stormontpapers.ahds.ac.uk/stormontpapers/pageview.html?volumeno=55&pageno=190&searchTerm=golf

Interesting. Thanks.

pedroeibar1

A few posts back I mentioned ‘The Fethard-on-Sea Boycott’ ( Tim Fanning , Collins Press.) Had a dip into it over the w/e: good book, gives a great insight into the views prevalent in rural Ireland of 1957 and the power of the Catholic Church. Dev comes out of it well, in his role as ‘enforcer’ to bring the priests and local bishop to heel.

Some interesting figures from the Census given in the book. In 1871 there were 42k Church of Ireland farmers in the whole of Ireland. Forty years later the figure had dropped to under 30k. Between 1911 and 1926 CoI membership south of the border fell from 250k to 164k. By 1946 that figure had fallen to 125k (half the 1911 figure). In 1961 numbers had dropped to 104k or just under 3.7 of the total population.

Peregrinus

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

. . . Some interesting figures from the Census given in the book. In 1871 there were 42k Church of Ireland farmers in the whole of Ireland. Forty years later the figure had dropped to under 30k. . .

Well, that's interesting. Cleary we can't attribute that to discrimination by the Free State/Republic. Possibly the decline of the Protestant denominations after 1922 was, to some extent at any rate, a continuation of a phenomenon that was already established, rather than a consequence of independence.

pedroeibar1

Peregrinus wrote: »

............... Possibly the decline of the Protestant denominations after 1922 was, to some extent at any rate, a continuation of a phenomenon that was already established, rather than a consequence of independence.

I agree, but the main reason for the decline (and the cause of the above-mentioned boycott) was the Ne Temere decree, which more recently was IMO rightly described by a CoI bishop as 'social genocide'.

Peregrinus

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I agree, but the main reason for the decline (and the cause of the above-mentioned boycott) was the Ne Temere decree, which more recently was IMO rightly described by a CoI bishop as 'social genocide'.

Except that the Ne Temere decree was issued in 1908; it defies common sense to suggest that it can account for the decline in the number of Protestant farmers between 1871 and 1911.

To assess the effect of Ne Temere after 1908, we'd need to know what the rate of intermarriage was. To the extent that Ne Temere actually reduced the rate of intermarriage - and I think it's generally accepted that it did reduce intermarriage rates, since one of its purposes was to discourage Catholics from "marrying out" - it would in fact have tended to increase the Protestant population, I think. I think the rate of intermarriage from 1922 to the 1960s was fairly low, in which case Ne Temere would have had minimal effects on the Protestant population figures. (Its symbolic signficance, of course, would have been considerable, and I'm not discounting the significance of that.)

pedroeibar1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except that the Ne Temere decree was issued in 1908; it defies common sense to suggest that it can account for the decline in the number of Protestant farmers between 1871 and 1911.

To assess the effect of Ne Temere after 1908, we'd need to know what the rate of intermarriage was. To the extent that Ne Temere actually reduced the rate of intermarriage - and I think it's generally accepted that it did reduce intermarriage rates, since one of its purposes was to discourage Catholics from "marrying out" - it would in fact have tended to increase the Protestant population, I think. I think the rate of intermarriage from 1922 to the 1960s was fairly low, in which case Ne Temere would have had minimal effects on the Protestant population figures. (Its symbolic signficance, of course, would have been considerable, and I'm not discounting the significance of that.)

I’m not arguing on the 1871-1911 period, the decline is obvious and much is probably due to land reform, the Encumbered Estates, Land Acts, etc.. A landlord moves and brings many of his old retainers with him.

However I do not easily accept your logic on Ne Temere – prior to NT it was common for the children of mixed marriages to follow the religion of the parent, i.e. boys followed that of the father, girls followed that of the mother. It was a workable ‘status quo’ until the R C Church stuck its oar in. As all children of mixed marriages were forced to be RC post NT, the school numbers in CoI schools fell dramatically and many closed due to lack of numbers. If you were CoI and wanted your children educated in your faith, you had to go to an area that had a school. That was to a city, or take the boat.

Peregrinus

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

However I do not easily accept your logic on Ne Temere – prior to NT it was common for the children of mixed marriages to follow the religion of the parent, i.e. boys followed that of the father, girls followed that of the mother. It was a workable ‘status quo’ until the R C Church stuck its oar in. As all children of mixed marriages were forced to be RC post NT, the school numbers in CoI schools fell dramatically and many closed due to lack of numbers. If you were CoI and wanted your children educated in your faith, you had to go to an area that had a school. That was to a city, or take the boat.

We’re discussing this without data, which is perhaps unwise. But as far as I can see, Ne Temere would have had both positive and negative effects on the Protestant population.

Where, despite Ne Temere, a Protestant and a Catholic marry, then obviously the effect of the decree is that all of the Protestant’s children will be raised Catholic, rather than just half as might have been the case before. But where, because of Ne Temere, a Protestant/Catholic marriage is averted, then obviously the effect of the decree is that all of the Protestant’s children, rather than just half, will be raised Protestant. (Assuming, of course, that the Protestant who doesn’t marry a Catholic goes ahead and marries a non-Catholic.)

So, the question is, which effect of Ne Temere was greater? To the extent that it succeeded in reducing the rate of Protestant/Catholic marriages, it will in fact have tended to boost, or at least sustain, Protestant population figures. No doubt the data which would enable us to measure this effect - comparative “mixed marriage” rates before and after 1908 - exists, but I haven’t got it.

I’ve googled a bit, but haven’t found any hard data, but I have formed a general impression that in Ireland the rate of Protestant/Catholic marriages was extremely low. In 1946, for example, only 1.6% of marriages by Anglicans or Presbyterians involved a partner who was not either Anglican or Presbyterian. The number of such marriages where the other partner was a Catholic must have been even lower. Unless 1946 was anomalous, then, it’s impossible that the raising as Catholic of all, rather than half, of the children born to probably less than 1.5% of Protestants could account for the decline in the Protestant population.

Ne Temere could, though, have contributed to decline in another way, in supporting high Protestant emigration rates, at least from rural areas. If you’re not prepared to marry a Catholic and/or Catholics are generally not prepared to marry you, and you’ve met the comparatively small number of marriageable Protestants of the right age, sex and social standing who live within striking distance of you and you don’t want to marry any of them, emigration begins to look like an attractive option. The problem here, of course, is that many other factors were also sustaining high emigration rates, so it’s impossible to disentangle and measure the “marriage” motivation for Protestant emigration.

Balmed Out

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

If you were CoI and wanted your children educated in your faith, you had to go to an area that had a school. That was to a city, or take the boat.

Plenty of CoI schools were boarding schools.