Can someone explain the Irish peerage system to me?

dr gonzo · 12-11-2010 8:44pm #1

I understand how it works in the UK and i believe theres some legality issue under the constitution and yet theres still hereditary Irish peers.

Some are obviously British families and have always been, therefore i assume those are just British peer titles of Irish places, not a whole lot we can do about it if a British lord continues to style himself after an Irish place hes probably never seen but what about the Irish people with titles, like your man in Slane? Those i really dont get.

So can anyone help me navigate this quagmire? Is it illegal but tolerated? is it legal and still used? Has an Irish peer a right to style himself or herself as a lord or lady in Ireland? etc etc

Cheers.

Denerick · 13-11-2010 1:04am

I think it is still recognised as a title in Britain - e.g., Lord Longford, who was a prominent British politician in the 90s. Tony Benn, who campaigned ferociously in the early 60s to have the right to refuse his title, was a leading light in the passing of the 1963 peerage act. According to wiki, since Ireland was not included in this bill which gave individuals the right to forsake their official hereditary title, Thomas Pakenham is formally known as the 8th Earl of Longford despite refusing to acknowledge it himself.

Pakenham is the author of two very good books on the Scramble for Africa and the 1798 rebellion. He is Lord Longford's son but as far as I know does not use the title. His family has some impecable connections in Britain (his sister is Antonia Fraser, an historian and novelist who was married to Harold Pinter). I believe he is now involved with a non profit organisation that promotes tree's. A suitable hobby for an aristocrat

delta_bravo · 13-11-2010 1:14am

One thing I never understood was why we didn't abolish the ground rents of the peers after independence. I remember my parents saying they had to pay £100 to some Earl if they wanted to own the land "under" the house. It has happened before that people get letters from soliciitors in England looking for large sums of money in ground rents

dr gonzo · 13-11-2010 1:45am

delta_bravo wrote: »

One thing I never understood was why we didn't abolish the ground rents of the peers after independence. I remember my parents saying they had to pay £100 to some Earl if they wanted to own the land "under" the house. It has happened before that people get letters from soliciitors in England looking for large sums of money in ground rents

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

I may have just hijacked my own thread. Back on topic.

testicle · 13-11-2010 1:51am

dr gonzo wrote: »

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

I may have just hijacked my own thread. Back on topic.

CJ Haughey owned an island off the Kerry coast.

dr gonzo · 13-11-2010 1:59am

testicle wrote: »

CJ Haughey owned an island off the Kerry coast.

Jebus, im learning all sorts of stuff tonight. Thats unreal.

brianthebard · 13-11-2010 3:15am

Denerick wrote: »

I think it is still recognised as a title in Britain - e.g., Lord Longford, who was a prominent British politician in the 90s. Tony Benn, who campaigned ferociously in the early 60s to have the right to refuse his title, was a leading light in the passing of the 1963 peerage act. According to wiki, since Ireland was not included in this bill which gave individuals the right to forsake their official hereditary title, Thomas Pakenham is formally known as the 8th Earl of Longford despite refusing to acknowledge it himself.

Pakenham is the author of two very good books on the Scramble for Africa and the 1798 rebellion. He is Lord Longford's son but as far as I know does not use the title. His family has some impecable connections in Britain (his sister is Antonia Fraser, an historian and novelist who was married to Harold Pinter). I believe he is now involved with a non profit organisation that promotes tree's. A suitable hobby for an aristocrat

He has a book on the boer war too, he's quite good.

Simarillion · 13-11-2010 12:26pm

To understand the Irish peerage you need a brief breakdown of the entire peerage system
It is divided into 5 Peerages:
England
Scotland
Ireland
Great Britain (between the 1707 and 1801 Acts of Union)
United Kingdom (post-Act of Union 1801)

It gets even more confusing because you can hold titles within several peerages and that ranks you differently.

Most Irish titles are within the Irish peerage, and that entitled them to sit in the Irish House of Lords. This ended in 1801 when the Act of Union which abolished our parliaments and merged them with Westminster. We then had the right to have 32 peers sit in the House of Lords, the 4 major Anglican clergy of Ireland and 28 peers elected form amongst the Irish peerage.

To get the vote through the House, several (in reality not very many) Irish peers were raised to a higher peerage in the new Peerage of the United Kingdom giving them the automatic right to sit in Westminster.

Following the troubles during the '20s and independence, Irish peers who did not hold UK peerages lost their right to sit in Westminster, those holding UK titles could continue to sit until 1999.

The majority of Irish peers were Irish people from Irish families, there are several now whose families could be considered British, as they left during the Civil War for a variety of reasons, and have now grown up and live in the UK

As regards ground rents, they own the land that these houses were built on, it is the same as paying any sort of rent and is built into any contracts involved.
Lambay Island is owned by members of the Baring family of Barings Bank, and have owned it since 1904, quite a few of the larger islands, particularly around Cork are in private hands.

Legally the Irish government does not recognise the title of the Irish peerage, however titles are usually acknowledged out of respect.
It is usually a choice whether you make public knowledge of your title or not. Henry Mountcharles the owner of Slane Castle is the Marquess Conyngham
Thomas Pakenham is the Earl of Longford and famous author
Michael Morris is Baron Killanin and was president of the IOC
Redmond Morris son of above is a film producer and the present Lord Killanin

PatsytheNazi · 13-11-2010 3:49pm

delta_bravo wrote: »

One thing I never understood was why we didn't abolish the ground rents of the peers after independence. I remember my parents saying they had to pay £100 to some Earl if they wanted to own the land "under" the house. It has happened before that people get letters from soliciitors in England looking for large sums of money in ground rents

dr gonzo wrote: »

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

I may have just hijacked my own thread. Back on topic.

Hope the mod wouldn't think I'm trying to drag the subject off topic but I'm just providing a piece of info that might help. People had to pay ground rents to English landlords as it was part of the terms of the Treaty. From what I vaguely remember the ground rents were payable for 100 years from the passing of an act in Westminister in the late 18 century.

walrusgumble · 13-11-2010 5:11pm

dr gonzo wrote: »

Jebus, im learning all sorts of stuff tonight. Thats unreal.

Didn't John Lennon own an island off Mayo?, some hippy resort

Simply Red fella, he own's fishing rights in Donegal

booo. down with that sort of thing:p

tricky D · 13-11-2010 5:34pm

dr gonzo wrote: »

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

This has nothing to do with peerage. The purchase was a regular private transaction and was even advertised in The Field.

Archaeology is permitted on the island, but like any other private lands, permission is required (unless construction uncovers the site). The fact that there is so little public access, if anything, helps preserve the archaeology.

mathepac · 13-11-2010 6:02pm

There's a bunch of articles here (as well as an alphabetical index of reams of family names, etc). This is probably the best known and most widely recognised repository of peerage information, Irish, British, Scottish and UK.. http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/ireland/page93.aspx

Just to follow on on the entertainers listed above there was a rumour many years ago that Paul McCartney's ancestors were Irish peers whose immigration to Liverpool was triggered by their peerage being extinguished in Ireland, leaving them penniless.

CDfm · 13-11-2010 8:33pm

The Irish Peerage was linked to the Irish House of Lords and were feudal titles.

They are hereditary and do not confer any rights or priveledges in Ireland except snob value.

What Patsy said about groundrent was not strictly true. Land/property ownership can be held be freehold or leasehold.

Freehold means you own it outright whereas leasehold means you are a tenant.

Ground rent was payable on property where one person owned the building and another the ground it was built on-hense ground rent.

A property held subject to freehold is more valuable and there is a groundrent purchase scheme in place.Many housing developments up into the 70's were built this way.

A typical landlord in Dublin would be Dublin Corporation.

Property gets bought and sold all the time - nowdays people get mortgages.

InTheTrees · 13-11-2010 8:45pm

Wasn't it routine for the english to convert irish royalty into english nobility?

It doesnt mean those nobles suddenly became "english" does it? They werent even old english or normans, they were the old Irish kings.

CDfm · 13-11-2010 8:57pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Wasn't it routine for the english to convert irish royalty into english nobility?

It doesnt mean those nobles suddenly became "english" does it? They werent even old english or normans, they were the old Irish kings.

That happened alright.

The system was called surrender and regrant - the Fitzgeralds of Kildare did this.

Surrender and Regrant

As Henry II had done before him, Henry VIII took a surrender of their lands from the Irish kings (by this time called "Taoiseach",- or "Chieftain" instead of "Rí",- or "king"), and re-granted their lands back to them as "Earls". The English laws of succession were subsequently supposed to apply; for example, the eldest son, as heir at law, succeeding to the title. This gave rise to internal clan conflicts as the successor chosen by the clan sometimes competed with the successor according to English law.
http://ocillin.com/Tenure/english.html

InTheTrees · 13-11-2010 9:08pm

CDfm wrote: »

That happened alright.

The system was called surrender and regrant - the Fitzgeralds of Kildare did this.

It was widespread. There was no way the english were going to tolerate an island of little kingdoms so they assimilated if they could.

Look at the Flight of the Earls, that wasnt a bunch of english aristocrats running off to france, they were Irish royalty.

CDfm · 13-11-2010 9:27pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Look at the Flight of the Earls, that wasnt a bunch of english aristocrats running off to france, they were Irish royalty.

We do seem to romantisize them a bit but they did know how to look after themselves.

MarchDub · 13-11-2010 10:54pm

CDfm wrote: »

We do seem to romantisize them a bit but they did know how to look after themselves.

On the other hand though they do come in for a lot of misunderstanding on exactly what happened.

After the Treaty of Mellifont the were left with little choice but to leave - or be servants of a monarchy they despised - and maybe try and re-group. Correspondence from Hugh O'Neill back to Ireland suggests that he was trying to organise an army to bring back into Ireland. Or at least this was his stated intention - but he died, possibly of malaria, before he could do this.

CDfm · 14-11-2010 1:16am

MarchDub wrote: »

On the other hand though they do come in for a lot of misunderstanding on exactly what happened.

What were they like as Lords and what were the lifestyles of the people in society like

After the Treaty of Mellifont the were left with little choice but to leave - or be servants of a monarchy they despised-

what was the content of the treaty and who took over. Family members ???????

and maybe try and re-group. Correspondence from Hugh O'Neill back to Ireland suggests that he was trying to organise an army to bring back into Ireland. Or at least this was his stated intention - but he died, possibly of malaria, before he could do this.

Was this a real aspiration and how did they fair abroad.

Did they prosper and where are their heirs.

MarchDub · 14-11-2010 2:20pm

CDfm wrote: »

What were they like as Lords and what were the lifestyles of the people in society like
what was the content of the treaty and who took over. Family members ???????

Was this a real aspiration and how did they fair abroad.

Did they prosper and where are their heirs.

These are huge questions so let me try and shrink it down. Prior to the Battle of Kinsale the issue in Ulster – as it had been in the rest of Ireland – was the attempt to hold on to the “Gaelic’ way of life i.e traditional Irish titles, local chieftains, autonomous land ownership, Brehon laws. This aspiration saw itself in opposition to the English monarchy which sought a more feudal, lordship system with the monarch in total control and [significantly] taxes going directly to the crown. Ulster was the last holdout in this – and the defeat of the Ulster chieftains [aided by others from around the country, like The O’Sullivan] at the Battle of Kinsale essentially ended this. The Treaty of Mellifont which they were then obliged to sign spelled out the end of the Gaelic way of life, Hugh O’Neill and others were to surrender ‘Irish” titles like ‘The O’Neill’, ‘The O’Donnell’ and hold only the English title of Earl. The lands of their people were forfeited to the crown and they could no longer operate as lordships independent of the crown in the old Gaelic style.

Shortly after Tyrone and Tirconnell negotiated a secret deal with the Spanish and when this was revealed [the usual, spies] to the authorities in Dublin Castle it seems attempts were made to assassinate Tirconnell [Red Hugh’s successor Rory] – this was a claim made by Tirconnell himself who narrowly escaped being killed. Departure appeared to be the wise choice in order to avoid prison and possible death. They hoped to gather an army for invasion.

A propaganda war then ensued at the departure of the Earls in the hope of stifling support for them within Ireland with the English authorities putting around the word that they had ‘abandoned’ their people and had no justification for fleeing their native land. This was in response to the now fairly widespread belief that the Earls went to gather a foreign army to take back to Ireland and fight again. The English were always good – it must be said – at being able to tap into the Irish tendency to easily turn on each other, although in this case it does not appear to have succeeded as contemporary accounts show continued support for the return of the Earls. The Lord Deputy Mountjoy vandalised the O’Neill inauguration site at Tullaghoge. A proclamation went out from James I in Nov of 1607 denouncing in no uncertain terms the Earls and all who went with them and calling them traitors and even questioning their ‘lawful descent’ as true aristocracy. This was aimed at the continental courts and the papacy.

The Plantation of Ulster began shortly afterwards in 1609.

For a number of convoluted reasons – some of them the European politics of the time – a continental army never did aid them in their hope of a fresh invasion.

Owen Roe O’Neill [nephew of the Great Hugh] did return in 1641 for the rebellion of that year. By then he was a General in the Spanish Army. He had been about nine years old at the time of the departure of his family.

Yes, they have successors living today on the continent.

[I know – this is maybe a too long post. But you did ask!]

CDfm · 14-11-2010 3:55pm

ok -so what was life like in the Gaelic way of life if you were at the bottom of the pile.

There must have been a little more to life then playing hurling and hunting deer Cuchulain style or being a saint. Someone had to milk the cows.

Judgement Day · 14-11-2010 4:12pm

CDfm wrote: »

ok -so what was life like in the Gaelic way of life if you were at the bottom of the pile.

There must have been a little more to life then playing hurling and hunting deer Cuchulain style or being a saint. Someone had to milk the cows.

Now come on, no revisionism - you know the whole island was just one big happy commune before the wicked Brits Normans arrived.

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

CDfm · 14-11-2010 4:32pm

On the basis that there were more peasants than everyone at the top and Silken Thomas was the only one with the Silken Hose.

Who was who in the hierarchy.

Was there any involvement support from the diaspora at the Battle of the Boyne , 1798 etc.

JuliusCaesar · 14-11-2010 6:13pm

Regardless of whether the titles originate from Irish royalty or British titles, we are now living in a Republic where citizens are supposedly equal. That's the reason that titles were abolished.

The reason they are still used is more to do with doffing the cap than respect. Lord Whatsit of Slane should certainly not be known by his title - he was born into a Republic.

ballsymchugh · 14-11-2010 6:59pm

dr gonzo wrote: »

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

I may have just hijacked my own thread. Back on topic.

what i think is a crying shame is that the taxpayer has to pay groundrent for out national parliament.

Cavehill Red · 14-11-2010 7:09pm

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Regardless of whether the titles originate from Irish royalty or British titles, we are now living in a Republic where citizens are supposedly equal. That's the reason that titles were abolished.

The reason they are still used is more to do with doffing the cap than respect. Lord Whatsit of Slane should certainly not be known by his title - he was born into a Republic.

He goes by Henry. Not his fault if others call him Lord mistakenly.

CDfm · 14-11-2010 7:09pm

ballsymchugh wrote: »

what i think is a crying shame is that the taxpayer has to pay groundrent for out national parliament.

If you think that the principle of private property ownership like home ownership , and landownership law is wrong or needs diluting then thats an argument.

When you change things like property ownership -they create precedents and consequences and the constitution is there to reign the politicians in.

So while you may disagree with heriditary rights you may open the door to attacking the rights of ordinary people to inherit or indeed people in council houses with parents acquiring a right to residence in it.

You cant just cherrypick the rules you want and who you want them to apply them to.

JuliusCaesar · 14-11-2010 10:45pm

CDfm wrote: »

You cant just cherrypick the rules you want and who you want them to apply them to.

But the law can be changed! (Can they not just buy it out?)

CDfm · 14-11-2010 11:29pm

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

But the law can be changed! (Can they not just buy it out?)

You can change the law - but for commercial premises that provide an annnual income who does that impact on. Say the income stream has been sold to a pension fund to provide income for pensioners, then , by changing the law on property you may affect the value of pensions.

So doing what you say can mean that John in Naas putting 100 euro into his pension fund every week can have the value of it affected.Its not just faceless people who are affected by it. It cant just be converted on the basis of who may have owned it pre 1922. Time has moved on.

So they would need to pay fair market value that would compensate the owners.

Life has moved on since then.

Report of an all party commitee on private property

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Ninth%20Progress%20Report%20Private%20Property.pdf

And by the way, who does the Dail pay groundrent to. ? I have looked it up and prior to its use as the Dail it was owned by the Royal Dublin Society who owned the Natural History Museum and National Gallery also.

I cant find any reference to it and as far as I can see the proprty was bought outright by the state in the mid 1920's.

CDfm · 15-11-2010 4:58am

ballsymchugh wrote: »

what i think is a crying shame is that the taxpayer has to pay groundrent for out national parliament.

Can you provide a reference for this ?

man1 · 15-11-2010 10:33am

dr gonzo wrote: »

Youre joking me, never heard that myself but thats shocking. In a way kind of similar to archaeologists having to ask the permission of some english peers to set foot on Lambay island. Dont get me wrong, im not saying English people cant own land in Ireland or anything even remotely like that but an entire island in Dublin bay and one with a huge amount of archaeological importance to Ireland too.

I may have just hijacked my own thread. Back on topic.

I thought Lambay island wasn't officially part of Ireland (or maybe I am wrong??), isn't it owned by the Barings family and wasn't part of Ireland even before independence.

Can someone explain the Irish peerage system to me?

Comments