Can someone explain the Irish peerage system to me?

Johnmb wrote: »

They weren't the last of the High Kings, there were numerous others after them, and along side them. Heck, it was an attempt to cling on to the High Kingship of Leinster that caused the invitation to Strongbow to be issued in the first place!

Brian Boru was born in 940 AD and by 976 he had become the King of Munster. Mael Sechnaill and Brian were two of the greatest powers in Ireland, and in 997 they divided the country between them. Brian had control over Dublin, and Leinster. In 999 Brian and Mael worked together to crush a rebellion led by Syggtrigg Silkenbeard in Leinster. Brian allowed Syggtrigg to return to Dublin as his puppet king. Family relations played a large part in the making of the Battle of Clontarf. Gormlaith was Syggtrygg’s mother. She had been married three times : to Syggtrygg’s father, to Mael Sechnaill and to Brian. The son of Brian and Gormlaith (Syggtrygg’s half brother) had married into the family of the Viking ruler of Waterford. Brian had also given his daughter to Syggtrygg in marriage. Syggtrygg himself was also the brother-in-law to the king of Norway. This was a complicated family, full of powerful connections. These intermarriages were most likely devised as a way to smooth over feuds. However, this did not stop the battles that were to come. To complicate things further, in 1006 Brian’s son killed the chieftan of Connaught. This may have made other powerful families uneasy, and perhaps they were even jealous of Brian’s power. For whatever reason, in 1014, the people of Dublin began to make strategic alliances in preparation for a rebellion.

The Battle of Clontarf took place on Good Friday, April 23, 1014. There are two main texts describing the battle. One was written by Irish authors (Cogadh Gaedel re Gallaibh), and another account exists named Brjánssaga – meaning “Brian’s saga” – and is written in Icelandic. Both of these accounts were written about 100 years after the battle, and both contain a fair amount of exaggerations. What seems to have happened is that the men of Leinster organized a rebellion. Gormlaith may have encouraged Mael Morda – “the provinvial king of Leinster” to not accept Brian’s rule, and so Mael and Syggtrygg joined forces. After this treachery Brian threw Gormlaith in prison, at which time she somehow contacted the Earl of Orkney for aid. The Isle of Man and the Northern Isles then provided Viking troops for Leinster. Syggtrygg and his men, however did not take part in the battle, but rather watched “from the ramparts” of Dublin. Brian, “aided by the Limerick Vikings,” was victorious and subdued his enemies. However, he was “killed in his tent by fleeing Norsemen.” The Annals of Ulster name his killer as Brotar, “chieftan of the Danish fleet.” The Annals also state that 6,000 men died that day. The author praises Brian, saying that he was the “arch-king of the Gaedhil of Ireland and of the foreigners and Britons, the Augustus of all the North-West of Europe.” The Annals also list other prominent men who died. Brian’s son Murchad, and his son Toirdhelbach both died. Also, Brian’s brothers Donncuan and Cuduiligh were killed, along with many nobles. After the battle, Brian and his son were interred in Armagh. A lengthy ceremony was involved – his body was taken “with relics to Sword-Cholm-Cille and carried thence the body of Brian, King of Ireland, and the body of his son Murchad” and they were “interred … in a new tomb.” This was followed by a 12 night-long wake.

After Brian’s death his other sons seem to go on to kill their enemies and thus avenge their father’s death. Mael Sechnaill II of Meath had been the king before Brian, and resumed this position after Brian’s death. Labeling Brian a martyr seems to have little bearing on reality. Brian had not been fighting Viking invaders, but rather local people living in Ireland of both Irish and Viking descent. However, the death of Brian marked a decline in Munster power in Ireland. Mael was not able to unite the North and the South as Brian had. Eventually Brian’s grandson Turlough would sieze control. It was these later (12th Century) O’Brien kings who would commission the writing of the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh. The exaggerations found in this account were meant to cement their authority as high kings. However, the contemporary accounts in the Annals of Ulster do not claim the Vikings are evil, but describe the battle rather as a “mutual wounding.” In fact, after the battle Syggtrygg is said to have taken a pilgrimage to Rome, and is credited with the establishment of Christ Church Cathedral. This is an example of how the Vikings were also Christians and had firm roots in Dublin. The Battle of Clontarf was really just another dynastic struggle, not a pitched battle between two unified ethnic groups. Both Irish and Icelandic writings about this battle have been viewed as having more literary importance than anything else. It has also been argued that the Battle of Tara was of much more significance in Irish-Viking relations than the Battle of Clontarf was – and this argument seems to be true. After Tara, the Vikings were forced to pay tribute to the Irish for the first time in history. Since Vikings fought on both sides at Clontarf, this doesn’t seem to be a fight between two distinct groups, but rather an internal struggle involving all inhabitants of the island. However, after Tara the Vikings were still allowed to retain their kings and the control of trade. Neither of these battles represent a total overturn of the old Irish ways.

CDfm wrote: »

There were others but not as successful and had not come as close to unifying Ireland under the one dynasty.

Poland with an elected Kingship also had an inherent weakness based on internal struggles.

But other Irish kings had allied themselves militarily to other military leaders and had also taken part in English wars.

Didn't Strongbow come first when he was out of favour with his king. His king came over next to enforce his rights.

So McMurrough may have some bad press but really he was only doing as others had done.

Ireland was not united in any sense of the word but you had continual dynastic struggles.

Brian Boru's bunch were intermarried with the3 Viking

The Battle of Clontarf in popular history has Brian Boru leading an Irish Army getting rid of the Vikings when in fact it was as a result of a rebellion against Brians High Kingship by the Leinster bunch who did not accept him as their overlord.

The aftermath and its historical accounts contributed to the myth of Brian and the Annals of Ulsters describe it as a mutual wounding.It was not Irish versus Viking but High King (Munster)vs others Leinster

http://webspace.webring.com/people/ns/swingkid49/vikings.html

So the idea of Ireland as united and relatively peaceful is erroneous.

4.1 Ancient History
Prior to St. Patrick first coming to Ireland in the 5th century AD, tribal chieftains ruled the lands. The people of these days were semi-nomadic, non-Judeo-Christian pagans. These early people of Ireland subsisted on farming, livestock, fishing, and hunting.
St. Patrick was a towering personality in the history of Ireland. Fundamental to the story of Patrick was not simply that he brought Christianity to the nation, but also that he brought the rule of law. Myths and legends about Patrick hold that he was responsible for the conversion of the Ancient Irish to the Christian faith. (In those pre-Reformation centuries, Christianity meant the Roman Catholic church – or the Church). So great was Patrick’s influence on Ireland that for nearly 1,000 years, the controlling law of Ireland, written in a publication called the “Senchus Mor” around the time of the conversion to Christianity, was known as Cain Patrick or Patrick’s Law. (Bryant:1)
The land tenure system of ancient Ireland laid out in Cain Patrick was somewhat different than the systems of today. “The entire economy of Ireland prior to the 16th century was based on the cow.” (Fitzgibbon:17) Land tenure in these times was based on capital and not on the land itself. A tribal chief would lend stock to a tenant. The tenant then had the right to occupy land for the period of time of the agreement between the parties. In return for the stock, the landlord/chief would receive an annual return from the stock. The annual return was equivalent to a percentage of the value original stock and could take the form of cattle or work for the chieftain. Upon completion of the tenure, the chieftain was entitled to receive payment of the equivalency of the original stock. Since the receipt of the annual share provided a comfortable income to the landlord, typically a new arrangement would be made upon the end of the term. A feature of this “Daer stock tenure,” was “carefully constructed contracts between chief and tenant which recognized each of the parties as equal in the transaction.” (Bryant:71) This equality provided an early form of security of tenure for each party.
Senchus Mor also provided a mechanism for adjudicating disputes. This portion of the law, Brehon Law, was named for the class of judges administering the law. The Brehons were professional arbitrators whose responsibilities included setting up tribunals within communities where, “disputes between tribesmen could easily be determined.” (Bryant:244)
In 1169, the English army, under King Henry II, conquered much of the southern part of Ireland. Shortly afterward, Henry declared all of Ireland subject to English law. In the areas of Ireland, controlled by England, this was the case. However, over the next several centuries, Brehon law generally prevailed as the English were gradually repelled by the Irish. English law lost influence and by 1500 extended only in the area around Dublin. (Dickson:11) All this was to change early in the 17th century.

http://www.lineages.co.uk/2007/05/22/a-history-of-land-tenure-arrangements-in-northern-ireland/

Johnmb wrote: »

Peers were an Anglo Norman thing at first. Who was made a peer? Whoever helped them gain control. There were restrictions as to who could become a king in Ireland, but it was still a large group. IIRC, it was along the lines of if your grandfather (or possibly even one of his brothers) was a king, then you were eligible.

Then, it was effectively a popularity contest, who had the most support within the Tuath. The "election" process may also have involved a battle or two between the various supporters, and in those cases outside influence may have played a part, although outside influences would be more likely to influence inter-Tuatha relations rather then those within an individual Tuath. Those that the Anglo Normans would make peers would have been the Kings who existed at the time and who accepted the Norman rule. Some may have become kings as a result of help from the Normans, but most would have been in power already and probably didn't see much difference between accepting Norman dominance and accepting the local High Kings dominance (at first at least).

Internal feuds weren't that widespread. To the people of the time, a feud between different Tuatha would not have been considered "internal". They were completely separate entities. Some Tuatha were closely linked, (e.g. the Ui Dunlainge divided into three different Tuatha, but remained very close, and passed the High Kingship of Leinster between them), others were linked by virtue of the fact that they all accepted the same over king or High King, but for the most part, anyone from another tuath was a foreigner. Henry II didn't really come that close to conquering Ireland, maybe a little less of the island than Boru managed (it's a lot easier to claim to rule than to actually do so). It wasn't until the Tudor Reconquest that Ireland was actually conquered as a whole. But quite a few Irish would not have seen a problem with Henry. If he was attacking someone they had a problem with, they would join in with him.

CDfm wrote: »

so who became norman peers from the Irish Chiefs and when ?

Did any of the Chiefs survive in Ireland and did any survive as peers outside Ireland.

Did Henry acquire any native Irish allies ?

CDfm wrote: »

I am not looking for an exact answer just to get an idea of what happened.

Who survived.

For example , the Fitzgeralds of Kildare survived even though Silken Thomas met a sticky end and had forfeited his lands and title , his son the Wizard Earl had them restored. So some of the Normans clung to power after rebellions.

So my question is did native Irish Chiefs survive in Ireland & who became part of the establishment -thru intermarriage or whatever ?

HOW THE IRISH CHIEFS GAVE UP ALL HOPE AND YIELDED TO HENRY; AND HOW THE IRISH CLANS SERVED THE CHIEFS FOR SUCH TREASON.
HENRY THE EIGHTH was the first English sovereign styled King of Ireland, and it must be confessed he had more to show for assuming such a title than his predecessors had for the lesser dignities of the kind which they claimed; inasmuch as the title was "voted" to him in the first formal parliament in which Irish chieftains and Anglo-Norman lords sat side by side. To be sure the Irish chieftains had no authority from the septs (from whom alone they derived any authority or power) to give such a vote; and, as we shall learn presently, some of those septs, instantly on becoming aware of it and the consequences it implied, deposed the chiefs thus acting, and promptly elected (in each case from the same family however) others in their stead. But never previously had so many of the native princes in a manner so formal given in their acknowledgment of the English dynasty, and their renunciation of the ancient institutions of their nation. Utterly broken down in spirit, reft of hope, weary of struggle, they seem to have yielded themselves up to inevitable fate.

"The arguments," says one of our historians, "by which many of the chiefs might have justified themselves to the clans in 1541-2-3, for submitting to the inevitable laws of necessity, in rendering homage to Henry the Eighth, were neither few nor weak. Abroad there was no hope of an alliance sufficient to counterbalance the immense resources of England; at home, life-wasting private wars, the conflict of laws, of languages, and of titles to property had become unbearable. That fatal family pride which would not permit an O'Brien to obey an O'Neill, nor an O'Connor to follow either, rendered the establishment of a native monarchy (even if there had been no other obstacle) wholly impracticable." Another says: "The chief lords of both English and Irish descent were reduced to a state of deplorable misery and exhaustion. ... It was high time, therefore, on the one side to think of submission, and prudent on the other to propose concession; and Henry was just then fortunate in selecting a governor for Ireland who knew how to take advantage of the favorable circumstances."

This was Saintleger, whose politic course of action resulted in the assembling at Dublin, June 12, 1541, of a parliament at which, beside all the principal Anglo-Norman lords, there attended, Donogh O'Brien, tanist of Thomond, the O'Reilly, O'More, M'William, Fitzpatrick, and Kavanagh.[1] The speeches in the English language were translated in the Gaelic tongue to the Irish chiefs by the Earl of Ormond. The main business was to consider a bill voting the crown of Ireland to Henry, which was unanimously passed--registered rather; for, as far as the native "legislators" were concerned, the assemblage was that of conquered and subdued chieftains, ready to acknowledge their subjection in any way. O'Neill and O'Donnell refused to attend. They held out sullenly yet. awhile in the North. But in the next year they "came in," much to the delight of Henry, who loaded them with flatteries and attentions. The several chiefs yielded up their ancient Irish titles, and consented to receive English instead.
O'Brien was created Earl of Thomond; Ulick M'William was created Earl of Clanrickard and Baron Dunkellin; Hugh O'Donnell was made Earl of Tyrconnell; O'Neill was made Earl of Tyrone; Kavanagh was made Baron of Ballyann; and Fitzpatrick, Baron of Ossory. Most of these titles were conferred by Henry in person at, Greenwich palace, with extravagant pomp and formality, the Irish chiefs having been specially invited thither for that purpose, and sums of money given them for their equipment and expenses. In many instances, if not in all, they consented to receive from Henry royal patents or title deeds for "their" lands, as the English from their feudal standpoint would regard them; not their lands, however, in point of fact and law, but the "tribe-lands" of their septs. The acceptance of these "patents" of land proprietorship, still more than the acceptance of English titles, was "a complete abrogation of the Gaelic relation of clansman and chief." Some of the new earls were moreover apportioned a share of the plundered church lands. This was yet a further outrage on their people. Little need we wonder, therefore, that while the newly created earls and barons were airing their modern dignities at the English court, feted and flattered by Henry, the clans at home, learning by dark rumor of these treasons, were already stripping the backsliding chiefs of all authority and power, and were taking measures to arrest and consign them to punishment on their return. O'Donnell found most of his clan, headed by his son, up in arms against him; O'Brien, on his return, was confronted by like circumstances; the new "Earl of Clanrickard" was incontinently attainted by his people, and a Gaelic "M'William" was duly installed in his stead. O'Neill, "the first of his race who had accepted an English title," found that his clansmen had formally deposed him, and elected as the O'Neill, his son John, surnamed "John the Proud"--the celebrated "Shane" O'Neill, so called in the jargon of English writers. On all sides the septs repudiated and took formal and practical measures to disavow and reverse the acts of their representatives.

The hopelessness that had broken the spirit of the chief found no place in the heart of the clan.


This was the beginning of new complications in the already tangled skein of Irish affairs. A new source of division and disorganization was now planted in the country. Hitherto the clans at least were intact, though the nation was shattered. Henceforth the clans themselves were;split into fragments. From this period forward we hear of a king's or a queen's O'Reilly:and an Irish O'Reilly; a king's O'Neill and an Irish O'Neill; a king's O'Donnell and an Irish O'Donnell.'" The English government presented a very artful compromise to the septs--offering them a chief of the native family stock, but requiring that he should hold from the crown, not from the clan. The nominee of the government, backed by all the English power and interest, was generally able to make head for a time at least against the legitimate chief duly and legally chosen and elected by the sept. In many instances the English nominee was able to rally to his side a considerable section of the clan, and even without external aid to hold the chosen chief in check.

By the internal feuds thus incited, the clans were utterly riven, and were given over to a self-acting process of extinction. Occasionally, indeed, the crown nominee, once he was firmly seated in the chieftaincy, threw off all allegiance to his foreign masters, declared himself an Irish chief, cast away scornfully his English earlship, and assumed proudly the ancient title that named him head of his clan. In this event the government simply declared him "deposed," proceeded to nominate another chief in his place, and sent an army to install the new nominee on the necks of the stubborn clan. This was the artful system--copied in all its craft and cruelty by the British in India centuries afterward--pursued toward the native princes and chiefs of Ireland from the reign of Henry the Eighth to the middle of the seventeenth century.