Laudabilitor, Detailed History Discussion.

nowanathiest

I think history has shown that there isn't much the RC wouldn't stoop to. Recently I've begun to wonder how much of our poor relations with our neighbour, the UK, might have been down to their behind-the-scenes politicking over the years.



"The up to the Cambro-Norman invasion in 1169, the Irish Church practised what is now referred to as Celtic Christianity. A reform to the Roman style diocesan system developed slowly after the Synod of Rathbreasail in 1111.
In 1155, Pope Adrian IV, the sole English born Pope, issued a papal bull known as Laudabiliter. This gave Henry II permission to invade Ireland as a means of strengthening the Papacy's control over the Irish Church.[3] The Norman invasion of Ireland began in 1169, under the authority of this bull. Adrian IV's successor, Pope Alexander III, ratified the Laudabiliter and gave Henry dominion over the "barbarous nation" of Ireland so that its "filthy practises" may be abolished, its Church brought into line, and that the Irish pay their tax to Rome.

[/U][4] [/B]After the Norman invasion, a greater number of foreign-born prelates were appointed. A confusing but defining period arose during the English Reformation in the 16th century, with monarchs alternately for or against Papal supremacy. When in 1558 the church in England broke away from what became known as the Roman Catholic Church, all but two of the bishops of the Church in Ireland followed the Church of England decision,[5] although almost none of the local clergy led the laity to do so. The new body became the established State Church, was grandfathered the possession of most Church property. This allowed the Church of Ireland to retain a great repository of religious architecture and other religious items, some of which were later destroyed in future wars. The substantial majority of the population remained Roman Catholic, despite the political and economic advantages of membership in the state church. Despite its numerical minority, however, the Church of Ireland remained the official state church for almost three hundred years until it was disestablished on 1 January 1871 by the Irish Church Act 1869 that was passed by Gladstone's Liberal government"

A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, using some monetary averages shows that in the past 80 years alone, Irish people have donated a whopping 250 million punts/euros (based on 500,000 families donating 100 punts/euros per year). What do we have to show for it? how much of it has been repatriated to Rome? what has it or is it being used for?

Bannasidhe

nowanathiest wrote: »

I think history has shown that there isn't much the RC wouldn't stoop to. Recently I've begun to wonder how much of our poor relations with our neighbour, the UK, might have been down to their behind-the-scenes politicking over the years.



"The up to the Cambro-Norman invasion in 1169, the Irish Church practised what is now referred to as Celtic Christianity. A reform to the Roman style diocesan system developed slowly after the Synod of Rathbreasail in 1111.
In 1155, Pope Adrian IV, the sole English born Pope, issued a papal bull known as Laudabiliter. This gave Henry II permission to invade Ireland as a means of strengthening the Papacy's control over the Irish Church.[3] The Norman invasion of Ireland began in 1169, under the authority of this bull. Adrian IV's successor, Pope Alexander III, ratified the Laudabiliter and gave Henry dominion over the "barbarous nation" of Ireland so that its "filthy practises" may be abolished, its Church brought into line, and that the Irish pay their tax to Rome.

[/U][4] [/B]After the Norman invasion, a greater number of foreign-born prelates were appointed. A confusing but defining period arose during the English Reformation in the 16th century, with monarchs alternately for or against Papal supremacy. When in 1558 the church in England broke away from what became known as the Roman Catholic Church, all but two of the bishops of the Church in Ireland followed the Church of England decision,[5] although almost none of the local clergy led the laity to do so. The new body became the established State Church, was grandfathered the possession of most Church property. This allowed the Church of Ireland to retain a great repository of religious architecture and other religious items, some of which were later destroyed in future wars. The substantial majority of the population remained Roman Catholic, despite the political and economic advantages of membership in the state church. Despite its numerical minority, however, the Church of Ireland remained the official state church for almost three hundred years until it was disestablished on 1 January 1871 by the Irish Church Act 1869 that was passed by Gladstone's Liberal government"

A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, using some monetary averages shows that in the past 80 years alone, Irish people have donated a whopping 250 million punts/euros (based on 500,000 families donating 100 punts/euros per year). What do we have to show for it? how much of it has been repatriated to Rome? what has it or is it being used for?

Hmmmm...sorry but I have to correct some of this.

There is no evidence Laudabilitor existed. The first mention we have of it is Gerald of Wales's post-invasion accounts which justify the invasion and extol his Geraldine relations.

Henry II never used Laudabilitor as 'justification'. He never made any reference to it at all. Nor would he ever be willing to have himself portrayed as some military lackey of the Pope. Henry had serious issues with the Papacy and resented it's interference in the domestic politics of his English realm. Henry was trying to lessen Rome's control -not extend it.

No extant copy of Laudabilitor had ever been found.

There is evidence to support a 'grant' of Ireland by Adrian to Henry II - but not in the form a Papal Bull. This is viewed by many historians as a (pre-Thomas Beckett murder) attempt by Rome to bribe Henry into being a good boy and doing what Rome wanted. It should be noticed that Henry made no effort whatsoever to act on this 'grant'.

What attracted Adrian's attention to Ireland was the constant complaints by 'reformers' such as Malachi who inundated Rome with complaints about how the Gaelic Church was not conforming to orthodox Roman doctrine. The non-payment of 'Peter's Pence' was part of those complaints.
The impetus for 'reform' (i.e. bringing it into line with Rome) came from within Ireland. Henry II was simply seen by Rome as a convenient means of achieving this - well, he was until that whole Thomas Beckett incident blotted his copy book.

Henry II showed zero interest in Ireland until a certain exiled king of Leinster turned up in France and swore feality to him in return for military aid. Henry decided to kill two bird with one stone and sent Mac Murrough off to chat to Strongbow and his Geraldine relations- a bunch of out of control frontiersmen cause untold problems in Wales who Henry hated and wanted rid off.

Initially, Strongbow and the lads were hired mercenaries (MacMurrough pulled a fast one by allowing Strongbow to believe that by marrying Aoife he would become heir to the MacMurrough - as Gaelic kingship was by election from the derbfine this was essentially a big fat old lie) but MacMurrough quickly realised that due to his new allies advanced military technology he could actually gain the high kingship - and left Strongbow believe he would be his successor.

I won't go into how Strongbow's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid style 'escape' from Dublin was an unexpected success as the besieging forces of Ard Rí Ruadhri Ua Conchobhair were busy having a cooling swim at the exact moment the Normans came a rushing out expecting to be cut down and this allowed the Normans to regroup.

Henry II then intervened as he feared the establishment of a rival Norman
kingdom in Ireland so he arrived with full force to make Strongbow reaffirm his fealty. Strongbow had already offered his fealty to Ua Conchobhair but was turned down as the Ard Rí was (mistakenly) confident of success.

In the Treaty of Windsor Henry and Ua Conchobhair agreed that the Normans would hold what they had (The Pale) and the rest would be Gaelic. Henry created the Lordship of Ireland and placed his youngest son John in charge - he never expected John to inherit the Throne of England and the Lordship to become invested in the English monarchy. What he did invisage was a Lordship ruled by John's descendants which was subject to the Throne of England and consisted of The Pale.

While I can give you chapter and verse of how the Church (pre and post Reformation) sold out Ireland and worked to destroy Gaelic culture (which was highly secular and took not a blind bit of notice of the church) it cannot be blamed for the Norman Invasion - that completely was down to internal politics in Ireland and in England - but to gain legitimacy for the Lordship the existance of the so-called Papal Bull that is Laudabilitor was trotted out after the event. Rome did confirm Henry's overlordship but only when it was a fait accompli.

When Henry VIII broke with Rome he 'lost' this legitimacy - so he created the Kingdom of Ireland by right of conquest - in fact 3/4s of the island was comprised of autonomous Gaelic and Gaelicised Tuatha.

Henry VIII began the process of Anglicisation. All of this children followed suit with ever increasing actrocities.
Rome did reconfirm Mary and Phillip (II of Spain) - but this was because Mary was a Catholic - if there had been a Protestant on the throne (id Edward VI had survived) such a reconfirmation would never have happened.

Here endeth the history lesson with the message that although Rome has long been a cankerous parasite on Ireland's ass and has played a large role in the destruction of Gaelic culture and Irish independence it is nontheless important that we 'blame' them for the stuff they are actually responsible for and the 'blame' for the Norman and later Tudor Conquests and policies of enforced Anglicisation cannot be laid at Rome's feet.

Most of those massacred by Raleigh, Spenser, Bingham etc at Dún an Óir during the Desmond Rebellion were Papal troops sent to aid the 'Irish' rebels.

nowanathiest

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hmmmm...sorry but I have to correct some of this.

There is no evidence Laudabilitor existed. The first mention we have of it is Gerald of Wales's post-invasion accounts which justify the invasion and extol his Geraldine relations.

Henry II never used Laudabilitor as 'justification'. He never made any reference to it at all. Nor would he ever be willing to have himself portrayed as some military lackey of the Pope. Henry had serious issues with the Papacy and resented it's interference in the domestic politics of his English realm. Henry was trying to lessen Rome's control -not extend it.

No extant copy of Laudabilitor had ever been found.

There is evidence to support a 'grant' of Ireland by Adrian to Henry II - but not in the form a Papal Bull. This is viewed by many historians as a (pre-Thomas Beckett murder) attempt by Rome to bribe Henry into being a good boy and doing what Rome wanted. It should be noticed that Henry made no effort whatsoever to act on this 'grant'.

Thanks Bannashide, I was aware of all of this, but didn't want to post half a book. I have 2 points:

Laudabilitor is "disputed" but that is all.........Rome spun to great effect, they got what they wanted by alluding to a document even if it didn't actually exist.......Irish taxes. We have only ever been a pawn in their international politics.......and a lucrative one at that.

Second: there doesn't seem to be any transparancy in regard to church finances. Have any of you ever seen local church accounts? national accounts? are they audited?

nowanathiest

The focus on finances is relevant as follows:

"http://www1.villanova.edu/content/dam/villanova/VSB/publications/catholicchurchfinances.pdf

One of the by-products of the recent U.S. Catholic Church clergy sexual abuse scandal
was a new focus on the Church's financial transparency and accountability. As the
scandal unfolded, parishioners learned that in some dioceses, payments related to the
scandal had been taking place for years. Some of the payments went to victims in the
form of settlements or to pay for counseling; some went to pay for the "rehabilitation" of
priests accused of pedophile; and some funds were paid out in lawyers fees. The vast
majority of Catholics was unaware of these payments, and therefore surprised by the
magnitude of the scandal. A number of parishioners pointed out that, if the Church had
been more open in its finances, the expenses associated with clergy sexual abuse, and
hence the nature and magnitude of the problem, would have been uncovered much sooner
than it was. This might have caused church leaders to take action sooner and prevent
some of the abusive behavior, especially that by repeat offenders.
As parishioners became more aware of the lack of financial transparency and
accountability, they clamored for some institutional controls and mechanisms to address
this issue. After further investigation, it was learned that Catholic dioceses (and to a
lesser extent, Catholic parishes) were subject to a variety of internal financial control
mechanisms embodied in canon law. Once this became well-known, the focus shifted to
the degree of effectiveness of these mechanisms."

Bannasidhe

nowanathiest wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hmmmm...sorry but I have to correct some of this.

There is no evidence Laudabilitor existed. The first mention we have of it is Gerald of Wales's post-invasion accounts which justify the invasion and extol his Geraldine relations.

Henry II never used Laudabilitor as 'justification'. He never made any reference to it at all. Nor would he ever be willing to have himself portrayed as some military lackey of the Pope. Henry had serious issues with the Papacy and resented it's interference in the domestic politics of his English realm. Henry was trying to lessen Rome's control -not extend it.

No extant copy of Laudabilitor had ever been found.

There is evidence to support a 'grant' of Ireland by Adrian to Henry II - but not in the form a Papal Bull. This is viewed by many historians as a (pre-Thomas Beckett murder) attempt by Rome to bribe Henry into being a good boy and doing what Rome wanted. It should be noticed that Henry made no effort whatsoever to act on this 'grant'.

Thanks Bannashide, I was aware of all of this, but didn't want to post half a book. I have 2 points:

Laudabilitor is "disputed" but that is all.........Rome spun to great effect, they got what they wanted by alluding to a document even if it didn't actually exist.......Irish taxes. We have only ever been a pawn in their international politics.......and a lucrative one at that.

Second: there doesn't seem to be any transparancy in regard to church finances. Have any of you ever seen local church accounts? national accounts? are they audited?

No Laudabilitor is not 'disputed' - it is agreed that it doesn't exist and never existed.

Rome did not claim it existed - Gerald of Wales did. The same Gerald who was related to the Fitzgeralds who laid claim to large swathes of Leinster and Munster. He wished to make it look like his cousins were acting for Rome rather than the land grabbing paid mercenaries they actually were.

It was not the impetus for the conquest as you implied.
It was made up after the event by clergymen trying to a) claim legitimacy b)bring Henry II to heel c) create the illusion of an all powerful Rome with all of Europe under its direct control.

It was baseless PR that is all.

And no - they actually didn't get the 'taxes' from 3/4s of the Island which remained Gaelic.

My point - and I shall ignore what looks like a dig at me with the 'half a book comment' - is that in your post you sought to lay the blame at Rome's feet for events over which they had no input or control.
What Rome did do was retrospectively try and claim responsibility.
Just as they have retrospectively claimed to be at the forefront of the 20th century War of Independence.

Condemn them for the evils they have done - but in this instance all they are guilty of is spin doctoring and claiming 'credit' for things they had nothing to do with.

If you were aware of all of this I don't understand why what you did post was inaccurate .

I'm afraid that here in A&A we generally prefer the half a book of accurate information to inaccurate soundbites.

nowanathiest

Bannasidhe wrote: »

nowanathiest wrote: »

No Laudabilitor is not 'disputed' - it is agreed that it doesn't exist and never existed.

Rome did not claim it existed - Gerald of Wales did. The same Gerald who was related to the Fitzgeralds who laid claim to large swathes of Leinster and Munster. He wished to make it look like his cousins were acting for Rome rather than the land grabbing paid mercenaries they actually were.

It was not the impetus for the conquest as you implied.
It was made up after the event by clergymen trying to a) claim legitimacy b)bring Henry II to heel c) create the illusion of an all powerful Rome with all of Europe under its direct control.

It was baseless PR that is all.

And no - they actually didn't get the 'taxes' from 3/4s of the Island which remained Gaelic.

My point - and I shall ignore what looks like a dig at me with the 'half a book comment' - is that in your post you sought to lay the blame at Rome's feet for events over which they had no input or control.
What Rome did do was retrospectively try and claim responsibility.
Just as they have retrospectively claimed to be at the forefront of the 20th century War of Independence.

Condemn them for the evils they have done - but in this instance all they are guilty of is spin doctoring and claiming 'credit' for things they had nothing to do with.

If you were aware of all of this I don't understand way what you did post was inaccurate .

I'm afraid that here in A&A we generally prefer the half a book of accurate information to inaccurate soundbites.

there is no dig at you and what I did post is not inaccurate:
In 1155, three years after the Synod of Kells, Adrian IV published the Papal Bull 'Laudabiliter', which was addressed to the Angevin King Henry II of England. He urged Henry to invade Ireland to bring its Celtic ChristianI][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0066cc]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I Church under the Roman system and to conduct a general reform of governance and society throughout the island. The authenticity of this grant, the historian Edmund Curtis says, is one of "the great questions of history." He states that the matter was discussed at a Royal Council at Winchester, but that Henry's mother, the Empress Matilda, had protested. In Ireland however, nothing seems to have been known of it, and no provision appears to have been made to defend against the prospect of Angevin Norman aggression, despite their westward expansion throughout England and Wales.[12] Ernest F. Henderson states that the existence of this Bull is doubted by many[13] while, in noting that its authenticity has been questioned without success, P. S. O'Hegarty suggests that the question is now purely an academic one. It is notable that decisions of Pope Alexander III, his successor, Pope Lucius III, and King Henry VIII in proclaiming the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 were predicated on this document.[14] The Normans did in fact invade Ireland, beginning with a small landing of Norman knights in 1169, followed by Henry's landing with a much larger force in 1171.


I merely choose not to engage in endless hair-splitting.

Turtwig

New thread created.
History ftw.

Bannasidhe

nowanathiest wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

there is no dig at you and what I did post is not inaccurate:
In 1155, three years after the Synod of Kells, Adrian IV published the Papal Bull 'Laudabiliter', which was addressed to the Angevin King Henry II of England. He urged Henry to invade Ireland to bring its Celtic ChristianI][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0066cc]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I Church under the Roman system and to conduct a general reform of governance and society throughout the island. The authenticity of this grant, the historian Edmund Curtis says, is one of "the great questions of history." He states that the matter was discussed at a Royal Council at Winchester, but that Henry's mother, the Empress Matilda, had protested. In Ireland however, nothing seems to have been known of it, and no provision appears to have been made to defend against the prospect of Angevin Norman aggression, despite their westward expansion throughout England and Wales.[12] Ernest F. Henderson states that the existence of this Bull is doubted by many[13] while, in noting that its authenticity has been questioned without success, P. S. O'Hegarty suggests that the question is now purely an academic one. It is notable that decisions of Pope Alexander III, his successor, Pope Lucius III, and King Henry VIII in proclaiming the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 were predicated on this document.[14] The Normans did in fact invade Ireland, beginning with a small landing of Norman knights in 1169, followed by Henry's landing with a much larger force in 1171.


I merely choose not to engage in endless hair-splitting.

Would you care to actually provide a link to where you are getting these quotes from?

Oh hang on - it's wikipedia. :rolleyes:

Seriously dude - I have been lecturing in this stuff for many, many years and pointing out that the stuff in wikipedia is usually not accurate and therefore not acceptable when discussing history is lesson one, day one not 'hair splitting' - it is saying one cannot rely on what it says in wikipedia.

I have read Gerald of Wales, I have read the State Papers of Henry II (and ever other fecking English monarch), I have read the Irish Annals - and wikipedia, surprise surprise, is wrong.

For example this passage
'It is notable that decisions of Pope Alexander III, his successor, Pope Lucius III, and King Henry VIII in proclaiming the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 were predicated on this document'

gives the impression that Alexander, Lucius and Hal Tudor were acting in concert - now, consider this

In 1536 an act called the ‘Act Extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop in Rome’ tied all previous acts together but added one other law – anyone who defended the former powers of the Pope would have their property confiscated. By 1538 no one was expected to refer to the Pope as being the head of the church on pain of being suspected of treason.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/break_rome.htm

The creation of the Kingdom of Ireland came about because Henry had broken from Rome. It was certainly not done with Rome's involvement or sanction and was only recognised by Rome after Catholic Mary came to the Throne when it was believed she was pregnant and would therefore have a Catholic successor .

Now, I love that you are looking at the history. I applaud that you are seeking the unravel the tangled roots and spin doctoring and outright lies but please do not place your faith (:p) in wikipedia.

Inaccurate information undermines your whole argument.

There is a very strong argument to be made that the RCC have never been a friend to Ireland or the Irish - that we have been pawns in a global game of power politics - but you need to be hair splittingly accurate to successfully make the case not rely on inaccurate information which can be demolished with zero effort.

Bannasidhe

If anyone is interested this is the alleged text of Laudabilitor (1155)

"ADRIAN, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his most dearly beloved son in Christ, the illustrious king of the English, greeting and apostolical blessing.

"Laudably and profitably doth your Majesty consider how you may best extend the glory of your name on earth and lay up for yourself an eternal reward in heaven, when, as becomes a Catholic prince, you labour to extend the borders of the Church, to teach the truths of the Christian faith to a rude and unlettered people, and to root out the weeds of vice from the field of the Lord; and to accomplish your design more effectually you crave the advice and assistance of the Apostolic See, and in so doing we are persuaded that the higher are your aims, and the more discreet your proceedings, the greater, under God, will be your success; because, whatever has its origin in ardent faith and in love of religion, always has a prosperous end and issue. Certainly it is beyond a doubt, as your Highness acknowledgeth, that Ireland and all the other islands, on which the Gospel of Christ hath dawned and which have received the knowledge of the Christian faith, belong of right to St Peter and the holy Roman Church. Wherefore we are the more desirous to sow in them the acceptable seed of God's word, because we know that it will be strictly required of us hereafter. You have signified to us, our well-beloved son in Christ, that you propose to enter the island of Ireland in order to subdue the people and make them obedient to laws, and to root out from among them the weeds of sin; and that you are willing to yield and pay yearly from every house the pension of one penny to St Peter, and to keep and preserve the rights of the churches in that land whole and inviolate.

"We, therefore, regarding your pious and laudable design with due favour, and graciously assenting to your petition, do hereby declare our will and pleasure, that, for the purpose of enlarging the borders of the Church, setting bounds to the progress of wickedness, reforming evil manners, planting virtue, and increasing the Christian religion, you do enter and take possession of that island, and execute therein whatsoever shall be for God's honour and the welfare of the same.

"And, further, we do also strictly charge and require that the people of that land shall accept you with all honour, and dutifully obey you, as their liege lord, saving only the rights of the churches, which we will have inviolably preserved; and reserving to St Peter and the holy Roman Church the yearly pension of one penny from each house. If, therefore, you bring your purpose to good effect, let it be your study to improve the habits of that people, and take such orders by yourself, or by others whom you shall think fitting, for their lives, manners and conversation, that the Church there may be adorned by them, the Christian faith be planted and increased, and all that concerns the honour of God and the salvation of souls be ordered by you in like manner; so that you may receive at God's hands the blessed reward of everlasting life, and may obtain on earth a glorious name in ages to come."

http://www.libraryireland.com/HullHistory/Appendix1a.php

The original text of this Bull will be found in Dimock's edition of the works of Giraldus Cambrensis, vol. v, pp. 317-319 (1867).



This is Alexander III's 1172 confirmation. After the Treaty of Windsor and creation of the Lordship of Ireland - i.e he was confirming Henry in what he already held.

Note he used the word 'grant'. No-one disputes there was a grant, what is in serious, serious doubt is the existence of a Papal Bull entitled Laudabilitor.

"Alexander, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our well-beloved son in Christ, the illustrious king of the English, health and apostolic benediction.

"Forasmuch as these grants of our predecessors which are known to have been made on reasonable grounds, are worthy to be confirmed by a permanent sanction; We, therefore, following in the footsteps of the late venerable Pope Adrian, and in expectation also of seeing the fruits of our own earnest wishes on this head, ratify and confirm the permission of the said Pope granted you in reference to the dominion of the kingdom of Ireland; (reserving to Blessed Peter and the holy Roman Church, as in England, so also in Ireland, the annual payment of one penny for every house;) to the end that the filthy practices of that land may be abolished, and the barbarous nation which is called by the Christian name, may through your clemency attain unto some decency of manners; and that when the Church of that country which has been hitherto in a disordered state, shall have been reduced to better order, that people may by your means possess for the future the reality as well as the name of the Christian profession."

Now, the Papacy claimed it had to right to extend such grants due to The Donation of Constantine (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.asp warning - it does go on a bit ) a forgery which stated that the emperor Constantine I had decreed that the Pope would have dominion over the whole of the Western Empire.

Now - to be hair splitting about it (:p) technically Ireland was never part of the Roman empire so even if the Donation of Constantine wasn't a forgery (it was believed to be true until the mid-15th century) Adrian could still have been accused of straying outside his remit.

However, we are dealing the the RCC here so that eventuality was considered - the argument went something like this:

The Roman Church was the heir to the Roman empire but with extra added God approval making it Roman Empire 2.0 .

Roman Empire 2.0 was the temporal of the emperors plus the spiritual of the popes.

It was still the Roman Empire but with God (via his anointed spokesman naturally) in charge rather than those nasty false 'gods' like Tiberius, Caligula, Nero etc etc.

Therefore regions that had not been part of the strictly temporal Roman Empire but were later 'converted' to Christianity became part of the new (holy) Roman Empire 2.0 and were therefore covered by Constantine's donation so the Pope was within his rights to appoint rulers to them - in their own best interests of course according to Gods 'mysterious ways' plan as revealed only to the Pope.

Now (holy) Roman Empire 2.0 should not be confused with The Holy Roman Empire as set up by the Franks which was, obviously, temporal and therefore subject to the authority of the Pope - no matter what Charlemagne said.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

[...] here in A&A we generally prefer the half a book of accurate information to inaccurate soundbites.

[Citation not needed]

Bannasidhe

Here is a good outline of the politics behind the 16th century, post-Reformation, Papal confirmation of The Kingdom of Ireland granted to Mary Tudor and Phillip Hapsburg.

It should be noted that technically Paul IV 'erected' (i.e. 'elevated' from a Lordship) Ireland to a Kingdom meaning as far as Rome was concerned Henry VIII had no legitimate right to enact The Crown of Ireland Act 1542 or indeed 'rule' in Ireland - not that they made any attempt to actually aid Gaelic Ireland to resist the Tudor advance in any meaningful way until Elizabeth's arse had the throne well warmed.

The wording is clear that as far as the RCC was concerned control over Ireland was Rome's to deny or bestow - even though at this point it was accepted that The Donation of Constantine was a fake which effectively voided Rome's claim of dominion over Ireland.
At no point did they ever consider bestowing their largess on an actual Irish person. During the Nine Years War the plan was that Ireland should come under the remit of Phillip II of Spain (O'Neill accepted this plan) as he was, as far as Rome was concerned, already king of Ireland.

Phillip appears to have disagreed as he made no real move ( a token Spanish contingent made up some of the Papal force massacred at Dún an Óir in 1580) to directly interfere in Ireland in any significant way until the 'cold war' build up to the Armada in 1588 began to heat up when Elizabeth openly backed the Dutch 'rebels' against Spain.

If Phillip had genuinely believed Ireland was 'his' he would have thrown far more resources into aiding the Irish. Instead he focused on retaining the Netherlands - which he did, very much, consider 'his'.

After the destruction of the Grande y Felicíssima Armada in 1588, Phillip II sent two more forces against England - ignoring pleas from Ireland.

In 1602, his son Phillip III committed 3,500 troops to aid O'Neill. They were defeated at Kinsale. Control over Ireland would have been 'transferred' to Spain had they managed to win.


What is also clear is that Mary requested the 'elevation' of Ireland to a Kingdom via Cardinal Pole and, although Rome was happy to oblige, the impetus behind it lay firmly in London.

The Marian restoration was widely welcomed. In October 1553 Queen Mary sent St Leger back to Ireland as her Deputy with instructions to restore the Catholic religion. She reinstated Archbishop Dowdall in Armagh, and appointed local men to vacant Irish dioceses. Dowdall, who had met with Cardinal Pole while in exile, was a key figure in the Marian restoration in Ireland, along with William Walsh, subsequently bishop of Meath, and Thomas Leverous, subsequently bishop of Kildare, who were also associated with the cardinal.

Dowdall held an important synod for the ecclesiastical province of Armagh at the close of 1553 which ordered the restoration of Catholic rites and practices, and allowed for the reconciliation of clergy who had used Protestant rites. He also ordered the burning of Protestant books and the setting up of inquisitions to deal with any recalcitrant heretics. Judging by the archbishop’s register, the work of restoration was soon achieved.

Queen Mary, following her practice in England and Wales, established a royal commission in April 1554 to remove any married clergymen from office in Ireland. Five bishops and a few lesser clergy were deprived, though Browne was subsequently rehabilitated and ended his days as a canon of St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin. Catholic appointees were put in their places.

In June 1555, at Cardinal Pole’s request, Pope Paul IV erected Ireland into a kingdom], to which Pole was appointed as a papal legate in July. In April 1556 Mary, on appointing Lord Fitzwalter as Deputy, instructed him to prepare for a parliament, to facilitate the legatine visitation of the Irish Church planned by Pole, and to assist the bishops in rooting out heresy. The parliament finally met in June 1557 to repeal the Henrician reformation legislation, and to revive the anti-heresy laws, though there were no true ‘heretics’ in Ireland to burn.

Cardinal Pole was unable to conduct his visitation of the Irish Church, and his plans to re-direct the taxes which the English crown levied on the Irish Church to tackle the great problem of clerical poverty and to establish diocesan seminaries never reached fruition. Archbishop Dowdall’s proposals for an Irish university and for free schools likewise came to nothing. By November 1558 Pole, Dowdall and Queen Mary were dead and the Marian restoration dwindled to an end.

http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Culture__Religion_in_Tudor_Ireland_1494-1558

The situation was very similiar to the 20th century Cold War - two ideologies (religious rather than political but there was a significent political element to it) were locked into a battle for control of Europe.

On one side there was Rome with it's own army plus Spain (and Portugal before Phillip II annexed it). Although Spain had a magnificent navy, it relied on it's land forces and it's military was often rendered fatally ineffective due to Phillip II's insistence on privileging noble blood over ability when choosing commanders.

On the other was an emerging England and the Dutch. Both relied on 'Privateers' to form the bulk of their navy and were 'blessed' with innovative, dynamic, ruthless captains who stood to make fine personal profits and elevation to the peerage in England should they be successful.

France's internal Wars of Religion had essentially removed it from the global stage. It was far too busy tearing itself apart to worry about anything else.

Ireland was one of the sites where these two opposing sides fought it out but neither side had any interest in preserving Gaelic culture or Irish independence. Both considered the Gaelic and Gaelicised Irish to be little more than charming savages who were rather good fighters who also bred particularly good looking women - though they did complain that Irish women were mouthy, had too much freedom, sexually wanton and not only butted in when menfolk were talking - they actually openly criticised what the menfolk were saying and Irishmen seemed to think this was normal and proper. :eek:





This message was brought to you by a frustrated script marker who has just been informed that Henry VIII divorced the Pope.