Why was Nelson's Pillar Destroyed?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes they were QUB, QUC and QUG. I'm not sure about the education for lower class Catholics aspect though. If that was her intention then she failed because it wasn't until the NUI was set up that nationalists believed the Catholics had a university to represent them.

In order to get them approved by parliament, the anti reformists had to be appeased so it was ruled that no there would be no Catholic theology taught, so they effectively became secular colleges.

The Primate of Ireland wasn't happy about this and the Pope decreed them "Godless" colleges and Catholics were forbidden from attending them.

There is plenty on this in the UCC archives.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In order to get them approved by parliament, the anti reformists had to be appeased so it was ruled that no there would be no Catholic theology taught, so they effectively became secular colleges.

The Primate of Ireland wasn't happy about this and the Pope decreed them "Godless" colleges and Catholics were forbidden from attending them.

There is plenty on this in the UCC archives.

Given the era -that was a fairly predictable reaction by the catholic church and population.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Queen Victoria fought toi get three colleges built in Ireland, Cork, Galway and Belfast. She wanted to improve the education of the less wealthy (and by that Catholics) who were effectively prevented from going to Trinity.

She is effectively UCC's founder.

Victoria was no bleeding heart liberal as regards Ireland. Her vision was always limited to what would bolster the monarchy - anywhere.

Robert Peel was the man behind the Queen's Colleges and he "sold" the idea - but not quite - to Victoria by naming them for her and explaining why they were necessary. Peel wrote to a correspondent that he hoped to wean wealthy Catholics away from O'Connell's repeal movement by establishing this education system. His bill for the Queen's Colleges passed in 1845.

Victoria remained fairly skeptical about the value of Catholic education in Ireland though and even in 1873 wrote in a letter to her daughter that the University Bill of that year which failed to establish funding for Catholic education was the undoing of Gladstone, whom she hated. She wrote in sarcastic and almost gleeful tones "Good Mr G is not judicious and this "Mission" to redeem Ireland and which has signally failed - has been the cause of his defeat". Victoria favoured Disraeli who had beaten Gladstone in this bill.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In order to get them approved by parliament, the anti reformists had to be appeased so it was ruled that no there would be no Catholic theology taught, so they effectively became secular colleges.

The Primate of Ireland wasn't happy about this and the Pope decreed them "Godless" colleges and Catholics were forbidden from attending them.

There is plenty on this in the UCC archives.

Well in that case it is incorrect to state that she effectively founded universities for the less wealthy and/or Catholics.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

Well in that case it is incorrect to state that she effectively founded universities for the less wealthy and/or Catholics.

that is understandable and given the job Wellington did on her predessor on emancipation is believeable.

It makes sense.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

Well in that case it is incorrect to state that she effectively founded universities for the less wealthy and/or Catholics.

Why?

The intention was to advance education in Ireland, basically for people who could not, for one reason or another, attend Trinity. The colleges were to be non-denominational so anyone could go.

it wasn't her fault Pope Pius ****ed it up.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Victoria was no bleeding heart liberal as regards Ireland. Her vision was always limited to what would bolster the monarchy - anywhere.

Robert Peel was the man behind the Queen's Colleges and he "sold" the idea - but not quite - to Victoria by naming them for her and explaining why they were necessary. Peel wrote to a correspondent that he hoped to wean wealthy Catholics away from O'Connell's repeal movement by establishing this education system. His bill for the Queen's Colleges passed in 1845.

Victoria remained fairly skeptical about the value of Catholic education in Ireland though and even in 1873 wrote in a letter to her daughter that the University Bill of that year which failed to establish funding for Catholic education was the undoing of Gladstone, whom she hated. She wrote in sarcastic and almost gleeful tones "Good Mr G is not judicious and this "Mission" to redeem Ireland and which has signally failed - has been the cause of his defeat". Victoria favoured Disraeli who had beaten Gladstone in this bill.

your summation surprises me. nothing I have read has made me think that Victoria would have wanted anything but education for all. She may have disliked Gladstone, but that is a different matter, surely?

I would have thought that the act to replace the colleges she personally had a hand in would have been against her wishes anyway.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Primate of Ireland wasn't happy about this and the Pope decreed them "Godless" colleges and Catholics were forbidden from attending them.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The colleges were to be non-denominational so anyone could go.

it wasn't her fault Pope Pius ****ed it up.

Let's get our quotes right here. It wasn't the Pope who made the remark that the Colleges were "Godless" it was O'Connell and Archbishop McHale and they borrowed it originally from Sir Robert Inglis regarding University College London, a secular college.

Inglis had strong Anglican views.

Within the context of the time it was natural for the Catholic Church to want to establish Catholic Colleges in Ireland. All religions wanted these - it was the denial of this that led to widespread discontent and the withholding of funds for a Catholic University left a bitterness. Nevertheless the Catholic Church did establish its own University in 1850 - and without British Government support.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why?

The intention was to advance education in Ireland, basically for people who could not, for one reason or another, attend Trinity. The colleges were to be non-denominational so anyone could go.

it wasn't her fault Pope Pius ****ed it up.

Fred you are not that type of guy who doesnt understand the priveleged position enjoyed by the Church of Ireland especially prior to its disestablishment in 1869.

It wasnt Pope Pius that put the rules of goverance for the colleges in place or restricted the teaching of catholic theology in the same way that Church of Ireland Theology was taught Freely in colleges.

It also ignores the constitutional position of Queen Victoria as Head of the Church of England and the political reality that arose with that.

Thats not the same as saying all religions were being treated equally or that all people would be treated equally.

I am not nesscessarily saying that the Church leadership in Ireland was right but I can understand their skepticism.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

your summation surprises me. nothing I have read has made me think that Victoria would have wanted anything but education for all. She may have disliked Gladstone, but that is a different matter, surely?

I would have thought that the act to replace the colleges she personally had a hand in would have been against her wishes anyway.

If Peel - and Victoria - wanted to "please" the Irish base they would have established Catholic Universities, however this was not granted. The idea for what eventually became the Queens Colleges came originally from a select committee formed in 1835 for Foundation Schools and Education in Ireland. Victoria wasn't even on the throne then. In the face of Catholic Emancipation they were aware that there would be British government resistance against too much Catholic power in Ireland and suggested inter-denominational schools.

This of course all ran counter to requests from the Catholic Church for funding for a Catholic University. Peel took up the select committee's idea in 1845 - but by then the idea of any theological teaching had been put aside - and called them Queens Colleges. And trouble ensued.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

Fred you are not that type of guy who doesnt understand the priveleged position enjoyed by the Church of Ireland especially prior to its disestablishment in 1869.

It wasnt Pope Pius that put the rules of goverance for the colleges in place or restricted the teaching of catholic theology in the same way that Church of Ireland Theology was taught Freely in colleges.

It also ignores the constitutional position of Queen Victoria as Head of the Church of England and the political reality that arose with that.

Thats not the same as saying all religions were being treated equally or that all people would be treated equally.

I am not nesscessarily saying that the Church leadership in Ireland was right but I can understand their skepticism.

The Churches wanted to control education. that wasn't/isn't restricted to any denomination. Educated people ask questions and are less likely to take the word of a preacher so if you can control the education you can control the questions.

The idea of the Queens Colleges was to encourage a broader education and to act as an alternative to Trinity. The protestants (for want of a better term) were uncomfortable with the possibility of Catholic theology being taught, so it was decided to ban all teaching of theology (not a bad move some would say).

Pope Pius was involved somewhere along the line because i believe Paul Cullen brought it to his attention, who was himself very very anti.

Thomas Davis by the way heavily supported the colleges, but was criticised for this by O'Connell.

I don't think any side is whiter than white, but, at the end of the day, the colleges were practically founded by Queen Victoria, so it is probably appropriate that her statue is there.

The one in Dun Laoghaire though...............

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

If Peel - and Victoria - wanted to "please" the Irish base they would have established Catholic Universities, however this was not granted. The idea for what eventually became the Queens Colleges came originally from a select committee formed in 1835 for Foundation Schools and Education in Ireland. Victoria wasn't even on the throne then. In the face of Catholic Emancipation they were aware that there would be British government resistance against too much Catholic power in Ireland and suggested inter-denominational schools.

This of course all ran counter to requests from the Catholic Church for funding for a Catholic University. Peel took up the select committee's idea in 1845 - but by then the idea of any theological teaching had been put aside - and called them Queens Colleges. And trouble ensued.

would the term run before you can walk, or one step at a time not apply?

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Churches wanted to control education. that wasn't/isn't restricted to any denomination. Educated people ask questions and are less likely to take the word of a preacher so if you can control the education you can control the questions.


The idea of the Queens Colleges was to encourage a broader education and to act as an alternative to Trinity. The protestants (for want of a better term) were uncomfortable with the possibility of Catholic theology being taught, so it was decided to ban all teaching of theology (not a bad move some would say).

When you look at an issue like this on the basis of modern day values you can attach a significance to values the protagonists didn't have.

You could equally say they wanted to establish a protestant middle class by giving them every advantage.

Banning catholic theology from issues such as philosophy and morals would be a bit of a croc for catholics learning medical ethics.

Pope Pius was involved somewhere along the line because i believe Paul Cullen brought it to his attention, who was himself very very anti.

But he defered to the Primate of Ireland and didnt poke his nose in.

Thomas Davis by the way heavily supported the colleges, but was criticised for this by O'Connell.

He was a Protestant and Trinity graduate.

I don't think any side is whiter than white, but, at the end of the day, the colleges were practically founded by Queen Victoria, so it is probably appropriate that her statue is there.

The one in Dun Laoghaire though...............

I dont object to her statue and wouldnt object to it being called Queens University either.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

would the term run before you can walk, or one step at a time not apply?

It was a highly charged political situation and who would blame anyone for having a level of distrust.

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

Not sure how you quantify "a lot" - as I said on another thread Patrick Bronte had little love for things Irish. He left Ireland and never literally looked back. I have no problem with that - it was his life to live, but I wouldn't quote him as typical or representative.

patric bronte as the C of E priest of the church in haworth would have had very little chance of going back to ireland,you just couldent jump on a plane in the 19th century,he had to stay in haworth untill his death,but what he did was to take the young irish priests under his wing untill places could be found for them,if you read some of charlottes books,you will find in her stories that most of the church of englands priests are irish,she herself married a irishman, and went to dublin to meet his family,she even it is said when first leaving haworth for the first time ,had a irish accent,

CDfm

I dont think that Patrick Bronte was a bad guy -he was of his era.

It cant have been a nice thing to bury 3 out 0f 4 of your kids who died of TB. I think I read somewhere that he liked to start the morning firing his pistols out the window to keep them in working order.

So moving to the UK for a better life was probably for better expectations for his kids to including living longer.

I just wonder was he bitter that that didnt happen.

Were any of the daughters Irish born???

getz

CDfm wrote: »

I dont think that Patrick Bronte was a bad guy -he was of his era.

It cant have been a nice thing to bury 3 out 0f 4 of your kids who died of TB. I think I read somewhere that he liked to start the morning firing his pistols out the window to keep them in working order.

So moving to the UK for a better life was probably for better expectations for his kids to including living longer.

I just wonder was he bitter that that didnt happen.

Were any of the daughters Irish born???

he married a cornish girl near bradford, moved with her to haworth with the young children,life expectancy was to 27 years there and 40% of the children died before reaching the age of 7 years.[remember this was victorian england] his wife died soon after leaving him to bring up and educate them himself,as well as his full time calling,he carried a cap and ball pistol ,because it was still a very dangerous time,ludsites were still around and this was in weaving country,every morning he would fire off his pistol over the church yard at the church tower because gunpowder soon got wet,he even got emily to do it,if you go to howarth today you can see all the indents in the church tower,but my real reason for saying he was a great irishman is because the brontes are regarded as the greatest english language family of all time.every country that teaches english in the schools and universities use bronte books to teach,last sunday hawoth was packed out with japanese tourists and a lot of other nationals,all because of the rev patrick brontys legacy

CDfm

getz wrote: »

h,ludsites were still around and this was in weaving country,every morning he would fire off his pistol over the church yard at the church tower because gunpowder soon got wet,he even got emily to do it,if you go to howarth today you can see all the indents in the church tower,

So the brontes fans blew up Nelsons Column on a family day out and the army finished the job but the powder was wet

I always think the Irish Armys demolition gets a bad rap.

The IRAs explosion left a dangerous structure destroying the top and comsidering the thing was 135 feet tall the bottom 70 or 80 feet of it was always going to be a dangerous demolition job as the structure would be unstable.

A taxi was destroyed and it was only luck the driver wasn't. It escapes some people that it was a mere 8 years later that you had the Dublin bombing. I wonder where that idea came from.

getz

remember irish attitude had change a lot from the 1850s,the attempt to wipe out their british history only started after the 1940s

UltimateMale

getz wrote: »

there was a lot of hero worship for nelson in ireland at that time,irishman the rev patrick bronte [father of charlotte,emily, and anne,] changed his name from brunty to take one of nelsons titles duke of bronte.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In order to get them approved by parliament, the anti reformists had to be appeased so it was ruled that no there would be no Catholic theology taught, so they effectively became secular colleges.

The Primate of Ireland wasn't happy about this and the Pope decreed them "Godless" colleges and Catholics were forbidden from attending them.

There is plenty on this in the UCC archives.

Interesting, whenever Fred Fratton posts, getz is never far away ?

Anyway, the head of the statue actually survived intact and can be seen in the Pearse St Liberary in Dublin. Kiss me Hardy, kiss me

CDfm

UltimateMale wrote: »

Anyway, the head of the statue actually survived intact and can be seen in the Pearse St Liberary in Dublin. Kiss me Hardy, kiss me

It may yet rival the Blarney Stone

getz

UltimateMale wrote: »

Interesting, whenever Fred Fratton posts, getz is never far away ?

Anyway, the head of the statue actually survived intact and can be seen in the Pearse St Liberary in Dublin. Kiss me Hardy, kiss me

do you only post on these posters, to put forward your ant-brit rants or havent you anything constructive to say ?sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

brianthebard

getz wrote: »

do you only post on these posters, to put forward your ant-brit rants or havent you anything constructive to say ?sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

If you have a problem with a post report it don't respond. /Mod.

CDfm - I lol'd.

MarchDub

getz wrote: »

remember irish attitude had change a lot from the 1850s,the attempt to wipe out their british history only started after the 1940s

Don't know what "British history" you might mean.

From the time of the initial invasion there was an assertion of privilege by a succession of English authors - beginning with Giraldus Cambrensis and his attacks on Irish society. In trying to counter this unbalanced history - written to defend the invasion and the continued presence of the English here - there were also attempts by Irish authors to give the Irish view of things. This was a constant struggle.

The four Masters and Geoffrey Keating - writing from the early 1600s - state categorically that they are writing to counteract the "lies" being told about Irish society by Elizabethan authors. Keating states that he writes "lest so honourable a land as Eire, and kindreds so noble as those who inhabit it, should pass away without mention or report of them".

The fear was that Irish history was falling into the hands of the invader - and was being slanted to support the view of the conqueror. So, what's new?

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

CDfm - I lol'd.

Finally we have agreement on where the Casement Diaries might be displayed without offending anyone .

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Don't know what "British history" you might mean.

And the Romans did the same to the Visigoths.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

It cant have been a nice thing to bury 3 out 0f 4 of your kids who died of TB.

All his children died before he did.

CDfm wrote: »

So moving to the UK for a better life was probably for better expectations for his kids to including living longer.

I just wonder was he bitter that that didnt happen.

Were any of the daughters Irish born???

Patrick Bronte had distanced himself from his own family while still in Ireland. He was one of 10 children. He left them at 16 and became a tutor elsewhere in county Down. Some years later he got a chance to go to over to Cambridge and become a clergyman and took it- he was in the mid 20s by then.

He did not single handedly educate his own children. The Bronte children were sent to school for a while, both in England and later in Belgium - in fact Jane Eyre's early experiences are based partly on this not too good memory of life in an English clergy run school. Both Elizabeth and Maria Bronte died as a result of catching "fever" at the school. There are surviving horrific descriptions of life at the school including cruelty and near starvation conditions. But it was an inexpensive education. When later on they were at all at home it was the surviving eldest, Charlotte, who gave the younger ones lessons. The father paid a tutor to come and teach them drawing. Patrick Bronte believed that drawing and art were careers worth following and hoped that his son Branwell could become a great artist. Didn’t happen. Branwell had a serious drug addiction and died at 31.

Charlotte’s experiences in the Belgium school were more interesting - in fact far too interesting for Elizabeth Gaskell to include in her biography for Victorian readers. Charlotte, then in her twenties, was there to learn French but developed "a relationship" with her male instructor. Her sister Emily was there also.

Many, many Irish born authors are included on the English language curriculum in Universities around the world. James Joyce is probably the most consistent in this. Certainly on US campuses.

getz

brianthebard wrote: »

If you have a problem with a post report it don't respond. /Mod.

CDfm - I lol'd.

both fred and myself have a lot in common,both of us were born in england and partly educated in the irish republic,i was brought up in a irish working class area of manchester he most likely in a posh area of southern england,both of us have a love of ireland and the irish,and both of us spend a lot of are time in the republic,i live nearer to ireland than i do to fred,but i believe we are in the position to be able to give a more balanced view than many, i have yet to meet a irishman who dident like me or i dident like,mind you i have a few english men who i couldent stand,if i could afford to i would be quite happy to live in ireland,just as many irish do in england ,nothing i ever post is anti-irish ,by the way it was the IRA who destroyed the column,not the irish people[unless you think the IRA area the ones who run ireland,not the goverment]

Wolfe Tone

It wasn't the IRA. The men acted independently and were former RA members. Bit pedantic but an important point I believe.

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

All his children died before he did.



Patrick Bronte had distanced himself from his own family while still in Ireland. He was one of 10 children. He left them at 16 and became a tutor elsewhere in county Down. Some years later he got a chance to go to over to Cambridge and become a clergyman and took it- he was in the mid 20s by then.

He did not single handedly educate his own children. The Bronte children were sent to school for a while, both in England and later in Belgium - in fact Jane Eyre's early experiences are based partly on this not too good memory of life in an English clergy run school. Both Elizabeth and Maria Bronte died as a result of catching "fever" at the school. There are surviving horrific descriptions of life at the school including cruelty and near starvation conditions. But it was an inexpensive education. When later on they were at all at home it was the surviving eldest, Charlotte, who gave the younger ones lessons. The father paid a tutor to come and teach them drawing. Patrick Bronte believed that drawing and art were careers worth following and hoped that his son Branwell could become a great artist. Didn’t happen. Branwell had a serious drug addiction and died at 31.

Charlotte’s experiences in the Belgium school were more interesting - in fact far too interesting for Elizabeth Gaskell to include in her biography for Victorian readers. Charlotte, then in her twenties, was there to learn French but developed "a relationship" with her male instructor. Her sister Emily was there also.

Many, many Irish born authors are included on the English language curriculum in Universities around the world. James Joyce is probably the most consistent in this. Certainly on US campuses.

anne and charlotte opened a school in haworth[next to the parsonage]to teach the poor,branwell was a good painter,but was unstable in that he was always drunk and took drugs ,he spent most of his time in the black bull pub[as seen on most haunted] and died insane ,i have booked a room B and B in december,the pub owners will not live in it themselves, they tell me that the most common ghosts are two mischievous little girls,who will go away if you tell them,the latest paranormal research ,last week ,only picked up floating orbs.wish me luck

mcmickey

getz wrote: »

both fred and myself have a lot in common,both of us were born in england and partly educated in the irish republic,i was brought up in a irish working class area of manchester he most likely in a posh area of southern england,both of us have a love of ireland and the irish,and both of us spend a lot of are time in the republic,i live nearer to ireland than i do to fred,but i believe we are in the position to be able to give a more balanced view than many, i have yet to meet a irishman who dident like me or i dident like,mind you i have a few english men who i couldent stand,if i could afford to i would be quite happy to live in ireland,just as many irish do in england ,nothing i ever post is anti-irish ,by the way it was the IRA who destroyed the column,not the irish people[unless you think the IRA area the ones who run ireland,not the goverment]

Appearently it was not the first time Dubliners wanted to get rid of it. In 1876 the Corporation took up the question of removal, but discovered it did not have the power to remove it. They tried again in 1891, causing much debate in the city and in Parliament, but due to costs did not go ahead.

( BTW, yourself and Fred seem to be a mirror image of one another. )