Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

English domination of Ireland
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394 		  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: English domination of Ireland
    Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 08:01
Originally posted by gcle2003

Nope, it's still the Church of England, with the Queen at its head. It is part of the Anglican Communion (which includes,among many others, the Episcopal Church in the United States).


In this case, it would be the Church of Ireland (also Anglican Communion).

Church of Ireland is considered by many to be much more evangelical in flavour because it is "low church" Anglican and leans more toward evangelist traditions and Calvinism than does the Church of England.

Episcopal Church is definately Protestant. The full legal name of it is PECUSA - The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

Anglicanism in all its forms is considered part of the Protestant Reformation, because it rejected key aspects of Catholicism; the pope is rejected, infallibility is rejected, monastic vows and clergy celibacy are rejected, Scripture is deemed supreme and wholly sufficient, Confession is unnecessary, the Cult of the Saints is rejected, etc etc.

Edited by edgewaters - 12-Jul-2007 at 08:09
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959 		  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 17:57
hmm this is really not meant to be a Catholic-Protestant argument. I hope we can stick with the original questions.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 19:58
Well eaglecap, you did ask why the English so brutal towards the Irish? They probably would have had far better treatment except for their religion. This problem makes a constant factor throughout history. The invaders or settlers build up contempt towards the natives by taking some aspect of their way of life, demonizing it, and using those practices as grounds for further punishment.

Truth is it doesn't really matter what the names of the religions are, it never has been. I know it can be uncomfortable but whether we like it  this suppression of belief by one side or another is the most common process in the game of Empire building. 
elenos
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 10:37
 
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by gcle2003

Nope, it's still the Church of England, with the Queen at its head. It is part of the Anglican Communion (which includes, among many others, the Episcopal Church in the United States).


In this case, it would be the Church of Ireland (also Anglican Communion).
I was referring to your saying the 'Church of England' was now the 'Anglican Church'. Yes most people would refer to the 'Church of Ireland' though there are still some around who refer to the 'Church of England in Ireland'.
 
It's really a question of whether you reserve the title 'Church of Ireland' to the early medieval Irish church, before it accepted Roman rule.


Church of Ireland is considered by many to be much more evangelical in flavour because it is "low church" Anglican and leans more toward evangelist traditions and Calvinism than does the Church of England.

Episcopal Church is definately Protestant. The full legal name of it is PECUSA - The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
 
 
From wikipedia: "The official alternate nameThe Episcopal Churchcan be seen in the title page of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, which says According to the use of The Episcopal Church. In contrast, the 1928 BCP said According to the use of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America."
 
and
 
"At the second session of the 1789 General Convention, Sept. 29-Oct. 16, 1789, a Constitution of nine articles was adopted. The new church was called the "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" (PECUSA). The word "Protestant" noted that this was a church in the reformation tradition, and the word "Episcopal" noted a characteristic of catholicity, the historic episcopate."
 
Note the use of 'protestant' to refer to 'a church in the reformation tradition' which is misleading. The establishment of the Church of England was part of the Reformation, but a reformed church doesn't automatically become protestant.

Anglicanism in all its forms is considered part of the Protestant Reformation,
Reformation yes. The abuses of the Roman church were eliminated (at least that's the official version Smile ). Protestant no.
 because it rejected key aspects of Catholicism; the pope is rejected, infallibility is rejected, monastic vows and clergy celibacy are rejected, Scripture is deemed supreme and wholly sufficient, Confession is unnecessary, the Cult of the Saints is rejected, etc etc.
 
Papal infallibility was not part of Roman Catholic doctrine at the time of the reformation: not until it was adopted in 1870-71.
 
Monastic vows are permitted in the Anglican Communion and there are quite a few Anglican monasteries.
 
Clergy celibacy is not universal in the Roman Catholic church and is a relatively modern innovation: it's merely a part of church discipline. I personally knew a married Roman Catholic priest (a missionary). Moreover most Catholic churches, like the Orthodox, do not practise clergy celibacy.
 
Intercessory prayers to the saints are allowed in the Anglican Communion, churches are named after them, holidays are recognised...what part of the 'Doctrine of the Saints' are you saying is rejected? (Of course the list of saints differs - Charles I is a saint in the Anglican view but not in the Roman.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_in_Anglicanism
 
Scripture is seen as a necessary authority, in that teaching should not be accepted unless there are grounds for it in the Bible. However, that is not the same as saying scripture is sufficient.
 
Of course the authority of the Pope is rejected: that's the main vital difference.
 
Most importantly though, see the common position on the doctrines surrounding the Eucharist, where the joint Anglican-Roman position contrasts strongly with the Protestant one. http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_eucharist.html
 
Also note the ease with which Anglican clergy move into the ranks of Roman clergy (married or not) when they get disaffected with some elements of contemporary Anglican non-theological practices like the ordination of women and homosexuals. They don't have to accept any significant change in belief, other than recognising who is in charge.
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 10:44
 
Originally posted by elenos

Well eaglecap, you did ask why the English so brutal towards the Irish? They probably would have had far better treatment except for their religion. This problem makes a constant factor throughout history. The invaders or settlers build up contempt towards the natives by taking some aspect of their way of life, demonizing it, and using those practices as grounds for further punishment.

Truth is it doesn't really matter what the names of the religions are, it never has been. I know it can be uncomfortable but whether we like it  this suppression of belief by one side or another is the most common process in the game of Empire building. 
 
Moreover, it was a genuine and justified belief in Britain that Roman Catholics represented a threat to the authority of the Crown, and indeed the whole constitutional settlement so painfully worked up to through 1688. Even after that the revolts of 1715, 1745 and 1798  led to further mistrust of Roman Catholics, whether Scottish, Irish or English, on purely secular grounds.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 02:36

Why the British wanted to dominate Ireland is easy - they wanted a United Kingdom, exactly the same logic Americans wanted a United States. Name any country has not gone through this process since time began? The Eire government demands a United Ireland and once having that may well demand more. Do land claims for unity ever work? Name any country where it has, but thats the way it always has been.
elenos
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551 		  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 11:13

Ireland was there, it was weak, it was close, it was fair game for the expansionists of the time. Simple.
Back to Top
Lotus View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 17-Aug-2006
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 116 		  Quote Lotus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 12:07

I think there is a bit more too it than that,

The original invasion took place when the Irish  King of Leinster, Diarmait MacMurchada landed in Bristol and recruited some Norman barons to help him get his lands back which they did.

 

The Anglo-Saxons had fought a battle 100 years before to try and keep the Normans out, when the Irish king turned up and actually invited them in they probably couldnt believe their luck..

Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551 		  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 12:21
There is always more to something, especially when anyone can recount pages from a history book stating when and who and how many, but when it come sdown to it, Ireland was invaded and controlled simply because it was there and it was beneficial to the British. At the most basic level, no thought more developed than ' I want more land' was enough to justify invasion.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457 		  Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 20:57
You are being the gloomy one, Dolphin. The Irish had their turn at expansionism and invasion. They sailed over and kicked the stuffing out of Scotland and that was no easy task. You once were the feared warriors! Since then the Irish have sailed all around the world and have carved a proud name in history for supporting and defending their new countries.
elenos
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409 		  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 04:13
Originally posted by Dolphin

There is always more to something, especially when anyone can recount pages from a history book stating when and who and how many, but when it come sdown to it, Ireland was invaded and controlled simply because it was there and it was beneficial to the British. At the most basic level, no thought more developed than ' I want more land' was enough to justify invasion.
 
You can hardly use modern moral values to criticise a medieval invasion. Your looking at in the whole wrong level if thats the case.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551 		  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 04:25
Originally posted by Parnell

Originally posted by Dolphin

There is always more to something, especially when anyone can recount pages from a history book stating when and who and how many, but when it come sdown to it, Ireland was invaded and controlled simply because it was there and it was beneficial to the British. At the most basic level, no thought more developed than ' I want more land' was enough to justify invasion.
 
You can hardly use modern moral values to criticise a medieval invasion. Your looking at in the whole wrong level if thats the case.
 
 
You are arguing for the sake of it. What modern moral value am I using? In fact, my post is totally devoid of moral values, it refers to basic human desires for power and wealth. If you actually read the post I was not  criticising the invasion at all, I merely stated that sometimes a reason to invade can be as simple, or as complicated as you mean it to be. I could spiel on about 100 reasons why the english invaded, or I could say they wanted more land. Can you say I am wrong either way?
Back to Top
Lotus View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 17-Aug-2006
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 116 		  Quote Lotus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 04:57
There is always more to something, especially when anyone can recount pages from a history book stating when and who and how many.....
 
Of course there is, thats why were on a history forum to discuss it.Smile

 

I dug around a bit when this post came up, found some of my old Simon Sharma books, the whole story is quite tragic and felt a lot of sympathy for the Irish king as he ended up getting into deeper and deeper trouble.

 

I have a few questions

 

When the King of Leinster, Diarmait MacMurchada was defeated in battle by Ruaidri Ua Conchobair, was he the reigning king of Ireland?

The book doesnt make this clear.

 

When Henry II gave permission for Diarmait to recruit help, would Diarmait have known the reputation of the Norman barons ? especially as they were at the time trying to invade Wales .



Edited by Lotus - 17-Jul-2007 at 04:59
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409 		  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 07:07
Originally posted by Dolphin

Originally posted by Parnell

Originally posted by Dolphin

There is always more to something, especially when anyone can recount pages from a history book stating when and who and how many, but when it come sdown to it, Ireland was invaded and controlled simply because it was there and it was beneficial to the British. At the most basic level, no thought more developed than ' I want more land' was enough to justify invasion.
 
You can hardly use modern moral values to criticise a medieval invasion. Your looking at in the whole wrong level if thats the case.
 
 
You are arguing for the sake of it. What modern moral value am I using? In fact, my post is totally devoid of moral values, it refers to basic human desires for power and wealth. If you actually read the post I was not  criticising the invasion at all, I merely stated that sometimes a reason to invade can be as simple, or as complicated as you mean it to be. I could spiel on about 100 reasons why the english invaded, or I could say they wanted more land. Can you say I am wrong either way?
 
The original invasion took place because your kinsman (Dermot) wanted mercenaries to retake Leinster. He then allowed Strongbow to marry his daughter, and Strongbow then became King of Leinster upon his death.
 
The Irish 'invasion' was no different than the English acquisition of Anjou, or Aquitaine. They are the result of marriage alliances. Henry then had to invade Ireland in 1171 to make sure he didn't have a rival Norman Kingdom growing on his doorstep, and it was the Irish Lords who practically gave Ireland to him in 1171 when they handed it to him on a plate, largely because they preferred him to some dodgy High King. I'm hardly arguing for the sake of arguing either - your trying to make this out to be some horrible invasion by those damn English for no reason other than to take our liberty. It didn't happen like that.
 
If anything the native irish are largely to blame for the initial conquest of our island.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551 		  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 08:02
Im going for lunch, but you're still wrong. dud
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409 		  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 08:33
I bow to your superior argument.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551 		  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 09:19
Originally posted by Parnell

Originally posted by Dolphin

[QUOTE=Parnell][QUOTE=Dolphin]There is always more to something, especially when anyone can recount pages from a history book stating when and who and how many, but when it come sdown to it, Ireland was invaded and controlled simply because it was there and it was beneficial to the British. At the most basic level, no thought more developed than ' I want more land' was enough to justify invasion.
 
 
The original invasion took place because your kinsman (Dermot) wanted mercenaries to retake Leinster. He then allowed Strongbow to marry his daughter, and Strongbow then became King of Leinster upon his death.
 
The Irish 'invasion' was no different than the English acquisition of Anjou, or Aquitaine. They are the result of marriage alliances. Henry then had to invade Ireland in 1171 to make sure he didn't have a rival Norman Kingdom growing on his doorstep, and it was the Irish Lords who practically gave Ireland to him in 1171 when they handed it to him on a plate, largely because they preferred him to some dodgy High King. I'm hardly arguing for the sake of arguing either - your trying to make this out to be some horrible invasion by those damn English for no reason other than to take our liberty. It didn't happen like that.
 
If anything the native irish are largely to blame for the initial conquest of our island.
 
 
Wow, you know what happened. If you actually read my post you will find that I have said nothing incorrect. I was merely making the point that anybody can go look up wiki or whatever and tell us what happened, it doesn't make the argument any more compelling. How, in the name of sanity have you deciphered from my post that i'm  trying to make this out to be some horrible invasion by those damn English for no reason other than to take our liberty ?? It wasn't that simple Parnell, duh..
 
Can you deny this? The English had a vested interest in extending their land and wealth, and thus Ireland was always going to be a target. The mechanism by which the invasion actually happened is accessory to the inevitability of the action, thus meaning that telling me about MacMurrough is just a re-hashing in a pedantry that you supposedly are adverse to. Maybe a more prudent question is, why did the English stay?
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409 		  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 09:24
OK, I obviously misread my post. I mean, the complete and utter vagueness in your post would have made that absolutely impossible.
 
Can you deny this? The English had a vested interest in extending their land and wealth, and thus Ireland was always going to be a target.
 
Duh
 
The mechanism by which the invasion actually happened is accessory to the inevitability of the action, thus meaning that telling me about MacMurrough is just a re-hashing in a pedantry that you supposedly are adverse to. Maybe a more prudent question is, why did the English stay?
 
Why did the English stay? Well the Normans stayed because they could. They were nearly forced out in the 13th/14th century anyway. The English on the other hand, and I assume your talking about Cromwell's religiously inspired mania in the 17th century stayed for a variety of reasons, reasons the both of us are well aware of.
 
What the hell are we talking about anyway?
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551 		  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 09:43
Its just too easy to take a general comment, and then jump onto it with a re-hashing of well known facts in order to make the poster seem more intelligent. Why not analyse, instead of puking up all the time...?
 
And yes, I am only antagonising you, but i still think the point remains that too often information is offered parading as knowledge, when all it takes is a click of the paste button and even waty could look intelligent. Duh
 
And double yes, I know i'm going to get a bit of abuse for saying this, as it is no doubt sufficiently vague enough to be ravaged by the pedant hordes.  Look forward to it.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409 		  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 10:05
Here, I'm bored, want to do a bit of messing on wiki?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.