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.

Religious persecution in Ireland

Options
123578

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It was politics, loyalty and Rome's interference with state affairs.

    What specifically are you referring to? Because it broke down on the issue of annulment - which at the time was not a state issue but specifically a Church issue. The state only began issuing marriage licenses in the early 19th century.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Did Catholics have loyalty to Rome or to their country?

    A question that appears relevant today.

    Fred, historically every tyrant and their supporters make the same claim on those who are the slaughtered because they wouldn't go along with the state law, no matter how outrageous that law becomes. In WWII the same question were posed about the Jews - and used against them in support of state genocide.


  • Options
    #123
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Could you please supply the sources you are quoting - without reference - for your 'census' data for the 1600s?? There was no official census taken until much later centuries.

    Also your claim of the conversion of Protestants to Catholicism in the 1600s also needs documents.

    YES THERE WAS! the 1622 census, 1630 muster roll (not a census but still) and 1659 penders census. How am i going to prove that! You'll just have to except it, i live here i think i should know.


  • Options
    #124
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    owenc wrote: »
    YES THERE WAS! the 1622 census, 1630 muster roll (not a census but still) and 1659 penders census. How am i going to prove that! You'll just have to except it, i live here i think i should know.
    If this census exists, it's a very important historical document and I'd expect that some evidence of its existence is on the web somewhere?

    And you appear to be claiming that there was just a thousand odd people living in what is now County Derry?


  • Options
    #125
    mossyc123
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭mossyc123


    owenc wrote: »
    YES THERE WAS! the 1622 census, 1630 muster roll (not a census but still) and 1659 penders census. How am i going to prove that! You'll just have to except it, i live here i think i should know.

    Your trying to assert that the Plantations were anything but an abhorant process of ethnic cleansing.

    You are wrong, regardless of how many Native Irish Catholics were displaced it was genocidal in nature as March Dub has illustrated.

    That's your past, don't try to hide from it or change the story.

    It is what it is.


  • Options
    #126
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    owenc wrote: »
    YES THERE WAS! the 1622 census, 1630 muster roll (not a census but still) and 1659 penders census. How am i going to prove that! You'll just have to except it, i live here i think i should know.

    Yes, I know about these but they were not full census - as you point out - in the way that we would look at the numbers today or after the 1800s census. The first census of the Fews in 1602 also involves a limited number as its purpose was to list the clanspeople of the Ui Neill.

    Anyway, my post on the Plantation spells out the rigorous effort there was to displace Catholics and deprive them of any economic participation in the Provence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    MarchDub wrote: »
    OK - let me inject some historical reality into this discussion.

    The Printed Book of 1610 outlines the Plantation of Ulster and it states up front categorically that it is to be a “Protestant Settlement”. The “First orders and Conditions of the Undertakers” were published 1609 and revised later. It was an exclusive Protestant settlement. I have copies of all these documents and will gladly quote from the Settlement papers if you want. The native Catholic ‘mere Irish” population were not to be granted land and “not to be granted any position of power or authority in the disposition of land”. The incoming settlers were required to prove their Protestantism by taking an oath of allegiance before a judge and also to vouch for the Protestantism of any family members who were also coming to Ireland with them. The settlers were also told to build strong houses – details of how this was to be done are given in broad outline. Protestants were to build stone homes with stone walls surrounding them while Catholics were only permitted to build wooden structures. And Protestants were required to have arms in the home against any possible Catholic reprisal. This is all stated clearly in the settlement documents.


    Much of the land was physically cleared of Catholics by the English army prior to arrival of the new owners – it was a deliberate clearance, it was fully occupied land prior to this. The seized area of Ulster was divided into precincts and then into farms granted at very low rates to the new settlers. Catholics were segregated into particular areas and the small amount of land they were given [some were described as "deserving Irish"] was taxed at twice the Protestant rate - Catholics were warned that any reprisal by them would result in total loss of any land they had been allowed to settle on. But this overburden of tax meant that over the years more land was forfeited by the native Catholics and went to the settlers. The stated policy of the Printed Book was that the Protestant settlers were not to employ Catholics in any way. This proved difficult and eventfully Catholics were granted the lowest jobs of labourers.


    Belfast was created by charter by King James I in 1613 specifically to be the economic centre of this new Protestant settlement.

    Once again incorrect! I think catholics need to realise that the "stories" they have been told by family members are false nonscence! I know of several town-lands given to natives here in county londonderry for example the town-land of ballycarton was given to the mcgilligan family. And the plantation was different everywhere there were no set rules. The catholics were not granted authority but it is documented that if they had done favours to their masters they would be given a plot of land. Not only that, the british government did not take all of the land they took a % of it and left the remaining % to the natives so its unwise to say they got nothing.


  • Options
    #128
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    If this census exists, it's a very important historical document and I'd expect that some evidence of its existence is on the web somewhere?

    And you appear to be claiming that there was just a thousand odd people living in what is now County Derry?

    No it isn't online its in the proni offices in belfast but i have it in a document and if you take away all the planters it leaves 1000 people.


  • Options
    #129
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    owenc wrote: »
    Once again incorrect! I think catholics need to realise that the "stories" they have been told by family members are false nonscence! I know of several town-lands given to natives here in county londonderry for example the town-land of ballycarton was given to the mcgilligan family. And the plantation was different everywhere there were no set rules. The catholics were not granted authority but it is documented that if they had done favours to their masters they would be given a plot of land. Not only that, the british government did not take all of the land they took a % of it and left the remaining % to the natives so its unwise to say they got nothing. I hope that isn't my documents you have. :P


    For the love of God and historical relevance would you please take note of the historic documents that I am quoting. Your hearsay and refusal to accept historical reality is beyond me at this point.


  • Options
    #130
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Yes, I know about these but they were not full census - as you point out - in the way that we would look at the numbers today or after the 1800s census. The first census of the Fews in 1602 also involves a limited number as its purpose was to list the clanspeople of the Ui Neill.

    Anyway, my post on the Plantation spells out the rigorous effort there was to displace Catholics and deprive them of any economic participation in the Provence.

    No the 1659 census shows the number of irish and the number of planters and the planters easily outnumber the irish. The 1622 census also shows a massive increase of scottish planters over previous years.


  • Options
    #131
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    MarchDub wrote: »
    For the love of God and historical relevance would you please take note of the historic documents that I am quoting. Your hearsay and refusal to accept historical reality is beyond me at this point.

    Maybe thats because i know what i'm talking about. I have read about this for three years now. Also the fact that i have done a family tree and i have seen several protestants converting in the 1700s as-well for land obviously.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Here is a post from a document that i have which shows three native freeholds.


    Several native Irish freeholds were forfeited because their owners had participated in the rebellion (1641): the large O’Cahan freehold in Boveagh, the O’Mullan freehold at Ballyness and the Magilligan freehold at Ballycarton


  • Options
    #133
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    owenc wrote: »
    No the 1659 census shows the number of irish and the number of planters and the planters easily outnumber the irish. The 1622 census also shows a massive increase of scottish planters over previous years.


    I wouldn't dispute that at all. The point I am making is that the land was cleared of Catholics and then anywhere up to 50,000 planters are recorded as coming into the region from 1610 - 1640. The PURPOSE of the Plantation was to do this very thing - to displace Catholics. This was boldly stated at the get go in 1609.

    Lord Chicester, the Lord Deputy even put out the idea that the entire country of Ireland could be planted with Protestations and the entire Catholic population wiped out. Didn't happen.


  • Options
    #134
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    owenc wrote: »
    Maybe thats because i know what i'm talking about. I have read about this for three years now.

    .

    I think you need to hit the books and the documents for a few more years. Serious.


  • Options
    #135
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    owenc wrote: »
    No it isn't online its in the proni offices in belfast but i have it in a document and if you take away all the planters it leaves 1000 people.
    I trust you on this, but you realise that there are good reasons why there are only a thousand 'natives' (makes them sound like primitives, but whatever :)) on that list?


  • Options
    #136
    R.Dub.Fusilier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭R.Dub.Fusilier


    owenc wrote: »
    Maybe thats because i know what i'm talking about. I have read about this for three years now. Also the fact that i have done a family tree and i have seen several protestants converting in the 1700s as-well for land obviously.

    you have not got a single clue as to what you are talking about. the land that you speak about is Irish land taken from the Irish people , Irish Catholic people pure and simple. and as another poster has said already go and read a few good decent books on Irish history and not the sh**e you are reading now.


  • Options
    #137
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MarchDub wrote: »
    What specifically are you referring to? Because it broke down on the issue of annulment - which at the time was not a state issue but specifically a Church issue. The state only began issuing marriage licenses in the early 19th century.



    Fred, historically every tyrant and their supporters make the same claim on those who are the slaughtered because they wouldn't go along with the state law, no matter how outrageous that law becomes. In WWII the same question were posed about the Jews - and used against them in support of state genocide.

    sorry, who are you referring to as the tyrant?

    I believe Godwin's law should also be invoked at this point.


  • Options
    #138
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    sorry, who are you referring to as the tyrant?

    Henry VIII could be described as a tyrant IMO. He was responsible for the state murder of many of his subjects and courtiers , as well documented by historians - his bogus show trials were horrendous - as well as the slaughter of thousands of innocent people in his purge of Catholicism.

    For you to suggest - as you seem to be - that English Catholics were not loyal to England and the English Monarch is to ignore or completely misrepresent the history of England up until the Reformation.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I believe Godwin's law should also be invoked at this point.

    No. There is historic validity in what I say about the question of Jewish "loyalty" to the state of Germany. It is historic fact not an empty allegory by any means as per Godwin.

    If you need other examples - there are numerous throughout history, Stalin, and recently Saddam Husein also carried on his reign of terror on those who were not seen as 'loyal' to the state.


  • Options
    #139
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »
    you have not got a single clue as to what you are talking about. the land that you speak about is Irish land taken from the Irish people , Irish Catholic people pure and simple. and as another poster has said already go and read a few good decent books on Irish history and not the sh**e you are reading now.

    A ya I do sunshine.. No history book will tell me what's wrong and what's right... Those history books are mot based on county Londonderry they are based on the whole of northern Ireland and as you should know was planted differently we are a unique experience.. The best history book is a local one only locals know what truly went on.. Also Irish catholic don't Gimmi that tripe I'm sick of this nonsense there's a such thing as conversions not every Protestant or catholic is native you know.. Goodday bye


  • Options
    #140
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    owenc wrote: »
    Those history books are mot based on county Londonderry they are based on the whole of northern Ireland and as you should know was planted differently we are a unique experience.. The best history book is a local one only locals know what truly went on..
    Unless the locals are 3 or 4 hundred years old, I'll trust professional historians to have a better knowledge of what went on. :)


  • Options
    #141
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Fratton Fred wrote: »

    Did Catholics have loyalty to Rome or to their country?

    A question that appears relevant today.


    Sovereign Princes had alliances like William of Orange and his buddy Innocent XI.

    And before that there was another guy Adrian with another King.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056226312

    How on earth can there be any suggestion that the Popes bestowed any favours on the Irish Catholic population.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It was politics, loyalty and Rome's interference with state affairs.

    Did Catholics have loyalty to Rome or to their country?

    A question that appears relevant today.
    To Rome.


  • Options
    #143
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    To Rome.

    Explain please.
    By civil allegiance is meant the duty of loyalty and obedience which a person owes to the State of which he is a citizen. The word allegiance is a derivative of liege, free, and historically it signifies the service which a free man owed to his liege lord. In the matter in hand its meaning is wider, it is used to signify the duty which a citizen owes to the state of which he is a subject.
    That duty, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, rests on nature itself and the sanctions of religion. As nature and religion prescribe to children dutiful conduct towards the parents who brought them into the world, so nature and religion impose on citizens certain obligations towards their country and its rulers. These obligations may be reduced to those of patriotism and obedience. Patriotism requires that the citizen should have a reasonable esteem and love for his country. He should take an interest in his country's history, he should know how to value her institutions, and he should be prepared to sacrifice himself for her welfare. In his country's need it is not only a noble thing, but it is a sacred duty to lay down one's life for the safety of the commonwealth. Love for his country will lead the citizen to show honour and respect to its rulers. They represent the State, and are entrusted by God with power to rule it for the common good. The citizen's chief duty is to obey the just laws of his country. To be able to distinguish what laws of the civil authority are just and obligatory, it will be advisable to lay down the principles of Catholic theology respecting the nature, subject-matter, and limits of the obedience which citizens owe to the State.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03794b.htm
    So the Catholic Church will claim authority over matters of worship and not over civil/political issues.

    The British involvement in Ireland owes itself and derives its legal authority from the Popes.

    So on what matters does/did catholic civil allegience differ from say Presbyterian or Methodist.

    http://www.ncccusa.org/faithandorder/authority.small.htm

    And historical examples would be great.


  • Options
    #144
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Henry VIII could be described as a tyrant IMO. He was responsible for the state murder of many of his subjects and courtiers , as well documented by historians - his bogus show trials were horrendous - as well as the slaughter of thousands of innocent people in his purge of Catholicism.

    For you to suggest - as you seem to be - that English Catholics were not loyal to England and the English Monarch is to ignore or completely misrepresent the history of England up until the Reformation.



    No. There is historic validity in what I say about the question of Jewish "loyalty" to the state of Germany. It is historic fact not an empty allegory by any means as per Godwin.

    If you need other examples - there are numerous throughout history, Stalin, and recently Saddam Husein also carried on his reign of terror on those who were not seen as 'loyal' to the state.

    I wouldn't argue that Henry VIII wasn't a tyrant, but I would argue that Rome was no better, if not worse.

    I'm not suggesting that English catholics were not loyal to the crown, only that they were perceived to be. The English establishment didn't just wake up one morning and decide to presecute catholics, there was a reason for it.

    Similarly with the plantations, there was a reason why land was given to those that were loyal to the crown. How do you consider Hugh O'Neil was thought of by the English? Brought up in an English court as a nobleman, given the title Earl of Tyrone, but secretly building an army against the English?

    In terms of loyalty to the crown or loyalty to Rome, that question has been highlighted recently I believe thanks to several high profile public enquiries.


  • Options
    #145
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    To Rome.
    Keith, please stop trotting out the party line regardless of the facts. At this stage you could just replace all your contributions on Boards.ie with "insert Loyalist troll comment here". Everyone knows what to expect at this stage, so just copy and paste it in.


  • Options
    #146
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    In terms of loyalty to the crown or loyalty to Rome, that question has been highlighted recently I believe thanks to several high profile public enquiries.
    There's no question of a third loyalty, to Irishness?


  • Options
    #147
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    There's no question of a third loyalty, to Irishness?

    Being Irish wasn't a reason to persecute someone though.

    Even during the plantations the Irish that had demonstrated loyalty to the crown were allowed to keep their land. Even Irish Catholics.

    It wasn't just about Ireland, Catholics in England were persecuted as much, if not more than the Irish as MD stated above.


  • Options
    #148
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It wasn't just about Ireland, Catholics in England were persecuted as much, if not more than the Irish as MD stated above.
    Perhaps this was simply because the English Catholics were closer to hand, and presented an easier target as well as more serious 'threat'?

    I'm delighted to learn about the enlightened views of the English towards the Irish at that time, regarding them as equals... :rolleyes: :)


  • Options
    #149
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    When posting on this thread all opinions expressed should be backed up by a source (if possible, or if your point is likely to be questioned) which should be stated in the post. A number of posts have been reported, due to the nature of the discussion. Thus in the interest of keeping the discussion sensible please post a source as the basis for an opinion.

    Thanks -Moderator.


  • Options
    #150
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I wouldn't argue that Henry VIII wasn't a tyrant, but I would argue that Rome was no better, if not worse.

    I'm not suggesting that English catholics were not loyal to the crown, only that they were perceived to be. The English establishment didn't just wake up one morning and decide to presecute catholics, there was a reason for it.

    Medieval king wakes up one morning and decides to take on the Pope 'cept it wasn't Henry it was Philop VI of France - kills a Pope and installs his own Pope Clement in Avignon and disolves the Knights Templars a very rich order of monastic knights who had a banking system and Phil being short of a few bob needed the cash.- that was all in the first decade of the 1300's .

    It was all about money -no matter how it was dressed up.

    http://www.medievaltimes.info/military-orders/knights-templar.html

    Henry was the same

    Similarly with the plantations, there was a reason why land was given to those that were loyal to the crown. How do you consider Hugh O'Neil was thought of by the English? Brought up in an English court as a nobleman, given the title Earl of Tyrone, but secretly building an army against the English?

    The system was called surrender and regrant
    In terms of loyalty to the crown or loyalty to Rome, that question has been highlighted recently I believe thanks to several high profile public enquiries.

    The Church in Gaelic Ireland was not loyal to Rome.

    The Anglo Norman Church was ,so, the reformation in Ireland was an English construct based on what it created to collect in money for Rome.

    It had nothing to do with the Gaelic Irish Chierftains.

    The Diosecean system was also a way of conducting civil administration etc legitimacy heirs etc under Salic Law - primogeniture etc. It was also a way of establishing a foothold in the country.

    The catholic church in Gaelic Ireland had no such system , lands or authority.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Being Irish wasn't a reason to persecute someone though.

    Even during the plantations the Irish that had demonstrated loyalty to the crown were allowed to keep their land. Even Irish Catholics.

    I disagree fred, because the English Diosecean system was central to their rule and claim on Ireland and I am from an Anglo Norman family.

    Being Irish was a sufficient motive or excuse.
    It wasn't just about Ireland, Catholics in England were persecuted as much, if not more than the Irish as MD stated above.

    In Ireland ,being catholic was only significant if you were anglo/norman but being Irish was the deciding factor elsewhere.

    How could the British Crown grant land and estates to people without taking it from the Irish. Not possible .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Perhaps this was simply because the English Catholics were closer to hand, and presented an easier target as well as more serious 'threat'?

    I'm delighted to learn about the enlightened views of the English towards the Irish at that time, regarding them as equals... :rolleyes: :)

    The class system treated only those with titles as equal. It didn't matter what your nationality, if you were poor you were there to be exploited.

    Hugh O'Neil (as one example) was treated as an equal.


Advertisement