800 years

brianthebard · 05-02-2007 9:33pm

vesp wrote:

I was not tarring him with a republican brush. I just wrote to point out " There are people in Ireland who do hate the English / British. You do not have to listen to a crowd of drunk Celtic supporters to know that. Thankfully they are a minority of the population. Given the republican propoganda machine ( I remember one teacher who used the phrase " burn everything British except their coal " etc ) what would you expect."

The phrase has nothing to do with any " economic war" with our neighbouring island. I remember it being used by a teacher when both countries were members of the EEC / EC, and when we were getting billions of pounds worth of handouts from Britain, and when thousands of our people were going to England to get work every month.

What's with the quote tags? Do you not believe that there was an economic war now? ffs. the point isn't when he used the phrase, its what it refers to, which is something you seem to not understand.

vesp · 05-02-2007 10:02pm

brianthebard wrote:

the point isn't when he used the phrase, its what it refers to, which is something you seem to not understand.

I understand only too well. The point is the context in which the phrase was used. The person was anti-British to the core. He used the phrase because he believed in it. He reminds me of another racist I knew once who refused and returned a present given to him once because it was made in Britain.

A Dub in Glasgo · 05-02-2007 10:10pm

vesp wrote:

Do you despise the other European monarchies as much - say the Catholic monarchies for example ?

I despise all monarchies... do you?

Erin Go Brath · 05-02-2007 11:09pm

Just the idea that your tax goes towards paying for some family to sit on their asses and do nothing, while leading a life of privelege puts me off monarchies. They are a throwback to the old days of tribal chiefs. I don't think they are at all suitable for a modern country.

walrusgumble · 05-02-2007 11:11pm

there are a waste of tax payer's money, but hey thats their choice to retain their tradtions and its their business.ie spin, britain and all

surely the idea that the english monarchy draws in the tourist is no longer valid. i mean there are so many tourist things in england, eg great buildings, the people (yes some are fine people) and their fantastic sporting traditions

vesp · 05-02-2007 11:23pm

walrusgumble wrote:

there are a waste of tax payer's money, but hey thats their choice to retain their tradtions and its their business.ie spin, britain and all

Thats their choice all right, the British people. They want to retain their monarchy all right.

walrusgumble wrote:

surely the idea that the english monarchy draws in the tourist is no longer valid.

You are only wanting to believe what you want to believe. The Royal family actually do bring in a lot of tourists, do a lot of charity openings and p.r. work, and employ a lot of people. I remember reading a survey somewhere once where it said overall they more than paid their way.

If you want to compare the cost of maintaining the Royal family ( spread over 60 or 70 million or whatever the pop. of the UK is ), to the cost per head of us maintaining our Mary and her family in Aras an Uctarain, fell free to do so.

Fratton Fred · 05-02-2007 11:25pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

our money??

I despise the queen, not for Englishness but as a monarchy

I've no problem with that, although I presume you despise the position of monarch rather than the individual.

A Dub in Glasgo · 05-02-2007 11:30pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

I've no problem with that, although I presume you despise the position of monarch rather than the individual.

Of course

LordSutch · 06-02-2007 5:24pm

Getting back to the Genesis of theis 800 years of 'English' oppression rubbish. I would honestly like to know the detail (on a century by century basis) about this 800 years of torture & oppression by the so called 'English'.

Personally speaking, I find it hard to accept that its true, and no doubt the truth is very complicated & very complex, I also suspect the possibility that those nasty 'English' are in reality the Norse, the Normans (French), the Vikings, & the Scots? Irish Landlords possibly? and many other combinations of all of the above including the English.

I hope somebody knows the 'True' answer to this 800 year thing seeing as it is bandied around so much these days by Republicans & I would really like to proove them wrong, next time I get into an argument while sipping a pint of the black stuff in Temple bar

By the way, I dont for one moment believe that the 'English' oppressed us over an 800 period ........ it is a catchy sound bite though!

Finally; all this talk about the 'English' reminds me of the 'Amish people' in that film (Witness) with Harrison Ford, where all outsiders were known as 'The English' because they were different, from the outside, and with different & Alien ways ....................

Maybe thats what is meant by 'The English'?

Brian Capture · 06-02-2007 8:57pm

Hagar wrote:

A crass generalization at best, a disgraceful comment at worst.

Aren't you the person who revels in every English sporting defeat?

If so, you're hardly in a position to criticise.

Hagar · 06-02-2007 9:03pm

Brian Capture wrote:

Aren't you the person who revels in every English sporting defeat?

If so, you're hardly in a position to criticise.

Err, No. I do enjoy Irish victories when they arise as I'm sure an Englishman would enjoy an English victory. Is there anything wrong with that?

Oh yeah before we get the Premiership Supporter line being trotted out, I do support Man U.:p

csk · 07-02-2007 1:34pm

Arthur F wrote:

I would honestly like to know the detail (on a century by century basis) about this 800 years of torture & oppression by the so called 'English'.

Well one example of "oppression" would be Poynings Law. This law applied to the Irish Parlaiment from 1490 to maybe the Act of Union or thereabouts(iirc). Poynings Law made the Irish Parlaiment a subordinate parlaiment to Westminster.

The funny thing about Poynings Law was that "meer Irish" were restricted from attending Parlaiment so the ones who were most often "oppressed" by this Act were the Forebears of what today are know in Ireland as Unionists.

LordSutch · 07-02-2007 3:04pm

Poynings Law hardly accounts for 800 years of oppression, and anyway, just because Ireland was subordonate to London from 1490-1782 does not mean that the 'Irish' were oppressed for 800 years by the 'English' in the hard done by fashion currently portrayed by Irish (Republicans).
Re writing History just aint going to work.

Dontico · 07-02-2007 3:51pm

Brian Capture wrote:

Dontico:

Were you happy when London was bombed on 7 July 2005?

If you say no, you're a hypocrite.

no. i wasnt. no need to explain why. i equally dislike terrorism, however the differnce between waring nations and terrorists, is that, terrorist dont necessarily represent the country they come from.

Dontico · 07-02-2007 3:56pm

Brian Capture wrote:

Dontico and you other England-haters will probably be jumping for joy when you read this.

One less English person on this earth.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

i dont promote the death of most people. nor do i hold every english person responsible for thier gov. nor did i run over that person.

csk · 07-02-2007 4:45pm

ArthurF wrote:

Poynings Law hardly accounts for 800 years of oppression, and anyway, just because Ireland was subordonate to London from 1490-1782 does not mean that the 'Irish' were oppressed for 800 years by the 'English' in the hard done by fashion currently portrayed by Irish (Republicans).
Re writing History just aint going to work.

I would have thought that Poynings Law is a perfect example of the kind of "oppression" that is largely forgotten about due to the (sometimes) "hard done by fashion" as you call it, of Irish History.

Of course there will always be a tendancy to highlight the more despicable acts of "oppression" such as, say, the Penal Laws because they make for a better story but I think we should not forget the milder forms of "opppression" visited on this island such as Poynings Law.

Of course Poynings Law was deemed suffieciently "oppressive" by those at the mercy of it. Indeed, they thought it necessary to use their own para-military(terrorist perhaps?) organisation in order to rid themselves of it.

Erin Go Brath · 07-02-2007 10:19pm

English Oppression has been rife for many years:

The statute of Kilkenny 1367
http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/statutes.htm

The statute of Galway 1527 also banned the game of hurling.
(Could find any great links on this one)

Just two examples of Oppression which give rise to whole 800 years of oppresion argument which spring to mind. These statutes were designed to pretty much eradicate our language, culture, sporting traditions etc.

LordSutch · 08-02-2007 10:45am

Still waiting for the definitive guide to the 800 years of 'English' oppression thingy!
The question also has to be asked "Were Irish people treated any differently from other people living in the british isles" for example (were people in Manchester any better off)? were people in Liverpool better off? were people in Glasgow better off? was every body oppressed by penal laws? or was Ireland singled-out and given extra hard treatment? I dunno ~ I am asking, and as regards eradicating the Irish language, all I can say is look at the Welsh language :-) which seems to have done pretty well considering that they still remain next door to those nasty English people.

brianthebard · 08-02-2007 4:09pm

ArthurF wrote:

Still waiting for the definitive guide to the 800 years of 'English' oppression thingy!
The question also has to be asked "Were Irish people treated any differently from other people living in the british isles" for example (were people in Manchester any better off)? were people in Liverpool better off? were people in Glasgow better off? was every body oppressed by penal laws? or was Ireland singled-out and given extra hard treatment? I dunno ~ I am asking, and as regards eradicating the Irish language, all I can say is look at the Welsh language :-) which seems to have done pretty well considering that they still remain next door to those nasty English people.

Regarding the Welsh question-Wales as a country/people became interested in the notion of Britishness at a far earlier period than people in Ireland and Scotland. Henry VII had many many welshmen in his court and around that time(can't think of exact dates) Wales united with England. There was a mutual acceptance on both sides, leading to a better union, little or no dissent, and interestingly, a blind eye was turned to a lot of Welsh Catholicism during the reformation.

@ Brath: The statutes of Kilkenny were an attempt to stop the Old English Norman people fraternising with the Irish and becoming "native" no? In essence it was an attempt to keep London's own people to themselves. Plus it failed. If the worst thing the statutes' of Galway did was ban hurley then perhaps it wasn't the most oppressive of statutes. Plus the game still went on, so again, not very well enforced?

Erin Go Brath · 08-02-2007 9:58pm

I was just giving two minor (in the scheme of things) examples of oppression;
re. the previous argument that not all forms of oppression were biggies like the penal laws, plantation of Ulster, oath of allegiance and suchforth.

Of course I could be here all night; ArthurF if I was to give a "definitive guide to the 800 years of 'English' oppression". (Go to a library, I've stuff to do

) Also the Irish language may have faded into obscurity in terms of it being spoken as a first language, compared to Welsh for example, the reason it did though is still measures that England brought in that lead to its demise.

I'm not here to dump all over England and it history. People (English and West Brits in particular) just have to realise that the Empire wasn't such a benign influence that some would have you think.
If some people here, are of the opinion that we weren't oppressed by the British, they are seriously misinformed about Irish history. The evidence is there for all too see!!

Erin Go Brath · 08-02-2007 10:17pm

brianthebard wrote:

The statutes of Kilkenny were an attempt to stop the Old English Norman people fraternising with the Irish and becoming "native" no?

Correct, but theres a number of points in it like this one:

"no Englishman, nor other person, being at peace, do give or sell to any Irishman, in time of peace or war, horses or armour, nor any manner of victuals in time of war; and if any shall do to the contrary, and thereof be attainted, he shall have judgment of life and member, as a traitor to our lord the king."

This statute was oppressive to Irish people, make no mistake.

brianthebard wrote:

If the worst thing the statutes' of Galway did was ban hurley then perhaps it wasn't the most oppressive of statutes. Plus the game still went on, so again, not very well enforced?

Still a major part of our sporting heritage, was faced with being wiped out. The ancient game of hurling predates christianity in our country. Its thought that it was played on this island up to 4,000 years ago. (Of course the first written record of the game is in the 5th Century, at the time of Brehon Laws --- where history was first recorded on this island, i believe). The game did go on, you're right. Why did it though? --- Because of the proud people of this island who refuse to let go of their heritage, and were prepared to die to protect it!

brianthebard · 08-02-2007 10:35pm

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Correct, but theres a number of points in it like this one:

"no Englishman, nor other person, being at peace, do give or sell to any Irishman, in time of peace or war, horses or armour, nor any manner of victuals in time of war; and if any shall do to the contrary, and thereof be attainted, he shall have judgment of life and member, as a traitor to our lord the king."

This statute was oppressive to Irish people, make no mistake.

No, it was designed to prevent fraternising between the different groups, and was specifically designed to oppress ANGLO-IRISH, they are the one's the statutes are directed at. And it didn't work, so I can't really see it as oppressive.

Still a major part of our sporting heritage, was faced with being wiped out. The ancient game of hurling predates christianity in our country. Its thought that it was played on this island up to 4,000 years ago. (Of course the first written record of the game is in the 5th Century, at the time of Brehon Laws --- where history was first recorded on this island, i believe). The game did go on, you're right. Why did it though? --- Because of the proud people of this island who refuse to let go of their heritage, and were prepared to die to protect it!

Can you show me records of people dying to protect hurling? Perhaps, as with the other statutes above, it simply wasn't enforced?

Fratton Fred · 08-02-2007 11:21pm

out of curiosity, do you consider these laws aimed specifically at the Irish, or as part of the ruling classes oppressing the working classes in general?

either way, why do you think Ireland was different to the rst of the union, or even the empire?

brianthebard · 08-02-2007 11:31pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

out of curiosity, do you consider these laws aimed specifically at the Irish, or as part of the ruling classes oppressing the working classes in general?

either way, why do you think Ireland was different to the rst of the union, or even the empire?

Directed at me? We are talking about a feudal system, the working class don't exist really, both as an actual class or in the minds of the rulers. It is unhelpful and inaccurate really to refer to a working class, as if there were a united group who went under this banner, until after the French Revolution.

I don't know what you mean by your second question?

Fratton Fred · 09-02-2007 9:57am

brianthebard wrote:

Directed at me? We are talking about a feudal system, the working class don't exist really, both as an actual class or in the minds of the rulers. It is unhelpful and inaccurate really to refer to a working class, as if there were a united group who went under this banner, until after the French Revolution.

I don't know what you mean by your second question?

Sorry, I wasn’t directing that at you, it was a general question.

When I say Working class, what I mean are peasants. Through out history, pretty much globally, the ruling “Classes” have kept peasants down in order to protect their wealth, what is viewed in Ireland as British oppression, could it not just be the ruling class trying to exploit more of the poor people for their own good, but given some form of spin by those who stood up against it? Creating a nationalist fervour when it was as much a socialist issue.

What I am trying to get at, is pretty much what ArthurF asked, why was Ireland so different? Why did Scotland and Wales accept “Britishness” and not Ireland?

Maybe, what was originally a medieval “Class” struggle evolved into a race/religious one. Also, add in the influence on the Catholic Church in Ireland, which has, for a long time been at logger heads with the British Monarchy and you get this boiling pot which turned out the way it did?

I may be well off the mark, but look forward to debating the above.

Hagar · 09-02-2007 10:21am

Fratton Fred wrote:

the ruling “Classes” have kept peasants down in order to protect their wealth, what is viewed in Ireland as British oppression, could it not just be the ruling class trying to exploit more of the poor people for their own good,

Fair enough comment if the ruling classes were Irish but they weren't, they were foreign. So they were never going to be accepted as our own ruling class. There was always a yearning to be self determined in the Irish psyche which I don't think has been completely fulfilled.

Fratton Fred wrote:

What I am trying to get at, is pretty much what ArthurF asked, why was Ireland so different? Why did Scotland and Wales accept “Britishness” and not Ireland?

Good question, I would say the Irish were different because we are Irish not British. We are not a subject Nation and never accepted it even under force of arms. I somehow don't think that anyone English will ever understand the difference. You are not used to the idea that we are different and can't come to terms with that reality. Why did the Scots and the Welsh allow the English to rule them? Why did they ever stop trying to regain their independence? Personally I think it's shameful that they didin't. I think Britishness is nothing more than a term to indicate subjugation to England.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Maybe, what was originally a medieval “Class” struggle evolved into a race/religious one. Also, add in the influence on the Catholic Church in Ireland, which has, for a long time been at logger heads with the British Monarchy and you get this boiling pot which turned out the way it did?

Bear in mind the strugle between the English Monarchy and the Catholic Church only came about because Henry VIII wanted a son by a wife who couldn't give him one so he invented a new religion for a whole country to let him go through six wives in his quest for an heir.

Fratton Fred · 09-02-2007 12:41pm

Hagar wrote:

Fair enough comment if the ruling classes were Irish but they weren't, they were foreign. So they were never going to be accepted as our own ruling class. There was always a yearning to be self determined in the Irish psyche which I don't think has been completely fulfilled.

I agree totally, I would be the same. I'm not trying to jusify anything, just get a possible explanation.

Hagar wrote:

Good question, I would say the Irish were different because we are Irish not British. We are not a subject Nation and never accepted it even under force of arms. I somehow don't think that anyone English will ever understand the difference. You are not used to the idea that we are different and can't come to terms with that reality. Why did the Scots and the Welsh allow the English to rule them? Why did they ever stop trying to regain their independence? Personally I think it's shameful that they didin't. I think Britishness is nothing more than a term to indicate subjugation to England.

Maybe you are right, but what is British, I'm not British, I'm English, a Scotsman is Scottish and we are all very different. I think Subjugation is a bit of a strong word, there are many Scots and Welsh who found life as part of Britain very beneficial and Scotland in particular played a very major part in building the empire. If you ever visit the Caribbean you will find many references to Scotland, including a lot of scottish surnames (And irish as well). As to why they didn't push for independence earlier, who knows, maybe they were too busy colonising the world to worry about their own country.

Hagar wrote:

Bear in mind the strugle between the English Monarchy and the Catholic Church only came about because Henry VIII wanted a son by a wife who couldn't give him one so he invented a new religion for a whole country to let him go through six wives in his quest for an heir.

Agreed, although one of his major gripes was more to do with the interference of Rome in the way he ran his country. This key issue is one which I believe led to the majority of the oppression in Ireland. Not so much a dislike of Catholics, Catholics in Britain didn't experience the prolonged level of oppression that they did in Ireland, however, the Catholic Church has had a far bigger influence here than Britain and I think that the conflict between Rome and the monarchy spilled over into ireland.

brianthebard · 09-02-2007 2:03pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

Sorry, I wasn’t directing that at you, it was a general question.

When I say Working class, what I mean are peasants. Through out history, pretty much globally, the ruling “Classes” have kept peasants down in order to protect their wealth, what is viewed in Ireland as British oppression, could it not just be the ruling class trying to exploit more of the poor people for their own good, but given some form of spin by those who stood up against it? Creating a nationalist fervour when it was as much a socialist issue.

Its true, the ruling classes will only look after their own needs. Hence you don't see working class interests being discussed until socialist parties start bringing their problems to the government. I think you will have to refer to a period before I can start to talk bout nationalism and socialist issues and the like. Seeing as we are dealing with a broad topic (800 years :rolleyes: ) A lot of things change over that period.

What I am trying to get at, is pretty much what ArthurF asked, why was Ireland so different? Why did Scotland and Wales accept “Britishness” and not Ireland?

*breathes in* A long and complicated issue. I already addressed Wales' union with England. Its important to note that Wales became "british" before reformation, and generally by choice. In contrast Scotland only joined the Union in 1707. Before that the Stuarts had ruled Scotland and England, as distant relatives of Elizabeth, but in the end Scotland, like Ireland was forced into Union to an extent. Also, Scotland didn't really accept Britishness, there were several uprisings over the years. However there is a closer connection between Calvinist Scotland and Anglican England, so religion wasn't as much of an issue in this case.

In Ireland neither of these situations happened. Ireland was planted forcefully, although obviously the Pale had existed for some time. There was no real reformation in Ireland, so it continued to be a Catholic country for longer than Wales and Scotland. This led to tension, although by the Act of Union religion would no longer be the same issue that it had been. Plus in 1707 there had been attempts to reconcile both the Scottish church and the Anglican Church, which smoothed out some of the issues between the two. This didn't happen to the same extent in Ireland. (Of course it is arguable how important this is)

Maybe, what was originally a medieval “Class” struggle evolved into a race/religious one. Also, add in the influence on the Catholic Church in Ireland, which has, for a long time been at logger heads with the British Monarchy and you get this boiling pot which turned out the way it did?

I may be well off the mark, but look forward to debating the above.

I'm not comfortable using the term class struggle in a medieval context. Please expand on this point though, I'm not sure if it is valid but I'd like to know what you mean. Also pre-famine the Catholic Church didn't exert as much influence as one may believe. the church was generally quite poor in Ireland (it was a poor country after all) and one of the reasons reformation didn't work was that Henry VIII couldn't strip monastries of money in the way he had in England, and without that cash he couldn't set up a new church.

brianthebard · 09-02-2007 2:06pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

Agreed, although one of his major gripes was more to do with the interference of Rome in the way he ran his country. This key issue is one which I believe led to the majority of the oppression in Ireland. Not so much a dislike of Catholics, Catholics in Britain didn't experience the prolonged level of oppression that they did in Ireland, however, the Catholic Church has had a far bigger influence here than Britain and I think that the conflict between Rome and the monarchy spilled over into ireland.

I'm sorry that's simply not true. Catholics in England were treated worse than Irish Catholics in many cases, and couldn't hold seats in Parliament until Catholic Emancipation, same as Irish Catholics. The only reason it appears that they weren't oppressed for as long is because they were dealt with more systematically in England.

Fratton Fred · 09-02-2007 2:32pm

brianthebard wrote:

I'm sorry that's simply not true. Catholics in England were treated worse than Irish Catholics in many cases, and couldn't hold seats in Parliament until Catholic Emancipation, same as Irish Catholics. The only reason it appears that they weren't oppressed for as long is because they were dealt with more systematically in England.

I should have emphasised the word prolonged, I know they were treated as badly, I have visit the stately homes and seen the priest holes, heard the stories of Catholics being hidden, almost akin to Jews being hidden in Amsterdam. what I was trying to say, albeit badly, was that the oppression of Catholics in Ireland outlasted that in Britain.

brianthebard · 09-02-2007 2:46pm

Again that would come down to what is oppression? English Catholics couldn't hold seats in parliament until Catholic Emancipation, the same as Irish Catholics, so the same thing happening there. I can't think of any other examples of specific attempts to oppress catholics after the Religious wars. Perhaps the penal laws, but i'd have to read over them again.

LordSutch · 09-02-2007 6:10pm

I realise that I am being a little trite 'with this particular post' compared to some of my learned posters on this subject, but are we getting any closer to the (800 years of oppression)? fair enough, some of the gaps have been filled-in, but even then, there are still questions about the specific oppression of the 'Irish' by the 'English' and I think it is beginning to look more like the oppression of Catholics by the ruling classes? & not just Irish Catholics (or am I mistaken)?

Some previous poster said that if I really wanted to find out, then I should go to a library (fair enough) but surely other posters would also like to read about the 800 years too?

I am not being smart, I really wanna know How & Why 'The English' got away with this for 800 years .................... Or is it possible that the 800 years is a bit of a Colouful & Mythical jibe at our neighbours

Erin Go Brath · 12-02-2007 12:23pm

You raise some interesting points there ArthurF.

I can assure you though the 800 years of oppression is not a mythical jibe as you put it!

Since the Norman Invasion from England (1169) onwards theres largely been a mistrust of the Crown in Ireland.

The major conflict between Britain and Ireland did exist before, but really only escalated in any major way from the 1500s/1600s onwards. Ireland werent happy but went along with British rule without major sustained resistance, until the Protestant reformations. When England had its first Protestant King was really the straw that broke the camels back, as I see it. The problem being Irish people were unwilling to be ruled by a Protestant King, more specifically were unwilling to take the Oath of Allegiance, and the Oath of abjuration. England relentlessly enforced the oath of abjuration across the land, forcing Catholics to abandon their faith in exchange for keeping their property and possessions. In these dark and treacherous times Catholic priests were imprisoned or executed without question. It would be blasphemous for any Catholic person to accept the King of England as head of the Church instead of the Pope, and many people would have thought they'd go to hell when they died if they did.

Ireland had 6 armed rebellions in the 300 years prior to gaining independence. While it was about independence, and gaining soverignity, it was also a religious war. England tried to enforce the Protestant religion, Ireland refused to accept it. That certainly sparked a lot of the conflict!!!

LordSutch · 12-02-2007 2:21pm

But were the Normans 'The English'?

Hagar · 12-02-2007 2:47pm

AFAIK the Normans came from Normandy in Northern France, at the time that bit of real estate was ruled by England so I suppose Norman troops were used as "cannon-fodder" to save the real English troops. A long standing tradition I believe.

Erin Go Brath · 12-02-2007 5:29pm

Hagar wrote:

AFAIK the Normans came from Normandy in Northern France, at the time that bit of real estate was ruled by England so I suppose Norman troops were used as "cannon-fodder" to save the real English troops. A long standing tradition I believe.

You're right about that Hagar.

King Henry II (King of England at the time) was a French-speaking Norman much preoccupied with controlling his French territories. However, he had contemplated an invasion of Ireland as early as 1155, with the approval of the only English Pope.

Hagar · 12-02-2007 6:34pm

Well to be honest I did have a bit of insider knowledge on that last one.
You see I'm not really a Viking at all, I'm a Norman of the DeBurgh family.

My Family Crest and History

So I suppose after all 288 posts I'll own up. It was me and mine.

Now get over it lads.

Close the thread and move on before I'm forced to oppress you all a bit more.

brianthebard · 12-02-2007 10:20pm

ArthurF wrote:

But were the Normans 'The English'?

Absolutely not in my opinion. They were French first and English second. Personally I can't accept reference to English oppression before Henry VIII. Plus as I have said countless times on this thread, the Normans did not oppress the Irish. Invaded, killed, took land, yes. But then they assimiliated and became Irish. Because that's what people did in that period of history. It isn't until Henry VII's time (who wasn't very successful in Ireland anyways) that we see nations attempting to conquer another nation. When people refer to 800 years and cite the Normans as an example of oppression, they are completely ignoring the actions of the Normans (Irish lords invaded other clans lands, and took land in just the same way) but they are also applying a 21st century sense of imperialism on a society in which imperialism did not exist. That is one of my biggest gripes with the 800 years line. (Perhaps I should have put it like that from the start)

Fratton Fred · 13-02-2007 9:48am

Erin Go Brath wrote:

You're right about that Hagar.

King Henry II (King of England at the time) was a French-speaking Norman much preoccupied with controlling his French territories. However, he had contemplated an invasion of Ireland as early as 1155, with the approval of the only English Pope.

so it was the fault of the English, because they allowed themselves to be invaded by the French and then let the French go on and conquer Ireland.

what inconsiderate bastards those English are;)

Erin Go Brath · 13-02-2007 10:40am

Hagar wrote:

Well to be honest I did have a bit of insider knowledge on that last one.
You see I'm not really a Viking at all, I'm a Norman of the DeBurgh family.

My Family Crest and History

Well, of all the treachery

You lot have been here since the 12th century, I guess that makes you Irish at this stage. Myself and a few of the other orignal Gaelic settlers (We're getting old at this stage) will have a word to sort this out.

brianthebard · 13-02-2007 3:00pm

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Well, of all the treachery

You lot have been here since the 12th century, I guess that makes you Irish at this stage. Myself and a few of the other orignal Gaelic settlers (We're getting old at this stage) will have a word to sort this out.

Why makes you think your family is an "original Gaelic settler" family?:rolleyes:

LordSutch · 13-02-2007 4:13pm

Now we are making progress, thanks mostly to post #289 by Brianthebard amongst others.

The 800 years of 'English' oppression is beginning to look a lot more complicated now ..........

800 years

Comments