If the UK asked Ireland to rejoin the Union, how would you vote?

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So before the penal laws, unlike the rest of the world, the Irish were all living in big houses with their own farm lands?

For 99% of the population, the penal laws meant they couldn't go to mass on a Sunday.

"vile". There's a word for ye Fred.

I'm surprised people bothered to have these laws repealed. Must be some shower with no sense of humour.

Fratton Fred

No to reject rejoining the Union

Nodin wrote: »

"vile". There's a word for ye Fred.

I'm surprised people bothered to have these laws repealed. Must be some shower with no sense of humour.

Vile? The penal laws? Yes they were. But how did they destroy Irish culture (whatever that is) and the Irish language.

Actually, repealing the penal laws and giving education to the Catholic church was probably the biggest thing that killed the language. The Catholic church wanted the Irish to speak English so they could spread the word around the empire.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Vile? The penal laws? Yes they were. But how did they destroy Irish culture (whatever that is) and the Irish language.

Actually, repealing the penal laws and giving education to the Catholic church was probably the biggest thing that killed the language. The Catholic church wanted the Irish to speak English so they could spread the word around the empire.

The Penal laws were part of a progressive campaign to destroy irish culture and society Fred.


Sorry, did I type that? Its wrong. The penal laws, the plantation and everything the British ever did for us was great. We used live in trees and throw shite at things before they arrived. They introduced to everything from talking to writing to walking upright. The worst thing Cromwell did here was not do enough. O Praise them all, every Jesus Sun-Beam one of them.

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

"vile". There's a word for ye Fred.

I'm surprised people bothered to have these laws repealed. Must be some shower with no sense of humour.

You seem to hold yourself out as something of an expert on the Penal Laws - so I've a question......

In the context of the Penal Law period who do you think was the worst Lord Lieutenant - Chesterfield or Rutland? (easy enough to answer - you've a 50:50 chance of picking the 'correct' option)

Fratton Fred

No to reject rejoining the Union

Nodin wrote: »

The Penal laws were part of a progressive campaign to destroy irish culture and society Fred.


Sorry, did I type that? Its wrong. The penal laws, the plantation and everything the British ever did for us was great. We used live in trees and throw shite at things before they arrived. They introduced to everything from talking to writing to walking upright. The worst thing Cromwell did here was not do enough. O Praise them all, every Jesus Sun-Beam one of them.

Is that the sound of toys leaving a pram?

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

You seem to hold yourself out as something of an expert on the Penal Laws - so I've a question......

In the context of the Penal Law period who do you think was the worst Lord Lieutenant - Chesterfield or Rutland? (easy enough to answer - you've a 50:50 chance of picking the 'correct' option)

Neither would be on a "worst" list, as far as I recall - neither name stands out to me. Parts would have been repealed by Rutlands tenure. Presumably this is some loaded question which will prompt a "gotcha" response?

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is that the sound of toys leaving a pram?

But theres no toys and no pram fred. Only fluffiness and hugs.

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

Neither would be on a "worst" list, as far as I recall - neither name stands out to me. Parts would have been repealed by Rutlands tenure. Presumably this is some loaded question which will prompt a "gotcha" response?

Couldn't find the answer on wikipedia?:D

No 'gotcha' - the general view is that despite his more 'establishment' leanings Chesterfield was the better Lord Lieutenant because he ratcheted down the the enforcement of the laws and listened to, but only rarely took heed of, his council's advice and the advice / protestations of the large landlords who had the ear of the Castle.

I'm surprised his name doesn't stand out to someone who comments so readily on the Penal Laws given he isusually acknowledged as one of the four 'great' (relatively speaking) Lord Lieutenants - don't work I won't ask if you know the other three

Rutland, although only having the rump of the laws to deal with, was, to be frank, a bit of a tw@t when in came to their enforcement - encouraging a much more literal interpretation and vigorous enforcement of them - being, as he was, under the influence of the various vested interests that infested the Castle.

Karl Stein

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, but as he also made clear - it's not just the river that has changed, it's also the man - maybe there's a lesson there for people who refuse to even countenance that there might possibly be a better way forward for the nation than notional independence. You seem to hold yourself out as something of an expert on the Penal Laws - so I've a question...... In the context of the Penal Law period who do you think was the worst Lord Lieutenant - Chesterfield or Rutland? (easy enough to answer - you've a 50:50 chance of picking the 'correct' option). No 'gotcha' - the general view is that despite his more 'establishment' leanings Chesterfield was the better Lord Lieutenant because he ratcheted down the the enforcement of the laws and listened to, but only rarely took heed of, his council's advice and the advice / protestations of the large landlords who had the ear of the Castle. I'm surprised his name doesn't stand out to someone who comments so readily on the Penal Laws given he isusually acknowledged as one of the four 'great' (relatively speaking) Lord Lieutenants - don't work I won't ask if you know the other three. Rutland, although only having the rump of the laws to deal with, was, to be frank, a bit of a tw@t when in came to their enforcement - encouraging a much more literal interpretation and vigorous enforcement of them - being, as he was, under the influence of the various vested interests that infested the Castle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxVLaTVBnpg

Jawgap

Karl Stein wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxVLaTVBnpg

Oh dear......mortally wounded I am......

Pity you're not interested in discussing the issue - I wonder why.....

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Couldn't find the (.....)that infested the Castle.

Declare somebody an expert, ask a question, express dissatisfaction in the gotcha post.

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh dear......mortally wounded I am......

Pity you're not interested in discussing the issue - I wonder why.....

Because theres no real point in serious discussion with those in denial of reality.

on the river

Never shall Ireland surrender her soul .

kingchess

interesting-the British had no effect whatsoever on Irish history and culture even if they were in charge-I suppose the Romans had no effect on British history either,I wonder did the British have any effect on ,say ,South African history??

Nodin

kingchess wrote: »

interesting-the British had no effect whatsoever on Irish history and culture even if they were in charge-I suppose the Romans had no effect on British history either,I wonder did the British have any effect on ,say ,South African history??

Only good effects, wherever they were, whatever they did.

LincolnsBeard

We're already in a union with each other.

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

Declare somebody an expert, ask a question, express dissatisfaction in the gotcha post.

I think I made it pretty clear there was no 'gotcha' and I'm happy to cite my sources.

They may not be Wikipedia but they do reflect research carried out on the topic.

Maybe you could share what sources inform your views?

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

Because theres no real point in serious discussion with those in denial of reality.

Well my post was a summary of the work carried out in respect of The Lord Lieutenancy - what reality am I denying?

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Well my post was a summary of the work carried out in respect of The Lord Lieutenancy - what reality am I denying?

The systematic destruction of irish culture by an imperial power, with a certain smugness that makes me presume a WUM is operating.

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

I think I made it pretty clear there was no 'gotcha' and I'm happy to cite my sources.

pull the other one.

on the river

Nodin wrote: »

pull the other one.

what our you suggesting?

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

The systematic destruction of irish culture by an imperial power, with a certain smugness that makes me presume a WUM is operating.

Gotta source or is that just an uninformed opinion?

marienbad

Jawgap wrote: »

Couldn't find the answer on wikipedia?:D

No 'gotcha' - the general view is that despite his more 'establishment' leanings Chesterfield was the better Lord Lieutenant because he ratcheted down the the enforcement of the laws and listened to, but only rarely took heed of, his council's advice and the advice / protestations of the large landlords who had the ear of the Castle.

I'm surprised his name doesn't stand out to someone who comments so readily on the Penal Laws given he isusually acknowledged as one of the four 'great' (relatively speaking) Lord Lieutenants - don't work I won't ask if you know the other three

Rutland, although only having the rump of the laws to deal with, was, to be frank, a bit of a tw@t when in came to their enforcement - encouraging a much more literal interpretation and vigorous enforcement of them - being, as he was, under the influence of the various vested interests that infested the Castle.

I don't get the relevance of this post . Are you saying the Ireland of today would still be the same if we never had The Plantations ,Cromwell , The Penal Laws etc ?

on the river

Jawgap wrote: »

Gotta source or is that just an uninformed opinion?

Mixture of both perhaps.

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

I don't get the relevance of this post . Are you saying the Ireland of today would still be the same if we never had The Plantations ,Cromwell , The Penal Laws etc ?

No, I'm saying some things as complicated as the various Plantations, Cromwellian Ireland (including the Confederate Wars) and the Penal Laws cannot be reduced to a single simplistic statement of causation and outcome.

The Penal Laws, for example, differed in their impact depending on a whole range of factors, for example whether you were a northern or Munster Catholic or Wexford catholic (or even an English catholic); whether the family conformed before the 1640s or after; whether they converted to Anglicism or not (and when); whether the Lord Lieutenant was a 'mediator' (like Chesterfield) or an 'advocate' (like Rutland); whether the land was held 'in fee' or in leasehold; etc etc etc.

Yes, the Penal Laws were sectarian, and they were, at times viciously enforced in different parts of the country at different times, but to suggest that there was uniform application at all times they were in force just shows a complete ignorance of the country's history.

That's even before you get to the point where you realise they were repealed 185 years ago..........

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

Gotta source or is that just an uninformed opinion?

One is historical fact, the other we can call the voice of experience.

Nodin

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'm saying some things as complicated as the various Plantations, Cromwellian Ireland (including the Confederate Wars) and the Penal Laws cannot be reduced to a single simplistic statement of causation and outcome.

The Penal Laws, for example, differed in their impact depending on a whole range of factors, for example whether you were a northern or Munster Catholic or Wexford catholic (or even an English catholic); whether the family conformed before the 1640s or after; whether they converted to Anglicism or not (and when); whether the Lord Lieutenant was a 'mediator' (like Chesterfield) or an 'advocate' (like Rutland); whether the land was held 'in fee' or in leasehold; etc etc etc.

Yes, the Penal Laws were sectarian, and they were, at times viciously enforced in different parts of the country at different times, but to suggest that there was uniform application at all times they were in force just shows a complete ignorance of the country's history.

That's even before you get to the point where you realise they were repealed 185 years ago..........

Jaysus no, what would a few hundreds years of systematic destruction do? (other than us the world of good).

Jawgap

on the river wrote: »

Mixture of both perhaps.

Perhaps.

But no doubt if there is a source it will be posted.

I was relying on Louis Cullen - "Catholics under the Penal Laws" as published in "Eighteenth-Century Ireland / Iris an dá chultúr"

Jawgap

Nodin wrote: »

One is historical fact, the other we can call the voice of experience.

You 'experienced' the Penal Laws??????

kingchess

you seem to have a pretty strong case of the "cultural cringe".a clear case of cultural alienation