Lords in big houses..

W123-80's

How did they manage to hold on to their houses and land after the Irish got Independence?

Genuine question. I've asked a good few people and no one really seems to know. Figured here is as good a place as any to enquire.!!

For example, Lord Henry Mount Charles in Slane. There are plenty others dotted around the country still in full ownership of big houses and loads of land.

I'm not having a go at the brits or looking to start an argument about the 'RA.
I would just like to understand how this arrangement came into play.

DrumSteve

They held on to them because they all have huge hands.

catallus

Their families helped the rebels.

Jawgap

Well they owned them before independence so why not after? We're not Zimbabwe.

How their ancestors came by them in the first instance is not grounds for relieving them for land / property now legally held.

W123-80's

Jawgap wrote: »

Well they owned them before independence so why not after? We're not Zimbabwe.

How their ancestors came by them in the first instance is not grounds for relieving them for land / property now legally held.

I understand that much, but was all the land or most of it not under the control of Britain.
The Village I grew up in had the land divided into 'stripes' with Land Commission houses built on them. The landlords house is still standing and in use to this day, by a couple of farmers.
Was that land not taken back? Or am I missing something?

Jawgap

W123-80's wrote: »

I understand that much, but was all the land or most of it not under the control of Britain.
The Village I grew up in had the land divided into 'stripes' with Land Commission houses built on them. The landlords house is still standing and in use to this day, by a couple of farmers.
Was that land not taken back? Or am I missing something?

I think the Land Commission facilitated the purchase and redistribution of land - I don't think it was involved in confiscations. They also facilitated tenants in buying out their land.

At the time I'd imagine one of the largest landowners in the State was the Catholic Church - there's no way they'd have put up with wholesale confiscation and redistribution.

Jawgap

Btw - you might get a more informed answer if you ask the mods to move this to History and Heritage.

Nodin

W123-80's wrote: »

How did they manage to hold on to their houses and land after the Irish got Independence?

Genuine question. I've asked a good few people and no one really seems to know. Figured here is as good a place as any to enquire.!!

For example, Lord Henry Mount Charles in Slane. There are plenty others dotted around the country still in full ownership of big houses and loads of land.

I'm not having a go at the brits or looking to start an argument about the 'RA.
I would just like to understand how this arrangement came into play.

Very few held on to the full estates after the various land reform programs. You'd have to take a look at the size of the original holding and follow its progress through the latter 1800's to get an idea of what went on.

Wicklowrider

I only know a little about Lord Meath's estate in Bray.
In that case the family employed a lot of people who would otherwise be unemployed. Local small businesses supplied everything the estate required - some of those businesses relied on the estate for their existence.In addition, as far back as I know through parents and grandparents and my own generation, the public were allowed to enjoy the estate provided they behaved and did no damage. I spent many hours up there as a kid wandering around with a gang of other kids. Not once were we ever challenged by staff, we rarely even encountered them. Its still the same - you can enjoy a great walk up there. The Brabazon family handed a lot of land (including the seafront and promenade and peoples park) over to the local authourity.

While the morality of whether these places ever should have existed is open to debate I have never heard a bad word about Brabazon family.

Yellowblackbird

Pre independence here was plenty of big shots who were of irish ethnicity or of catholic faith. We've had no shortage of irish crooks up the present times.

Karl Stein

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Lord Meath's estate in Bray ... the family employed a lot of people

In what manner did they employ people and where did they get the money/resources to employ them?

Wicklowrider

Karl Stein wrote: »

In what manner did they employ people and where did they get the money/resources to employ them?

What manner do you imagine?

Household staff, Farm management, Gardeners, Drivers etc

I have no idea where the money came from in by gone days. These days the estate is run as a business.

Wally Runs

The land Commission helped locals buy the land off the Landlords, who had to sell the land at market prices, plus 12%. They had to sell the land if the were not farming it themselves i.e. it was leased out. Many were more than happy to sell and take off to other estates they had elsewhere. The result was that you had many large houses left to be kept up with the money from the sales and whatever was directly farmed. The money was used to pay of debts, gambled and the rest. Many landlords then simply left there houses to rot.

Those that did farm and did not sell, kept their homes and farms and have them today. Off the top of my head both the Brabazons and Mountcharles have always farmed their own lands and still do. See http://books.google.ie/books/about/The_Decline_of_the_Big_House_in_Ireland.html?id=BIIiAQAAIAAJ, coincidently Killruddery is on the cover.

Karl Stein

Wicklowrider wrote: »

I have no idea where the money came from in by gone days.

Probably by force rather than entrepreneurship.

The_Valeyard

While their was no mass murder of sorts there is a small amount of evidence of large land owners more or less forced to give up the land. Many fled up north. Then again there are also cases of wealthy landowners secretly supporting rebels.

Wicklowrider

Karl Stein wrote: »

Probably by force rather than entrepreneurship.

I was answering the original question with my own opinion as to why they held onto the estates and have no interest in defending Lordships

BUT

I think you might be barking up the wrong tree with these guys
one of the young lords of Meath back in the 1700's married a chamber maid. Lord Brabazon had a lease on Killruddery at the yearly rent of £8.00 or something close to that. Hardly a huge sum to recover through farming and stud?

In the mid 1800's the "Roman Catholic" workers on the estate held a meeting in Bray and resolved to help protect the estate if attacked. Doesn't sound like they were forced to do anything and if they chose to leave there were plenty who would jump at the chance of a job.

Young Blood

Simply put; there never was a successful revolution in Ireland. The Freestate was a Constitutional Monarchy which pretty much speaks for itself.

W123-80's

Thanks guys.
It appears from the initial responses that there is no set rule or agreement that allowed a Lord hold on to a particular estate and more often than not the situation and location decided the fate of the Lord and his land??
Its certainly an odd situation and I wonder are there similar set ups in other new 'republics' through out the world?
Mods, feel free to move this to History if you think its more suited there.
Thanks.

oppenheimer1

W123-80's wrote: »

How did they manage to hold on to their houses and land after the Irish got Independence?

Genuine question. I've asked a good few people and no one really seems to know. Figured here is as good a place as any to enquire.!!

For example, Lord Henry Mount Charles in Slane. There are plenty others dotted around the country still in full ownership of big houses and loads of land.

I'm not having a go at the brits or looking to start an argument about the 'RA.
I would just like to understand how this arrangement came into play.

You think it's bad here? Fewer than 500 people own half the land area in Scotland.

Mr. CooL ICE

I built mine with my bare hands

W123-80's

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You think it's bad here? Fewer than 500 people own half the land area in Scotland.

Thats a crazy stat, but I'm not really looking at this from a bad or good point of view to be honest. I am just trying to get a handle on how the scenario manifested itself.
It appears there is no straight answer to my question.
Any good book recommendation as a starting point..? I realize the irony of asking for a history book recommendation on AH...:pac:

blindside88

I know the story of Lord Rathdonnell of the Lisnavagh estate in rathvilly co Carlow. Basically a couple of years before the war of independence there was a breakout of Spanish flu in the village and a number of people died. The Rathdonnell family sent workers with donkeys and carts loaded with soup for the people of the village until the outbreak passed. The people of the village took note of this kindness and allowed them to keep the estate after the war of independence. There was a strong IRA influence in the village with Kevin Barry having grown up locally. One of the pubs still displays a list of old ira members on the wall

DEFTLEFTHAND

W123-80's wrote: »

Thats a crazy stat, but I'm not really looking at this from a bad or good point of view to be honest. I am just trying to get a handle on how the scenario manifested itself.
It appears there is no straight answer to my question.
Any good book recommendation as a starting point..? I realize the irony of asking for a history book recommendation on AH...:pac:

Parnell's biography would cover a good bit.

gozunda

After the land Acts many of the Big houses as they were known became little more than places that fell apart without sufficient income to keep them going, they were variously demolished, burned, bought by the Catholic Church or simply abandoned in some cases. There were also documented cases of little old ladies who had no choice but to live out their days in one room with few resources in once grand mansions.

There was a big house near here that survived fairly well up to the 1960s when the bank got because the farm went bankrupt. It was demolished as the stone was deemed to be worth more than the house and the rubble was used to fill in a bog. The sad thing was that the house was in relatively good nick. The landowner at the time of the civil war was a RM but he hid local pro treaty forces. As a result the place was never burnt down. He also stood for the Seanad at the time but didn't get elected which was fortunate as nearly every big Anglo Irish landholder that did get elected as part of the new state got burned out....

tomwaterford

W123-80's wrote: »

Thats a crazy stat, but I'm not really looking at this from a bad or good point of view to be honest. I am just trying to get a handle on how the scenario manifested itself.
It appears there is no straight answer to my question.
Any good book recommendation as a starting point..? I realize the irony of asking for a history book recommendation on AH...:pac:

I was always told through history in school....the main issue was many of the estates were bankrupt/losing money/never visited by there owner....so when the state offered to buy them from around 1900 on they took the offer

this lead to a rather infamous economic war in the 1930s when devalera rightly or wrongly said Ireland wouldn't pay for debts on land bought before 1922 as that was britins problem


*I may be completely wrong/not listened properly that day in school

Paramite Pie

W123-80's wrote: »

Thanks guys.
It appears from the initial responses that there is no set rule or agreement that allowed a Lord hold on to a particular estate and more often than not the situation and location decided the fate of the Lord and his land??
Its certainly an odd situation and I wonder are there similar set ups in other new 'republics' through out the world?
Mods, feel free to move this to History if you think its more suited there.
Thanks.

There was a set rule as far as I know, any tenant renting off a landlord had the right to purchase that land. So the Lords were compensated for any loss of land to tenants with that money. They kept their own manors because they lived in them and only land the rented out was sold off. Many of the Lords left the the country whereas others stayed. Those who left either sold their house or voluntarily gave it over to the State.

gozunda

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Parnell's biography would cover a good bit.

Which one? There must be half a dozen biographies on that man...

kingchess

maybe because after the war of Independence,Land titles were honoured,you owned it before the war and you owned it afterwards??

W123-80's

kingchess wrote: »

maybe because after the war of Independence,Land titles were honoured,you owned it before the war and you owned it afterwards??

That certainly appears to be the case in some instances, and I'm just wondering on what basis this came to be.
Most of the land was re distributed, some landlords houses became farm houses, some went to rack and ruin and some remain under the ownership of a titled Lord..

Capt'n Midnight

W123-80's wrote: »

How did they manage to hold on to their houses and land after the Irish got Independence?

...
I'm not having a go at the brits or looking to start an argument about the 'RA.
I would just like to understand how this arrangement came into play.

Lots of big houses were burnt down during the War of Independence and never rebuilt. It's also when we lost much of our railway network.


By comparison 432 Landlords own half of Scotland.

gozunda

Some books on the subject include:

Twilight of the Ascendancy
&
A Guide to Irish Country Houses
by Mark Bence Jones

The Decline of the Big House in Ireland
By Terence Dooley

corner of hells

Im a descendent of a family that were landowners in Ireland , I can trace my family back to the 1400s directly and even a little further back vaguely .My family would have been Irish Catholic gentry .
Originally being landlords owning a lot of land with large houses.I know they did originally employ lots of people.through the 1900s right up to the civil war when most left and relocated in Australian , Canada and the UK.
Prior to that some sections emigrated and became landowners in South Carolina.

Many of the sons inter family were soldiers fighting more or less all over the world , with some fighting in the US civil war and before that in the war of independence.

Theres a family plot in Glasnevin and one of the original houses is a hotel in a provincial town.

Rhys Essien

The 'Lord' of Blarney Castle and estate seems to still have a lot of power.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/family-to-fight-ejection-from-aristocrats-house-25913539.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/blarney-castle-owner-bans-st-patricks-market-187172.html

W123-80's

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Lots of big houses were burnt down during the War of Independence and never rebuilt. It's also when we lost much of our railway network.


By comparison 432 Landlords own half of Scotland.

Thats a fairly startling statistic regarding the 432 Landlords in Scotland alright.!

I suppose somewhat relevant in the sense that they also fought for independence, but they never became a republic?

The most common answer I have got from my initial enquiries appears to be that the family may have been good to the locals, donated lands to the community etc. so were left alone.

It's a tricky subject to bring up without sounding like you want to don a Celtic Jersey and throw some stones at English stuff..:o