A Protestant Ireland

Qualitymark

I don't know that the Protestant-Catholic thing was actually as central as it appears from how much people shouted about it. I think the Plantations were a straight land grab, and the excuse that the natives were Papists was simply self-serving self-justification.
As for the Catholic Church and Irish sexuality, I think that this happened in two stages. First, under the Penal Laws priests couldn't be educated in Ireland; they were educated mainly in France. In the 18th century France fell under a craze for Jansenism, a sado-masochistic version of Catholicism that was deeply anti-sexual, and the Irish priests who trained there were taught this attitude.
When the priests were expelled from France during the Revolution, during the successive removal of various of the Penal Laws, Maynooth College was set up as a seminary in Kildare. It was financially backed by members of the Ascendancy with a stake in Catholic emancipation.
Back in the day (in the 16th century) the Bible had been translated into Irish by Church of England missionaries avid for the souls of gaelgóirí.
In the 19th century - and especially after the Famine, which disproportionally killed and sent into emigration Irish-speakers from the West - the Catholic Church, allied with ambitious politicians such as Daniel O'Connell, backed the anti-Gaeilge National School system, which sought to replace Irish with fluency in English, so that a) the United Kingdom would be a monolingual and monocultural nation, and b) the millions forced to emigrate to the Anglophone country on our right and the Anglophone country on our left would have a better chance of survival.
In the late 19th and early 20th century there was a sweep back towards a desire for a revival of Irish and a bilingual country by both young Protestants and young Catholics; the Gaelic League became a national craze, with numbers growing stratospherically and Irish culture generally being fostered by language classes, Aeríochta, céilithe, feiseanna 7rl. The younger Catholic priests were very much part of this; the bishops not so much.
Political desire was also growing for separation from the United Kingdom, which had seemed to many to have a selfish desire to impose tariffs and taxes on Ireland that were advantageous to British goods, and generally to regard Ireland as a good place to store soldiers and acquire cheap labour.
The cultural and linguistic enthusiasm continued through the Rising and the War of Independence, during which a lot of Irish was spoken; but the Civil War largely put an end to it.
On the foundation of the Free State, the ruling group for the first decade was mainly an ultra-Catholic, narrowly conservative, antifeminist one. These people imposed the language as a school subject; the 'direct method' that had been used, for example in St Enda's, Pearse and MacDonagh's school, where children were taught Irish and French by speaking it and through games and enjoyment, was abandoned.
Languages in school became part of the 'Murder Machine' Pearse had denounced, a grinding educational system designed to turn out obedient civil servants and workers unable to think for themselves.
That grinding school system remains to this day with the points system; as is made obvious by the current teachers' conference, the desire of government is to turn out profitable workers at the end of years of schooling, not to teach creative joy or to foster pupils' native talents and ability.

pO1Neil

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This notion of a protestant work ethic is certainly something I don't believe in, at best, it passed me by!

I don't believe it either but the Catholic church has ruined this country, They might have been à bit helpful in the 15th,16th & 17th centuries the problem is the Catholic church is still living in the 15th century.

I do understand Protestant fears. They were never against Home Rule they were against Rome Rule & rightly so. If we had a power sharing thing like we do now in the North for the islands all this mess could have been avoided & about 10,000 people might not have lost their lives with about 100,000 injured in this ugly conflict.

robp

pO1Neil wrote: »

I do understand Protestant fears. They were never against Home Rule they were against Rome Rule & rightly so.

They were against Home Rule for many more reasons that Catholicism. Such as the perception of the threat of economic decline and threat to their cultural identity.

pO1Neil wrote: »

I don't believe it either but the Catholic church has ruined this country, They might have been à bit helpful in the 15th,16th & 17th centuries the problem is the Catholic church is still living in the 15th century.

I do understand Protestant fears. They were never against Home Rule they were against Rome Rule & rightly so. If we had a power sharing thing like we do now in the North for the islands all this mess could have been avoided & about 10,000 people might not have lost their lives with about 100,000 injured in this ugly conflict.

I don't know what you are trying to say. The Catholic church was against power sharing? I don't know why you think that.

Its inconceivable to blame the Troubles or the War of Independence on Catholicism or any religion. Remember that none of the paramilitary groups involved were based on religious ideals or openly identified themselves with anyone religion. In fact some elements in some such as the Provos were verging on the anti-clerical.

catbear

robp wrote: »

Look if want to leave the CC all you need to do is stop believing in Christ and stop ticking the census box.

Are you saying that only the RCC believe in teaching of Jesus Christ? People from other traditions seem to be able to appreciate his teachings without having to kiss any bishops ring.

robp

catbear wrote: »

Are you saying that only the RCC believe in teaching of Jesus Christ? People from other traditions seem to be able to appreciate his teachings without having to kiss any bishops ring.

No but you could insert any central Catholic specific teaching and it would be true. BTW all Christian denominations that I know of have bishops. They are not specific to Catholicism.

catbear

robp wrote: »

No but you could insert any central Catholic specific teaching and it would be true. BTW all Christian denominations that I know of have bishops. They are not specific to Catholicism.

You don't know Irish methodists then. There was even a bishops war between Scots coventers and Charles I.

turnikett1

I appreciate everyone's input in this thread greatly, insightful. However I do want to ask does anyone have any books that detail the influence of the Catholic Church and/or English/British administration and what effects it's left on modern Ireland? Or even anyone's opinion...

Qualitymark

robp wrote: »

No but you could insert any central Catholic specific teaching and it would be true. BTW all Christian denominations that I know of have bishops. They are not specific to Catholicism.

Not Quakers. No bishops, no priests, no brothers, no nuns, no clergy.

walrusgumble

turnikett1 wrote: »

Mo chairde. Been reading an AMAZING book lately, it's called "The Isles", by Norman Davies. It's an expansive big book that spans the whole history of Britain and Ireland, the peoples that inhabited them and their relationship with one another. It's great because the author makes a point of being anti-Anglocentric. It spans from the dawn of humans in Britain and Ireland right up until the present day, without going into too much detail I would highly highly recommend it, it's absolutely phenomenal. My favourite history book that I've read (and I've read a lot!)

Now, I am reading about Tudor Britain and Ireland and the Protesant Reformation. The author makes a point that in Wales, the locals adopted Protestantism and as a result the Welsh language was standardized from having been translated from the Bible and also, many schools funded by the now reformed Church were set up which taught education to the common folk in both Welsh and English. So, at the cost of their religion the Welsh managed to (somewhat) save their language. You can see this today in certain areas of Wales where Welsh is very prominent as is the identity of the Welsh language.

The opposite, happened in Ireland. We got to save keep our religion, but, largely at the cost of our language. As a result of defying Protestantism, the Irish language had no standard nor a medium with which to express and perserve itself, and of course being Catholic made only matters worse with regards to the English who would continue this cultural oppression (it's argued that Wales and Scotland had a much fairer treatment as a result of adopting Protestantism). This of course wasn't the sole factor in the decline of Irish. The Famine was probably the biggest blow. However this was definitely the big trigger in the doom of Irish, only to be exasperated by other factors in the years to come.

It got me thinking - what if Ireland had adopted Protestantism en masse? Would our language be more spoken today? Would the English have treated us better? Wouldn't we have suffered less post-independence, having rid ourselves from the cruel, conservative dictatorship of the Roman Catholic Church? Would our Proestant work ethic have driven us to greater economic propserity and combatted corruption?

It also begs me to ask a different question - what would life be like if we had stayed a part of the United Kingdom? Arguably we would have better infrastructure, less corruption and wouldn't have suffered the Troubles but at the cost of much of our language and culture (I will safely assume anyways). Personally, I'm not against an equal union of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales it's just very unfortunate that it ended up being completely Anglocentric...

Thoughts, opinions, comments!

Good Pick, Norman Davies is an excellent selection

Roman Catholicism , until recently , used Latin, irrespective of the State

Few in Wales actually speak Welsh. That language, though, maybe in a more healthier postition than Irish, is almost non existent. (almost)

As for Protestants, funny enough, the greatest Champion of the Irish Language was a Protestant, Dr Doughlas Hyde

What makes you think Ireland would have separated , or attempted to separate from Britain?

Rome never batted an eyelid over Ireland,and in fact, history shows, was supportive of England putting manners on our Independent Catholic Parish

I smell an anti Catholic and Nationalist thread.


We would not want to dash your hopes and dreams, but, The Irish Parliament that stood at College Green Dublin, was always in a cloud of corruption. Seats and votes were sold. Look up what was going on during the votes to join the Union in 1801.

You also have an odd notion that Protestants were completely liberal and enlightening on many social issues, back then also. After all, why did the Prods take so long to allow Catholics the right to vote, stand for election and stand for State jobs (O'Connell) They weren't always a "great bunch of lads"

The real question that should be asked is, what if the Protestant Ascendancy (a minority) did not behave the way that they did in Ireland - would there have been such hostility towards the Union with Britain?. What if England did not introduce Penal Laws? (which also effected Presbyterians) Why did Protestants (some) feel the need to demand receiptants of soup aid to covert to Protestantism during the Famine Period?

How does any of this justify the actual treatment received by Catholics at the hands of Protestants in Ireland and mainland Britain?

Suffice to say, many people believe more than wealth and what's in their pocket

walrusgumble

turnikett1 wrote: »

I appreciate everyone's input in this thread greatly, insightful. However I do want to ask does anyone have any books that detail the influence of the Catholic Church and/or English/British administration and what effects it's left on modern Ireland? Or even anyone's opinion...

Bunreacht na hEireann, as interpreted by our Courts, (and what the Constitution really says, as oppose to pathetic amateurs who read things literally - history of natural law recognizing unenumerated rights - policy is now discredited for being vague) is a good start. Essentially, bar a few dead phrases and provisions (and recognized as such) very little contained in the document would be removed , if , the Constitution was redrafted.

dubhthach

turnikett1 wrote: »

I appreciate everyone's input in this thread greatly, insightful. However I do want to ask does anyone have any books that detail the influence of the Catholic Church and/or English/British administration and what effects it's left on modern Ireland? Or even anyone's opinion...

Well with regards to British state policy in early modern Ireland I've currently reading:

Age of Atrocity
Violence and political conflict in early modern Ireland

Very interesting in particular on the ratcheting up of "state violence" during the 16th century. You can buy it in Hodges & Figgis on sale for about 9 quid.

Four Courts Press have it on sale at €8.95, not sure about delievery cost though:
http://www.fourcourtspress.ie/product.php?intProductID=932

I've finished the first five essay's:

Early modern Ireland: a history of violence
Clodagh Tait, David Edwards & Pádraig Lenihan

The escalation of violence in sixteenth-century Ireland
David Edwards

Atrocity and history: Grey, Spenser and the slaughter at Smerwick (1580)
Vincent P. Carey

‘Slán Dé fút go hoíche’: Hugh O’Neill’s murders
Hiram Morgan

The pacification of Ulster, 1600–3
John McGurk

The essay about Smerwick is quite interesting in point of view the increasing "religious aspect" of the wars of the 16th century.

Some reviews:

Reviews

‘Makes a significant contribution to an understanding of how political, ethnic, and religious divisions were caused, emphasizing the sufferings of victims and survivors while exploring the mentalité of the perpetrators', Colm Lennon, Renaissance Quarterly (Summer 2013).

'This book covers a long time-span, from the mid sixteenth century until the late seventeenth century … this is a fascinating book with impeccable insights and scholarship, read it; use it; learn from it', Martyn Bennett (Nottingham Trent University), Scottish Historical Review (2010).

‘This new paperback edition is a very timely contribution to our understanding of the events that gave rise to another resource launched recently [the] 31 volumes of the 8,000 depositions by witnesses to the 1641 Rebellion … the papers presented in this volume provide a thought-provoking introduction the enormous potential of [interdisciplinary] research', Michael Merrigan, Ireland’s Genealogical Gazette (November 2010).

‘The editors’ introduction, “Early Modern Ireland: A History of Violence”, is particularly useful as it analyzes the roles of violence itself rather than the political consequences of violent events. Many of the contributors advance arguments that are part of important historiographical exchanges about the nature and importance of violence, particularly against noncombatants in the early modern period. These contributions mean that this collection is an important addition to scholarship on early modern Ireland and Europe more generally … the range of interpretations offered gives a particularly useful guide to the state of research in the field that will continue to be transformed over the next few years as scholars harness the research possibilities of the digital publication of the 1641 Depositions and other collections', Dianne Hall, Journal of British Studies (October 2011).

Qualitymark

turnikett1 wrote: »

I appreciate everyone's input in this thread greatly, insightful. However I do want to ask does anyone have any books that detail the influence of the Catholic Church and/or English/British administration and what effects it's left on modern Ireland? Or even anyone's opinion...

Well, the Proclamation refers to this, pledging to get rid of "differences carefully fostered by an alien government", which is to say religious and social differences.

Both Catholics and Protestants had vicious prejudices then, which have been carefully removed by a native government.

For instance, there are still to this day Protestant firms that have long-forgotten clauses in their articles saying that no Catholic may be allowed to run the company or partnership; these are a remnant of a long-forgotten and long-discarded corruption.

And the truly evil influence of the bigoted Ancient Order of Hibernians was probably most notably shown by their snatching starving children from the English socialist and feminist Dora Montefiore, who was sending them to England *to carefully vetted Catholic homes* during the Lockout. The lying swines claimed that these children were deliberately going to be corrupted (ie fed, warmed, clothed and comforted) and turned into Protestants by the godless atheist Montefiore. She was driven from the country.

There were nasty thugs on both religious sides. There was a horrid divide: even children of different sects didn't play together. The people who were trying to cross the barriers, like, for example, the intercultural Gaelic League, got stick for 'betraying' their faith, whichever faith it happened to be.

gozunda

turnikett1 wrote: »

I appreciate everyone's input in this thread greatly, insightful. However I do want to ask does anyone have any books that ?detail the influence of the Catholic Church and/or English/British administration and what effects it's left on modern Ireland Or even anyone's opinion...

Re "the influence of the Catholic Church and/or English/British administration and what effects it's left on modern Ireland"

A period that can't be ignored is the early reform of the 12th century which set the stage for am Anglicised and Romanised irish church. An interesting read that looks at the early 'reform' of the Irish church and how it variously impacted developing ideas of Irish nationhood

"Ireland and Europe in the twelfth century" by Damien Bracken & Dagmar O Riain-Raedel (Eds).

I believe a second and very relevant period is from the 1800's when rhe Roman Catholic Churchs sphere of influence evolved into a fight for power at both local and national level as it effectively reestablished itself as a dominant sphere of influence. From this point onwards the RC church sought absolute control through politics, ideology and moral mores and perhaps most significantly in the 1930's when the Irish constitution was drafted with major input by Roman Catholic hierarchy.

walrusgumble

gozunda wrote: »

I believe a second and very relevant period is from the 1800's when rhe Roman Catholic Churchs sphere of influence evolved into a fight for power at both local and national level as it effectively reestablished itself as a dominant sphere of influence. From this point onwards the RC church sought absolute control through politics, ideology and moral mores and perhaps most significantly in the 1930's when the Irish constitution was drafted with major input by Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Your knowledge on the history of Bunreacht na hEireann is blurred. As predicted,in an earlier post of mine, you appear to be one of the groups that would make a hash as to what the Constitution actually said.

You are correct to state that McQuaid, a school friend, made it his business to obtain an influential ear to De Valera. However, the Constitution is nothing like that McQuaid had sought for. The Constitution is very influenced by (a) US Constitution and (b) Weimar Constitution - even modern Day German contains provisions on the family, in similar vein as our Article 41.

The "ideology and moral mores" that you talk of ,in fact helped to LEGALISE CONDOMS / FAMILY PLANNING (though had to go through Europe too) and brought about much changes to Irish Society, that we now take for granted.

If you ever get the opportunity, get a hold of a very interesting and useful article from Gerard Hogan (now High Court Judge) that dealt with the Constitution vs the historians (the guys who go on about heavy Catholic influences) - Hogan utterly goes to town on their mistakes on the facts that they ought not to make.

The Catholic provisions in Bunreacht na hEireann, while nothing like the more secular 1922 Constitution of the Free State, are no more than an acknowledgment of the fact that Ireland was a Catholic Country. If Catholic Church was truly a the highest authority, as the Constitution did claim prior to 1974, then the important case of Quinn v Attorney General 1971 might not have gone the way that it did (albeit, little to do with the RC) Someone might waffle the RE Tilson 1955ish case, but they will ignore the fact that an agreement had been voluntarily entered into, by the parties, and one member sought to breach it. While there was always some confusion over what Natural Law is (seen to be linked with Catholicism - in this country) and it's place in Irish law ie above the law, the Irish Courts have had no difficulty during the 1980-1990 to make it clear that natural law was not to prioritize over Irish Law.

"sought" and "did" gain influence are two different things.

robp

Qualitymark wrote: »

Not Quakers. No bishops, no priests, no brothers, no nuns, no clergy.

Are Quakers Christian? Many Quakers consider themselves Christian but some do not so they can't really count here. It would not surprise me if there is a clear Christian denomination somewhere out there that has no bishops but my point that bishops are not specifically a Catholic thing stands.

Fratton Fred

robp wrote: »

Are Quakers Christian? Many Quakers consider themselves Christian but some do not so they can't really count here. It would not surprise me if there is a clear Christian denomination somewhere out there that has no bishops but my point that bishops are not specifically a Catholic thing stands.

The Presbyterian church doesn't have bishops, nor does the Methodist or Baptist church.

I would agree it isn't unique to the RC church though, as the Anglican and Orthodox churches demonstrate.

robp

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Presbyterian church doesn't have bishops, nor does the Methodist or Baptist church.

I would agree it isn't unique to the RC church though, as the Anglican and Orthodox churches demonstrate.

I think you are right about Presbyterians but some Baptists and certainly Methodists too have bishops.

catbear

robp wrote: »

I think you are right about Presbyterians but some Baptists and certainly Methodists too have bishops.

That's where you're wrong. American methodism had to have bishops as a condition under colonial government whereas Irish and British methodism didn't and still don't.

gozunda

walrusgumble wrote: »

Your knowledge on the history of Bunreacht na hEireann is blurred. As predicted,in an earlier post of mine, you appear to be one of the groups that would make a hash as to what the Constitution actually said.

For your information my knowledge of the history of Bunreacht na hEireann is informed - there are a number of very good written accounts of this and the catholic hierarchy (not just McQuaid btw) influence on the drafting of same. I take your interpretation as overtly apologist of the Roman Catholic Church and it's impact on Irish society

walrusgumble wrote: »

You are correct to state that McQuaid, a school friend, made it his business to obtain an influential ear to De Valera. However, the Constitution is nothing like that McQuaid had sought for. The Constitution is very influenced by (a) US Constitution and (b) Weimar Constitution - even modern Day German contains provisions on the family, in similar vein as our Article 41.

You forgot to mention the influence of the Polish constitution by the way. And no not just McQuaid either I refer to all Roman Catholic representations and involvement in the drafting of that constitution.

walrusgumble wrote: »

YThe "ideology and moral mores" that you talk of ,in fact helped to LEGALISE CONDOMS / FAMILY PLANNING (though had to go through Europe too) and brought about much changes to Irish Society, that we now take for granted.

Blow me over with a feather tickler, I never knew the Catholic Church led the movement to legalise CONDONS / FAMILY PLANNING. There you go I admit I certainly don't know everything

walrusgumble wrote: »

YIf you ever get the opportunity, get a hold of a very interesting and useful article from Gerard Hogan (now High Court Judge) that dealt with the Constitution vs the historians (the guys who go on about heavy Catholic influences) - Hogan utterly goes to town on their mistakes on the facts that they ought not to make.

Thanks for the reference but albeit interesting - is just one interpretation, there are many others that merit equal consideration.

walrusgumble wrote: »

The Catholic provisions in Bunreacht na hEireann, while nothing like the more secular 1922 Constitution of the Free State, are no more than an acknowledgment of the fact that Ireland was a Catholic Country. If Catholic Church was truly a the highest authority, as the Constitution did claim prior to 1974, then the important case of Quinn v Attorney General 1971 might not have gone the way that it did (albeit, little to do with the RC) Someone might waffle the RE Tilson 1955ish case, but they will ignore the fact that an agreement had been voluntarily entered into, by the parties, and one member sought to breach it. While there was always some confusion over what Natural Law is (seen to be linked with Catholicism - in this country) and it's place in Irish law ie above the law, the Irish Courts have had no difficulty during the 1980-1990 to make it clear that natural law was not to prioritize over Irish Law.

The pro catholic sentiments of the constitution went much further than having impact in any single area or case law. For example - The handing over by the state of unmarried mothers and children to effective penal servitude and indefinite incarceration under the care of the religous institutions - the majority of which were run and managed under dictate of the Roman Catholic Church was an obvious example of the failure of a separation of church and state.

walrusgumble wrote: »

"sought" and "did" gain influence are two different things.

I quite agree - and one does not rule out the other ...

Manach

walrusgumble wrote: »

Bunreacht na hEireann, as interpreted by our Courts, (and what the Constitution really says, as oppose to pathetic amateurs who read things literally - history of natural law recognizing unenumerated rights - policy is now discredited for being vague) is a good start. Essentially, bar a few dead phrases and provisions (and recognized as such) very little contained in the document would be removed , if , the Constitution was redrafted.

Actually the Natural law theory is held to be one of the leading jurisprudential theories of law, along with positivist and critical studies with a long distingushed pedigree with numerous modern theorists such as Finnis and George adding to its intellectual field.

Qualitymark

robp wrote: »

Are Quakers Christian? Many Quakers consider themselves Christian but some do not so they can't really count here. It would not surprise me if there is a clear Christian denomination somewhere out there that has no bishops but my point that bishops are not specifically a Catholic thing stands.

The Religious Society of Friends is a Christian sect, but many non-Christians are also attenders and members.

Apart from meetings for worship, there are interesting sorts of carry-on like refusing ever to make a decision by compromise; all decisions are made by consensus, no matter how long it takes.

If you'd like probably the most famous Quaker quote, here it is, from one of Isaac Penington's letters. Gives a flavour:

http://www.qhpress.org/texts/penington/letter20.html

TO FRIENDS IN AMERSHAM

FRIENDS,

Our life is love, and peace, and tenderness; and bearing one with another, and forgiving one another, and not laying accusations one against another; but praying one for another, and helping one another up with a tender hand, if there has been any slip or fall; and waiting till the Lord gives sense and repentance, if sense and repentance in any be wanting. Oh! wait to feel this spirit, and to be guided to walk in this spirit, that ye may enjoy the Lord in sweetness, and walk sweetly, meekly, tenderly, peaceably, and lovingly one with another. And then, ye will be a praise to the Lord; and any thing that is, or hath been, or may be, amiss, ye will come over in the true dominion, even in the Lamb's dominion; and that which is contrary shall be trampled upon, as life rises and rules in you. So watch your hearts and ways; and watch one over another, in that which is gentle and tender, and knows it can neither preserve itself, nor help another out of the snare; but the Lord must be waited upon, to do this in and for us all. So mind Truth, the service, enjoyment, and possession of it in your hearts; and so to walk, as ye may bring no disgrace upon it, but may be a good savor in the places where ye live, the meek, innocent, tender, righteous life reigning in you, governing over you, and shining through you, in the eyes of all with whom ye converse.

Your Friend in the Truth, and a desirer of your welfare and prosperity therein.

I. P.

Aylesbury, 4th of Third Month, 1667

Benny_Cake

robp wrote: »

Are Quakers Christian? Many Quakers consider themselves Christian but some do not so they can't really count here. It would not surprise me if there is a clear Christian denomination somewhere out there that has no bishops but my point that bishops are not specifically a Catholic thing stands.

Most Quakers worldwide would consider themselves to be Christian - the majority in Ireland too. Since Quakers don't have a creed though, there is no set of beliefs that one must affirm to worship with or join the Society of Friends.

Also, while a lot of Christian denominations might use the title of "Bishop", it often bears little or no resemblance to the Catholic / Orthodox / Anglican understanding of the role.

Qualitymark

Returning to the question, Eamon de Valera had gone to school in Rockwell, where a particularly brilliant and revered student around 10 years older than him (and also a mathematical freak, I think) was John Charles McQuaid, who went on through the upper reaches of the Holy Ghost order, remaining deeply conservative and Irish Parliamentary Party-like, to become Archbishop of Dublin and either the most powerful man in Ireland or one of the most powerful, depending on your viewpoint. De Valera obviously regarded him with reverence and awe; he was rather brave to resist him at all, which he sometimes did.

gozunda

Qualitymark wrote: »

Returning to the question, Eamon de Valera had gone to school in Rockwell, where a particularly brilliant and revered student around 10 years older than him (and also a mathematical freak, I think) was John Charles McQuaid, who went on through the upper reaches of the Holy Ghost order, remaining deeply conservative and Irish Parliamentary Party-like, to become Archbishop of Dublin and either the most powerful man in Ireland or one of the most powerful, depending on your viewpoint. De Valera obviously regarded him with reverence and awe; he was rather brave to resist him at all, which he sometimes did.

De Valera stated birthdate was the 14 October 1882. He became a pupil of Blackrock in 1898. In 1911 De Valera was 28 years of age, married and living in 33 Morehampton Terrace Dublin.

John McQuaid was born on the 28th of July 1895 and was 13 years younger than De Valera. McQuaid was 16 when he sat his Junior Grade examination in 1911 in Blackrock College.

It is unlikely that either McQuaid or De Valera knew each as students.

It is more likely that Éamon de Valera got to know McQuaid around the time that Mcquaid became President of Blackrock College in 1931 and where De Valera's children attended secondary school.

McQuaids later interactions and involvement with De Valera in my opinion did not provide a proper setting for the influence that McQuaid over De Valera and the resulting failure of the government at the time to separate the state and it's constitution from divisive religious influences.

Qualitymark

Sorry - I have the ages the wrong way around! But no, the Holy Ghost past pupils did keep in touch; wasn't de Valera sheltered by the priests when he was on the run too?

gozunda

Qualitymark wrote: »

Sorry - I have the ages the wrong way around! But no, the Holy Ghost past pupils did keep in touch; wasn't de Valera sheltered by the priests when he was on the run too?

What is perhaps even more interesting is that Charles McQuaids brother Dean - a doctor in the Free State army was shot dead by Anti Treaty troops (part of the anti treaty forces led by De Valera during the civil wear) in an ambush in Co Mayo in 1923.

It is also noted in several sources that De Valera wished to become a priest but rumours of his illegitimacy scuppered the idea....

Qualitymark

gozunda wrote: »

What is perhaps even more interesting is that Charles McQuaids brother Dean - a doctor in the Free State army was shot dead by Anti Treaty troops (part of the anti treaty forces led by De Valera during the civil wear) in an ambush in Co Mayo in 1923.

It is also noted in several sources that De Valera wished to become a priest but rumours of his illegitimacy scuppered the idea....

Yes, so it's said about the priesthood. I didn't know about his brother, but McQuaid was certainly an IPP type.

grenache

robp wrote: »

Yes Catholic dominated to a point but there was always some accommodation for CoI people and to a lesser extent Jews. Such tolerance was lacking in 18th Ireland towards non-CoI faiths.

Well the ownership of colonies is itself a sign of economic might. In recent history Italy has been a poorer country but not always. I would argue if we go back to 1490s Italy was was educated developed place in the planet. The Renaissance occurred in Italy not northern Europe. After Italy it was Germany, followed by France and Spain.



As the essay on the topic pointed out many of the most productive and capitalist areas of Europe – the Rhine Valley, Belgium, a large part of Holland – remained all or mostly Catholic.



There are certainly advantages in such a scenario. As you say the post war boom would have been good for Ireland and we would have also avoided the disastrous The Anglo-Irish Trade War.

The title of the 'Second City of the Empire' is contented. Some say Liverpool other say Birmingham or Bristol. In Ireland we say it was Dublin. So much has changed in the intervening 450 years its not an easy call to predict how Dublin of a Protestant Ireland would have been regarded in the wider UK.

Perhaps you mean Manchester or Glasgow. Birmingham was never considered the empire's second city. It wasn't even the second city in England until after WW2 when emigration from other parts of the empire helped it surge in population.

Paramite Pie

Okay, let's assume that the Irish warmed up to Protestanism. Afterall, Elizabeth I did establish the first Irish printing press in Dublin to print propaganda to encourage converts, so this could be seen as an endorsement of the language.

However most of the Irish population was rural and illiterate so that was never going to work. Also the Chieftains still largely followed Brehon Laws regarding marriage (ie civil marriage) giving them freedom to divorce or engage in polygamy. There was also no concept on an illegitimate child among the Irish nobles and some ruling Chieftains were indeed illegitimate by Christian standards. Adopting English law would restrict their life-style and the conquest of Ireland had as much to do with establishing English law as it did with religion. Those were the terms offered to the Chieftains in Ireland, uphold your kingdoms under English law (and pay tax!).

In England, most of the populace converted to whatever religion the current monarch practiced. In Ireland, it's quite likely that most people would have chosen to convert if their local Chieftain did, as clan loyalty was fundamental to Gaelic society.
Converting to another faith would give more power to a distant (and indifferent) Rome to the puritan English church, upsetting the status quo. And there was nothing the Irish chieftains didn't love more than the status quo.:pac:

Someone else mentioned Scotland being Protestant and losing their language. A simple way of looking at things but the reality was that Scotland was Presbyterian (the wrong type of Protestant:P) and England was Anglican (the right kind:rolleyes:). To the English, that was a big issue and they imposed Anglicanism on the Scots who rebelled on a large scale in the 1630s.
King Charles I amassed a large army of Irish (Catholics) to help invade Scotland (via Ulster). The Catholics rebelled themselves but had we been Protestant it's possible we might have invaded.

The War of the Three Kingdoms would've been less devastating for the Irish (now Anglican) but for the Presbyterian settlers in Ulster it would've been an even bigger disaster. Cromwell may never have invaded Ireland and we could have helped subdue Scotland.

I'm assuming the plantations still occurred to some extent as Gaelic laws were considered uncivilised and much of rural Ireland has semi-nomadic farmers. Not a suitable lifestyle for large scale farming or wealth creation. Irish land was considered 'virgin' land by the English. Also border skirmishes in Britain between the Scots & English would still lead to them being re-housed to Ulster to avoid all out war. But wealthy Irish merchants would not have been stripped of their property by the penal laws and wealthy cities like Galway might have boomed from trade with the New World in the upcoming centuries, rather than wither and die economically.

The Irish may still have resisted newer ways of life but there would be less chance of a new Ascendancy if the loyal Anglican Chieftains remained in power. Considering that the 1798 rebellion was Protestant Anglo-Irish led, it may never have happened, especially if Catholic France was an enemy. And without reckless, absentee landlords the famine may not have occurred on such a scale.

However, the Chieftains may still have tried to form their own Conferderacy and break away during the English Civil War, in which case Cromwell would've subdued us anyways and history may have occurred as normal.:cool:

Reekwind wrote: »

More to your point, Dublin wasn't even the most advanced economic city in Ireland at the time. Belfast was streets ahead of it in terms of infrastructure and industry. The same could be said for most of the island: virtually all industry was concentrated in the north-east with the rest of the island being, indeed, a "marginal area".

Belfast surpassed Dublin in growth partially due to the Act of Union as well as demographics. Most of Dublin's wealthy were in government positions, so when the Irish Parliament was dissolved, there was a large exodus of elites (and their families) to Westminster to take their new seats. Many of the Georgian townhouses in Dublin would become abandoned (& later slums), and businesses reliant on these parliamentarians were hit hard. In fact, Belfast had virtually no real economic competition with the rest of Ireland and it thrived.

So remaining in the UK would not have benefited Dublin at all unless there was a larger middle and upper class population. The economics practised in the UK at the time was laissez-faire, as in little Government intervention or public projects. Constructions like canals were sponsored privately so Westminster contributed little to Belfast's growth and would've done little for Ireland overall until a more modern period.

But I find it hard to imagine Nationalism not re-emerging during the 19th Century. (Gaelic revival/archaeology/Dublin still being a slum)

catbear

Good post paramite.

It's a few days since I read it so I've been mulling it over and it's made me wonder how Ireland would have developed if the Westminister funded reestablishment of Catholicism hadn't happened.

Would there have been greater unitarianism and a wider acceptance of sects?

As a bulwark against French revolution style social disorder, the british parliaments co-opting of the RCC was masterful. Keep the populace occupied with matters of the ancient territorial regime and inspiring new ideas concerning the rights of man will be pushed to the side.

As Voltaire said “If you have two religions in your land, the two will cut each other’s throats; but if you have thirty religions, they will dwell in peace”.