Wealthy catholic landowners

Seanachai

I've been talking to my own relatives and friends about their own family history and from time to time people will say that some of their relatives in the past two hundred years were wealthy catholics with land. Given the history of colonisation in Ireland and lands been taken from native people how would some catholics have managed to hold on to land during all of this? , does it mean they were corrupt in some way or that they sided with the British?.

Manach

It is a bit difficult to quantify what counts as corruption when during penal times, ending in the early 19thC when the restrictions against Catholics were lifted. A prime duty is the survival of the family structure, no matter which regime in power. Offhand from reading of Daniel O'Connel's background - Catholic families were supported by their close Protestant ones who worked with the latter so as land could be passed down the generations without the State interfering. Likewise, from reading Edmund Burkes backstory - a similar situation occurred.

Fratton Fred

I think you're trying to simplify 800 years of history in to English invaders = protestant, Gaelic Irish = Catholic. Lose that assumption and it is easier to understand. Remember, the original Norman invaders held more allegiance to Rome than the native Irish did.

Some Gaelic families became Anglican, some Norman families refused to give up their Catholic heritage.

The penal laws applied to both islands and had nothing to do with someone being Irish. English Catholics were treated no differently to Irish Catholics. The biggest difference was the way these laws were enforced and the simple answer is that in Ireland, they weren't enforced as rigorously as they were in England.

Manach

Offhand to add to Franton's post, there were members of the British aristocracy that never converted post-Reformation - the Howards I think were the most prominent recusants.

Seanachai

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think you're trying to simplify 800 years of history in to English invaders = protestant, Gaelic Irish = Catholic. Lose that assumption and it is easier to understand. Remember, the original Norman invaders held more allegiance to Rome than the native Irish did.

Some Gaelic families became Anglican, some Norman families refused to give up their Catholic heritage.

The penal laws applied to both islands and had nothing to do with someone being Irish. English Catholics were treated no differently to Irish Catholics. The biggest difference was the way these laws were enforced and the simple answer is that in Ireland, they weren't enforced as rigorously as they were in England.

I realise that it's not so clear cut but by and large catholics are descended from the native population ( I don't even want to get into the argument natives don't exist , try telling it to a Cherokee or Lakota Sioux in their own country ). There's also evidence of a Coptic tradition in Ireland , I'm just opening up to a new perspective that not all Irish people with a history of wealth and sizeable land ownership are turncoats.

Fratton Fred

Seanachai wrote: »

I realise that it's not so clear cut but by and large catholics are descended from the native population ( I don't even want to get into the argument natives don't exist , try telling it to a Cherokee or Lakota Sioux in their own country ). There's also evidence of a Coptic tradition in Ireland , I'm just opening up to a new perspective that not all Irish people with a history of wealth and sizeable land ownership are turncoats.

What do you mean by turncoats?

Not everyone with wealth and position in Ireland was bad.

Seanachai

I know that in the area where I'm from there's certain families that have wealth and influence and I've heard stories about their actions from 1798 down to the civil war , they're also ruthless and toxic to be around. I've also heard similar from other parts of the country. A bit like the 'Ranchers' in Conor McCabe's 'Sins Of The Father'. Turncoats would mean a fellow Irishman siding with the coloniser and adapting their social mores and behaviour betraying their countrymen and reaping the benefits.

robp

Seanachai wrote: »

I've been talking to my own relatives and friends about their own family history and from time to time people will say that some of their relatives in the past two hundred years were wealthy catholics with land. Given the history of colonisation in Ireland and lands been taken from native people how would some catholics have managed to hold on to land during all of this? , does it mean they were corrupt in some way or that they sided with the British?.

If you look around in Irish genealogy and that you will see a certain amount of Catholics who managed to hold on to some amount of wealth but compared to the ascendency they were not very wealthy and or very powerful. Considering how many had no land at all those with a moderately sized farm might be seen as wealthy. I have noticed them scattered in the east of Ireland but I guess they were present through out.

RGM

robp wrote: »

If you look around in Irish genealogy and that you will see a certain amount of Catholics who managed to hold on to some amount of wealth but compared to the ascendency they were not very wealthy and or very powerful. Considering how many had no land at all those with a moderately sized farm might be seen as wealthy. I have noticed them scattered in the east of Ireland but I guess they were present through out.

I also believe that just because it became illegal for Catholics to own land doesn't mean they were necessarily booted off. During penal times, some families may have been renting their own property, which they eventually regained ownership of later.

I know that a couple of my ancestors were tenants of sizable farms, which they maintained from pre-famine times. Those properties are now owned by the families. It might be easy for such situations to be confused, where relatively well-off farmers were still tenants and only became landowners later.

claypigeon777

The Penal Laws were introduced to persecute Catholics in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland who supported the Stuart Pretenders to the British throne following the defeat of James II at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. The Stuarts and their Jacobite supporters with support from the Catholic French monarchy continued to be a military threat to the British throne until they were defeated at the Battle of Culloden in 1745. The Papacy recognized the Protestant Hanoverian dynasty in the late 18th century. The Penal Laws began to be reformed starting with the Papists Act 1778. The French Revolution created a secular French state which was the common enemy of both the Catholic monarchs and the Protestant monarchs of Europe. Relaxation of Catholic persecution led to the opening of Maynooth College in 1795. Those Irish Catholics with most to lose from a French victory between 1789 and 1815 were the Catholic gentry.
The ideas of Irish Republicanism borrowed from the Americans and the French were anathema to the Catholic elite in Ireland. Daniel O'Connell sought Catholic Emancipation in 1829 which would allow Irish Catholics to sit in the House of Commons. It was not until decades later that the Irish Parliamentary Party sought to bring an end to landlordism. Both Protestant and Catholic landlords opposed Irish agrarianism because it was inspired by nationalism and republicanism and worst of all secularism - the idea of a Protestant Charles Stuart Parnell joining forces with the Catholic peasantry was monstrous.

Seanachai

I've had experience in working in lots of homes over the years and I've been able to observe a lot of behaviour , after a while people almost forget you're in the house. I've had mothers nudging the kids to start speaking Irish once they come home from school purely for show it's as if they're overcompensating that they have a non Irish surname and come from gentry or the merchant class. But I've also been around old anglo type families and they wouldn't dream of being so disrespectful or stupid.

It's strange because in other countries the upper classes try to distance themselves from the natives and their language , traditions etc but in Ireland they seem to do that whole 'More Irish than the Irish' ( awful term ) thing and it looks desperate. I've seen them looking earnest and forlorn at famine memorials and and was just thinking to myself 'It was your lot that were driving the people out and here you are trying to make out that you're of the people!!?'. You'll see them at cultural events probably dressed in medieval Irish clothes made from flax and a brooch across their shoulder and the Irish wolfhound in tow.

There is a phenomenon on the native American reservations where white people ( especially Germans for some reason ) are latching on to the native culture and take it upon themselves to give themselves native names and claim they've been initiated. I'd argue that there's a strain of people in Ireland who do the same except they're calling their kids convoluted dubious Irish names and trying way too hard to be something they're just not.

Fratton Fred

Seanachai wrote: »

I've had experience in working in lots of homes over the years and I've been able to observe a lot of behaviour , after a while people almost forget you're in the house. I've had mothers nudging the kids to start speaking Irish once they come home from school purely for show it's as if they're overcompensating that they have a non Irish surname and come from gentry or the merchant class. But I've also been around old anglo type families and they wouldn't dream of being so disrespectful or stupid.

It's strange because in other countries the upper classes try to distance themselves from the natives and their language , traditions etc but in Ireland they seem to do that whole 'More Irish than the Irish' ( awful term ) thing and it looks desperate. I've seen them looking earnest and forlorn at famine memorials and and was just thinking to myself 'It was your lot that were driving the people out and here you are trying to make out that you're of the people!!?'. You'll see them at cultural events probably dressed in medieval Irish clothes made from flax and a brooch across their shoulder and the Irish wolfhound in tow.

There is a phenomenon on the native American reservations where white people ( especially Germans for some reason ) are latching on to the native culture and take it upon themselves to give themselves native names and claim they've been initiated. I'd argue that there's a strain of people in Ireland who do the same except they're calling their kids convoluted dubious Irish names and trying way too hard to be something they're just not.

Have you checked your own family tree to see what they were doing during the famine?

Where they one of the farmers evicting tenants, or maybe a merchant profiteering and driving up the price of staple foods?

Where they one of the people in Cork who rounded up begging peasants every night and carted them back out to the country?

Despite popular belief, it wasn't simply a few absent landlords who contributed to the hardship of the suffering.

convert

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The penal laws applied to both islands and had nothing to do with someone being Irish. English Catholics were treated no differently to Irish Catholics. The biggest difference was the way these laws were enforced and the simple answer is that in Ireland, they weren't enforced as rigorously as they were in England.

It's often forgotten that the Penal Laws weren't just directed against Catholics: they were enacted against anyone who wasn't of the established religion (i.e. Presbyterian, etc.), so it wasn't just Catholics who suffered as a result. However, it often seems that they were impacted much more because they made up the majority of the population.

RGM wrote: »

I also believe that just because it became illegal for Catholics to own land doesn't mean they were necessarily booted off. During penal times, some families may have been renting their own property, which they eventually regained ownership of later.

The Penal Laws never made it illegal for Catholics to own land: the areas of Catholic landownership which were targeted by the statutes were purchase of the land; leasing property from other landlords for more than 31 years, and, of course, outlawing gavelkind, unless, of course, the eldest son converted to the established religion and therefore became eligible not only to solely inherit the estate (less, of course, provisions for younger children), but also reduced his (Catholic) father to mere tenant for life.

Obviously historians thus far have tended to focus on those Catholic families who lost their land during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, most likely due to the fact that the survival of sources regarding these families has been quite high. However, there has been recent research done which highlights that there were quite a number of Catholic families who succeeded in retaining their estates intact during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

How did they do this? Well, there are a number of reasons which can be put forward. Firstly, quite a few families had the luck of having only one son, and so there was no problem regarding inheritance, and no reason to sub divide the land. Secondly, it wasn't all that uncommon for younger sons to give up their right to their share of the property, receiving a generous payment in lieu. Obviously, if families were well-connected and intermarried with influential and wealthy families, it also made life a lot easier.

Also, just to make one other point: contrary to popular belief, the majority of land which was 'lost' by Catholics actually took place in the seventeenth century under the Cromwellian confiscations rather than during the eighteenth century. For a short read on this, take a look at NHI, volume iii.

Seanachai

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Have you checked your own family tree to see what they were doing during the famine?

Where they one of the farmers evicting tenants, or maybe a merchant profiteering and driving up the price of staple foods?

Where they one of the people in Cork who rounded up begging peasants every night and carted them back out to the country?

Despite popular belief, it wasn't simply a few absent landlords who contributed to the hardship of the suffering.

My own people were most definitely not from the landlord or comprador class and were actively involved in resisting the British going back generations. There is a possibility that one part of the family may have held on to land for a time and held a certain amount of wealth and that's why I'm researching this subject. I need to consult a genealogical service as soon as I get the time for more solid in depth information.