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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Who created the 26 counties?

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    what did they call it instead up to then? Always referred to as the Republic of Ireland when I lived there, nothing wrong with that.

    It's Ireland and it's a Republic...just as France is the Republic of France...

    The only reason that they use the "Republic of" bit is to clarify that they are not referring to the North or to the geographical island.


  • Options
    #93
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    corktina wrote: »
    what did they call it instead up to then? Always referred to as the Republic of Ireland when I lived there, nothing wrong with that.

    It's Ireland and it's a Republic...just as France is the Republic of France...

    The only reason that they use the "Republic of" bit is to clarify that they are not referring to the North or to the geographical island.

    The point is that they refused to call it by its official name.


  • Options
    #94
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    no they didn't.... what did they call it instead...?


  • Options
    #95
    camphor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 202 ✭✭camphor


    The government of Ireland Act 1920 created Southern Ireland and Northern ireland. As far as the British were concerned the official name of was the name they have given it. The The Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922created the Irish Free State. The British still regard that Act as the legal basis of the Southern Irish State.


  • Options
    #96
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    corktina wrote: »
    no they didn't.... what did they call it instead...?

    Oh yes they did.

    Eire , roi, republic of Ireland.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state

    The United Kingdom (part of which, Northern Ireland, constitutes one sixth of the territory of the island of Ireland), objected to the political implications of the adoption of the name Ireland on the basis that it constituted an irredentist claim to sovereignty over the entire island of Ireland.[3] However, that name was internationally recognised by the early 1960s and since the end of the 1990s has been accepted by the United Kingdom.[3]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    there's nothing wrong with describing it as the Republic of Ireland, that's what it is.


  • Options
    #98
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    corktina wrote: »
    there's nothing wrong with describing it as the Republic of Ireland, that's what it is.

    That's not the point. The point is that Britain refused to call the state Ireland, which is its name. The official description of the state is the republic of Ireland so yes it is perfectly OK to describe it as such. ;]


  • Options
    #99
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    You do understand the meaning of the Word refuse, do you?


  • Options
    #100
    camphor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 202 ✭✭camphor


    corktina wrote: »
    there's nothing wrong with describing it as the Republic of Ireland, that's what it is.

    Tell that to the High Court. Extradition requests to the Republic of Ireland are refused. The name of the state is Ireland.


  • Options
    #101
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    camphor wrote: »
    Tell that to the High Court. Extradition requests to the Republic of Ireland are refused. The name of the state is Ireland.

    Yes. I know. I've been saying that for the past 10 posts. However the official description of the state is the republic of Ireland. In a summons and court pleadings a name must be used not a description.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state

    Since 1949 the Republic of Ireland Act has provided that the Republic of Ireland (or Poblacht na hÉireann in Irish) is the legal description for the state.[5] However, Ireland remains the constitutional name of the state.

    The constitutional name Ireland is normally used. However, the legal description Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when disambiguation is desired between the state and the island of Ireland. In colloquial use this is often shortened to 'the Republic'.

    This distinction between description and name was and remains important because the Act was not a constitutional amendment and did not change the name of the state. If it had purported to do so, it would have been unconstitutional. The distinction between a description and a name has sometimes caused confusion. The Taoiseach, John A. Costello introduced the legislation with an explanation of the difference in the following way:[6]

    If I say that my name is Costello and that my description is that of senior counsel, I think that will be clear to anybody who wants to know...[Similarly, the state's] name in Irish is Éire and in the English language, Ireland. Its description in the English language is "the Republic of Ireland."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1948/en/act/pub/0022/sec0002.html#sec2

    2.—It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.

    Folks. As a matter of course it would be helpful to post links to proper sources as opposed to wikipedia. Wikipedia may be based on proper information and is useful but the sources for information are a better basis for substantiating ones point.


  • Options
    #103
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    ezra_pound wrote: »
    That's not the point. The point is that Britain refused to call the state Ireland, which is its name. The official description of the state is the republic of Ireland so yes it is perfectly OK to describe it as such. ;]
    ezra_pound wrote: »
    You do understand the meaning of the Word refuse, do you?

    You are quite strong on this point. Could you demonstrate using sources how this was a policy of the British establishment. Also elaborate on the significance you see, if any, of this.


  • Options
    #104
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    The United Kingdom (part of which, Northern Ireland, constitutes one sixth of the territory of the island of Ireland), objected to the political implications of the adoption of the name Ireland on the basis that it constituted an irredentist claim to sovereignty over the entire island of Ireland.[3] However, that name was internationally recognised by the early 1960s and since the end of the 1990s has been accepted by the United Kingdom.[3]
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    You are quite strong on this point. Could you demonstrate using sources how this was a policy of the British establishment. Also elaborate on the significance you see, if any, of this.

    I already posted the above quote from wiki.
    If you follow the link you will get much more detail on the issue.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state


  • Options
    #105
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1948/en/act/pub/0022/sec0002.html#sec2

    2.—It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.

    Folks. As a matter of course it would be helpful to post links to proper sources as opposed to wikipedia. Wikipedia may be based on proper information and is useful but the sources for information are a better basis for substantiating ones point.


    How does this disagree with anything I posted from wiki?

    This agrees with everything I've been saying.


  • Options
    #106
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    ezra_pound wrote: »
    The United Kingdom (part of which, Northern Ireland, constitutes one sixth of the territory of the island of Ireland), objected to the political implications of the adoption of the name Ireland on the basis that it constituted an irredentist claim to sovereignty over the entire island of Ireland.[3] However, that name was internationally recognised by the early 1960s and since the end of the 1990s has been accepted by the United Kingdom.[3]

    I posted a quote from wiki.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state

    Refer to my post no. 102 above regarding wikipedia.

    The Wikipedia articles author (unknown) has given an interpretation based on Mary Daly's article which itself is interpreting actions by the British government.

    Your post does not in any way even begin to respond adequately to my question which I repeat "Could you demonstrate using sources how this was a policy of the British establishment".
    A source in this case would be a released policy statement or something similar which if in existence would be released by now. If you are unsure of what I am looking for you should spend some time reading this guidelines thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056384651 .


  • Options
    #107
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Refer to my post no. 102 above regarding wikipedia.

    The Wikipedia articles author (unknown) has given an interpretation based on Mary Daly's article which itself is interpreting actions by the British government.

    Your post does not in any way even begin to respond adequately to my question which I repeat "Could you demonstrate using sources how this was a policy of the British establishment".
    A source in this case would be a released policy statement or something similar which if in existence would be released by now. If you are unsure of what I am looking for you should spend some time reading this guidelines thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056384651 .

    So is mary Daly's opinion, as respected historian not sufficient? Theforum guidelines do not forbid using secondary sources.


  • Options
    #108
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    Ireland act 1949

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/41/enacted



    Be it enactedby the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority .of the same, as follows:—

    1Constitutional provisions.

    (1)It is hereby recognized and declared that the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire ceased, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, to be part of His Majesty's dominions.

    (2)It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom and it is hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

    (3)'The part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) of this section is hereafter in this Act referred to, and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed or made after the passing of this Act be referred to, by the name attributed thereto by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland.


  • Options
    #109
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    ezra_pound wrote: »
    Ireland act 1949

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/41/enacted



    Be it enactedby the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority .of the same, as follows:—

    1Constitutional provisions.

    (1)It is hereby recognized and declared that the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire ceased, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, to be part of His Majesty's dominions.

    (2)It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom and it is hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

    (3)'The part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) of this section is hereafter in this Act referred to, and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed or made after the passing of this Act be referred to, by the name attributed thereto by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland.

    Just to clarify this act directs all further forms of UK legislation to refer to this state as the republic of Ireland and not by its name, which is Ireland.


  • Options
    #110
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    I don't see a problem...a rose by any name would smell as sweet...


  • Options
    #111
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    ezra_pound wrote: »
    Just to clarify this act directs all further forms of UK legislation to refer to this state as the republic of Ireland and not by its name, which is Ireland.

    This does not support any underhand type view as previously suggested.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    I'd say you are seizing on legalese to bash the Brits.

    I would bet that this is standard practise in official documents ...ie Republic of South Africa or Dominion of Canada, Kingdom of Spain etc. It is stating that the country is called Ireland and that it is a Republic


  • Options
    #113
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    This does not support any underhand type view as previously suggested.

    What do you mean ' underhand type view'? I am merely dealing with fact. That is that the name of the state is Ireland, and Britain never used that term until 1998 to refer to the state. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/508399?uid=3738232&uid=2460338415&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21102526955837


  • Options
    #114
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    corktina wrote: »
    I'd say you are seizing on legalese to bash the Brits.

    I would bet that this is standard practise in official documents ...ie Republic of South Africa or Dominion of Canada, Kingdom of Spain etc. It is stating that the country is called Ireland and that it is a Republic

    I am not 'bashing' anybody. I suggest that you back up your claims with evidence. I would also point out that the kingdom of Spain and the republic of south Africa are the correct names for the respective states.


  • Options
    #115
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    ezra_pound wrote: »
    I am not 'bashing' anybody. I suggest that you back up your claims with evidence. I would also point out that the kingdom of Spain and the republic of south Africa are the correct names for the respective states.

    don't think so....Espana I suspect...


  • Options
    #116
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    corktina wrote: »
    don't think so....Espana I suspect...

    No Martina it's Reino de España that's if you can speak Spanish!


  • Options
    #117
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    thanks for the sex-change, always brings a smile....


  • Options
    #118
    goose2005
    Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    MadsL wrote: »
    As a corollary to the question, when were the 32 counties one nation?

    Up until 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland was a separate state, albeit largely under British control. After that it was unified with Britain.


  • Options
    #119
    goose2005
    Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    MadsL wrote: »
    I'm not talking about 'belief' or trying to prove a point. I'm curious as to when the Irish 'nation' was first considered a 'nation'.

    The phrase 'a nation once again' springs to mind, ergo when was Ireland a 'nation' prior to 1922.

    In the more abstract sense, never. The Protestant/Ulster Scots were always a separate nation and, beyond a few dreamers, always considered themselves such. There was never a time when any more than a small number of them viewed themselves as being 'the same' as the Irish. Two nations of people, so two states on the island makes sense.


  • Options
    #120
    Little_Korean
    Registered Users Posts: 35 ✭Little_Korean


    paky wrote: »
    I can't see how it's not a matter of concern for Irish people that they live in a state which was created for them by the British. Through its very inception, the borders in which the British created were based on religious lines, which are totally and utterly contrary to any sense of what is to be considered free, secular or republican!

    Most of us have other things in our lives to worry about.

    One can live in the ROI and still be entirely free (as far as anyone is free) and secular. Not to mention republican by default by virtue of living in a republic.

    In NI, it's a different case, but judging by the (at best) lukewarm interest in changing the status quo if polls are anything to go by, the people there too are concerned with getting on with their lives than the past decisions of Mr Gladstone and co.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    goose2005 wrote: »
    In the more abstract sense, never. The Protestant/Ulster Scots were always a separate nation and, beyond a few dreamers, always considered themselves such. There was never a time when any more than a small number of them viewed themselves as being 'the same' as the Irish. Two nations of people, so two states on the island makes sense.

    It makes as much sense as a white homeland in South Africa or ethnically contrived states in the united states that racial extremists call for . Its abhorrent . And there hasnt been a days peace since so it doesnt make sense either .
    Its also a dreadful thing to say about our protestant fellow citizens in Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan whod have exactly the same ancestry . Theyre as Irish as the rest of us .

    It was an exercise in sectarianism and imperialism intended solely for thwarting democracy in this country and will continue to be a disaster for this country until the day it goes into histories dustbin, where it belongs .


Advertisement