nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Would you support the return of the Gaelic Nobility to Ireland?

RepublicanEagle

If not a parliamentary model akin to the UK, would you be in favor if it if it was solely a ceremonial role that replaced the presidency?

I am obviously referring to the clans that fled during, before and after the "Flight of the Earls" and also the ones who remained.

And Brehon Law, what would be your opinion on amending the constitution to accomodate some of the laws that would benefit society?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

iguana

The_B_Man wrote: »

Where did u get that from?

Brian Boru's grandaughter, Dervorgilla, was the great grandmother of Dermot MacMurrough, who married his daughter Aoife to Strongbow. Their daughter Isabel de Clare married William Marshal 1189. They had 10 children, 5 sons and 5 daughters. Legend has it that the bishop of Ferns in Wexford, in a land dispute with Marshal, cursed him that his sons would all die childless, that his lands, he had one of the largest landholding in western Europe at the time, would be scattered and his name lost. This turned out to be true. But Marshal's daughters all married well and every royal and wealthy family in Europe can be traced back to those women as they and their descendants married into each royal line, eventually bearing kings and queens of each country, due to the close interbreeding.

Mary and Anne Boleyn were descended from William and Isabel's daughter Eva, and Mary's grand-daughter Lettice Knollys is the direct ancestor of Charles Darwin, Churchill, George Bush and Richard Dawkins.

The_B_Man

iguana wrote: »

Every single last European monarch is descended from Brian Boru anyway. As are a couple of the US founding fathers, Charles Darwin, Churchill, George Bush and Richard Dawkins.

Where did u get that from?

paddyandy

Nobility has no Flag.

iguana

JMSE wrote: »

Thats not a bad plan, after all the Gaelic nobility spent a lot of their time at each other's throats. Theres no reason to think that by now, in the absence of what happened here since 1169, we wouldn't have gone down the road of democracy. If we had gone with a modern style monarch, then that person would be as inbred as the rest of Western Europes finest.

Every single last European monarch is descended from Brian Boru anyway. As are a couple of the US founding fathers, Charles Darwin, Churchill, George Bush and Richard Dawkins.

JMSE

Gingko wrote: »

Lets keep it a Republic folks!!! "We serve neither King nor Kaiser" It may be far from perfect but I would still rather be a free citizen of a republic then a subject of a monarchist state!

Thats not a bad plan, after all the Gaelic nobility spent a lot of their time at each other's throats. Theres no reason to think that by now, in the absence of what happened here since 1169, we wouldn't have gone down the road of democracy. If we had gone with a modern style monarch, then that person would be as inbred as the rest of Western Europes finest.

cocoshovel

Gaelic wha? Leave me alone its Saturday night! :mad:

Eleganza

There are those who claim to be Chieftains and have at best fudged or at worst manufactured their own family tree appropriating ancestors along the way and then there are a very few who remain where their pedigree is sound and beyond question.
The Chieftains with a good pedigree generally don't feel the need to announce themselves to the world by their designation.

Don't use wikipedia as a source because most of the topics on the subject appear to have been written by one genealogist with a particular viewpoint.

lcrcboy

iguana wrote: »

They would be especially difficult to trace as our chieftains were generally chosen through the matrilineal line. So if my brother was the chief one of my sons would be his heir, and the son of one of my daughters would be his heir. It wasn't the oldest eligible boy who was chosen either, it could be any one of them based on conditions set by the rest of the clan. We have no genuine way whatsoever of knowing who would have kept our noble titles if we had kept that system.

We do actually have people who claim to be the heads of the various clans. They style themselves as "Chief of the Name" and they do get special treatment from some people, like free trips to US cities to lead St Patrick's Day parades, etc. There was even a proposal to give them official special status in the state in the 30s/40s. But they would not have been the chieftans under our traditional system as they used the salic system used in England to record the known descendants, which is very different to "our" way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Name#In_Ireland

I came across a few of the clan webpages online apparently the Government recognizes them not sure what that means and what it entitles them to. Most of the heads of these clans claim to be a Prince of some sort below is a link to a few of their webpages:

O'Brien Clan: http://www.obrienclan.com/

McMahon Clan: http://www.orgsites.com/ca/clanmacmahon/index.html

O'Neill Clan: http://www.oneillclans.com/

iguana

They would be especially difficult to trace as our chieftains were generally chosen through the matrilineal line. So if my brother was the chief one of my sons would be his heir, and the son of one of my daughters would be his heir. It wasn't the oldest eligible boy who was chosen either, it could be any one of them based on conditions set by the rest of the clan. We have no genuine way whatsoever of knowing who would have kept our noble titles if we had kept that system.

We do actually have people who claim to be the heads of the various clans. They style themselves as "Chief of the Name" and they do get special treatment from some people, like free trips to US cities to lead St Patrick's Day parades, etc. There was even a proposal to give them official special status in the state in the 30s/40s. But they would not have been the chieftans under our traditional system as they used the salic system used in England to record the known descendants, which is very different to "our" way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Name#In_Ireland

lcrcboy

One major problem presented by reintroducing Irish nobility would be the fact that many people living in Ireland today have Irish clan names that would be considered names of affluent past Irish clans (including myself), in other words we would have thousands of people claiming to be Irish nobility. It would be very difficult and would take a huge amount of time to shift through these people in order to find out who exactly would be able to lay claim to such a title.
Another scenario that may arise from introducing Irish nobility would be what do we do if some of these people go forward to from their new status to try and claim to be King/Queen of Ireland how would we deal with that?

Also I believe the IRA wouldn't be to impressed with this and may try some twisted campaign against Irish nobility. But personally I think it would add something more to Ireland and its image, I'd say it would also do wonders for tourism. But I just think realistically it would not work.

Dionysus

sensibleken wrote: »

on charlemount street in dublin there is a coat of arms above the door of a hostle. one of the residents claimed of be the high king of ireland since the office was never abolished and he was a descendent of teh last one

Yeah, that guy was named Ray O'Brien (story here) and he claimed to be Prince of Thomond. He contended Thomond, of which he was "prince", was an independent kingdom and he appointed various "ambassadors" to foreign lands like...Dublin. I think that was supposed to be the Dublin embassy of the kingdom of Thomond! He was either a chancer or a lunatic - personally, I'd go for lunatic as nobody with a semblance of awareness would choose to be connected with the arch soup-takers that were the O'Briens of Thomond. Charles O'Conor of Belangare in the 18th century was, by the way, able to trace a legitimate direct descent to Ruairí Ó Conchúir, the last high king of Ireland.

sensibleken wrote: »

Just want to point out that the Rí of ireland were elected and not at all like the British monarchy. In fact Shane O'Neill presented himself to Elizabeth I to beg her not to introduce primogeniture and keep succession on an elected basis. He was laughed out of court mainly because of his appearance. Gaelic cloak and Glib haircut (like short dreadlocks)

Also. 100 years ago Brehon law would have been more benificial to women than common law. It took untill the 20th century to catch up with it in terms of civil liberties

sensibleken wrote: »

fraid not dude. succession in gaelic nobility wasnt inherited. it was elected. Mael Seachlainn II was actually elected high king twice.

Good posts, Ken. However, just a qualification to mention that while you're 100% correct to say the successor was elected, and this would surprise most people, it was only male members of the derbfine who generally had the right to vote in those elections. Katharine Simms wrote a great book - From Kings to Warlords - on changes to this established order by the late 16th century and emphasised the power a militarily powerful overlord could have in distorting such elections.

Biggins

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Some aspects of Brehon law live on. No I wouldnt be in favour of any form of nobility in Ireland. I'd actually be strongly opposed to the idea.

I agree.

Eleganza

Gingko wrote: »

Lets keep it a Republic folks!!! "We serve neither King nor Kaiser" It may be far from perfect but I would still rather be a free citizen of a republic then a subject of a monarchist state!

Like you actually live in a real republic. 1921; regime change, not republic.

People who compare Irish Chieftains to Kings don't understand the difference between a Clan system and a feudal system.

actually 1921 free state until the Great Grand Daddy of Shysters got around to copperfastening his grip on power but still 1921 was the date of regime change.

Eleganza

They didn't all leave Ireland and they didn't all submit to the process of surrender and regrant.

Yahew

Teclo wrote: »

We have a new leader, please show due respect.

Link

Link

Republicanism in Ireland means many things, everything from socialism to sectarianism(sometimes both) but the most basic definition is rule by democracy rather than monarchy. We were denied the right to make the decision for ourselves, being ruled by a British monarchy relates purely to independence.

I like this Portuguese O'Neill guy. I like the cut of his jib.

Off with Higgin's head, and install that chap as High King.

Yahew

flyingoutside wrote: »

The Vikings founded those towns not took them over. History must have been replaced with talking ****e in Tipp schools.

There were previous settlements on all those sites.

Fluorescence

It could be done if we particularly wanted it. The Belgian royal family was installed after they won their freedom in the 1800s. They chose their new king (who, incidentally was a German who would rather have been King of Greece :pac:). So there's no reason Ireland couldn't choose to have a monarch if it really wanted to.

The only thing is the Ard-Rís of old were elected. So all we'd be changing would be the job title. Ard-Rí na hEireann has an epic ring to it :P

Ellis Dee

No way! We don't need aristocracy or nobles of any kind anywhere. What we need is greater equality, including equality of opportunity, not a system that places some people in a favoured position by virtue of their birth alone.:rolleyes:

Besides, the descendants of the nobles that fled Ireland centuries ago would be virtually impossible to trace, except perhaps in a few cases, and the ancestors of the generation living now would include some colourful (for want of a better word) and definitely non-Irish characters. Deciding who is entitled to what position would probably keep the courts busy for decades and spawn a whole new horde of barristers.:cool:

The farcical aspects of the recent presidential campaign are no reason for anyone to long for monarchy. Look across the water, where no one has any say whatsoever in the choice of head of state. The current one is among the world's richest and most privileged and pampered to boot, but yet always manages to look like she has a boil on her arse.:) And the greed of her and her dysfunctional extended family seems to know no bounds.

Her son talks to flowers, which probably don't deserve to have to listen to the sh1te he often comes out with, and the fact that he threw away the beautiful Diana in favour of the crone Cowmilla is a fair indication of his wisdom and judgement.:mad:

No way monarchy. Even having Gay Mitchell as head of state would have been preferable to that.;)

Teclo

We have a new leader, please show due respect.

Link

Link

Republicanism in Ireland means many things, everything from socialism to sectarianism(sometimes both) but the most basic definition is rule by democracy rather than monarchy. We were denied the right to make the decision for ourselves, being ruled by a British monarchy relates purely to independence.

mikemac

There was a book or maybe an article out a few years ago

Seems Patrick Pearse planned to invite over Prince Joachim, son of the Kaiser to become head of state.
I can't say if it was true or not, just the story was put out there.

Got a bit of attention, was on the Pat Kenny Show anyway

I don't know if you are allowed to link to other forums here
Post Two has a good bit of info on it
http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/127335-padraig-pearse-wanted-german-monarch-rule-ireland-did-i-hear-correctly.html

RepublicanEagle

Mardy Bum wrote: »

He sat in Italy Tallaght drinking all day and became a bar stool revolutionary.

Don't forget chanting "up da RA"

Mardy Bum

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

No they were not, they were forced by the English, and the Flight of the Earls than took place, they left for Europe in order to organise a military liberation effort, Hugh O'Neill dedicated his entire life to returning to Ireland with an army behind them to drive out the oppressors, but it never materialised because he died, and there is reasonable speculation that he may have been poisoned.

He sat in Italy drinking all day and became a bar stool revolutionary.

Wibbs

sensibleken wrote: »

fraid not dude. succession in gaelic nobility wasnt inherited. it was elected. Mael Seachlainn II was actually elected high king twice.

It depended. Certainly for clan chiefs. Hell even early Irish church abbots passed on the title to sons.

Mike 1972

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Rory O'Connor was the last High King in 1198.

What exactly was he high on ?

flyingoutside

mikemac wrote: »

Never mind the Meath boyos, the capital was Cashel at one stage
Up Tipp :cool:

Of course the city folk in Limerick, Dublin and Waterford let themselves get taken over by the Vikings.
Hmmm, we can't call them West Brits but maybe there is another name for them

The Vikings founded those towns not took them over. History must have been replaced with talking ****e in Tipp schools.

paddyandy

Nobility has no Flag or Banners or Rowdy Patriotism nor heady childish banter.

sensibleken

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000 Given I'd be 20th or somesuch in line for said throne and know many of the nearerr 20, I'd defo say no. Inbred fcuks the lot of them*scratches third eye with sixth finger. Dribbles. Interferes with ones own personage*.

fraid not dude. succession in gaelic nobility wasnt inherited. it was elected. Mael Seachlainn II was actually elected high king twice.

sensibleken

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I'll take the position of High King if that's alright. I'm an O'Connor, the last Irish royal family.:cool:

on charlemount street in dublin there is a coat of arms above the door of a hostle. one of the residents claimed of be the high king of ireland since the office was never abolished and he was a descendent of teh last one.

Just want to point out that the Rí of ireland were elected and not at all like the British monarchy. In fact Shane O'Neill presented himself to Elizabeth I to beg her not to introduce primogeniture and keep succession on an elected basis. He was laughed out of court mainly because of his appearance. Gaelic cloak and Glib haircut (like short dreadlocks)

Also. 100 years ago Brehon law would have been more benificial to women than common law. It took untill the 20th century to catch up with it in terms of civil liberties

Wibbs

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Would you not agree that there would be a lot of cultural benefits and a feeling of regaining a part of our heritage that has been lost for centuries?

By artificially regaining a privileged aristocracy that have no talents for a political post other than accident of birth? (that stuff's bad enough with some of our political dynasties:)) As for culture, again we have to look at the artificiality of an enterprise like this. Then the costs. We'd be supporting such people(and their families) out of the public purse. Would this include palaces and lands? I do see where you're coming from alright and if our monarchy had only gone defunct a generation ago and we were very attached to it(like some former soviet bloc lands) I would be more on board, but the only monarch we've had for the guts of 600 years has been an English(well, Norman French, followed by Austrian with the odd drop of Welsh) and we sure as hell don't want that guff. Plus one could argue that even so called high kings in Ireland were a bit of a different kettle of fish to European monarchs.

RepublicanEagle

FloatingVoter wrote: »

I was Cleopatra in a previous life. Does that count ?

No, you are mistaking Ireland with Egypt, it was worth a try I suppose.:rolleyes: