Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can someone explain the Irish peerage system to me?

Options
2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    man1 wrote: »
    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.

    It may be private property but is part of Ireland.

    You may be confusing it with the Saltee Islands -owned by the Neale Family and this quote from Time Magazine in 1944.

    But like the Saltees it is an important bird sanctuary.



    Since December 1943 the Saltees are privately owned by the Neale family. Prince Michael the First died in January 1998 and is buried in the family vault in Bannow Bay, Co.Wexford. He has been succeeded by his eldest son Michael the Second. http://www.salteeislands.info/

    For more http://www.salteeislands.info/Michael%20the%20first%20Page.htm
    Europe had a new royal house last week. In Dublin newspapers appeared a personal pronouncement: "I, Prince Michael Neale, landowner, will assume the title of Prince of the Saltees at the conclusion of the war. Also I wish it to be known that no one will be permitted to enter the Saltee Islands without a permit issued by me." Anybody caught interfering with the millions of birds or their eggs which inhabit those islands will be severely dealt with.
    Prince Michael Neale is Eire's No. 1 manufacturer of cattle dip. As a County Wexford farmer's son, he used to lie on a cliff top in the long grass and gaze south across St. George's Channel to the tiny, haze-blue Saltee Islands. Since his first name was legally Prince, it was easy for a farm boy to daydream: "Some day I'll own those islands and become a real prince." He took to calling the Saltees "Paradise."
    By last year he had sold enough dip to buy the Saltees. He began planting 3,000 trees, developing his domain as a luxury tourist resort. He also talked about recruiting a private army.
    But last week Prince Neale had a right royal headache. To a reporter the Dublin prince-presumptive confided: "My wife, a Liverpool woman, is a bit shy about using the title of Princess. . . ." He added thoughtfully: "Anyone who does not call me Prince will be ignored."


    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,775231,00.html#ixzz15La81mL7

    M3.gif


    On the Leinster House ground rent issue - it is a myth and there is no ground rent payable.

    Dáil Éireann - Volume 229 - 15 June, 1967
    Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Leinster House Ground Rent.
    25. Mr. M. O'Leary asked the Minister for Finance the ground rent paid annually by the State in the case of Leinster House; and whether the ground landlord is an Irish national.
    Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. J. Gibbons): There is no ground rent payable in respect of Leinster House.
    Mr. S. Dunne: May we take it that it is freehold?
    Mr. J. Gibbons: These matters are vested in the Commissioners of Public
    Works.

    http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0229/D.0229.196706150020.html



    EDIT - Sorry for being so pedantic. I get so hung up on detail :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    How do you define Irish Peerage.

    So OP - who are we talking about and why ?

    Here is a definition that encompasses everything and lists the various different

    So you have Gaelic and Post Gaelic Definitions

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_clans

    Here is something than encompasses everything





    1x1.gif
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] "AT ARM'S LENGTH - Aristocrats in the Republic of Ireland"[/FONT]
    1x1.gif
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Anne Chambers chose fourteen Irish Chiefs and Peers representative of the Gaelic, Anglo-Norman, Elizabethan, Jacobite, Cromwellian, Williamite, Victorian and Edwardian-created aristocracy/ ruling class in Ireland and elicited their opinions on a range of issues of historical and present-day interest. She recorded the fate and fortunes of families descended from the Gaelic Chiefs she interviewed and of those who superseded them.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Chiefs/ Peers interviewed:[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]O Brian (Conor), Lord Inchiquin, 32nd great-grandson in descent from Brian Boru.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]O Donovan (Daniel), lord of Clan Cathal.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Mac Sweeney Doe (Thomas Sweeney), 21st Chief of Doe.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Mac Donnell (Count Randal), 25th Chief of the Mac Donnells of the Glens[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Edward Plunket, 19th Baron of Dunsany[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Desmond Fitzgerald, 29th Knight of Glin[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Brigadier Denis Fitzgerald (deceased)[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Jeremy Browne, 11th Marquess of Sligo[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Brendan Parsons, 7th Earl of Rosse[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Earl of Mount Charles[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Thomas Packenham, 9th Earl of Longford[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Redmond Morris, 4th Baron Killanin[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]John Kilbracken, 3rd Baron Kilbracken[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Honourable Garech Browne, son of the late Lord Oranmore and Browne.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"At Arm's Length: Aristocrats in the Republic of Ireland" was launched by Dr. T. K. Whitaker in the Heraldic Museum, Kildare Street, Dublin, September 14, 2004.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]219decc0.jpg[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]21d05ce0.jpg[/FONT]
    1x1.gif
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]From left: Madam Mac Sweeney Doe, Mac Sweeney Doe, Anne Chambers, O Brian/ Lord Inchiquin - President of the Standing Council of Irish Clan Chiefs & Chieftains, The Hon. Garech Browne, Count Randal Mac Donnell of the Glens, Mac Sweeney Doe.

    http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id34.htm
    [/FONT]

    Here is a site with lots of links to the various types off it

    http://www2.smumn.edu/facpages/~poshea/uasal/noble.html

    So what defines an Irish Clan

    I found this explanation and link

    Irish Chiefs and the Modern Clans crest.gif Irish Chiefship is a sticky business by any account. The vast majority of Irishmen and women, whether in Ireland or around the world, are not represented by a Chief. It is a sad fact, and one that does not have to be continued. There are three methods for an Irish family to have its Chief recognized. At present, only 19 Irish families have representation by a fully recognized Chief. There are another 150 families that have organized themselves into clans. This is to clarify the differences.
    There are two aspects of recognition with regard to Irish Chiefship. It is important to remember and differentiate between the two, for that is how much of the confusion surrounding the issue starts. The main difference is between "Chief of the Name" and "Chief of the Clan". As stated, there are three organizations that recognize and work with Irish clans. They are:
    • The Genealogical Office and the Chief Herald of Ireland
    • The Standing Council of Irish Chiefs and Chieftains
    • The Clans of Ireland
    The Genealogical office and the Chief Herald are the official entity of the government in Dublin. It is concerned with recognizing those who are "Chiefs of the Name" and thus, the title of "The", not with the conduct of the clans themselves.
    The Chief Herald, due to the republican nature of Ireland, can only give courtesy recognition to a Chief, but does maintain its power of recognition. The Chief Herald recognizes only those families who can prove direct descent from the last know inaugurated Chief. Further, descent must be derived via primogeniture descent, not with tanistry, or via female lines.
    The proof is difficult and in many cases impossible. With the destruction of the Irish Order by 1609, most families lost their inauguration ceremonies within a generation or two, or saw the line of Chief sail away to France, Spain or the New World. Thus only 19 families have ever been given courtesy recognition as being Chiefs of the Name. Recognition comes with no privileges within Ireland, except some heraldlry privileges. But on the Continent some are recognized as Princes and the rest as Counts.
    The Standing Council of Irish Chiefs and Chieftains is the next body. This organization has a direct relationship to the Chief Herald, as membership to this council is only given after courtesy recognition by the Chief Herald.
    Where this body differs from the Chief Heralds office is that they are not concerned with any recognition nor with genealogical proofs. Instead the Council is focused on Irish culture. The Council puts its efforts into saving aspects of ancient Irish life, language and history. Many of these Chiefs are very active in their clan organizations as well as other Irish preservation organizations.
    The Clans of Ireland. This organization, which was at one point an official branch of the Genealogical Office, is focused on the clans themselves. The Clans of Ireland are not in the business of recognizing pedigrees or lines of descent. They do not give the title "The" to the head of a clan. Instead the Clans of Ireland recognize what the clan organizations themselves do. If a clan does not have one of the nineteen "Chiefs of the Name", then that organization can select one of their own to become "Chief of the Clan".
    Herein lies the major difference. Courtesy recognition from the Chief Herald entitles a person to be known as "The X, Chief of the Name" and use a noble coronet on their arms. Recognition from Clans of Ireland is recognition purely as "Chief of the Clan X". There is no coronet or nobility associated with this office in Ireland.
    Some of the most famous families of Ireland are not represented on the Standing Council of Ireland. And many people would like to change the system of recognition. There are a number of possible solutions to give the families without recognized Chiefs of the Name, representation on the Standing Council. Each proposal is based on either traditional methods used in the same situation in ancient Ireland or the methods used in Scotland, the Gaelic cousin to Ireland.
    1. The election of a Ciann Cath, or war leader. This would allow a family to select one of its members who does descend from the general line of the ancient Chief. That line would become the recognized, leaders of the family for a prescribed period of time, years or even generations. After the period of time, that line would be given full recognition of "Chief of the Name". This is the method used in Scotland.
    2. An election using a derbhfine, or basically a council of those members of the family that represent the entire leadership of the clan. The ancient definition of the deibhfine was the family of the Chief down four generations. More recent organizations have included all those with noble titles, knighthood, or who were armigerous in their own right. Land ownership, nobility of office or leadership within the clan could also account for the makeup of these derbhfines. The derbfine would meet and select the new "Chief of the Name".
    3. A very ancient and legal, under Brehon law, method is the Iarfine selection of family leadership worldwide. After every four generations, a family Chieftain could be selected. Eight Chieftains could then select a next level chieftain and on up until there is one Chieftain elevated to "Chief of the Name".

    NOTES
    [1] The ancient form of Irish kingship/leadership selection based on family lines as opposed to father-son descent.
    [2] In Scotland, the same type position would probably give the “Chief” a chapeaux of office above his arms, and in Italy and Spain the coronet of a Patrician or Patron could be used.
    [3] Having a coat of arms of their own.
    www.doyle.com.au/chiefs.html



    http://www.clanmcshane.org/chiefs.html





    The next thing is heraldry & geneology, and while titles have no modern day use, but the concept of heritage and family is important to some more than others

    History of the Office of the Chief Herald


    Irish Heraldic Authority

    The Chief Herald of Ireland is the State’s authority on all heraldic matters relating to Ireland.
    The earliest reference to a herald of arms for Ireland is to Chandos Herald, the herald of John Chandos. Chandos Herald was appointed “Ireland King of Arms” in 1382. Chandos had a number of successors, who appear to have been regarded as members of the English College of Arms, up to the time of Edward IV of England (1442 – 1483). The last recorded incumbent was Thomas Ashwell. It is not known whether the post continued after him.
    In 1552 the Office of Ulster King of Arms was created by Edward VI, who recorded the event in his journal as follows:
    Feb. 2nd. There was a King of Arms made for Ireland, whose name was Ulster, and his province was all Ireland; and he was Fourth Herald of Arms, and first Herald of Ireland
    It is not certain why the name of the Irish province of Ulster was attached to the post. However, the Anglo-Norman earldom of Ulster had been vested in the English Crown since the reign of Edward IV, and it seems probable that the title was chosen to reflect this connection.
    The first Ulster King of Arms was Bartholomew Butler, who by Letters Patent of 1 June 1552, was granted 'all rights, profits, commodities and emoluments in that office … with power … of inspecting, overseeing and correcting, and embodying the arms and ensigns of illustrious persons and of imposing and ordaining differences therein, according to the Laws of Arms: of granting Letters Patent of Arms to men of rank and fit persons; and of doing … all things which by right of custom were known to be incumbent of the office of a King of Arms'. The post continued until the death of its last incumbent, Sir Nevile Wilkinson, in 1941. Thomas Sadlier, Deputy Ulster, continued to operate the office until 1943.
    In 1943 heraldic responsibility passed to the Irish State. Dr Edward MacLysaght, styled Chief Genealogical Officer to which was later added Chief Herald of Ireland, succeeded to the functions and powers of Ulster King of Arms. The old title of 'Ulster' was attached to the existing post of 'Norroy King of Arms', a member of the English College of Arms.
    Further information on Heraldry in Ireland is available for download here:
    The History of Heraldry in Ireland Heraldry_in_Ireland.pdf (0.15 MB, Adobe PDF)

    GetImage.aspx?id=21ca4820-e5fe-4661-b22d-2ffb2280749c&width=215&height=169Manuscript title page of 1607 Visitation of Dublin.

    Quick Links
    http://www.nli.ie/en/history-of-the-office-of-the-chief-herald.aspx



    So OP -what aspects are you looking at ??


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭who the fug


    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 :)

    Interesting OT bit

    The 7th Earl was beaten up at Eton for supporting the rising, and he spent all his life in Ireland, very much a republican


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    My understanding is that following the Act of Union Irish Titles were in effect courtesy titles and a prestige thing.

    After the Act of Union and the disollution of the Irish House of Lords, an Irish Lord did not have an automatic right to sit in the British House of Lords but 28 were elected , very much in the same way graduates elect Senators to the Senate.I read somewhere that following independence there was some discussion about these elections as they ceased.

    So the rights to a title after 1800 were the rights to vote. If an Irish peer , the Longfords for example, had an English title also the could have a seat in the House of Lords based on that. Lord Longford's right to sit in the House of Lords was as Baron Silchester in the Peerage of England (Great Britain).

    So even after 1800 they had no power other than prestige.For example, take the Baronet of New York http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Baronets#Johnson_Baronets.2C_of_New_York_.281755.29*, I dont see New Yorkers getting hot under the collar over that. If anything, its a historical oddity. The ones we see in Ireland are the ones that stuck around after independence. So if its part of their heritage and identity -it should not bother me if someone is Baron of Ballymucksavage.


    So the Earl of Longford has no additional rights or priveledges over anyone else - though it may be handy booking a seat in a resteraunt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    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.

    There were many slaves and serfs in old Ireland. Part of the reason that Gaelic chieftains get such a good press is that the poets and scribes who wrote history depended on the taoisigh for patronage - once English lords arrived, that support vanished.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    goose2005 wrote: »
    There were many slaves and serfs in old Ireland. Part of the reason that Gaelic chieftains get such a good press is that the poets and scribes who wrote history depended on the taoisigh for patronage - once English lords arrived, that support vanished.

    Do we have any idea of numbers and what their lives were like.

    Did the serfs and slaves defect to the normans ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    goose2005 wrote: »
    There were many slaves and serfs in old Ireland. Part of the reason that Gaelic chieftains get such a good press is that the poets and scribes who wrote history depended on the taoisigh for patronage - once English lords arrived, that support vanished.


    Actually that's not entirely true. Many of the poets were more like 'wandering minstrels' and wrote whatever they wanted. There are even examples of 'dependent' poets writing pejoratively about their chieftains - the poets were a fairly powerful body.

    And I don't know why you think that 'support' vanished with the arrival of the English . Here is an early poem [in translation] concerning one poet's opinion on the establishment of the English lordships. The poet even throws out a punch at the strong castles being built to support Norman English presence against any attack.

    Numerous be their powerful wiles
    Their fetters and their manacles
    Numerous their lies and executions
    And their secure strong houses.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    The Lords, Bards (Poets) and Druids (Priests) were the ruling classes - the elite & ruling classes.They ruled over someone -the masses. They also enforced their power.


    You had wars, usurpings and feuds.

    So who were the masses and what kinds of lives did non peers have from the Gaelic lords.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    The Lords, Bards (Poets) and Druids (Priests) were the ruling classes - the elite & ruling classes.They ruled over someone -the masses. They also enforced their power.


    You had wars, usurpings and feuds.

    So who were the masses and what kinds of lives did non peers have from the Gaelic lords.

    I know you keep going back to this question - but really this is more of a sociological question than one for historians.

    History gives us 'some' insight into life at the time through the various written records but what you are asking is other than that. History is more concerned with the record of events and the pattern of cause and effect - not the everyday life of people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I know you keep going back to this question - but really this is more of a sociological question than one for historians.

    History gives us 'some' insight into life at the time through the various written records but what you are asking is other than that. History is more concerned with the record of events and the pattern of cause and effect - not the everyday life of people.

    Its more out of interest than anything else. Cos to be a peer there had to be non peers.

    One of the issues in England after the plague was that in pre-plague england a serf couldnt just up and leave their master. In post plague england they did just that and because of the serf shortage they were not sent back so I just wonder what really happened.

    Were the Irish really decimated including the serfs or did they switch sides for better terms and conditions. Was their more to life than plantations and did the Gaelic Chiefs have popular support.

    So that would be a big feature in my book.

    I mean if the Lords used the tactic in England why not in Ireland.

    The 1381 Peasants in England Revolt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_peasants%27_revolt_of_1381 & http://marxists.anu.edu.au/history/england/peasants-revolt/story.htm


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Its more out of interest than anything else. Cos to be a peer there had to be non peers.

    One of the issues in England after the plague was that in pre-plague england a serf couldnt just up and leave their master. In post plague england they did just that and because of the serf shortage they were not sent back so I just wonder what really happened.

    Were the Irish really decimated including the serfs or did they switch sides for better terms and conditions. Was their more to life than plantations and did the Gaelic Chiefs have popular support.

    Let's get some terminology straight - there were technically no 'serfs' as such in Ireland because Ireland did not have the feudal system prior to the Anglo Norman invasion. In fact this was one of the major stress points for the English monarchy - the 'conquered' Irish did not automatically accept the crown's position and then willingly pay the required taxes and feel that they owed 'fidelity' to the overlord.

    The Irish law tracts tell us a lot about the stratification of Irish society. The poets and Druids had special positions and there was no central over-lordship. The bó-aire farmer - considered by some to be the equivalent of a middle class - seemed to do fairly well based on descriptions of their personally owned goods. But we can't really know how everyone 'felt' about it all. Slavery was important because value of property is expressed in how many cumals [slaves] it is worth. We have no idea how many slaves there were anywhere in Europe - yet we know that the Vikings made a very good living out of slavery.

    The sense of extended family - known as the Tuath - seemed to be very strong in Ireland from what can be gleaned from writings - with loyalty going to that with individual family chieftains rather than to anything or anyone outside of that kindred connection.

    One interesting thing for me was when I first read Giraldus Cambrensis' account of life in Ireland at the time of the Norman English invasion - now taking into account that historians are agreed that he was in fact writing pro-invasion propaganda. But some of his observations are worth looking at. He remarks that everyday life in Ireland differed from England in that it was virtually impossible to tell the classes apart based on the behaviours of each. The lower classes did not give any special respect to the upper classes but all mingled without any idea - to an outsider like him - of who the 'elites' might be. Sounds like Ireland - doesn't it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Its an interesting thing isn't it.

    A hisorical occasion - MarchDub stuck for an answer :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Its an interesting thing isn't it.

    A hisorical occasion - MarchDub stuck for an answer :D

    What?:confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    What?:confused:

    It is ok MD. It is the history forum so this landmark moment is recorded.

    I have found this article on line which gives some insight to the structure of society so that I can get more of a feel for what it was like. This article mentions the shortage of serfs to work the land & thus indicating a tribal structure.

    http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/simms.pdf

    I mean, if the wealth of a chief was measured in serfs and cows - how many serfs and cows did Diarmuid McMurrough or whoever.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Its an interesting thing isn't it.

    A hisorical occasion - MarchDub stuck for an answer
    CDfm wrote: »
    It is ok MD. It is the history forum so this landmark moment is recorded.




    Now I am really confused - what are you talking about? Can you fully explain?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Slightly off topic here but I used to socialise with Thomas? Pakenham's son (not the eldest son unfortunately or I might have invested more time into these encounters!). We politely referred to these occasions as 'piss-ups'.....
    This one night, after closing time, we all bailed back to the castle to raid the wine stash as we couldn't get more drink anywhere else. We had a great time drinking wine in the library, falling asleep randomly scattered around the 'house' parts of the castle and all woke up feeling somewhat the worse for wear the next morning to have strong coffee made for us by the mum! :)

    Lovely family! :cool: Never met the Dad though (the fella who wrote the Boer war book).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Now I am really confused - what are you talking about? Can you fully explain?

    I am teasing MD. :)

    Though I am trying to get a handle on what it meant to be an Irish Lord in terms of land, property & people.

    For example , the country was sparsely populated and there were no towns. So was it tribal and how did it work.

    A Lord provided protection , essentially , this was his basic function. There is little reason to take over land without it giving you a yield in terms of money or power.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    I am teasing MD. :)

    Though I am trying to get a handle on what it meant to be an Irish Lord in terms of land, property & people.

    You mean to tell me that my carefully thought out and well crafted ;) reply to you meant little more than a non answer? Bejapers- I wouldn't want to be in your class professor! :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    You mean to tell me that my carefully thought out and well crafted ;) reply to you meant little more than a non answer? Bejapers- I wouldn't want to be in your class professor! :D

    I am trying to work out in my mind if they were

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkLLrysyWf8jzdiP9sMFIWB_jJ-o4x05bmgbOkkD27jdzZRzdmvA


    or

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSK0QF6xvXbuQs4dF745zHhXe1UM6O6y96GY2OWVDBUsJnr5FeS

    I was really struck by how small the walled city of Derry was when I visted it.

    So really, were they medieval princes or tribal chiefs or what.

    There is very little written about the lower classes or women in Gaelic society.

    Population size in the different centuries would be a good thing

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/30005209


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    Picture A. We were never a feudal country. By the time we were fully controlled, feudalism had changed considerably from what it was at the start of the invasion, and even then, we weren't conforming, hence all the trouble, rebellions, act of union, etc over the few centuries that we were conquered for.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Johnmb wrote: »
    Picture A. We were never a feudal country. By the time we were fully controlled, feudalism had changed considerably from what it was at the start of the invasion, and even then, we weren't conforming, hence all the trouble, rebellions, act of union, etc over the few centuries that we were conquered for.

    Thanks Johnmb - that's the very point I was trying to make but CDfm didn't seem to get my drift.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I do get your drift and know that we werent a feudal country, but, what were we.

    The other thing that interests me here is "peers" as ruling classes over what.

    So there is a multiplicity of titles and aristocracy

    Irish Chief Gaelic,

    Anglo-Norman,

    Elizabethan,

    Jacobite,

    Cromwellian,

    Williamite,

    Victorian and Edwardian


    So really what did it mean to be a peer as a ruler or a non peer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    The population question really intesests me. I remember reading somewhere that there was a period in the 13th or 14th century that the population of the island was less than a million.

    No, I dont remember where I read it and it appears to be quite difficult to find info on population numbers through history.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    If i find a table i will post it.

    I think it is good to look into gaps and see. I don't know the answers but as MarchDub says it was the events that were written about.

    When you look at it the plantations were like the Irish going to America in one way. We dont have a Doomsday book but it might be interesting to see if we can throw up anything .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    EDit

    250,000 C 432
    We know few precise details about the scale of the Irish population prior to the modern era. When St Patrick landed in 432, he was preaching to about three full Croke Parks - a quarter of a million people
    .

    500,000 c 1100
    By the medieval period, the population may have reached about half a million,

    At this stage, Ireland attracted significant immigration by the Normans of adjacent Britain, especially from the Welsh borderlands and southern England.

    Today, any Kilkenny, Wexford, or Tipperary hurling team will feature a backbone of Norman descendants - Keatings, Comerfords, Prendergasts, Barrys, Fitzhenrys.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/timeseye/whoweare/p2top.htm


    By 1700, with immigration from Britain and internal changes affecting both birth and death rates, the population had doubled, the most rapid transformation in Europe. The plantations attracted significant, if regionally limited, concentrations of newcomers, although the greatest influx came from Scotland into east Ulster in the post-plantation period as Scotland suffered economic stagnation.




    1 million c 1600
    the population of ireland at the start of the 17th century is estimated by church kept records of births and deaths to have been just under one million souls rising rapidly over the next 250 years to 8.1million mainly due to the introduction of the potatoe into europe of the highly nutritious potatoe from south america in the late 16th century.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_population_of_Ireland_in_1600


    2 million c 1700
    Despite heavy warfare, the Irish population may have doubled by 1687 and reached well over 2 million by 1700, with Dublin beginning to grow rapidly. London continued to grow disproportionately, had reached half a million by 1700, and was larger than all the other urban centres together.

    3 million 1750
    From 5.7 million in 1750, the population of England reached 8.6 million by 1800 and 16.5 million by 1850. The Scottish population also grew, particularly in the industrial and trading towns of the central region—from 1.2 million in 1750 to 1.6 million by 1800 and 2.8 million by 1850.

    5 million 1800
    But the most startling increase was in Ireland, where from about 3 million in 1750, it reached 5 million by 1800,

    8 million 1845

    and in 1845, on the brink of the famine, stood at well over 8million, dangerously dependent on the potato harvest.
    The Irish Famine, from 1845 to 1848, was a unique event in modern European demography. One million people died of starvation and disease, the birth rate fell, and there was a large-scale exodus, mainly of younger people, in the decades after the disaster. Well over a million people left Ireland in the 1840s, another million in the 1850s, and 850, 000 in the 1860s—mainly for North America, and especially from Munster and Ulster.
    The Irish population was down to 6.5 million by 1851

    , 5.8 million by 1861,
    4.4 million by 1901.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/population

    I cant see any pre 1700 but what we can see is that between 1750 & 1850 the Irish Population was around 50% of England.

    Other estimates from 1500 onwards

    http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/british.htm

    Done !!!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Here is a great link that gives Maps of the Clans, Barony etc and counties etc from the earlies times to the mid 1800's .

    It gives a good idea on who ruled where and the movements and changes century by century.

    http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire1400.htm

    MarchDub will not be surprised that I like the pretty pictures :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    CDfm wrote: »
    Here is a great link that gives Maps of the Clans, Barony etc and counties etc from the earlies times to the mid 1800's .

    Thats a great site. Worth a bookmark, thanks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Johnmb wrote: »
    Picture A. We were never a feudal country. By the time we were fully controlled, feudalism had changed considerably from what it was at the start of the invasion, and even then, we weren't conforming, hence all the trouble, rebellions, act of union, etc over the few centuries that we were conquered for.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    Thanks Johnmb - that's the very point I was trying to make but CDfm didn't seem to get my drift.

    And Brian Boru as High King was trying to achieve what exactly - dominence for his tribe as was his successor.

    MacMurrough was trying to achieve survival for his dynasty and wasn't the first Irishman to invite foreigners. Several otheres had invited or joined the vikings at various times or gotten involed in British disputes.


    In 1166 the high-king Muirchertach MacLochlainn died. Dermot MacMurrough, losing his greatest ally and protector in MacLochlainn, saw his kingdom in Leinster invaded by O'Connor and O'Rourke. On this occasion the Ostmen (Norsemen) of Dublin also participated in ousting Dermot from his kingship in Leinster.


    1051 -Godwin, Earl of Essex, and his sons, formidable rivals of King Edward the Confessor, were banished from England and sought the aid of Diarmait mac Máel na mBó, king of Uí Chennselaig and of Leinster (1042-1072), who was grandfather of Diarmat Mac Murchada (above). The next year they raised a fleet to launch attacks on the Devonshire, Somersetshire and Kentish coasts.
    1055 - Aelfgar, earl of Anglia, son of Leofric, earl of Mercia, was banished for treason from England by Edward the Confessor. He went to Ireland where he raised a fleet, formed an alliance with Gruffydd ap Llewelyn, king of Gwynedd, and led their combined forces in an attack on the city of Hereford. As a result King Edward was obliged to restore him to the earldom of East Anglia.
    1066 - After the battle of Hastings in 1066, the sons of the slain King Harold, son of Earl Godwin, sought aid from Diarmait mac Máel na mBó, and launched attacks on Britain over the next several years.

    http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire1200.htm

    So the Irish were not slow getting involved accross the pond.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    So our Gaelic Chiefs/Kings meddled in English affairs etc and intermarried & provided military assistance and alliances and obtained military assistance from others- English, Viking,Manx,Scottish, Norman.

    So you had wars and slavery and a tribal existance. No towns etc.

    The country was covered in woodland and there was some agriculture. Dublin , Wexford, Waterford , etc were all Viking cities.

    Brian Boru, and Rory O'Connor were the last of the High Kings and did not create a nation state with any loyalty. So infighting amongst the Irish left it vulnerable to Anglo-Norman & English ambition. Very much like coalition governments. Their vision was not shared.

    It was no use conquering land if it had no people on it to work it etc. Thats what the plantations did. The Irish were feckin terrible farmers. So it was a bit more than conquering a people.

    So the peers - Gaelic Chiefs - Warlords, Earls or Princes ??? Popular support or a warrior class ?

    Anglo/Normans - more Irish than the Irish themselves. I don't think so. Did they have internal native Irish Support.

    The Tudors,Elizabethan Expansion - Boyle -Earl of Cork, Walter Raleigh,

    Cromwell - OMG :eek: Did he treat the Irish & Anglo/Norman differently.

    Carolingian/Jacobean/

    Williamite/1800 - Irish Parliment abolished -really courtesy titles

    So the turnover of peers was "invasion/rebellion" led. Now we know it started tribal and ended up garrisoned, absentee landlords etc and with a famine and then a nation state.

    So how have we arrived at todays peers.

    This is a list of wars and other armed conflicts that have taken place in Ireland.
    Year(s) Conflict Notes
    1169-75 Norman invasion of Ireland
    1315-18 Bruce campaign in Ireland Part of the First War of Scottish Independence
    1333-38 Burke Civil War
    1534 Silken Thomas Rebellion
    1569-73 First Desmond Rebellion Part of the Tudor conquest of Ireland
    1579-83 Second Desmond Rebellion Part of the Tudor conquest of Ireland
    1594-1603 Nine Years' War Part of the Tudor conquest of Ireland
    1641-42 Irish Rebellion of 1641 Part of the Eleven Years War
    1642-49 Confederate War Part of the Eleven Years War
    1649-53 Cromwellian conquest of Ireland Part of the Eleven Years War
    1689-91 Williamite-Jacobite War Part of the War of the Grand Alliance
    1798 Irish Rebellion of 1798
    1803 Irish Rebellion of 1803
    1831-36 Tithe War
    1848 Young Irelander Rebellion
    1867 Fenian Rising
    1870-93 Land War
    1916 Easter Rising
    1919-22 Irish War of Independence
    1922-23 Irish Civil War
    1942-44 "Northern Campaign" Part of the republican campaign against Northern Ireland
    1956-62 "Border Campaign" Part of the republican campaign against Northern Ireland
    1969-98 "The Troubles" Part of the republican campaign against Northern Ireland

    http://wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_wars_in_Ireland

    Now I don't know how to think of these heriditary peers - nice people and traditions now of course.

    Our native Irish peers - were they nice guys or what.Anglo/Norman goodguys or goodfella's. Comparable to todays TD's who are their political descendants.

    I am not so convinced.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Here is a link to Irish Peerages of all creations

    http://www.hereditarytitles.com/Page72.htm

    List of peers where Irish titles were their Irish titles

    http://www.hereditarytitles.com/irishpeers.html

    Links to Gaelic Clans & Nobility

    http://www2.smumn.edu/facpages/~poshea/uasal/noble.html

    On the death of Diarmait Mac Murchada, Strongbow recognized his nephew Murtough as King of Uí Chennselaig, and the descendants of this sept (MacMurchadha, or MacMorrough) claimed the kingship of Leinster from the 13th century onward. Their most successful Chief, Art Caomhánach Mac Murchadha, or "Art Kavanagh MacMurrough" (+1416/7), succeeded in resisting Richard II of England, and in creating a relatively secure territory in Wexford and Carlow, from which he and his successors were able to menace the English Pale and extract regular "black rents," until late in the 16th century. The later descendants of the Chiefly line adopted the name Caomhánach (Kavanagh), after Art Caomhánach Mac Murchadha, who symbolized the Gaelic recovery of the late 14th century by reviving the title "King of Leinster."

    Until the mid-20th century, the Chiefship was held by the MacMorrough Kavanagh family of Borris, Co. Carlow. The male line of descent from this family ended in 1953 with the death of Art MacMorrough Kavanagh of Borris, Chief of the Name, at which time the Chiefship devolved upon the Ballyhale line of the family. The present Chief is William Butler Kavanagh, The MacMorrough Kavanagh, Prince of Leinster, who succeeded his father (also William Butler Kavanagh) in 1962. He resides in Wales, as does his duly appointed Tánaiste, Simon MacMorrough Kavanagh.
    http://www.hbci.com/~tiraha/leinster/history.html



    I only recognise a few .


Advertisement