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

Protestants

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    MarchDub wrote: »
    It came about for a number of reasons. Partly it had to do with events in Scotland amongst the Presbyterians there, and concern that the Presbyterians in Ireland might not prove loyal to the King. It was the Presbyterians who gave it the name "Black Oath" because of their resentment to it. They had no issue with taking it, it was not against any religious tenet - but it was insulting for them that they were asked as it implied disloyalty. It put them one down from the Anglicans.


    Here is the text -
    THE OATH
    I,
    , do faithfully swear, profess and promise, that I will honour and obey my Sovereign Lord King Charles, and will bear Faith and true Allegiance unto him, and defend and maintain his Royal Power and Authority, and that I will not bear Arms, or do any rebellious or hostile Act against Him, or protest against any his Royal Commands, but submit myself in all due Obedience thereunto: And that I will not enter into any Covenant, Oath or Band of mutual Defence and Assistance against all sorts of Persons whatsoever, or into any Covenant, Oath or Band of Mutual Defence and Assistance against any Persons whatsoever by Force, without his Majesty’s Sovereign and Regal Authority. And I do renounce and abjure all Covenants, Oaths, and Bands whatsoever contrary to what I have herein sworn, professed and promised. So help me God in Christ Jesus.

    Awk rite that is interesting, especially since they were supposed to be loyal to the crown to be aloud to come here! Thanks for that wee bit of info! This "black oath" mustn't have ever been talked about much because i've never heard anyone in the family talk about it or anyone at all in-fact, we didn't even talk about it in history either hmm..:confused: You'd think it would be sorta historic lol.


  • Options
    #123
    bitter
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭bitter


    Are not most catholics planters as well, a lot came over with the Norman invasion and took land.


  • Options
    #124
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    bitter wrote: »
    Are not most catholics planters as well, a lot came over with the Norman invasion and took land.

    Now, now no revisionism please. :D


  • Options
    #125
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Oh so it's just Republican propaganda that secterian discrimination etc existed against Catholics ?

    I believe it was on ethnic lines. Or ethno-religious lines rather than because of any tenet. I don't specifically remember anyone killing each other because of a lack of belief in transubstantiation.

    "Catholic" would be synonymous with the ethnic Irish community
    "Protestant" would be synonymous with the Anglo / Ulster Scots community
    in respect to Northern Ireland.

    Hence why you have Protestants on both sides of the fence people such as Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmet and proponents of unionism. Seems more logical to me than to claim substance of religion drove war. If it did we would see this homogenously on a global scale.

    Indeed the Yugoslav wars were ethnic wars also. Croats were Catholics, Bosnians were Muslim and Serbs were Orthodox. Yet nobody killed eachother due to tenets of their respective faiths.


  • Options
    #126
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    bitter wrote: »
    Are not most catholics planters as well, a lot came over with the Norman invasion and took land.

    Yes they are except only some northern ones.. My mum
    Is one but they are all gallowglass who came before us so technically they are totally different to us.. There was also some Catholics who cane over in the ulster plantation but again they highlanders not lowlanders so they spoke galeic and didn't speak English so again they were totally different...just so you know back then Scotland was split up into two types of groups lowlanders and highlanders.. Highlanders spoke Scottish and had there own clans and were catholic ( that is why the hebrides is still catholic), the lowlanders spoke English and were mostly of English descent, they were Presbyterian aswell.. They were the ones who came here
    mainly from crap land and religious persecutions.. But personally I believe it was for better
    land... Here is a link from wikipedia who split it up... It is easy compared to the west part of
    Ireland ie the Irish speaking part.. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Lowlands

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


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


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I believe it was on ethnic lines. Or ethno-religious lines rather than because of any tenet. I don't specifically remember anyone killing each other because of a lack of belief in transubstantiation.

    "Catholic" would be synonymous with the ethnic Irish community
    "Protestant" would be synonymous with the Anglo / Ulster Scots community
    in respect to Northern Ireland.

    Hence why you have Protestants on both sides of the fence people such as Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmet and proponents of unionism. Seems more logical to me than to claim substance of religion drove war. If it did we would see this homogenously on a global scale.

    Indeed the Yugoslav wars were ethnic wars also. Croats were Catholics, Bosnians were Muslim and Serbs were Orthodox. Yet nobody killed
    due to tenets of their respective faiths.

    Eh.. No I think it was done on political lines.. They wouldn't care what ethnic group you are it's the political group..


  • Options
    #128
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    bitter wrote: »
    Are not most catholics planters as well, a lot came over with the Norman invasion and took land.
    Those who came over assimilated into Irish society, the unionists didn't. For God's sake, some of you orangies even claim to be the lost tribe of Israel !!!!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism


  • Options
    #129
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Those who came over assimilated into Irish society, the unionists didn't. For God's sake, some of you orangies even claim to be the lost tribe of Israel !!!!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism

    Maybe they were the cute ones - they still grabbed the land but then assimilated into Irish society. Typical underhand British/Norman trick. :D


  • Options
    #130
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I believe it was on ethnic lines. Or ethno-religious lines rather than because of any tenet. I don't specifically remember anyone killing each other because of a lack of belief in transubstantiation.

    "Catholic" would be synonymous with the ethnic Irish community
    "Protestant" would be synonymous with the Anglo / Ulster Scots community
    in respect to Northern Ireland.

    Hence why you have Protestants on both sides of the fence people such as Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmet and proponents of unionism. Seems more logical to me than to claim substance of religion drove war. If it did we would see this homogenously on a global scale.

    Indeed the Yugoslav wars were ethnic wars also. Croats were Catholics, Bosnians were Muslim and Serbs were Orthodox. Yet nobody killed eachother due to tenets of their respective faiths.
    So how come that thousands of Catholic men who had served in the British army in WW1 were driven from work and burnt out of their homes just the same as any other Catholic ? Or when putting a job advert they didn't advertise it as say " RC with a proven record to Britain need apply " but just plain old " NO RC's need apply " ?


  • Options
    #131
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    owenc wrote: »
    Yes they are except only some northern ones.. My mum
    Is one but they are all gallowglass who came before us so technically they are totally different to us.. There was also some Catholics who cane over in the ulster plantation but again they highlanders not lowlanders so they spoke galeic and didn't speak English so again they were totally different...just so you know back then Scotland was split up into two types of groups lowlanders and highlanders.. Highlanders spoke Scottish and had there own clans and were catholic ( that is why the hebrides is still catholic), the lowlanders spoke English and were mostly of English descent, they were Presbyterian aswell.. They were the ones who came here
    mainly from crap land and religious persecutions.. But personally I believe it was for better
    land... Here is a link from wikipedia who split it up... It is easy compared to the west part of
    Ireland ie the Irish speaking part.. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Lowlands

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gàidhealtachd
    Aren't you also members of the lost tribe of Israel as well ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    So how come that thousands of Catholic men who had served in the British army in WW1 were driven from work and burnt out of their homes just the same as any other Catholic ? Or when putting a job advert they didn't advertise it as say " RC with a proven record to Britain need apply " but just plain old " NO RC's need apply " ?
    the same happened to the poor sods when coming back from the war,in ireland as well,


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


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Those who came over assimilated into Irish society, the unionists didn't.


    Yes, you make an important point - and the Norman numbers were far fewer also. The Normans came in and within a generation had married into the major Irish families - they also adopted the Irish language, Brehon Law system, and were important patrons of the Irish bards.

    In fact they assimilated so much that the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1366 tried to separate them out from the native Irish - but failed, their integration into Irish society and culture was too strong. By the time of the Tudors they were indistinguishable from the native Irish - as Henry VIII was informed in dispatches from his envoys in Ireland.


  • Options
    #134
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Those who came over assimilated into Irish society, the unionists didn't. For God's sake, some of you orangies even claim to be the lost tribe of Israel !!!!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism

    WTF is with this nonsense attitude from down south that all planters are not in the orange order something like 10 percent of Protestants are in it.. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #135
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    owenc wrote: »
    WTF is with this nonsense attitude from down south that all planters are not in the orange order something like 10 percent of Protestants are in it.. :rolleyes:
    orangie = unionist.

    Simples.


  • Options
    #136
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    mike65 wrote: »
    Well the country would have fewer corrupt gombeens.

    Really? THe fine honourable MP's of Grattan's parlimaent were not squeeky clean and they were Protestants. Selling votes for cash I remember. Didn't Ian Paisley Junior getting too pally with a developer at the Giant's Causeway. Or what about the mother superior of them all Iris Robinson?

    Corruption in Ireland has nothing to do with one's religion. Its rather lazy to suggest this.


  • Options
    #137
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    WindSock wrote: »
    I'm trying to see what good the Catholic church has done for the Irish. I know that they did do a great job in educating, feeding (sort of) and nursing us. Apart from that, I think we have been very oppressed by them (certainly from a Womans point of view, but thats a whole other debate, for this thread I'm talking in general national terms) The English oppressed us for centuries, I know their primary motivation was land, but they wanted to convert us too.

    When British rule ceased I think the church stepped in to fill that power/oppression gap for much of the 20th C and even before that.

    I was just wondering what Ireland would have been like if we didn't have the Catholic Church to answer to? Would we have suffered as much by the hands of the English if we converted to their religion more willingly? And how would it affect us today?

    I am sure that you are not suggesting that the Catholic Church simply just took over in 1921, because to suggest such is inaccurate and incredibly stupid. The Church gained influence long before, what fine example would be how Parnell curried favour with the Church during the Land League Days. Or even the fall of Parnell, when Catholics got fierce fexed over the so called adultery - Imagine, this tiny thing brought him down.I believe some of our MPs in Westminister were Bishops. Certain Bishs from various regions had too much to say long before McQuaid. The Protestants knew this and noted why they were oppossed to separation. Sadly they brought religious freedom as an excuse instead of not wanting to loose their power despite being a minority; shame then its was all Protestant land for a protestant people with them in Ulster.

    If people had the courage to ignore the Church then, maybe the church would not have been able to monopolise the Irish people. They sadly did take breath taking arrogance when making non religious judgment from the pulprit. If only people did not pass the money box around..... The people allowed the Church to run riot, it seemed

    If the majority converted? Probably be still wars over land but may not have been to the same extent. The Presbytarians got their equal does of presecution during the Penal Laws. Funny, the Irish always neglect to consider that Rome never cared about Ireland and Protestantism invasion over Ireland. Wasn't it a English Pope (Adrian) who gave the thumbs up to henry? Funny, there was me thinking St Columbanas, Colmkille, Aidan etc did so much to rebut the notion that Ireland was a thick and ignorant country.

    You also forgot, their contribution to the GAA. Some of the finest trainers / managers were priests or Brothers.


  • Options
    #138
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    orangie = unionist.

    Simples.

    Eh no orangie = Bitter bigot. :mad: End of.


  • Options
    #139
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    owenc wrote: »
    Eh no orangie = Bitter bigot. :mad: End of.

    ah, the Catholics - hiberian order- were no angels either.

    on a political front, i wonder how the alliance party will do in the future. i know some are unionist, but they are no appealing than DUP and UUP and not every nationalist like sinn fein (assuming there is no credibile SDLP candidate around)


  • Options
    #140
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    So how come that thousands of Catholic men who had served in the British army in WW1 were driven from work and burnt out of their homes just the same as any other Catholic ? Or when putting a job advert they didn't advertise it as say " RC with a proven record to Britain need apply " but just plain old " NO RC's need apply " ?

    This is fine, but one needs to prove that they are actually discriminating on the basis of religion, or are they actually just lumping ethnic Irish people into Catholic and discriminating at that level.


  • Options
    #141
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    ah, the Catholics - hiberian order- were no angels either.

    on a political front, i wonder how the alliance party will do in the future. i know some are unionist, but they are no appealing than DUP and UUP and not every nationalist like sinn fein (assuming there is no credibile SDLP candidate around)

    You think i'm from a catholic background! :eek: Oh and i know that fine well, they are just awful.... Anyway the alliance party are a unionist party, they would probably be next in line that i would vote for after the uup, i think that less people aren't voting for them because they don't really have any policies they need to bring in some sort of policy... But i can see them growing, what is interesting is that the introduction of the TUV means that there is yet another unionist party available, they have seen massive rises in my consistency they have risen almost 10% in one year!? That is massive i think that this party is going to rise. People are also saying that nationalists are rising and unionists are falling but that ain't the case, in my constituency and north antrim sien fien have fallen (so have the dup) but the uup has risen and the alliance aswell as the tuv but, the sdlp has dropped as-well that means that each of the nationalist parties have fallen here.. we shall see what comes next election if the same thing happens then i'll come to conclusions... hmmm. Anyway back Ot that has nothing to do with this lol.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Stick to history please, no current politics.


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


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Those who came over assimilated into Irish society, the unionists didn't. For God's sake, some of you orangies even claim to be the lost tribe of Israel !!!!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism


    Did they really ?

    And there were systems of landholdings by tenancy that crossed generations with protestant & catholic branches of the same family.

    Pre- penal laws Ireland was not a democracy . So political sanctions may not nesscessarily have been felt -economic would have been.

    The Lords may have assimilated with the Irish Lords for strategic puroposes but did they really intermarry ?


  • Options
    #144
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »

    Pre- penal laws Ireland was not a democracy . So political sanctions may not nesscessarily have been felt -economic would have been.

    The Lords may have assimilated with the Irish Lords for strategic puroposes but did they really intermarry ?

    Intermarriage and assimilating into Irish customs was part of the Norman presence in Ireland from the get go. See my post number 133 above -

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71312198&postcount=133

    There is a lot of evidence for this including the strict wording in the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1366 which sought to forbid the frequent intermarrying but ultimately failed: quote from the Statutes: "also it is ordained and established that no alliance by marriage, fostering of children, concubinage or amour or in any other manner be henceforth made between the English and Irish on the one side or other".

    But even before that the first Parliament held in Dublin in 1297 addressed the issue of the "degenerate" English who had not only intermarried but dressed in the Irish manner and shaved their heads like the Irish. I think we had this discussion before [?] but I can't find the tread.


  • Options
    #145
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Yes and you called me a croppy :D

    Pre penal laws only 3 or 4% of the population qualified for the vote.

    I also had a shot at working out Irish Royalty/nobility and the surrender and regrant issue had its complications.


  • Options
    #146
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Yes and you called me a croppy :D

    A 'glib' croppy if I remember correctly - :)
    CDfm wrote: »
    Pre penal laws only 3 or 4% of the population qualified for the vote.

    The Penal Laws - like the Plantation laws - were as much about economics as politics or allegiance. In that sense the average non voting Catholic was seriously impacted. After Kinsale and the Treaty of Mellifont Catholic land was forfeited to the Crown. So as well as the larger lordships average Catholic farmers in Ulster were dispossessed and their land then sold on to the planters and all that that entailed. Hamilton and Montgomery were the Crown agents who sold/leased the land on to the new settlers.


  • Options
    #147
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    That's an interesting point Marchdub, should the penal laws be more accurately compared to land enclosures and the laws that went along with it?


  • Options
    #148
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    brianthebard wrote: »
    That's an interesting point Marchdub, should the penal laws be more accurately compared to land enclosures and the laws that went along with it?

    Funny you should say that because I have been researching the Pilgrimage of Grace and the dissolution of the monasteries and land enclosures in England in Tudor times and had the same thought. The impact on the average person was devastating - so I would say yes, it is a valid comparison.


  • Options
    #149
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    how did it occur.

    like my mob continued living in the same area and they had a protestant relative as landlord as far as I know.

    i havent delved too much into it ( american relative phobia) but there is one grave from 1777 in wexford that was a catholic family grave

    i am left with conflicting ideas about what actually happened


  • Options
    #150
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    how did it occur.

    like my mob continued living in the same area and they had a protestant relative as landlord as far as I know.

    i havent delved too much into it ( american relative phobia) but there is one grave from 1777 in wexford that was a catholic family grave

    i am left with conflicting ideas about what actually happened


    Big question - how did it all happen? Too much for here but here's an attempt at a shortish reply -

    We are actually talking about separate events here on the thread with different impacts: The plantation of Ulster and the Penal Laws. Ulster was a ‘successful’ plantation and differed from the experiences in the rest of Ireland because of the lessons that the English learned from previous attempts at plantation. The Earl of Essex – under a lucrative contract from Elizabeth I and with the support of the Lord Deputy - had actually attempted to plant Ulster after the lands of Shane O’Neill were seized by the crown in 1569 - but this was unsuccessful. There was too much opposition by the strong forces of Ui Neill and the other Ulster chieftains. Essex had hoped to make a lot of money from this and had in fact mortgaged his own property in England to further finance his expedition. Bad investment as it turned out.

    There were also less than successful attempts to ‘plant’ other parts of Ireland during the Tudor period. But these resulted in just a patchwork of success so lessons had been learned. Too many native Irish made life difficult for the new planters so more were not willing to come. The Offaly and Laois area was particularly bad for the newcomers with constant attacks coming from the dispossessed Irish – Munster was bad for them also but still some English did successfully stay.

    So in Ulster when the Ui Neill and Ui Donnell were defeated in the early 1600s another approach was deemed to be necessary to guarantee real success there. The Ulster Plantation was laid out in very specific terms - this time the settlers were directed to build fortified towns known as Plantation Towns with specific details of how to build strong stone fortified homes . In 1609 the English authorities mapped out 4 million acres of land and began distributing it out in 1610. Also the terms given to the settlers were generous who were mostly landless families living in poverty in Scotland and northern England.

    The Penal Laws – from the late seventeenth century and early eighteenth century - essentially removed all Catholic landlords throughout Ireland from ownership of the land. They could keep their land if they changed religion to Church of Ireland - and some did. But the cultural and economic aspect of the Penal Laws for the average tenant should not be discounted IMO – there was little cohesive or sympathetic relationship between tenant and landlord from that time. The Famine highlighted this vacuum. For the most part however, outside of the Ulster region the locals stayed on the land as labouring tenants – without lease security or rent control until the Land League and Land War of the late nineteenth century gave them lease, fair rents and ownership rights.

    Not forgetting of course Olivier Cromwell – who paid off his own army in the mid 1600s with acres of seized Irish land.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »

    Not forgetting of course Olivier Cromwell – who paid off his own army in the mid 1600s with acres of seized Irish land.

    He didnt like my bunch at all in Wexford.

    On my maternal side my mother has an instilled hatred of Richard Boyle 1st Earl of Cork.

    It was really very relentless.


Advertisement