Irish Heraldry Society
michael...@hotmail.com
To my knowledge no such organization exists, which I feel is a pity,
given that the UK has one, Scotland has one, the USA and Canada and
various other places have one. Has anyone ever thought about
establishing one before?
Thanks,
Michael Fryer
George Lucki
news:1151946050....@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Look into the Genealogical Society of Ireland. They are certainly involved
in heraldic matters.
www.familyhistory.ie
George Lucki
barrassie
I was/am a founder member of the Heraldry Society of Ireland, but the
society has been dormant for about 20 years.
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
barrassie
other in England
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
Michael Merrigan
A Mhichil, a Chara,
The "Heraldry Society of Ireland" has not been functioning for decades
now and therefore, the Genealogical Society of Ireland
www.familyhistory.ie has provided a home for those with an interest in
Irish heraldic and vexillological matters.
Information on both these topics can be found on the Society's website
www.familyhistory.ie
The Society's policy in respect of heraldry and the State's delivery of
heraldic services is outlined in the Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006 -
initiated in the Irish Senate. See the website for details etc.
Kindest regards
Michael Merrigan
Hon. Secretary
Genealogical Society of Ireland
www.familyhistory.ie
barrassie
That is excellent.
I wonder what the standing will be of the recording of my Armorials
etc, and those ofthers by the Chief Herald in 1974/5 will be when and
if the new Bill becomes law.
Best wishes,
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
Sean J Murphy
If and when the Irish Genealogy and Heraldry Bill becomes law, it should
remove doubts concerning the legal status of regular grants of arms by
the Office of the Chief Herald from 1943. However, if the text of a
patent contained references to unsupported pedigrees and titles, that
would be a different matter. Confirmations and certifications would also
remain problematic if the arms were spurious or the original granting
source suspect, eg, Duchess of Braganza, or if the text cited fabricated
pedigrees and titles. While Terence MacCarthy's 1979 confirmation of
arms was nullified, that of his grand-uncle Anthony Maguire in 1985 was
not, nor indeed was the corrupt certification of chiefship given to the
latter's brother Terence Maguire in 1991.
Sean Murphy
An Irish Arms Crisis
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/armscrisis.htm
barrassie
Chief if the records are cleared of grants and recognition of Arms and
titles that are bogus. The Irish heraldry office is not the only State
heralry office that has made mistakes in the past. Recognition of
chiefs of the Name will still be not without problems. Irish Chiefs
were nominated by tanistry in the past, in Scotland Chiefs are from
time to time rcognised by Lord Lyon after an election by Scottish
armigerous nobles and landowners when there is no old line going back.
Also a chief, Head of a House Territorial or otherwise can nominate the
person in the blood to succeed them. I assisted a young women to
matriculate her late father's Arms as Head of her Territorial House,
she had one elder brother, if he wishes to have Arms he will
matriculate as her cadet. Her chief nominated by the previous chief her
late father has six brothers.
In another case a nominated heir presumptive was a baby grand daughter,
she bears her paternal grandmother's maiden name and therefore has a
different surname to her two brothers who have their father's surname.
I was informed that there was there was no problem raised by the
Australian authorities when recording the little baby girls birth with
a surname different to either of her parents. The Arms in this case
were again Scottish, but without a territorial designation. Unlike
Ireland holders of Scottish territorial names are prOperly addressed by
the name of their estate, with no Mister. a former Lord Lyon pointed
out that Campbell of Glenfalloch is correctly addressed as Dear
Glenfalloch , not Dear Campbell which would be as rude to Glenfalloch
as to Lord Breadalbane for the laird or chieftain of Glenfalloch has
just as much a 'title' as the heir. A correct style to address husband
and wife Glenfalloch and Lady Jean Campbell of Glenfalloch.
At the present time Lyon Court addresses those with a territorial
designation by the name of the estate.
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
Sean J Murphy
> Sean J Murphy wrote:
>>If and when the Irish Genealogy and Heraldry Bill becomes law, it should
>>remove doubts concerning the legal status of regular grants of arms by
>>the Office of the Chief Herald from 1943. However, if the text of a
>>patent contained references to unsupported pedigrees and titles, that
>>would be a different matter. Confirmations and certifications would also
>>remain problematic if the arms were spurious or the original granting
>>source suspect, eg, Duchess of Braganza, or if the text cited fabricated
>>pedigrees and titles. While Terence MacCarthy's 1979 confirmation of
>>arms was nullified, that of his grand-uncle Anthony Maguire in 1985 was
>>not, nor indeed was the corrupt certification of chiefship given to the
>>latter's brother Terence Maguire in 1991.
>>
>>Sean Murphy
>>An Irish Arms Crisis
>>http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/armscrisis.htm
>
> It will certainly put back the proper standing of the office of the
> Chief if the records are cleared of grants and recognition of Arms and
> titles that are bogus. The Irish heraldry office is not the only State
> heralry office that has made mistakes in the past. Recognition of
> chiefs of the Name will still be not without problems.
. . . . .
Other offices may have made 'mistakes', but few in modern times on such
a large scale as the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland. Continuing
refusal to admit the range of mistaken (a charitable term) decisions
means that there is little chance of any cleansing of the records in the
foreseeable future. The refusal to nullify the registrations of such a
notorious fake as the late 'Maguire of Fermanagh' is certainly a case in
point. Consider also the attitude of the Chief Herald who in 2003
abandoned the system of courtesy recognition and dismissed MacLysaght's
rationale for it as 'ridiculous', commenting flippantly, 'If someone
wants to call himself Sultan of Dundrum, what about it?' The closure
some months ago of the Heraldic Museum in Kildare Street, Dublin, in
order to make way for a Samuel Beckett exhibition, can be seen as
metaphorical.
Sean Murphy
Report on Maguire of Fermanagh
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/maguire.htm
Michael Merrigan
I have noted your points regarding the "styles" by which certain
individuals are addressed in Scotland and in the United Kingdom
generally. Whilst, these "styles" etc., if they exist at all in Ireland
or are used by any Irish citizen, may have a certain heritage value,
but the State may have some difficulty in officially recognising or
utilising such in official documents. This is not meant to "devalue"
the historic or heritage significance of such "styles" or usage - it
is simply that such may not be considered appropriate under Ireland's
constitutional circumstances.
On the point of early grants, the Bill allows for the retrospective
confirmation of grants made since 1943 - these generally are considered
to be as follows:-
1943 - 1997 (enactment of the National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997)
1997 - 2005 (period when Section 13 of the 1997 Act was not yet
implemented)
August 2005 - (period since the implementation of Section 13 of the
1997 Act)
To my knowledge no grants were confirmed from September 2003 to August
2005 - as there was no Chief Herald in place during that period.
I agree with Seán Murphy that the issue of the "bogus chiefs" and any
grants made in relation to same cannot be ignored. Indeed, it would be
in the interest of all that the Board of the National Library of
Ireland commission a report on the affair and possibly have this report
delivered to the Minister for publication via the Oireachtas.
Mistakes were made, all agree, however we must be enabled to
conclusively put this issue of the "bogus chiefs" behind us and
hopefully, the Board of the National Library and the Minister
appreciate this point.
All in all, the Bill offers a secure future for the State's involvement
in heraldic matters.
For information on the background to the Bill see www.familyhistory.ie
Kindest regards
Michael Merrigan
www.familyhistory.ie
barrassie
Michael Merrigan A Chara
There is one big difference betweet Scottish and Irish designations. A
Scottish territorial name like mine which is my only legal surname,
becomes the only legal surname providing it is used, and not broaught
out only for a clan gathering, legally it is the name for any legal
matters. In fact I was required to attend a court in England and that
was the name used. My position was used as my occupation.I was a
witness for the defence and was pleased that the person was set free.
Michael Merrigan
Thanks for that explanation, however, few have fully appreciated that
as a result of the Chief Herald's withdrawal of "courtesy recognition"
to Gaelic Chiefs, such recognition cannot now be afforded to any title
outside certain diplomatic circumstances.
Irish citizens who happen to be also members of the British peerage,
for example, cannot expect to enjoy "courtesy recognition" which was
denied to the Gaelic Chiefs. The decision to withdraw "courtesy
recognition" was made on the basis that no legislative provision
existed to allow the State to afford such recognition to certain
citizens.
Regarding the issue of titles generally, once again, few have fully
appreciated the extent of the fallout from the "bogus chiefs" affair.
Much of the sterling work on exposing this scandal has been done by a
regular contributor to this newsgroup, Seán Murphy, who has produced a
very interesting and important work on the issue - "Twilight of the
Chiefs".
The "bogus chiefs" affair has made the Irish establishment very
sceptical and indeed, possibly increased their republican distaste for
titles of nobility. The blame for this situation rests entirely with
the "bogus chiefs" themselves and their supporters. Therefore, as I
have said many times before on this newsgroup, there is absolutely no
way that the Irish parliamentarians would consider affording official
recognition to titles of nobility other than in certain well defined
circumstances which involve our diplomatic relations with monarchies
etc.
Until the "bogus chiefs" affair is examined by an independent body and
a report delivered to the Minister for publication via the Oireachtas
(Irish Parliament) can we expect anything other than scepticism on this
issue here in Ireland.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>Charles, a Chara,
>
>Thanks for that explanation, however, few have fully appreciated that
>as a result of the Chief Herald's withdrawal of "courtesy recognition"
>to Gaelic Chiefs, such recognition cannot now be afforded to any title
>outside certain diplomatic circumstances.
>
>Irish citizens who happen to be also members of the British peerage,
>for example, cannot expect to enjoy "courtesy recognition" which was
>denied to the Gaelic Chiefs. The decision to withdraw "courtesy
>recognition" was made on the basis that no legislative provision
>existed to allow the State to afford such recognition to certain
>citizens.
If I read you correctly here, Michael, you are saying that members of
the Peerage of Ireland who happen to live in the Republic of Ireland
(or, for that matter, members of the Peerages of England, Scotland,
Great Britain or the United Kingdom) will not be addressed by their
correct style should they happen to be written to by any Government
department? If so, this strikes me as somewhat petty.
Ireland might well be a republic now, but for many centuries it was
part of the dominions of the English later British Crown. Although in
some circles it is considered clever to denounce English rule as a
thoroughly bad thing, this is far from being the truth and I would
have thought that many of the current citizens of modern Ireland, many
of whom decend from English, Scottish and Welsh settlers who have
moved to Ireland in the 800 odd years since the Norman Conquest of
Ireland, would be pleased to retain some mementos of pre-Republican
Ireland.
The whole farrago with the Irish Chieftains has been a bad joke - at
least the Irish peers are genuine!
This would, however, explain the mini flap that the Earl of Rosse went
into when I wrote to him recently at Birr Castle as "The Rt Hon the
Earl of Rosse". He was most insistent that I should not do so as his
neighbours would consider it to be pretentious - though quite how they
would find out about his correspindence was quite beyond me.
>
>Regarding the issue of titles generally, once again, few have fully
>appreciated the extent of the fallout from the "bogus chiefs" affair.
>Much of the sterling work on exposing this scandal has been done by a
>regular contributor to this newsgroup, Seán Murphy, who has produced a
>very interesting and important work on the issue - "Twilight of the
>Chiefs".
>
>The "bogus chiefs" affair has made the Irish establishment very
>sceptical and indeed, possibly increased their republican distaste for
>titles of nobility. The blame for this situation rests entirely with
>the "bogus chiefs" themselves and their supporters. Therefore, as I
>have said many times before on this newsgroup, there is absolutely no
>way that the Irish parliamentarians would consider affording official
>recognition to titles of nobility other than in certain well defined
>circumstances which involve our diplomatic relations with monarchies
>etc.
>
>Until the "bogus chiefs" affair is examined by an independent body and
>a report delivered to the Minister for publication via the Oireachtas
>(Irish Parliament) can we expect anything other than scepticism on this
>issue here in Ireland.
>
>Kindest regards
>
>Michael Merrigan
>www.familyhistory.ie
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================
Michael Merrigan
It has nothing whatsoever to do with being petty, it is simply a
constitutional reality, as a republic we don't have a nobility - simple
fact!
To put it bluntly, the regime has changed, accept the new realities -
nobility does not exist in the republic. This is a fact which may not
please many, but nevertheless, it is a fact.
Holders of such titles may consider these titles to be of heritage
value, as they are, but the State as a republic has no obligation
whatsoever to recognise them and again, this is a fact.
The Constitution of Ireland is clear on this issue - we must accept
this as a fact.
On the issue of "courtesy recognition" - it is quite simple - withdraw
it from one group of citizens - you withdraw it from all. There is NO
legislative basis for "courtesy recognition" and therefore, it cannot
be applied to any group, Gaelic Chiefs or Peers. Again, simply fact.
barrassie
Michael a Chara,
I am very pleased at the stand that the Family History Society have
taken. I would also like to point out that in Scotland any person of
any status in society who is deemed virtuous and well deserving can be
granted Arms at a very reasonable fee of about £850. This would cover
for exaple a person doing voluntary work, perhaps for a family history
society. If I may use the term it is very democratic and all to do with
family, as in any democratic republic it is for all who have an
interest in family, and this I try to encourage.
Republics have in the past been ruled bu their nobility and have
granted titles of nobility, and some kingdoms although having had a
king have not had titles of nobility granted. Therefore being a
republican does not necessary follow that a there are no titked or
untitled nobility but that the Head of State is elected. A republican
form of government can keep power from one particular family or person.
The Serene Republic of Venice ruled by its noblity had checks and
balances to keep personal power in check, for example a Prime minister
could only hold office for a very short time, I think it was only six
months, I presently can not lay hands on Rise and Fall of Vaenice by
Julius Norwich. The Republic of Venice prospered and lasted for
centuries untill in decay was overthrown by Napoleon. In the 20th
cetury up till the sixties I understand the Rupublic of Venice granted
titles of nobility up to and including Dukedoms. You will notice the
Irish State though a republic slecifically inludes in the constitution
that titles of nobility will not be granted by the State, since just
being a republic would not neccessary prevented titles of nobility
being granted, equally the State of Ireland could have oppted for a
monarchy , but also had it its constitution a ban on the granting of
titles of nobility.
I have very good memories of living within the State of Ireland, (I was
put on the full voting list not just the council list, when I moved
into Nothern Ireland I only had a vote for Westminster, as a proerty
owner I did not have a council vote nor for Stormount) I had never
intended leaving Donegal, where my late father is buried.
Since territorial designation like mine are part of my legal surname it
follows that those in similar circumstances would not have their
surnames changed in Ireland. I had to explain to the Brittish passport
authorities, who said that as it was a title it should be on page three
similar to other titled persons, I had to point out to them them that
it was my only legal surname, it had been on my previous passport,
which was not an EEC type.
My wife's passport after some delay was issued using the former pre EEC
version with The Madam McKerrell of Hillhouse in the front 'window' of
the passport and inside her name in full icluding Chistian names.
Goiung through customs into Canada my wife was asked if she had brought
her butler with her!
In connection with clans and families, see www.bordergathering.co.uk,
I suggested to a nuber of chairmen of clan/family societies that they
should Petition for a grant of Arms from Lord Lyon, so has to be able
to use Arms and fly or carry an armorial banner. I also suggested that
they should acquire estates of land so as to have a territorial
designations to enhance their status in the clan/family scene. This
they agreed to. I then wrote and asked a Ducal landowner if he would be
willing to sell land, I explained that this was for heritage and not
for any commecial reson and that I was assisting in a voluntary manner
He was most generous, and told me to see his factor. These chairmen
were most generously given lands were of great historic interest and
only asked for a very nominal sum, (far less that the conveyancing
fees,) which Ia presumed was to cover the factor's time. This was given
to these men for the good they were doing for the local community.
These were real honours and not bought titles. I then assisted them
with their Petitions to The Lord Lyon, who issued a Change of Name
Certificate this stated that the name had changed from John X to John X
of Y. If this had been done at the time of a grant or matriculation of
Arms change of name would have been recorded in the grant or
matriculation. This caused a change in their legal surnames.
Al
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
> On 9 Jul 2006 11:23:30 -0700, "Michael Merrigan"
> <GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
> This would, however, explain the mini flap that the Earl of Rosse went
> into when I wrote to him recently at Birr Castle as "The Rt Hon the
> Earl of Rosse". He was most insistent that I should not do so as his
> neighbours would consider it to be pretentious - though quite how they
> would find out about his correspindence was quite beyond me.
When you still call yourself Earl of Rosse and make much of that on
your own website and in relation to promotion of your castle for gain
kicking up a fuss about the addressing format on a letter is laughable.
However, I don't know Offaly that well but there are plenty of places
where the postmen seem to consider being a gossip part of the job.
Michael Merrigan
To be fair I must add a post script to my previous message.
I have been privately contacted by a number of people suggesting that
the provisions in the Bill concerning "titles of nobility" should be
amended to permit the "courtesy recognition" by the State of these
titles.
Noting, of course, that there are different degrees of nobility in
those countries tolerating such, I have taken the description "titles
of nobility" to be a generic term for all.
Most of the persons who contacted me on this issue were from the United
Kingdom and they seemed to be at a complete loss as to why the Republic
of Ireland should not grant "courtesy recognition" to person with
various "titles of nobility" - no logical explanation seemed to satisfy
their need for such recognition. One wonders whether they would take
this type of issue up with other republics like France or the United
States. Why is this "courtesy recognition" by our republic so important
to them?
One suggested that it was perfectly reasonable to withdraw "courtesy
recognition" from the Gaelic Chiefs as they were all fake (which is
untrue) .... but how dare the Irish not give due recognition to "Peers
of the Realm" - as is their right.
Clearly, calm and reasoned argument on this issue, including quoting
from Bunreacht na hÉireann (Constitution of Ireland), was not going to
satisfy these persons so I simply provided the factual situation.
I do agree that certain amendments to the Bill will deal with matters
that may be included in the Letters Patent issued by the Chief Herald
and indeed, I look forward to an interesting debate on these issues.
Michael Merrigan
Many thanks for that explanation of the Scottish situation and indeed,
I note that these titles have a heritage value in Scotland and that a
legal framework is in place to both protect and preserve this heritage
for future generations.
The Irish situation, as you fully understand and appreciate, is very
different for historical and constitutional reasons. Hopefully, the
debate on the Bill will provide a platform for a number of related
matters to be carefully considered by the Senators. The Irish Senate is
particularly good as an amending chamber and this was certainly the
case when it considered the National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997 -
Section 13, of which, deals with the Chief Herald of Ireland.
Unfortunately, Section 13 of the 1997 Act is fundamentally flawed and
therefore, in the interest of preserving and developing the State's
delivery of heraldic services, a new legislative framework is required.
If and when the Bill is passed, Irish heraldry will have a sound
legislative basis for the first time since 1943.
Al
Michael Merrigan wrote:
One wonders whether they would take
> this type of issue up with other republics like France or the United
> States. Why is this "courtesy recognition" by our republic so important
> to them?
France for all practical purposes does give recognition. You have to
verify the title with the government but after that it can be added to
drivers/identity/passport documents etc.
StephenP
> Most of the persons who contacted me on this issue were from the United
> Kingdom and they seemed to be at a complete loss as to why the Republic
> of Ireland should not grant "courtesy recognition" to person with
> various "titles of nobility" - no logical explanation seemed to satisfy
> their need for such recognition. One wonders whether they would take
> this type of issue up with other republics like France or the United
> States. Why is this "courtesy recognition" by our republic so important
> to them?
I will happily concede what the Irish Republic does regarding heraldry
& genealogy is its own business by right. Whilst there should be no
outside interference, there is no reason why there should not be
advice, opinion and consultation sought or received from without.
Along with the ancient Chiefs, the titles of nobility granted by the
British Crown are, for good or ill, part and parcel of Ireland's
history. They may not carry much currency in the modern Ireland but to
pretend that they did not, or do not, exist would be a travesty.
Unfortunately, there does to be a general trend to re-write history
and/or to apply 21st century values to situations to centuries long
past.
Yours aye
Stephen
Michael Merrigan
StephenP wrote:
> I will happily concede what the Irish Republic does regarding heraldry
> & genealogy is its own business by right. Whilst there should be no
> outside interference, there is no reason why there should not be
> advice, opinion and consultation sought or received from without.
>
> Along with the ancient Chiefs, the titles of nobility granted by the
> British Crown are, for good or ill, part and parcel of Ireland's
> history. They may not carry much currency in the modern Ireland but to
> pretend that they did not, or do not, exist would be a travesty.
> Unfortunately, there does to be a general trend to re-write history
> and/or to apply 21st century values to situations to centuries long
> past.
>
> Yours aye
>
> Stephen
Stephen, a Chara,
There is no re-writing of history here nor indeed, are we applying 21st
century values in a manner that refuses to acknowledge historical fact.
However, what we are endeavouring to produce is a sound legislative
framework for the delivery of heraldic services by the State and in
doing so, we are required to fully acknowledge the constitutional
position and republican nature of the State.
Once again, it is the concept of nobility that does not exist in our
republic and therefore, we have to be careful that we don't cross a
constitutional line in our drafting of any new legislation like the
Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006.
The argument for "courtesy recognition" was based on notion that one
was simply recognising a genealogical fact, however, the Irish Attorney
General maintained in 2002 that no legislative basis existed for
"courtesy recognition" and therefore, the Chief Herald was advised to
discontinue the sixty year old practice. Clearly, in order to provide
for "courtesy recognition" legislation would be required, however, this
would be fraught with difficulties not least the possibility of
constitutional challenge.
Joseph McMillan
Michael Merrigan wrote:
> Charles, a Chara,
>
> Thanks for that explanation, however, few have fully appreciated that
> as a result of the Chief Herald's withdrawal of "courtesy recognition"
> to Gaelic Chiefs, such recognition cannot now be afforded to any title
> outside certain diplomatic circumstances.
>
means in practical terms. Does it mean that the holder of one of these
titles would be addressed by it in legal proceedings? That it would
appear on his/her passport? That invitations to state dinners would be
addressed to The Murphy Mor or His Grace the Duke of X-ford?
Presumably anyone with a valid claim to the titles, whether Gaelic or
peerage, would already be armigerous by inheritance, so whether to
include the title in a grant of arms shouldn't arise, should it?
I believe the question was raised as to how this issue would be dealt
with in the US and other republics. As I've mentioned in this group
before, early US practice vis-a-vis holders of British peerages was to
use the traditional forms of address socially, and, at least in some
cases, legally. George Washington addressed both his subordinate
officer, Maj. Gen. William Alexander, putative 6th Earl of Stirling,
and his friend and neighbor Rev. Bryan Fairfax, 8th Lord Fairfax, as
"My Lord." And Thomas, 6th Lord Fairfax, was consistently referred to
by that title in legal proceedings concerning his estate, such as the
case of Hunter v. Fairfax's Devisee (1796-1810), in which the Virginia
Supreme Court stated "That the said Thomas Lord Fairfax was, at the
time of his death [1781], and for many years had been, a citizen and
inhabitant of the Commonwealth of Virginia." None of this was
considered at the time to be subversive of democratic institutions, at
least not in Virginia, although it might have been elsewhere in the US.
I suspect that nowadays, if an American citizen succeeded to a British
title, he or she would be addressed by that title officially-socially
(i.e., in social invitations to offical events like state dinners), but
that legal proceedings would ignore the title or, at most treat it as
an alias (John Doe, also known as the Duke of Deauville). I believe
the Department of State will only put on a US passport the name that
appears on one's birth certificate unless it has been changed by virtue
of marriage (with certified proof of the marriage) or court order.
Likewise for other official forms of identification in the US.
Joseph McMillan
Sean J Murphy
> Michael Merrigan wrote:
>
>>Charles, a Chara,
>>
>>Thanks for that explanation, however, few have fully appreciated that
>>as a result of the Chief Herald's withdrawal of "courtesy recognition"
>>to Gaelic Chiefs, such recognition cannot now be afforded to any title
>>outside certain diplomatic circumstances.
>>
>
> I wonder if someone could explain exactly what "courtesy recognition"
> means in practical terms. Does it mean that the holder of one of these
> titles would be addressed by it in legal proceedings? That it would
> appear on his/her passport? That invitations to state dinners would be
> addressed to The Murphy Mor or His Grace the Duke of X-ford?
> Presumably anyone with a valid claim to the titles, whether Gaelic or
> peerage, would already be armigerous by inheritance, so whether to
> include the title in a grant of arms shouldn't arise, should it?
Again, courtesy recognition was a means of affording Gaelic chiefs a
measure of acknowledgment of their titles, which neither the British or
Irish republican systems could or can supply formally. As I have shown
in 'Twilight of the Chiefs', MacLysaght did not originate courtesy
recognition, but developed the informal system of acknowledgment
employed by Ulster's Office. As is well known, the system of courtesy
recognition was abandoned in the wake of the MacCarthy Mór hoax in 2003,
in a bureaucratic manoeuvre which appeared to solve a problem but in
effect exacerbated it. Terence was able to flash an Irish passport
describing him as 'The MacCarthy Mór', and I understand that embarrassed
officialdom also had this rescinded.
How would an Anglo-Irish peer be described in a legal context in the
Irish Republic? We have a perfect example in the Altamont (Amendment of
Deed of Trust) Act 1993, wherein the then Lord Altamont and now Marquis
of Sligo is described as 'the Honourable Jeremy Ulick Browne, commonly
called Lord Altamont': http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZPA1Y1993.html
(is this not a remarkably unprejudiced republican accommodation of the
needs of an ancien regime title holder?). Ulster Vicars advised in 1906
that Denis Charles Joseph O'Conor Esquire should be gazetted as
'commonly called The O'Conor Don'. If a system of acknowledging Gaelic
chiefs is restored in Ireland, might not this be the best and most
consistent form for legal purposes, viz, 'A B, commonly called The
O/MacC'? However in official correspondence, and where a competent
source has confirmed that the title is valid, I see no reason why an
Anglo-Irish peer, a continental count, or a Gaelic chief, should not be
addressed by their titles, as putting 'commonly called' on an envelope
seems rather silly. What do you do when you are unsure as to the
validity of a title or know it to be bogus? I think there is no
alternative to addressing the claimant as plain Mr AB, with no mention
of a title, and perhaps opening correspondence with 'Dear Sir' or 'Dear
Mr B' rather than the title. These matters might be addressed during the
hopefully coming debate on the Genealogy and Heraldry Bill.
Sean Murphy
Report on the Mac Sweeny Doe Chiefship
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/macsweeneydoe.html
Sean J Murphy
> . . . . .
> I suggested to a nuber of chairmen of clan/family societies that they
> should Petition for a grant of Arms from Lord Lyon, so has to be able
> to use Arms and fly or carry an armorial banner. I also suggested that
> they should acquire estates of land so as to have a territorial
> designations to enhance their status in the clan/family scene. This
> they agreed to. I then wrote and asked a Ducal landowner if he would be
> willing to sell land, I explained that this was for heritage and not
> for any commecial reson and that I was assisting in a voluntary manner
> He was most generous, and told me to see his factor. These chairmen
> were most generously given lands were of great historic interest and
> only asked for a very nominal sum, (far less that the conveyancing
> fees,) which Ia presumed was to cover the factor's time. This was given
> to these men for the good they were doing for the local community.
> These were real honours and not bought titles. I then assisted them
> with their Petitions to The Lord Lyon, who issued a Change of Name
> Certificate this stated that the name had changed from John X to John X
> of Y. If this had been done at the time of a grant or matriculation of
> Arms change of name would have been recorded in the grant or
> matriculation. This caused a change in their legal surnames.
> Best wishes,
> Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
>
Hmmm . . . buying a piece of land in Scotland in order to acquire a
title. Now where have I heard that before? Also, any chance of a reply
to earlier questions as to the current status of the so-called Nasc Nia,
successor organisation to your former friend Terence MacCarthy's utterly
spurious Niadh Nask?
Sean Murphy
Niadh Nask report
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/niadhnask.htm
Don Aitken
<sjbm...@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:
>How would an Anglo-Irish peer be described in a legal context in the
>Irish Republic? We have a perfect example in the Altamont (Amendment of
>Deed of Trust) Act 1993, wherein the then Lord Altamont and now Marquis
>of Sligo is described as 'the Honourable Jeremy Ulick Browne, commonly
>called Lord Altamont': http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZPA1Y1993.html
>(is this not a remarkably unprejudiced republican accommodation of the
>needs of an ancien regime title holder?).
No, because he would be described in exactly the same way in a legal
document in the UK. Courtesy titles are merely a matter of custom. If
you can find an example of the treatment of a *substantive* peer
(whose status in the UK is a matter of law), that would be more
helpful.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
barrassie
When I was renewing my UK passport some years ago I was advised by the
very polite officials that since peers of the realm including Dukes had
there ordinary names on their passports like everyone else but that
titles of any form were put on page 3 of the new EEC passport. I have
seen this used on a friend's passport where he appears on page 3 styed
Dr or Proffessor, I do not remember which was used now. I however
proved that McKerrell of Hillhouse was not a seperate title but was my
only lawful and legal surname.
I would like to add that in Scotland territorial designations are not
necessary aristocratic but can be used as the lawful surname by all
landowners including small crofters. There is an excellent article
written on these lines by a layer and member of Lyon Court Sir Crispin
Agnew of Lochnaw, Baronet. This is where I am taking my reference from.
To gain recognition of a territorial designation.title from Lord Lyon
it is a requirement to have a grant or matriculation of Arms. These
forms and styles/titles were recognised as such by the old sovereign
parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland, where also a requirement was
made for the signatures of those using these titles, whether they were
barons feudal or otherwise they could not sign by the title alone.
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
Sean J Murphy
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:28:27 +0100, Sean J Murphy
> <sjbm...@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:
>
>
>>How would an Anglo-Irish peer be described in a legal context in the
>>Irish Republic? We have a perfect example in the Altamont (Amendment of
>>Deed of Trust) Act 1993, wherein the then Lord Altamont and now Marquis
>>of Sligo is described as 'the Honourable Jeremy Ulick Browne, commonly
>>called Lord Altamont': http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZPA1Y1993.html
>>(is this not a remarkably unprejudiced republican accommodation of the
>>needs of an ancien regime title holder?).
>
>
> No, because he would be described in exactly the same way in a legal
> document in the UK. Courtesy titles are merely a matter of custom. If
> you can find an example of the treatment of a *substantive* peer
> (whose status in the UK is a matter of law), that would be more
> helpful.
>
The point I was making was that in the past there was no barrier in the
Irish Republic against referring to a title of nobility in a legally
precise document. The termination of courtesy recognition of Irish
Chiefs in 2003 must pose problems: if 'our' native aristocrats cannot
have their titles acknowledged by officials, how can the same courtesy
be afforded to 'their' foreign titles? The whole problem is of course
tied up with the notion of 'parity of esteem', which issue was handled
quite well recently by the Irish government in relation to
commemorations of the 1916 Rising and the Battle of the Somme.
Sean Murphy
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
I appreciate where you are coming from, Michael, but Stephen does have
a very good point.
The vast majority of people awarded peerages within the Peerage of
Ireland between 1205 and 1898 were born and bred in Ireland (or at
least settled in Ireland!) and were the movers and shakers of Irish
society and included all it's major politicians. No study of Irish
history or culture can be complete without them. Once the Irish Free
State was founded and the last Irish Representative Peer, Lord
Kilmorey, died in 1961, the Irish Peers have been left in a sort of
limbo.
No-one is saying that the Irish Government should accord them any
status or precedence. But it would be a nice gesture (and a gesture
it only need be) if the Irish Government recognised the tremedous
contribution to Ireland made by these mens' ancestors by according
them "courtesy recognition". This in no way compromises the
republican bona fides of the Irish Government.
I am surprised that the Irish Peers' Association have not been alerted
to this.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
LOL
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<sjbm...@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:
Of course the Irish Peers *are* the native aristocrats of Ireland -
most of them were born and bred there and plenty still live there.
Don Aitken
<sjbm...@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:
I understand your point, but you seem to be missing mine. Lord
Altamont was not a peer. His correct name was Jeremy Ulick Browne. He
was *known as* "Lord Altamont" as a matter of courtesy, and legal
documents referring to him in the the UK would include this for more
precise identification. Any other alias would be described in exactly
the same way. No question arises of any legal right, or of the
"recognition" of anything other than the fact that he was *in fact*
described in that way by those who had occasion to deal with him. So
why should the use of the identical formula in the Republic be held to
involve "recognition"?
Michael Merrigan
I can understand and appreciate the historical and heritage value being
stressed by many contributors here, however, as you are aware, if
"courtesy recognition" is withdrawn from one group (i.e. Gaelic Chiefs)
on the grounds that it has no legislative basis, then it is withdrawn
from all, including members of the peerage.
As this is the legal opinion of the Government's law officer - the
Attorney General, then we have no other option but to accept the fact
that in order for the State to provide "courtesy recognition" to any
Gaelic Chief, Peer or Noble, it requires legislation in order both to
define "courtesy recognition" and to set parameters for the application
of such "courtesy recognition". However, it is very unlikely that such
legislation would ever be considered by Irish parliamentarians and
indeed, if such were ever produced and enacted - which would be very
difficult, the Bill would possibly be subjected to constitutional
review and more than likely fail.
This is the reason that I have always maintained that in order to deal
with the heraldic requirements of both Gaelic Chiefs and others with
titles, that amendments to the Bill will be tabled in the autumn.
However, those with hopes for a great break through on the issue of
"courtesy recognition" may well be disappointed on the grounds
mentioned above.
Kindest regards
Michael Merrigan
www.familyhistory.ie
Michael Merrigan
In this era of much improved relations between the United Kingdom and
Ireland at many levels, it may be unwise to assert that Ireland has an
aristocracy - which constitutionally it has not. However, it is fair
to say that a number of Irish citizens are the holders of "titles of
nobility" (generic term) emanating from the British crown, mainland
European monarchies, the Vatican or elsewhere. We have our Gaelic
Chiefs too.
If there is to be legislative change to permit "courtesy recognition" -
which I sincerely doubt, it must conform to our constitutional
framework as a republic. Asserting the rights of an "Irish aristocracy"
would not be very helpful at this time for very sound historical and
constitutional reasons, of which, Patrick, I am sure that you are fully
aware.
This assertion could close the door on any meaningful debate on this
issue before it has a chance to consider options and suggestions from
interested parties and individuals in Ireland and overseas. We are
seeking a State heraldic service for all of our citizens and members of
the Irish Diaspora - this is the objective and the challenge!!
Kindest regards
Michael Merrigan
www.familyhistory.ie
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>A Phádraig, a Chara,
>
>I can understand and appreciate the historical and heritage value being
>stressed by many contributors here, however, as you are aware, if
>"courtesy recognition" is withdrawn from one group (i.e. Gaelic Chiefs)
>on the grounds that it has no legislative basis, then it is withdrawn
>from all, including members of the peerage.
Michael, you really can't compare the two.
The Gaelic chiefs represent a tradition that started to die out with
the Norman Conquest of Ireland and was effectively dead by the end of
the Tudor period. Unlike Scotland, where the chiefly tradition is
very much alive and kicking, Irish chieftains really are a product of
the Irish mists (and remember, I speak as a member of an ancient
Gaelic family with it's own chieftain!).
On the other hand, until fairly recently the Peers of Ireland where a
part of the governance of Ireland and, through the representative
peers, that of the United Kingdom as well. they had power and
influence and exercised it appropriately.
IMHO they are an infinitely more important group of people than the
rag tag motley group of individuals who claim to be Irish chieftains -
a lot of which claims, we are led to believe, are far from solid.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>A Phádraig, a Chara,
>
>In this era of much improved relations between the United Kingdom and
>Ireland at many levels, it may be unwise to assert that Ireland has an
>aristocracy - which constitutionally it has not. However, it is fair
>to say that a number of Irish citizens are the holders of "titles of
>nobility" (generic term) emanating from the British crown, mainland
>European monarchies, the Vatican or elsewhere. We have our Gaelic
>Chiefs too.
I fail to see why it may be unwise to claim that Ireland has an
aristocracy when quite plainly it has. I agree that they have, quite
correctly, no political power in the republic but they do represent
some of the oldest families in the former Kingdom of Ireland.
I think you are putting a little spin on matters by saying "emanating
from the British Crown" - the hint here is that there were somehow
alian to Ireland and granted by a foreign potentate - as, quite
correctly, is the case with titles of nobility emanating from the
Vatican, etc.
Creations within the Peerage of Ireland were undoubtedly Irish titles,
just as creations within the Peerage of England were undoubtedly
English titles and creations within the Peerage of Scotland were
undoubtedly Scottish titles.
English and Scottish titles ceased to be granted after the Act of
Union with Scotland in 1707 - thereafter new titles granted on the
mainland (but not in Ireland) are described as Great British titles,
and after the Act of Union with Ireland in 1800 new titles created on
the mainland (but not in Ireland) are described as United Kingdom
titles. The last Irish title created was the Barony of Curzon of
Kedleston, granted in 1898.
>
>If there is to be legislative change to permit "courtesy recognition" -
>which I sincerely doubt, it must conform to our constitutional
>framework as a republic. Asserting the rights of an "Irish aristocracy"
>would not be very helpful at this time for very sound historical and
>constitutional reasons, of which, Patrick, I am sure that you are fully
>aware.
Actually I'm not. You can live in a republic, but still allow people
who have them to use titles of nobility, e.g. France or Italy.
You still have a landed gentry in the republic so why not allow people
to use their peerage titles too?
sir_crisp...@yahoo.co.uk
> Michael, you really can't compare the two.
>
> The Gaelic chiefs represent a tradition that started to die out with
> the Norman Conquest of Ireland and was effectively dead by the end of
> the Tudor period. Unlike Scotland, where the chiefly tradition is
> very much alive and kicking, Irish chieftains really are a product of
> the Irish mists (and remember, I speak as a member of an ancient
> Gaelic family with it's own chieftain!).
>
> On the other hand, until fairly recently the Peers of Ireland where a
> part of the governance of Ireland and, through the representative
> peers, that of the United Kingdom as well. they had power and
> influence and exercised it appropriately.
>
> IMHO they are an infinitely more important group of people than the
> rag tag motley group of individuals who claim to be Irish chieftains -
> a lot of which claims, we are led to believe, are far from solid.
Dear Patrick
I can assure you that Gaelic chiefs survived as a barbarous institution
of the native Irishry until the late seventeenth century resisting the
lawful activities of ones own ancestors and those of your friend the
Earl of Rosse, etc who as newly-arrived pioneers sought to bring the
benefits of English civility and religion to their benighted people.
Strictly between ourselves, Patrick, one should be cautious when laying
allegations against these people as there are few groups more rag-tag
and motley than the Peerage of Ireland so many of whom can trace only
to people of dubious English or Scottish origin raised to the nobility
by letters patent of the Crown a mere two or three hundred years ago.
Yours, etc
Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt
Donnchadh
represent a tradition that started to die out with the Norman Conquest
of Ireland and was effectively dead by the end of the Tudor period."
What? This is so full of nonsense as to be comical. This is not only
pure fantasy it is not even historically accurate in the least. The
Irish Chieftaincies did not start to die out with the Norman Conquest;
in fact the Normans themselves adopted Irish practices including
chieftaincies, language, dress, etc. They did not die in the Tudor
period either. One can argue that they did die roughly speaking after
the Battle of the Boyne (even thought here were more battles) where the
death of the Gaelic Order can reasonably be placed. However, that
battle was at the end of the Stewart/Stuart period and not the Tudor
period. Your assertion otherwise is laughable at best.
Unlike Scotland, where the chiefly tradition is very much alive and
kicking, Irish chieftains really are a product of the Irish mists (and
remember, I speak as a member of an ancient Gaelic family with it's own
chieftain!).
***Above quote from Patrick Cracroft-Brennan***
Double what?? A product of the Irish Mists? This is so blatantly an
Anglophile statement that it is no longer laughable. It is clear you
are a Seonin and that speaks volumes to any serious Irishman and/or any
serious historian. For, your Anglophile nature makes you blind to the
realities of native Irish historical facts.
Being English is as great a thing as being Irish - blasphemy in some
of the circles I run in admittedly - however it is true. But, when
you are trying to foist yourself as "a member of an ancient Gaelic
family..." etc. ad nauseum immediately after you lay out a less than
accurate rendition of Irish history, well, it makes one wonder why you
bother including your "Gaelic" name at all?
"I think you are putting a little spin on matters by saying
"emanating from the British Crown" - the hint here is that there were
somehow alian to Ireland and granted by a foreign potentate - as, quite
correctly, is the case with titles of nobility emanating from the
Vatican, etc."
***Above quote from Patrick Cracroft-Brennan***
Uhmmm...the "Kingdom of Ireland" (loosely given, as it really never
was an independent kingdom and was always suckling from the English
crowns...) was a foreign manifestation from a foreign power with a
foreign head - just as much as any nobility emanating from the
Vatican. Both the English Lordship of Ireland and later the Kingdom of
Ireland were, and indeed are, foreign to Ireland herself. Any
'gifts' such as titles of nobility that did emanate from them were
and are in fact foreign to the Irish. To argue against that is
intellectually dishonest.
If one is an Anglophile, or straight out an Englishman, be a proud one
man! - focus on that part of your ancestry and be happy to be so.
However to muddy Irish history in an attempt to prop up your personal
tendencies in the above manner is really unbecoming.
Good Grief Charlie Brown...
Donnchadh
institution of the native Irishry until the late seventeenth century
resisting the lawful activities of ones own ancestors and those of your
friend the Earl of Rosse, etc who as newly-arrived pioneers sought to
bring the benefits of English civility and religion to their benighted
people."
Is this tongue in check, my good man, or spoken as a right honorable
English Protestant Baronet?
"Barbarous" Irish indeed... "English civility and religion"
indeed... ROFL. Ah yes, thank God the sun never set on that most
'honorable' of man's institutions - the British Empire - so
benevolent to every other race and creed of people they ever met as
they were...ROFL.
Don Aitken
As opposed to the heredity peerage of the UK, half of which goes back
no further than 1945.
Donnchadh
rag tag motley group of individuals who claim to be Irish chieftains -
a lot of which claims, we are led to believe, are far from solid."
As opposed to that rag tag motley group of individuals who purchased
their hereditary baronetcies? Or as opposed to that rag tag motley
group of individuals who inherited such cheaply bought 'nobility'?
As opposed to those rag tag motley group of individuals who sold out
their rightful kings for a Protestant prince from another land
(absolutely one of Britain's most honorable moments)? As opposed to
those rag tag motley group of individuals who purchased their peerages
for selling out their nation's independence in favor of union?
Ah yes...when one compares the history of these noble and most honored
people's ancestors and the rag tag motley group of Irish Chiefs and
Chieftains who are doing nothing more than trying to be nothing more
than who they are as best they can be I must confess that as an Irish
nationalist I would take these "rag tag motley group" of Irish Chiefs
and Chieftains over foreign "planters," or excuse me "landed" men any
day. At least the real Irish chiefs and chieftains are really Irishmen
who represent a real Irish part of Irish society and history.
Heck I'd even take Terrance "I wanna be MacCarthy Mor" McCartney
of Belfast... err... I mean Morocco, and his fake half-witted
pretenders with all of their falsehoods over the likes of these foreign
pretenders of 'nobility and civility' any day of the week - for
at least I can see that despite their falsehoods they are not
foreigners or Irishmen who are nothing more than Seonin to their core.
Mr. Gaylord you can keep your 'Uncle Toms' thank you very much.
Look up to them all you want...real historians know better.
sir_crisp...@yahoo.co.uk
> Mr. Gaylord you can keep your 'Uncle Toms' thank you very much.
> Look up to them all you want...real historians know better.
Sir
For some reason you have confused me with Mr. Patrick Cracroft-Brennan,
a fine gentleman and minor player on the English heraldic scene.
pierre...@hotmail.com
Donnchadh a écrit :
<...>
> "I think you are putting a little spin on matters by saying
> "emanating from the British Crown" - the hint here is that there were
> somehow alian to Ireland and granted by a foreign potentate - as, quite
> correctly, is the case with titles of nobility emanating from the
> Vatican, etc."
> ***Above quote from Patrick Cracroft-Brennan***
>
> Uhmmm...the "Kingdom of Ireland" (loosely given, as it really never
> was an independent kingdom and was always suckling from the English
> crowns...) was a foreign manifestation from a foreign power with a
> foreign head - just as much as any nobility emanating from the
> Vatican. Both the English Lordship of Ireland and later the Kingdom of
> Ireland were, and indeed are, foreign to Ireland herself. Any
> 'gifts' such as titles of nobility that did emanate from them were
> and are in fact foreign to the Irish. To argue against that is
> intellectually dishonest.
Is that your personal point of view or the official point of view of
the Irish Republic? Does the Irish Republic claim the Lordship of
Ireland and the Kingdom of Ireland to have been illegitimate power and
does it reject any relation to it?
Pierre
Michael Merrigan
Firstly, Ireland does not have an aristocracy - we have a republic with
a constitution that does not recognise such to exist in the republic -
so legally, we have NO aristocracy. However, it is true to say that
remnants of the British aristocracy are resident in the Republic, many
of which are also Irish citizens.
Secondly, your points on the ending of the Gaelic ruling classes and
their civilisation are completely incorrect and without going through
each point, I would suggest that you brush up on your Irish history. I
see that another contributor has taken the time to correct your points
on the Gaelic chiefs, suffice to say, that I agree with his analysis.
Thirdly, the notion of a "Kingdom of Ireland" was essentially a
creation of the occupying power, England, under Henry VIII and it
lasted until 1801 when it was united with the United Kingdom of Great
Britain which was created in 1707. This "Kingdom of Ireland" was
resurrected in 1927 and generally abandoned by the Irish in 1936 and
legally abolished by the British in 1949. In reality this notion of a
"Kingdom of Ireland" was simply an instrument of colonial
governance by which the native Irish were subjugated and therefore,
quite rightly the native Irish have no sentimental attachment
whatsoever to this "Kingdom of Ireland".
Fourthly, it must be remembered that the right of English monarchs to
govern Ireland was achieved through conquest and that the aristocracy,
the descendants of which you so ardently support, were themselves
instruments in that colonial subjugation of the native people of
Ireland, for which, they were awarded with titles and land. The land
was stolen and illegally confiscated from the native owners by these
soldiers of fortune in the name of the English monarch - a fact well
understood by the Irish Parliament in the late 17th and early 18th
centuries when an array of legislative instruments were introduced to
"correct" and "secure" these aristocrats in their estates.
Fifthly, the descendants of these colonial soldiers of fortune - your
"Irish aristocracy" would, I suspect, strongly advise you to take
another course of action as many would view with considerable alarm
your assertion that Ireland currently has an aristocracy. They are
only too aware of the potency of the history that surrounds the
conquest of Ireland, subjugation of the native order, dispossession of
the rightful owners of land, plantations, disenfranchisement of an
entire people, transplantation within Ireland and transportation to
overseas colonies, discrimination on grounds of religion and language,
corrupt landlordism, absentee landlordism, rack rents and evictions,
abandonment during famine, penal laws etc. etc. Clearly, this "Irish
aristocracy" has not the illustrious history of its English or
Scottish counterparts.
Sixthly, Patrick, since clearly history is not your strongest point and
that your attachment to matters aristocratic has much to do with
misguided sentimentality, I must point out that the native Irish were
denied their liberties throughout the period of the governance of
Ireland by the ancestors of your "Irish aristocracy". The part
they played in the history of my country could only be described as
shameful, neglectful and self serving. The native aristocracy, on the
other hand, lost everything because unlike the Scottish aristocracy,
the majority of the Irish leaders did not abandon their people and were
dispossessed with them. For the people of Ireland the painful memories
of landlordism, evictions and the long Land War are still too fresh to
facilitate any acceptance of an aristocracy.
Seventhly, it must be remembered that for most of their history since
Tudor times, this "Irish aristocracy" through their participation
in the colonial governance of Ireland used their position to deny the
overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland the basis human rights,
freedom of religion, equality before the law, protection of the crown
etc. Just look at the role played by Irish peers in the House of Lords
during the 19th century and the early 20th century. Most of their
descendants, I am sure, would not wish to dwell on this period too
closely for very obvious reasons.
Finally, I would suggest Patrick that you discuss your position with
your friends in the Irish Peers Association, especially those who are
habitually resident in the Republic and are Irish citizens. I think
that you'll find their approach to be more practical and in line with
Ireland's constitutional position as a republic.
If the issue of "titles of nobility" (generic term) is to be debated in
relation to the Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006, I think that you
should give very serious consideration to my previous advice on the
matter.
Don Aitken
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>A Phádraig, a Chara,
>
>Firstly, Ireland does not have an aristocracy - we have a republic with
>a constitution that does not recognise such to exist in the republic -
>so legally, we have NO aristocracy. However, it is true to say that
>remnants of the British aristocracy are resident in the Republic, many
>of which are also Irish citizens.
>
And many of whom have an ancestry which is entirely of mainly Irish
for several centuries, and I'm sure would resent your characterisation
of them as "remnants of the British aristocracy". What of Lord
Inchiquin, for example, the probable heir male of Brian Boru?
A version of Irish history which excludes, to take two examples at
random, Lord Edward Fitzgerald and the 1st Earl of Charlemont, seems a
little unbalanced.
sir_crisp...@yahoo.co.uk
> Is that your personal point of view or the official point of view of
> the Irish Republic? Does the Irish Republic claim the Lordship of
> Ireland and the Kingdom of Ireland to have been illegitimate power and
> does it reject any relation to it?
Dear Peter
I think it outrageous that Eire makes no claim as to the legitimacy of
the Lordship of Ireland or its successor the Kingdom of Ireland and
that moreover it makes no claim of relation to these entities but
instead regards the people of Ireland as the sufficient fount of its
statehood.
Can you believe the utter bigotry of these people!
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
<snip>
It is remarkable that exactly the same could be said of the Normans when
they took over England, The only difference is that their descendants
somehow managed to survive most English rebellions, though have now more
or less vansished as having any role in the governance of the country.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
sir_crisp...@yahoo.co.uk
> And many of whom have an ancestry which is entirely of mainly Irish
> for several centuries, and I'm sure would resent your characterisation
> of them as "remnants of the British aristocracy". What of Lord
> Inchiquin, for example, the probable heir male of Brian Boru?
>
> A version of Irish history which excludes, to take two examples at
> random, Lord Edward Fitzgerald and the 1st Earl of Charlemont, seems a
> little unbalanced.
Dear Don
How dare the Eire government not accord special privileges to this
select group defined entirely in relation to the British constitution.
Michael Merrigan
You seem to forget that the Chiefs of O'Brien Sept changed sides and
religion during the Tudor period and indeed, thereafter became loyal
advocates of the colonial policy in Ireland. However, one of their
descendants, William Smith O'Brien, was an Irish nationalist. Their
support for the crown in Ireland was rewarded with titles and security
of land - nothing of patriotism here.
Edward FitzGerald was unique amongst his peers - he advocated Irish
independence and the end to discrimination against the overwhelming
majority of the population on the grounds of their religion.
As for James Caulfield, he advocated legislative independence for the
Irish Parliament and when that was achieved in 1783, he was fully
satisfied and he then opposed the Catholic Relief Acts of 1792 and
1793. So whilst he was a patriot, his patriotism didn't extend to
giving many rights to the overwhelming majority of the population of
Ireland.
Kindest regards,
Michael Merrigan
www.familyhistory.ie
pierre...@hotmail.com
sir_crisp...@yahoo.co.uk a écrit :
My question was a technical one: is that the case? For example, is any
piece of legislation predating Irish independency considered null and
void?
Pierre
Michael Merrigan
No not at all, however, there has been two pieces of legislation
enacted this year repealing a lot of the old and out dated
pre-independence statutes that no longer serve any purpose or indeed
are simply inappropriate for a republic.
See for example the Land & Conveyancing Law Reford Bill, 2006 at
www.oireachtas.ie under "Bills" - it seeks to repeal many old statutes
dealing with land tenure etc.
Kindest regards
Michael Merrigan
www.familyhistory.ie
Don Aitken
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>Don, a Chara,
>
>You seem to forget that the Chiefs of O'Brien Sept changed sides and
>religion during the Tudor period and indeed, thereafter became loyal
>advocates of the colonial policy in Ireland. However, one of their
>descendants, William Smith O'Brien, was an Irish nationalist. Their
>support for the crown in Ireland was rewarded with titles and security
>of land - nothing of patriotism here.
>
>Edward FitzGerald was unique amongst his peers - he advocated Irish
>independence and the end to discrimination against the overwhelming
>majority of the population on the grounds of their religion.
>
>As for James Caulfield, he advocated legislative independence for the
>Irish Parliament and when that was achieved in 1783, he was fully
>satisfied and he then opposed the Catholic Relief Acts of 1792 and
>1793. So whilst he was a patriot, his patriotism didn't extend to
>giving many rights to the overwhelming majority of the population of
>Ireland.
>
A large part of the Irish peerage was never anything other than
Catholic. The so-called "Old English" lords overwhelmingly gave their
support to the national movement in 1642, and, indeed, took leading
roles in it. Among those participating were Lords Gormanston, Fingall,
Netterville, Slane, Louth, Trimleston, Dunsany, Dillon of Costello
Gallen, Dunboyne, Mountgarret, Brittas, Castleconnell, Ikerrin, Roche,
and Muskerry. Indeed, Mountgarret, Ikerrin and Dunboyne were among the
senior commanders of the "Catholic Army", and Mountgarret was the
first president of the Supreme Council, which was nominated, it should
be noted, by the "lords and gentry of the Confederate Catholics". It
remained under almost exclusively aristocratic leadership until
Rinnuccini and the clergy took it over - and what a disaster that was.
Michael Merrigan
Agreed, however, my point is that it maybe unwise to press the case for
a special provision for the titles of an "Irish aristocracy" during the
debate on the Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006, for a number of
historical and constitutional reasons. I have no doubt that this would
also be the view of a great many of the holders of such titles resident
in the Republic.
Though, I am sure that an amendment to Section 16 (6) of the Bill will
be tabled to reflect a broader interpretation of Article 40.2.1 and
Article 40.2.2. of Bunreacht na hÉireann (Constitution of Ireland).
To this end I would certainly welcome suggestions from this newsgroup.
Kindest regards
Michael Merrigan
www.familyhistory.ie
Don Aitken
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>Don, a Chara,
>
>Agreed, however, my point is that it maybe unwise to press the case for
>a special provision for the titles of an "Irish aristocracy" during the
>debate on the Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006, for a number of
>historical and constitutional reasons. I have no doubt that this would
>also be the view of a great many of the holders of such titles resident
>in the Republic.
>
I don't necessarily disagree. My objection was to the general tendency
to write them out of Irish history, rather than to their present legal
and constitutional position. The current Bill is obviously not an
opportunity to deal with that problem!
sir_crisp...@yahoo.co.uk
> My question was a technical one: is that the case? For example, is any
> piece of legislation predating Irish independency considered null and
> void?
Dear Peter
In 1922 all acts of the Imperial Parliament then in force in Ireland
were taken into the statute book of the upstart Irish Free State
insofar as they were consistent with the constitution of said entity.
Thus for instance the Crown of Ireland Act which did bring the
Henrician Kingdom of Ireland into the glorious light of day and by
which whoever was king of England was king of Ireland (and what
reasonable man could object to that?) was placed beyond resurrection by
a knavish trick.
Andrew Chaplin
<sir_crisp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153079235.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> pierre...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Dear Peter
!!!
> In 1922 all acts of the Imperial Parliament then in force in Ireland
> were taken into the statute book of the upstart Irish Free State
> insofar as they were consistent with the constitution of said entity.
> Thus for instance the Crown of Ireland Act which did bring the
> Henrician Kingdom of Ireland into the glorious light of day and by
> which whoever was king of England was king of Ireland (and what
> reasonable man could object to that?) was placed beyond resurrection by
> a knavish trick.
>
> Yours, etc
>
> Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt
/TROLL ALERT
pierre...@hotmail.com
Michael Merrigan a écrit :
> Pierre, a Chara,
>
> No not at all, however, there has been two pieces of legislation
> enacted this year repealing a lot of the old and out dated
> pre-independence statutes that no longer serve any purpose or indeed
> are simply inappropriate for a republic.
>
> See for example the Land & Conveyancing Law Reford Bill, 2006 at
> www.oireachtas.ie under "Bills" - it seeks to repeal many old statutes
> dealing with land tenure etc.
>
> Kindest regards
>
> Michael Merrigan
> www.familyhistory.ie
> pierre_aro...@hotmail.com wrote:
Thanks. If I follow you well, all pre-independence legislation is still
in force as far as it has not been explicitly be rappelled: so it seems
the present Irish State considers itself as a successor State of the
Kingdom of Ireland.
Pierre
Michael Merrigan
You've raised a question that is still hotly debated as to whether
the Republic of Ireland is a successor state of the "Kingdom of
Ireland" - I contend that it is not for the following reasons.
1. The Republic of Ireland is only a legal description of the political
and constitutional nature of the State - the name of the State is
Ireland or in the Irish language Éire as per Article 4 of Bunreacht na
hÉireann (Constitution of Ireland) which was enacted by the People in
1937.
2. The State as established by the 1937 Constitution is the successor
state of the Irish Free State as established in 1922
3. The Irish Free State was established by the People of Ireland in
accordance with the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 6th
1921 which was negotiated between the elected representatives of the
People of Ireland and the British government following the Irish War of
Independence 1919-21.
4. In the Irish constitutional context sovereignty rests with the
People of Ireland, therefore, the State was established by the People.
Therefore, the Irish Free State was not the successor state of any
other state or kingdom - if was founded by the People of Ireland.
Ireland declared her independence on January 21st 1919 deriving its
authority to do so by the will of the people as expressed in the 1918
General Election.
5. The "Kingdom of Ireland" was created on June 18th 1541 by the
Parliament of the English administration in Ireland in an attempt to
secure in English law Henry VIII's dominion over the country
following his break with Rome. This entity lasted until the Act of
Union between Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.
6. Therefore, this "Kingdom of Ireland" ceased to exist on January
1st 1801 - as a political entity it was never resurrected, however,
the title of "King of Ireland" was in 1927. But I suppose that
logically to have a "King of Ireland" you must have a "Kingdom of
Ireland" and if so, it could be argued that this entity existed
between 1927 and 1936 for the Irish and between 1927 and 1949 for the
British.
7. As for the pre-independence laws of the land it was simply a matter
of practicality that they would be recognised by the Irish Free State
insofar as they did not conflict with the Constitution of the Irish
Free State. This did not make the Irish Free State a successor state
of the previous regime.
8. Heraldically - the Republic is the successor state of the
"Kingdom of Ireland" and this is attested by the adoption of the
Arms of Ireland - azure a harp or (also azure a harp or stringed
argent) in 1945 by the first Chief Herald of Ireland, Edward
MacLysaght. But since no legislation existed to provide for this
heraldic function - the legitimacy of this grant and others since
1943 is in considerable doubt.
Kindest regards,
Michael Merrigan
www.familyhistory.ie
Don Aitken
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>3. The Irish Free State was established by the People of Ireland in
>accordance with the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 6th
>1921 which was negotiated between the elected representatives of the
>People of Ireland and the British government following the Irish War of
>Independence 1919-21.
>
In fact, it was established in two ways. Firstly by the Dail acting as
a constituent assembly in the name of the Irish people. Secondly by
virtue of the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922 passed by the UK
Parliament. The Treaty itself specified that the Constitution was to
be enacted in both these ways, so as to maximise its acceptability to
all parties, thereby inaugurating a period in which deliberate
ambiguity over such issues was to be a characteristic of Anglo-Irish
relations. It may be, though, that we have now arrived at a point when
all that is of historical interest only, and no-one except a few
pedants will notice that your description leaves something out!
>4. In the Irish constitutional context sovereignty rests with the
>People of Ireland, therefore, the State was established by the People.
>Therefore, the Irish Free State was not the successor state of any
>other state or kingdom - if was founded by the People of Ireland.
>Ireland declared her independence on January 21st 1919 deriving its
>authority to do so by the will of the people as expressed in the 1918
>General Election.
>
In any case, I don't think that it follows from this that the new
entity was not a successor state. Even where independence is
unequivocally established by successful rebellion, followed by a
proclamation of independence in the name of the poeple, that does not
necessarily follow. Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia were all
successor state of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and were commonly so
described, although their founding principles were hostile to
everything the Empire had stood for.
>5. The "Kingdom of Ireland" was created on June 18th 1541 by the
>Parliament of the English administration in Ireland in an attempt to
>secure in English law Henry VIII's dominion over the country
>following his break with Rome. This entity lasted until the Act of
>Union between Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.
>
>6. Therefore, this "Kingdom of Ireland" ceased to exist on January
>1st 1801 - as a political entity it was never resurrected, however,
>the title of "King of Ireland" was in 1927. But I suppose that
>logically to have a "King of Ireland" you must have a "Kingdom of
>Ireland" and if so, it could be argued that this entity existed
>between 1927 and 1936 for the Irish and between 1927 and 1949 for the
>British.
>
The titles of the monarch and the names of the kingdoms do not
necessarily correspond. From 1603 to 1707, British monarchs were all
"King of Great Britain", although there was no kingdom of that name.
When the titulature of 1927 was adopted there was still only one royal
title; it was only in 1953 that the principle of divisibility was
accepted. The King was "King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the
British Dominions beyond the Seas"; I do not think that it follows
that he was "king of Ireland", or that there was any such place as the
"kingdom of Ireland". He was, however "the King", and as such, in
accordance with the Treaty, exercised the same functions in relation
to the Free State as he did in relation to Canada
Michael Merrigan
Whilst, I agree with the points that you make regarding the legislation
which implemented the will of the People of Ireland - it is generally
accepted as a republican principle that the People establish the State.
Indeed, the 1937 Constitution in Article 6.1 specifically points to
the People as the ultimate source of all authority in the State.
The Irish Free State is not a successor state of any previous state as
in the Irish case we removed a foreign regime from part of our country.
The United Kingdom continued to exist albeit in a reduced area unlike
the Austro-Hungarian Empire which ceased to exist and was broken up
into the countries you mentioned. So it could, I agree, be argued that
these States are the successor states of that Empire. But this is the
fundamental point, the Irish Free State was not a successor state of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland nor of the "Kingdom of
Ireland" which ceased to exist in 1801.
I must say that I fully agree with your description of much in
Anglo-Irish relations as "deliberate ambiguity" and nowhere is this
more visible than in the position of the king and his post 1927 title
i.e. in Ireland he was supposed to be "King of Ireland" etc - but few,
if any, of our parliamentarians at the time would utilise the title.
Indeed, this title was not given any legislative effect by Dáil
Éireann - the change was simply noted. By 1936, as you are aware, the
expert in deliberate ambiguity, Eamon de Valera, had sidelined the king
from all but very few functions and in 1937 - the deliberate ambiguity
continued with the introduction of the Office of President of Ireland.
Whilst, you say that the king exercised the same functions for the
Irish Free State as he did for Canada - this was the intention of the
1922 legislation, but once again deliberate
ambiguity and legislative change soon came in to play and the king was
sidelined by the Irish Free State.
The heraldic and vexillological situations remain in that wonderful
aspect of Anglo-Irish relations "deliberate ambiguity" and indeed,
until a functioning and sustainable framework for effective governance
in Northern Ireland is achieved, the heraldic situation will remain on
the back burner.
But Don it must be said that the current much improved relations
between Ireland and the United Kingdom offer wonderful possibilities
for both countries, not least, is the ability of ordinary people in
both countries to examine our shared history with respect and
understanding. Indeed, only yesterday sixteen county & town councillors
and business people from Anglesey (Ynys Mon) toured the sites of the
1916 Rising in Dublin - at their request. A return visit by an Irish
delegation will visit Frongoch in North Wales.
Kindest regards
Michael Merrigan
www.familyhistory.ie
Joseph McMillan
Don Aitken wrote:
> >
> In any case, I don't think that it follows from this that the new
> entity was not a successor state. Even where independence is
> unequivocally established by successful rebellion, followed by a
> proclamation of independence in the name of the poeple, that does not
> necessarily follow. Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia were all
> successor state of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and were commonly so
> described, although their founding principles were hostile to
> everything the Empire had stood for.
I have always understood "successor state" to be a term of art in
international law, rarely in domestic law. In international terms, a
successor state is the one that takes over a extinct state's rights,
obligations, and property, membership in international organizations,
etc. Thus the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires and, more recently,
Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the USSR could be considered to have
successor states. However, calling Ireland a successor state of the UK
would be like calling Algeria a successor state of France or Virginia,
New York, and Newfoundland successor states of the UK--it implies
incorrectly that the UK ceased to exist as a recognized sovereign
state.
Joseph McMillan
The Chief
Don Aitken wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2006 08:32:02 -0700, "Michael Merrigan"
> <GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>
> >3. The Irish Free State was established by the People of Ireland in
> >accordance with the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 6th
> >1921 which was negotiated between the elected representatives of the
> >People of Ireland and the British government following the Irish War of
> >Independence 1919-21.
> >
> In fact, it was established in two ways. Firstly by the Dail acting as
> a constituent assembly in the name of the Irish people. Secondly by
> virtue of the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922 passed by the UK
> Parliament.
There were multiple judgements by the courts in the 1920s/30s that the
IFS was established by the action of the Dail, so in Ireland only one
of these mattered.
Regards,
The Chief
barrassie
>
> --
> Don Aitken
> Mail to the From: address is not read.
> To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
> When the titulature of 1927 was adopted there was still only one royal
> title; it was only in 1953 that the principle of divisibility was
> accepted. The King was "King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the
> British Dominions beyond the Seas"; I do not think that it follows
> that he was "king of Ireland", or that there was any such place as the
> "kingdom of Ireland". He was, however "the King", and as such, in
> accordance with the Treaty, exercised the same functions in relation
> to the Free State as he did in relation to Canada
King George was still legal King and I would say de facto after 1937
till the State became an independent republic, in 1937 it became a
'dictionary republic' Ammbassadors from Ireland still had to be
validated by HM King George. untill Ireland at least the major part (26
counies, leaving 6 still under the crown.) became totally free.
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
barrassie
>
> --
> Don Aitken
> Mail to the From: address is not read.
> To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
> When the titulature of 1927 was adopted there was still only one royal
> title; it was only in 1953 that the principle of divisibility was
> accepted. The King was "King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the
> British Dominions beyond the Seas"; I do not think that it follows
> that he was "king of Ireland", or that there was any such place as the
> "kingdom of Ireland". He was, however "the King", and as such, in
> accordance with the Treaty, exercised the same functions in relation
> to the Free State as he did in relation to Canada
Michael Merrigan
As Don Aitkin has already pointed out, much of the issues surrounding
Anglo-Irish relations in that period were beautifully clouded in
"deliberate ambiguity" for very sound practical reasons as the
mindsets of the monarchist/imperialism of the British and the
constitutional republicanism of the Irish could not, at the time, find
any other mutual accommodation.
For the Irish the king was reduced to a position which was in reality
no more than an external civil servant by the External Relations Act,
1936 and indeed, early Acts of Dáil Éireann had also removed the
internal trappings of any royal connection. The enactment of the 1937
Constitution clearly afforded precedence within the State to the
President of Ireland - Article 12.1 - again Charles here is the
"deliberate ambiguity" of the situation between 1937 and 1949 -
the king's position has only an external function - a very limited
one indeed.
When you said that the king had to validate the appointment and
acceptance of the credentials of ambassadors for Ireland, this function
he exercised only on the advice and at the behest of the Irish
government, in fact, failure by the king to act in accordance with such
advice would, most certainly, have resulted in the removal of these
last limited functions from the king by Dáil Éireann.
But more significant to this newsgroup should be the continued
"deliberate ambiguity" in heraldic terms between the United Kingdom
of Great Britain & Northern Ireland and Ireland. Indeed, the Genealogy
& Heraldry Bill, 2006, aims to resolve the matter legislatively, at
least, on the Irish side.
Kindest regards
Michael Merrigan
www.familyhistory.ie
Donnchadh
many ways...
"Sir
For some reason you have confused me with Mr. Patrick Cracroft-Brennan,
a fine gentleman and minor player on the English heraldic scene.
Yours, etc
Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt"
Sir,
I did not confuse one for the other. Re-read the part I directed
towards you; it is obvious to whom I was referring at that point, for I
even went so far as to specifically quote your statement at the
beginning of my point. I should've thought that was clear, evident?
"I think it outrageous that Eire makes no claim as to the legitimacy
of the Lordship of Ireland or its successor the Kingdom of Ireland and
that moreover it makes no claim of relation to these entities but
instead regards the people of Ireland as the sufficient fount of its
statehood.
Can you believe the utter bigotry of these people! "
Sir, I can not believe you are serious!?!?
You, after your anti-Irish diatribes here to fore in this thread,
speaking of the 'bigotry' of the Irish people is simply
unbelievable. This is very close to being akin to the member of the Ku
Klux Klan decrying either a Catholic, an African-American, or some
other such minority here in the States as being bigots because he lost
his position of power in the community.
It would be easy to begin to dismantle your fanciful, if not entirely
delusional, view of the Irish people, their history, their republic,
and even their ancient chiefs, but I must confess that after reviewing
your banter here, well, I must show Christian mercy and not pick on the
weak. Your writing shows clearly enough just how misguided you truly
are - and believe me here Sir I am being charitable at leaving it at
that.
"How dare the Eire government not accord special privileges to this
select group defined entirely in relation to the British
constitution."
Yes, yes, yes. How dare the Irish govern themselves - that bigoted
group of people. Why not the same for the Yanks in America; or those
Aussies in Australia; or those poor ridiculous Indians? Etc ad nauseum.
Donnchadh
the Irish Republic? Does the Irish Republic claim the Lordship of
Ireland and the Kingdom of Ireland to have been illegitimate power and
does it reject any relation to it?"
Mr. Pierre,
Obviously Michael has done an excellent job of addressing these points,
but since you posted to me I hereby address them, for what it's
worth...
One, it is a matter of historical fact. I encourage you to do the
reading yourself, for though one of my bachelor's degrees in history
I am not paid to give an entire semester's lesson on Anglo-Irish
history here, which one could spend a good four years doing. Plus it
would be better to read the sources yourself.
Two, I can not speak for the point of view of the 'Irish Republic'
for I am not a representative of that government. Nor am I an Irish
citizen; I am a member of the Irish Diaspora whose fathers came to
America after the benevolence of that great British masterpiece of
administration known as An Gorta Mór (The so-called Potato Famine).
However, I do come from a nationalist family and one that is proud to
say from County Armagh, which still 'suffers the fools' some of
whom can be seen here on this thread.
Three, one would find that the Lordship of Ireland, as contrived from
the Anglo-Norman kings and an English pope followed upon by successive
popes, was essentially a lordship that was held by the Monarch of
England with dues paid to the Papacy. This ended when Henry VIII broke
with Rome and decided he was King of Ireland and no longer Lord of
Ireland, which later was broken again in favor of union. This reality
is evident not only in history books, but in heraldry as well, for
while as a Lordship Ireland was shown with essentially the arms of the
province of Munster, which some argue were the ancient arms of Ireland,
but that is likely pure fantasy, with a crest that was a hart leaping
from the door of a triple towered tower. After Henry's usurpation
(kingdom) of a usurpation (papal lordship) one notices the gold harp on
a blue field that is ensigned with an English crown. Again I encourage
you to do the study, reading yourself.
Four, you bet your bottom dollar that the founders of the modern Irish
Republic, and indeed Irish nationalists before that, found the rule of
the English to be illegitimate and most certainly seen it as
illegitimate and indeed those nationalists of the 'Gaelic League'
school of thought certainly rejected everything English from language
to sport and on up. Even those who initially tried to 'change from
within' eventually seen the futility of such ideology and became
nothing less than full patriots. I dare say this is a core element of
Irish Nationalism (as opposed to republicanism of the post '78
rising, which is arguably based in Franco-Republicanism, as opposed to
American-Republicanism, which are two entirely different beasts all
together, but that is a discussion for another day). One only need read
of and from great giants as: Eoghan O'Growney, Eoin MacNeill, Thomas
Clarke, James Connolly, Éamon de Valera, Pádraig Pearse, Éamonn
Ceannt, Arthur Griffith, et al (there are really too many to list) to
see this. And yes before you ask the Irish Republic went on to adopt
the English system of law, which admittedly makes one wonder why
considering the Irish never seen the English as having a right to rule
over them, well, except for those Seonin-Irish and Anglo-Irish (not the
same as Anglo-Norman) and the only logical reason is that after the War
of Independence and the subsequent Civil War and the so-called Irish
Free State it was simply a matter of ease of transition. But, yes, read
from and of these men and the others and see just how much the
father's of Irish freedom rebuked England's "right" to rule
Ireland.
Donnchadh
Speaking as a member of the Diaspora I have to say in an unabashedly
nationalist manner that while I agree with your comments I can't let
the fact go that in truthand most importantly (as we celebrated its
90th anniversary this past year!) in act, the Irish people declared
themselves as such in 1916. It was in fact this event that brought
forth the circumstances that enabled the Irish Free State and
eventually the Republic to even come about in a real, practical way. I
will not forget their courage and their sacrifice, nor their
declaration of a Republic at that time. It would be like me as an
American forgetting that the American Republic was declared much
earlier than it was earned through blood, sweat and tears. However,
when the American Fathers declared Independence as representatives of
the people America was in fact independent of the British Crown...it
only had to be earned on the battlefield after that point. The same is
true of Ireland.
OK...off my Irish Nationalist Diaspora Soapbox now...
Don Aitken
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>Charles, a Chara,
>
>As Don Aitkin has already pointed out, much of the issues surrounding
>Anglo-Irish relations in that period were beautifully clouded in
>"deliberate ambiguity" for very sound practical reasons as the
>mindsets of the monarchist/imperialism of the British and the
>constitutional republicanism of the Irish could not, at the time, find
>any other mutual accommodation.
>
>For the Irish the king was reduced to a position which was in reality
>no more than an external civil servant by the External Relations Act,
>1936
Subject to the delightful statement (one of my favorite statutory
provisons anywhere), that George VI was also King "for all other (if
any) purposes"; that must be the high watermark of "deliberate
ambiguity"!
barrassie
Micheil a Chara,
If the Irish State had reinstated the legitamate Royalty of Ireland
with same or similar powers of the President the Irish people would
have had their own Celtic Crown which would have made any respect to
royalty a native interest as opposed to a foreign one.
I do beleive that I remeber reading that those brave men who fought for
Ireland stated that they were not doctrinaire republicans but if the
people of Ireland wanted a crown they could find a native one. That
being said I enjoyed living in the State was domiciled there, and made
welcome. I very much enjoy returning to Donegal and Dublin.
My family always retained the Mac/Mc in frount of our names thoughnot
in a gaelic area of Ireland, I look upon myself as a racial Scot, that
descended from that Irish tribe that gave Scotland her name.
Best wishes,
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
Michael Merrigan
Remember the greatest architect of deliberate ambiguity - Mr. Eamon de
Valera, TD, had once looked at the idea of a "Prince-President" as our
Head of State. He had the intention of "offering" it to The O'Brien -
thankfully, the man had the good sense to stay away from such
foolishness. The issue seriously questioned the nature of de Valera's
republicanism and not for the first time either, did it question his
notion of democracy.
Since 1937, this nation has been served very well by each of our
Presidents of Ireland and the concept of a directly elected Head of
State is something the citizens of this republic cherish and can, of
course, recommend!!
Hopefully, soon political circumstances will permit our President to
welcome the Head of State of our nearest neighbour to Ireland on a
State Visit and maybe, take in some horse racing at the Curragh or
Leopardstown while here. Her Majesty will be very welcome.
Kindest regards,
Peter Constantine
> How dare the Irish govern themselves - that bigoted group of people. Why
> not the same for the Yanks in America; or those Aussies in Australia
I think for consistency that should perhaps read "... why not the same
for the Native Americans in America; or those Aborigines in
Australia"...
x
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
>"IMHO they are an infinitely more important group of people than the
>rag tag motley group of individuals who claim to be Irish chieftains -
>a lot of which claims, we are led to believe, are far from solid."
>***Quote from Crispin Gaylord***
>
>As opposed to that rag tag motley group of individuals who purchased
>their hereditary baronetcies? Or as opposed to that rag tag motley
>group of individuals who inherited such cheaply bought 'nobility'?
>As opposed to those rag tag motley group of individuals who sold out
>their rightful kings for a Protestant prince from another land
>(absolutely one of Britain's most honorable moments)? As opposed to
>those rag tag motley group of individuals who purchased their peerages
>for selling out their nation's independence in favor of union?
>
>Ah yes...when one compares the history of these noble and most honored
>people's ancestors and the rag tag motley group of Irish Chiefs and
>Chieftains who are doing nothing more than trying to be nothing more
>than who they are as best they can be I must confess that as an Irish
>nationalist I would take these "rag tag motley group" of Irish Chiefs
>and Chieftains over foreign "planters," or excuse me "landed" men any
>day. At least the real Irish chiefs and chieftains are really Irishmen
>who represent a real Irish part of Irish society and history.
So your saying that the O'Briens, the Ponsonbys, the Butlers, the
FitzGeralds, the O'Neills, etc., all of whom are represented in the
Peerage of Ireland, are not "really Irishmen who represnt a real Irish
part of Irish society and history"?
>
>Heck I'd even take Terrance "I wanna be MacCarthy Mor" McCartney
>of Belfast... err... I mean Morocco, and his fake half-witted
>pretenders with all of their falsehoods over the likes of these foreign
>pretenders of 'nobility and civility' any day of the week - for
>at least I can see that despite their falsehoods they are not
>foreigners or Irishmen who are nothing more than Seonin to their core.
>
>Mr. Gaylord you can keep your 'Uncle Toms' thank you very much.
>Look up to them all you want...real historians know better.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================
sir_crisp...@yahoo.co.uk
> So your saying that the O'Briens, the Ponsonbys, the Butlers, the
> FitzGeralds, the O'Neills, etc., all of whom are represented in the
> Peerage of Ireland, are not "really Irishmen who represnt a real Irish
> part of Irish society and history"?
Dear Patrick
There is no point arguing with these people. They hold that an
indigenous Irish identity survived as the numerical mainstream outwith
the Lordship of Ireland and Kingdom of Ireland established by lawful
authority of the English crown and to which these noble peers gave
allegiance. I am sure that every right thinking person will agree that
this cannot be so and that the Lordship of Ireland and Kingdom of
Ireland were in fact nation states into which the native Irishry gladly
subsumed their brutish identity.
Yours, etc
Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>A Phádraig, a Chara,
>
>Firstly, Ireland does not have an aristocracy - we have a republic with
>a constitution that does not recognise such to exist in the republic -
>so legally, we have NO aristocracy. However, it is true to say that
>remnants of the British aristocracy are resident in the Republic, many
>of which are also Irish citizens.
But do not your Gaelic chiefs and chieftains form an aristocratric
group?
>
>Secondly, your points on the ending of the Gaelic ruling classes and
>their civilisation are completely incorrect and without going through
>each point, I would suggest that you brush up on your Irish history. I
>see that another contributor has taken the time to correct your points
>on the Gaelic chiefs, suffice to say, that I agree with his analysis.
>
>Thirdly, the notion of a "Kingdom of Ireland" was essentially a
>creation of the occupying power, England, under Henry VIII and it
>lasted until 1801 when it was united with the United Kingdom of Great
>Britain which was created in 1707. This "Kingdom of Ireland" was
>resurrected in 1927 and generally abandoned by the Irish in 1936 and
>legally abolished by the British in 1949. In reality this notion of a
>"Kingdom of Ireland" was simply an instrument of colonial
>governance by which the native Irish were subjugated and therefore,
>quite rightly the native Irish have no sentimental attachment
>whatsoever to this "Kingdom of Ireland".
I find this very emotive, if not heavily biased - part, shall we say,
of the "Let's-knock-the-English" brigade. Using such words and
phrases as "occupying power", "an instrument of colonial governance",
"subjucated", etc. etc., really does show a somewhat biased view of
Irish history.
>
>Fourthly, it must be remembered that the right of English monarchs to
>govern Ireland was achieved through conquest and that the aristocracy,
>the descendants of which you so ardently support, were themselves
>instruments in that colonial subjugation of the native people of
>Ireland, for which, they were awarded with titles and land. The land
>was stolen and illegally confiscated from the native owners by these
>soldiers of fortune in the name of the English monarch - a fact well
>understood by the Irish Parliament in the late 17th and early 18th
>centuries when an array of legislative instruments were introduced to
>"correct" and "secure" these aristocrats in their estates.
You're totally misinterpreting me here, Michael. I am neither "for"
nor "against" the Irish Peerage - what I think is wrong is for them to
be totally dismissed out of hand as if they were of no consequence .
They are part of the history of Ireland and I am totally against any
country sanitising it's history so as to suit the current people in
power.
You refer to the Normans as conquerors of the native Irish - but were
not we, the native Irish, ourselves conquerors when the Gaelic tribes
came to Ireland from the Continent?
>
>Fifthly, the descendants of these colonial soldiers of fortune - your
>"Irish aristocracy" would, I suspect, strongly advise you to take
>another course of action as many would view with considerable alarm
>your assertion that Ireland currently has an aristocracy. They are
>only too aware of the potency of the history that surrounds the
>conquest of Ireland, subjugation of the native order, dispossession of
>the rightful owners of land, plantations, disenfranchisement of an
>entire people, transplantation within Ireland and transportation to
>overseas colonies, discrimination on grounds of religion and language,
>corrupt landlordism, absentee landlordism, rack rents and evictions,
>abandonment during famine, penal laws etc. etc. Clearly, this "Irish
>aristocracy" has not the illustrious history of its English or
>Scottish counterparts.
But whatever you say cannot remove the simple fact that Ireland, like
England and Scotland, still has aristocratic families living in a
democratic country - by that I mean families, the head of which might
hold a peerage or a baronetcy or even no title at all, who have been
holding the same land for centuries - some of which are of native
Gaelic ancestry and some of which had an ancestor who emigrated to
Ireland from England, Scotland, or further afield some time in the
past.
>Sixthly, Patrick, since clearly history is not your strongest point and
>that your attachment to matters aristocratic has much to do with
>misguided sentimentality, I must point out that the native Irish were
>denied their liberties throughout the period of the governance of
>Ireland by the ancestors of your "Irish aristocracy". The part
>they played in the history of my country could only be described as
>shameful, neglectful and self serving. The native aristocracy, on the
>other hand, lost everything because unlike the Scottish aristocracy,
>the majority of the Irish leaders did not abandon their people and were
>dispossessed with them. For the people of Ireland the painful memories
>of landlordism, evictions and the long Land War are still too fresh to
>facilitate any acceptance of an aristocracy.
I can assure you that "sentimentality" and me are not happy
bedfellows. Despite what you are aware, I am deeply aware of the
suffering of the natice Irish Catholics - after all, 6 of my own 16
great-great-grandparents were forced to leave Ireland and seek a
better life in the North of England because of the ravishes of the
Potato Famine. But that happened over 150 years ago and to me it
makes no sense to keep on bashing the English because of this . The
current generation have no responsibility for this, collective or
otherwise. At least let us be sensible and look at Irish history as
dispassionately as we can. Dwelling on the past and mulling over past
injuries is very negative and achieves nothing except resentment and
bitterness.
>
>Seventhly, it must be remembered that for most of their history since
>Tudor times, this "Irish aristocracy" through their participation
>in the colonial governance of Ireland used their position to deny the
>overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland the basis human rights,
>freedom of religion, equality before the law, protection of the crown
>etc. Just look at the role played by Irish peers in the House of Lords
>during the 19th century and the early 20th century. Most of their
>descendants, I am sure, would not wish to dwell on this period too
>closely for very obvious reasons.
See my comment above which applies just as equally to this comment by
you.
We are still talking about events that happened almost 100 years ago -
what's happened has happened - let's move on.
>
>Finally, I would suggest Patrick that you discuss your position with
>your friends in the Irish Peers Association, especially those who are
>habitually resident in the Republic and are Irish citizens. I think
>that you'll find their approach to be more practical and in line with
>Ireland's constitutional position as a republic.
I'm not aware that I know anyone who is a member of the Irish Peers
Association so, unless you are trrying to be sarcastic, Michael, which
I hope was far far beneath you, I cannot see who these so-called
friends are that you refer to.
Well if Lord Rosse is typical of their approach, then I am obviously
going to be disappointed. If the current citizens of Eire have such a
huge chip on their shoulder about being wronged in the past that they
want people who have legitimate titles to stop using them, then more
fool them.
You have asked me to write an article on the Bill from the English
perspective, and I can tell you now that this will be one of my main
points.
>
>If the issue of "titles of nobility" (generic term) is to be debated in
>relation to the Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006, I think that you
>should give very serious consideration to my previous advice on the
>matter.
>
>Kindest regards
>
>Michael Merrigan
>www.familyhistory.ie
>
>
>
>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
>> On 11 Jul 2006 12:14:54 -0700, "Michael Merrigan"
>> <GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>>
>> >A Phádraig, a Chara,
>> >
>> >In this era of much improved relations between the United Kingdom and
>> >Ireland at many levels, it may be unwise to assert that Ireland has an
>> >aristocracy - which constitutionally it has not. However, it is fair
>> >to say that a number of Irish citizens are the holders of "titles of
>> >nobility" (generic term) emanating from the British crown, mainland
>> >European monarchies, the Vatican or elsewhere. We have our Gaelic
>> >Chiefs too.
>>
>> I fail to see why it may be unwise to claim that Ireland has an
>> aristocracy when quite plainly it has. I agree that they have, quite
>> correctly, no political power in the republic but they do represent
>> some of the oldest families in the former Kingdom of Ireland.
>>
>> I think you are putting a little spin on matters by saying "emanating
>> from the British Crown" - the hint here is that there were somehow
>> alian to Ireland and granted by a foreign potentate - as, quite
>> correctly, is the case with titles of nobility emanating from the
>> Vatican, etc.
>>
>> Creations within the Peerage of Ireland were undoubtedly Irish titles,
>> just as creations within the Peerage of England were undoubtedly
>> English titles and creations within the Peerage of Scotland were
>> undoubtedly Scottish titles.
>>
>> English and Scottish titles ceased to be granted after the Act of
>> Union with Scotland in 1707 - thereafter new titles granted on the
>> mainland (but not in Ireland) are described as Great British titles,
>> and after the Act of Union with Ireland in 1800 new titles created on
>> the mainland (but not in Ireland) are described as United Kingdom
>> titles. The last Irish title created was the Barony of Curzon of
>> Kedleston, granted in 1898.
>>
>> >
>> >If there is to be legislative change to permit "courtesy recognition" -
>> >which I sincerely doubt, it must conform to our constitutional
>> >framework as a republic. Asserting the rights of an "Irish aristocracy"
>> >would not be very helpful at this time for very sound historical and
>> >constitutional reasons, of which, Patrick, I am sure that you are fully
>> >aware.
>>
>> Actually I'm not. You can live in a republic, but still allow people
>> who have them to use titles of nobility, e.g. France or Italy.
>>
>> You still have a landed gentry in the republic so why not allow people
>> to use their peerage titles too?
>>
>> >
>> >This assertion could close the door on any meaningful debate on this
>> >issue before it has a chance to consider options and suggestions from
>> >interested parties and individuals in Ireland and overseas. We are
>> >seeking a State heraldic service for all of our citizens and members of
>> >the Irish Diaspora - this is the objective and the challenge!!
>> >
>> >Kindest regards
>> >
>> >Michael Merrigan
>> >www.familyhistory.ie
>> >
>> >
>> >Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:21:23 +0100, Sean J Murphy
>> >> <sjbm...@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Don Aitken wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:28:27 +0100, Sean J Murphy
>> >> >> <sjbm...@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>How would an Anglo-Irish peer be described in a legal context in the
>> >> >>>Irish Republic? We have a perfect example in the Altamont (Amendment of
>> >> >>>Deed of Trust) Act 1993, wherein the then Lord Altamont and now Marquis
>> >> >>>of Sligo is described as 'the Honourable Jeremy Ulick Browne, commonly
>> >> >>>called Lord Altamont': http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZPA1Y1993.html
>> >> >>>(is this not a remarkably unprejudiced republican accommodation of the
>> >> >>>needs of an ancien regime title holder?).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, because he would be described in exactly the same way in a legal
>> >> >> document in the UK. Courtesy titles are merely a matter of custom. If
>> >> >> you can find an example of the treatment of a *substantive* peer
>> >> >> (whose status in the UK is a matter of law), that would be more
>> >> >> helpful.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The point I was making was that in the past there was no barrier in the
>> >> >Irish Republic against referring to a title of nobility in a legally
>> >> >precise document. The termination of courtesy recognition of Irish
>> >> >Chiefs in 2003 must pose problems: if 'our' native aristocrats cannot
>> >> >have their titles acknowledged by officials, how can the same courtesy
>> >> >be afforded to 'their' foreign titles? The whole problem is of course
>> >> >tied up with the notion of 'parity of esteem', which issue was handled
>> >> >quite well recently by the Irish government in relation to
>> >> >commemorations of the 1916 Rising and the Battle of the Somme.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Of course the Irish Peers *are* the native aristocrats of Ireland -
>> >> most of them were born and bred there and plenty still live there.
sir_crisp...@yahoo.co.uk
Dear Patrick
Interlin.
> I find this very emotive, if not heavily biased - part, shall we say,
> of the "Let's-knock-the-English" brigade. Using such words and
> phrases as "occupying power", "an instrument of colonial governance",
> "subjucated", etc. etc., really does show a somewhat biased view of
> Irish history.
I fully agree. They are so unlike the sober yet mellifluous phrases of
English legal theory such as 'proper authority', 'by law established',
'it can be presumed', etc by which a proper version of the past is
established.
> You're totally misinterpreting me here, Michael. I am neither "for"
> nor "against" the Irish Peerage - what I think is wrong is for them to
> be totally dismissed out of hand as if they were of no consequence .
> They are part of the history of Ireland and I am totally against any
> country sanitising it's history so as to suit the current people in
> power.
Yes indeed. The poor treatment accorded to 1800 - 1922 Irish history in
current UK history books is on the other hand wholly understandable.
After all we wouldn't want our children to be taught that a famine
killed a significant proportion of the UK population when we should be
teaching them our island story.
> You refer to the Normans as conquerors of the native Irish - but were
> not we, the native Irish, ourselves conquerors when the Gaelic tribes
> came to Ireland from the Continent?
Come, come Patrick! The long naturalisation of your line in England has
surely rendered you as British as you say the Irish peers are Irish. I
have fond memories of the prominent Union Flag upon your old website.
God forbid that an Irish peer do likewise with the Irish Tricolour!
Michael Merrigan
Without going over my points again, suffice to say that, terms and
phrases such as "occupying power", "instruments of colonial
governance" and "subjugation of the native population" - are
simply descriptions of fact. These terms would not cause a ripple in
any state that was previously a colony of any of the great powers,
including Great Britain. These terms might be uncomfortable for those
seeking to sentimentalise the history of British imperialism - but I
think that you'll find that citizens of the Republic of India,
Republic of Pakistan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of South Africa and
of many other countries would have no difficulty whatsoever in
understanding the import and appropriateness of these terms and
phrases.
As for the term "invaders" and your suggestion that the Gaelic
people were likewise invaders of Ireland, I think that advances in DNA
have shown that the majority of the population descend from peoples who
arrived here up to four millennia ago. Indeed, by the end of the first
millennium AD the Gaelic civilisation in Ireland was in situ for nearly
two millennia - remember by 1000 AD, the Anglo-Saxon civilisation was
barely in existence for four hundred years in England. Therefore, by
all reasonable benchmarking, the Gaelic Irish are considered the
indigenous population of the island of Ireland.
Regarding the descendants of the "Peers of the Realm" now resident
in Ireland and especially, those that are citizens of the republic -
the Constitution is very clear as to the equality afforded to all
citizens of the republic. The holding of a "title of nobility" is
simply, therefore, an irrelevancy in our constitutional and political
framework. Once again, it is a simply fact of constitutional law,
Ireland does not have an aristocracy, Gaelic, Norman, English or
whatever. Patrick this is one fact that you'll just have to live with
as it will not be altered by the People of Ireland.
My reference to your friends in the Irish Peers Association was a
reference to a point you raised regarding a letter that you sent to a
Mr. Parsons of Birr, Co. Offaly - please be assured, Patrick, I was
not attempting to be sarcastic.
Regarding the contribution made by the aristocracy to Irish history in
the 19th and early 20th century, I would suggest that you look at their
contributions to debates on, amongst other matters, Catholic
Emancipation, Tithes, Famine Relief, Land Reform, Home Rule Bills and
the enfranchisement of the majority of the population. Indeed, I would
ask you to look at the mass evictions from their estates during the
Great Famine facilitated by the Gregory clause in the Poor Law Relief
(Ireland) Act, 1847. This measure alone is estimated to have directly
contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths through starvation and
disease. Frankly, Patrick, the contribution to Irish history made by
the majority of these descendants of the earlier "soldiers of
fortune" during in the heyday of their aristocratic Ireland was, as I
have said before, shameful, neglectful and wholly self serving. This
is a fact of the history of this aristocracy - their history, our
suffering - not our heritage.
Also, I would point you to an issue that must be an appalling affront
to all citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern
Ireland - the attempt in 1991 to have the rights of the
representatives of "Irish Peers" to sit in the House of Lords
vindicated. No right thinking democrat would consider such a move to
be anything less than an affront to democracy whereby persons not
resident in a state, not paying taxes to a state, not covered by the
laws of a state - but because of their birth and hereditary title
that they should have the right to sit in the upper house of the
parliament of that state and be a legislator of laws that would, in
most cases, not apply to themselves. This attempt, above anything
else, shows how woefully out of touch some of the "Irish
aristocracy" are with the realities of the modern world. Thankfully,
the Tory government of the day was having none of this nonsense and the
rest is history.
Patrick, as I have also said previously, there may well be amendments
to Section 16 (6) of the Bill and in this respect, I would welcome
suggestions short of pushing the absurd notion that Ireland has an
aristocracy. This hasn't a chance in hell of being accepted by Irish
parliamentarians, therefore, I would advise all seeking such to give
their undoubted talents and energies to a more deserving and hopefully,
more achievable cause.
Kindest regards,
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Michael
Thank you for taking time to write such a long, detailed and
interesting reply.
It is obvious that you and I are viewing Irish history from totally
different perspectives - and it looks as if the twain shal never meet.
Best wishes
Patrick
On 22 Jul 2006 11:04:37 -0700, "Michael Merrigan"
barrassie
Donnchadh wrote:
> "IMHO they are an infinitely more important group of people than the
> rag tag motley group of individuals who claim to be Irish chieftains -
> a lot of which claims, we are led to believe, are far from solid."
> ***Quote from Crispin Gaylord***
>
> As opposed to that rag tag motley group of individuals who purchased
> their hereditary baronetcies? Or as opposed to that rag tag motley
> group of individuals who inherited such cheaply bought 'nobility'?
> As opposed to those rag tag motley group of individuals who sold out
> their rightful kings for a Protestant prince from another land
> (absolutely one of Britain's most honorable moments)? As opposed to
> those rag tag motley group of individuals who purchased their peerages
> for selling out their nation's independence in favor of union?
>
> Ah yes...when one compares the history of these noble and most honored
> people's ancestors and the rag tag motley group of Irish Chiefs and
> Chieftains who are doing nothing more than trying to be nothing more
> than who they are as best they can be I must confess that as an Irish
> nationalist I would take these "rag tag motley group" of Irish Chiefs
> and Chieftains over foreign "planters," or excuse me "landed" men any
> day. At least the real Irish chiefs and chieftains are really Irishmen
>
> Heck I'd even take Terrance "I wanna be MacCarthy Mor" McCartney
> of Belfast... err... I mean Morocco, and his fake half-witted
> pretenders with all of their falsehoods over the likes of these foreign
> pretenders of 'nobility and civility' any day of the week - for
> at least I can see that despite their falsehoods they are not
> foreigners or Irishmen who are nothing more than Seonin to their core.
>
> Mr. Gaylord you can keep your 'Uncle Toms' thank you very much.
> Look up to them all you want...real historians know better.
The Scottish peers were created by the Scottish Crown that was native
to the country the same with the English Crown's creations of English
peerages, also included baronetcies an knights, but the Irish Peerages
and titles were reated by a foreign crown not native, the lawful
legitamate Irish Royal House were overthrown by a conquerour who was
resisted for centuries by the people of Ireland untill a large part of
the island of Ireland at last gained its rightful sovereignty. A number
of Irish Chiefs have been prominent in a number of different countries
and well respected.
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> The Scottish peers were created by the Scottish Crown that was native
> to the country the same with the English Crown's creations of English
> peerages, also included baronetcies an knights, but the Irish Peerages
> and titles were reated by a foreign crown not native, the lawful
> legitamate Irish Royal House were overthrown by a conquerour who was
> resisted for centuries by the people of Ireland untill a large part of
> the island of Ireland at last gained its rightful sovereignty.
Can't much the same thing be said of England?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Peter Constantine
>> ...the lawful legitamate Irish Royal House were overthrown by a
>> conquerour who was resisted for centuries by the people of Ireland
>> untill a large part of the island of Ireland at last gained its
>> rightful sovereignty.
>
> Can't much the same thing be said of England?
Probably... apart from the bit about gaining its rightful sovereignty
;)
x
[Anyone know the whereabouts of the descendants of Edgar Aetheling?]
Donnchadh
same for the Native Americans in America; or those Aborigines in
Australia"..."
Peter, for the sake of accuracy in relation to the status/situation of
Native American nations, for legally and socially they are in fact
viewed as nations, I will enlighten you; these nations are in fact
nations and are recognized as such with treaties with the government of
the Federal Republic of the United States of America, as well as
agreements with individual states/state governments. As such, they
govern themselves in all matter and only when there is a conflict with
the national government (national security etc.) is there usually a
problem, but even then they usually win in federal court case battles.
The Native American nations all have their own form of governance,
elections, policing, education, housing, social services, etc. Of
course they are also entitled to American forms of these things as
well.
I think the Americans have gone a long way in making the Native
Americans as autonomous as they can be; certainly the situation is not
as intolerable, unjust as that which still exists in British held
Northern Ireland. Was the treatment of them always fair and just?
Absolutely not. Can it be better still? Absolutely yes. However, is it
better than a comment like yours purports it to be? Most definitely.
As to the situation of Aboriginals in Australia, well, I'm not an
Aussie and can't comment on that. You'd have to speak to them, or
and here's an idea, do a little research on it for yourself. I
suspect you may well be surprised at the actual situation.
I suggest that when you are to make sweeping generalizations in the
treatments of native peoples from succeeding/colonizing people you
should at least make sure that such generalizations are based in fact
and not in fancy.
Donnchadh
FitzGeralds, the O'Neills, etc., all of whom are represented in the
part of Irish society and history"?
***Quoted from Patrick Cracroft-Breannan***
If your comment is to me Patrick, which I assume it is after
highlighting the quote, I will say that in at least the case of
O'Neill the answer would be yes. For this person is in fact not an
O'Neill at all, but rather a descendent of an Englishman whose family
adopted the name (given it comes from a female). How queer is that
really anyway? I mean to be so involved in the destruction of a native
people and socio-politico-religious culture only to have your
descendents adopt the name of one of those great people later on? Very
strange indeed.
And cases could be made for the great and noble practice of selling out
to a foreign, illegal, illegitimate power in order to secure position
and power for one's self. That is surely not behavior/action(s) of a
'noble' person or class of people. Each of the families you've
listed above, excluding the fake O'Neills, sold out to one degree or
another and at one point or another. To your average, real Irishman (in
Ireland or in the Diaspora) is not going to see much merit in the
families you've listed in the same manner, degree that you would.
Certainly not enough to warrant an exclusionary clause to protect them
as an entitled/elite class of people. My gosh man...even your own Crown
decided against giving them protection when they struck down the Irish
Peerage and make no mistake about that, for that is precisely what they
did to that group of peers. So, please, spare me the rhetoric of the
'value' and 'need' to include them in a protected place on the
"merits" of their aristocracy when the font of that false
aristocracy no longer recognizes the "merit" of said group.
Besides, my good fellow, you need to read the entirety of the post(s)
as they relate to the previous posts. It was directed towards those who
would have us believe that only the so-called Irish aristocracy were
worthy of mention etc ad nauseum. - ring a bell???
barrassie
StephenP
> I think the Americans have gone a long way in making the Native
> Americans as autonomous as they can be; certainly the situation is not
> as intolerable, unjust as that which still exists in British held
> Northern Ireland. Was the treatment of them always fair and just?
> Absolutely not. Can it be better still? Absolutely yes. However, is it
> better than a comment like yours purports it to be? Most definitely.
I am rather intrigued by this comment. I was wondering what exactly
was being defined as "intolerable" and "unjust"? There is the
rule of law and universal suffrage.
Donnchadh wrote:
> To your average, real Irishman (in Ireland or in the Diaspora)....
What is your definition of a "real Irishman"? To my mind it would
be someone who was born in Ireland and was a citizen of either the
Republic or of Northern Ireland (UK). It does not matter what their
ancestors did or what side of any argument they sat. If you start on
the "real" and "false" argument you have the recipe for
"ethnic cleansing". Who is the greater Irishman? The offspring
born in Ireland born of immigrant stock (English, Scottish, Indian,
African...) or someone born outside Ireland whose parents/ancestors
originally came from Ireland and took the citizenship of another
country?
StephenP
intended.
Peter Constantine
> Peter my name is Charles not Tim!
My apologies... my newsreader had attributed the "Can't much the same
thing be said of England?" query to Tim.
x
Sean J Murphy
> Altamont was not a peer. His correct name was Jeremy Ulick Browne. He
> was *known as* "Lord Altamont" as a matter of courtesy, and legal
> documents referring to him in the the UK would include this for more
> precise identification. Any other alias would be described in exactly
> the same way. No question arises of any legal right, or of the
> "recognition" of anything other than the fact that he was *in fact*
> described in that way by those who had occasion to deal with him. So
> why should the use of the identical formula in the Republic be held to
> involve "recognition"?
>
Just back from holidays, and so only getting a chance to reply. I
appreciate that 'Lord Altamont' is the courtesy title used by the heir
to the title of Marquess of Sligo. However, that would be a fine point
to a purist republican who would not wish to acknowledge any such
'foreign' title. Common sense and courtesy, in the broadest sense,
combined to ensure that the Irish act referred to employed the Altamont
title and not just the bearer's forenames and surnames. Finding a better
example is difficult, as so few Irish peers are involved in public life
(detachment or exclusion?). However, I would refer to the late Michael
Morris, Lord Killanin, very active in Irish affairs and referred to by
his title in official contexts, eg, a 1997 Dáil debate at
http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-97/9dec97/sect1.htm Documentation I have
seen indicates that after the abandonment of courtesy recognition of
Irish chiefs in 2003, all claimants good and bad have been addressed by
their common names, and letters open 'Dear Sir'.
Sean Murphy
Sean J Murphy
> On 11 Jul 2006 11:48:04 -0700, "Michael Merrigan"
> <GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>
>
>>A Phádraig, a Chara,
>>
>>I can understand and appreciate the historical and heritage value being
>>stressed by many contributors here, however, as you are aware, if
>>"courtesy recognition" is withdrawn from one group (i.e. Gaelic Chiefs)
>>on the grounds that it has no legislative basis, then it is withdrawn
>
>>from all, including members of the peerage.
>
> Michael, you really can't compare the two.
>
> The Gaelic chiefs represent a tradition that started to die out with
> the Norman Conquest of Ireland and was effectively dead by the end of
> the Tudor period. Unlike Scotland, where the chiefly tradition is
> very much alive and kicking, Irish chieftains really are a product of
> the Irish mists (and remember, I speak as a member of an ancient
> Gaelic family with it's own chieftain!).
>
> On the other hand, until fairly recently the Peers of Ireland where a
> part of the governance of Ireland and, through the representative
> peers, that of the United Kingdom as well. they had power and
> influence and exercised it appropriately.
>
> IMHO they are an infinitely more important group of people than the
> rag tag motley group of individuals who claim to be Irish chieftains -
> a lot of which claims, we are led to believe, are far from solid.
>
I would of course have to agree with the point that the Irish chiefs
were not overwhelmed by the Anglo-Norman invaders, many of whose
descendants were themselves assimilated to Gaelic ways. And it was by no
means a foregone conclusion that the Gaelic forces led by Hugh O'Neill
would be defeated by the English in 1603. It is true that although the
Anglo-Irish peers have lost political and economic power, questions
about their right to bear their titles are rare (eg, Dukedom of
Leinster), while post-Terence MacCarthy many claimants to Irish
chiefships are under a cloud, to put it mildly.
Sean Murphy
Irish Chiefs http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
A good point!
For example, Donnchadh is, I think, a person of Irish descent not
living in Ireland, the same as myself. He lectures me as if somehow
he has the moral high ground, but as neither of us are actually
Irishmen, our view are as equally valid - or invalid, as the case may
be!
:) :)
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<sjbm...@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:
That's the trouble with these purist republicans - they surround
themselves with so much hatred that they see offence in everything .
Like it or not the Irish Peerage is part of Ireland's history and what
harm would it do anyone to accord peers their titles on a purely
courtesey basis?
> Common sense and courtesy, in the broadest sense,
>combined to ensure that the Irish act referred to employed the Altamont
>title and not just the bearer's forenames and surnames. Finding a better
>example is difficult, as so few Irish peers are involved in public life
>(detachment or exclusion?). However, I would refer to the late Michael
>Morris, Lord Killanin, very active in Irish affairs and referred to by
>his title in official contexts, eg, a 1997 Dáil debate at
>http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-97/9dec97/sect1.htm Documentation I have
>seen indicates that after the abandonment of courtesy recognition of
>Irish chiefs in 2003, all claimants good and bad have been addressed by
>their common names, and letters open 'Dear Sir'.
>
>Sean Murphy
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Michael Merrigan
> That's the trouble with these purist republicans - they surround
> themselves with so much hatred that they see offence in everything .
> Like it or not the Irish Peerage is part of Ireland's history and what
> harm would it do anyone to accord peers their titles on a purely
> courtesey basis?
Once again Patrick, as has been pointed out many times before,
legislation is required to provide the Irish government with a facility
to offer "courtesy recognition" to holders of "titles of nobility" -
whether such titles are of Gaelic, Anglo-Norman, English or whatever
origin.
Such legislative provisions would not be considered by Irish
parliamentarians because such "courtesy recognition" would be
problematic constitutionally.
Also, as has been said before, since Ireland constitutionally has no
aristocracy nor nobility of whatever hue - it seems strange that
"purist monarchists" are unable to accept the reality of the legal
situation here in Ireland.
Until there is a proper statutory basis for heraldry in Ireland,
consideration of some British-Irish Protocol on the mutual recognition
of Grants of Arms and by extension titles of the grantees must await
developments on the Irish legislative front. Maybe once legislation is
in place in Ireland to provide for the State's delivery of heraldic
services, a formal agreement between London and Dublin could provide
for the mutual recognition of Grants of Arms and the right of grantees
to use such in both the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Peter Constantine
[snip]
> I think the Americans have gone a long way in making the Native
> Americans as autonomous as they can be; certainly the situation is not
> as intolerable, unjust as that which still exists in British held
> Northern Ireland.
[snip]
> I suggest that when you are to make sweeping generalizations in the
> treatments of native peoples from succeeding/colonizing people you
> should at least make sure that such generalizations are based in fact
> and not in fancy.
It is clear that Donnchadh and I will have to agree to differ on whether
the outcome of colonisation of Native American lands is more just than
the situation in Northern Ireland. I'm sure many people have their own
preferred facts and fancies relating to this issue but the whole subject
is way off topic for this NG!
x
["Other people have a nationality. The Irish and
the Jews have a psychosis." - Brendan Behan]
the_ver...@comcast.net
Michael Merrigan wrote:
Once again, it is a simply fact of constitutional law,
> Ireland does not have an aristocracy, Gaelic, Norman, English or
> whatever. Patrick this is one fact that you'll just have to live with
> as it will not be altered by the People of Ireland.
>
Don't be absurd; ALL societies have an aristocracy of one sort or
another.
Being recognized as such by the laws of the society is immaterial. The
members of the society recognize this fact even if the laws of said
society do not.
--
The Verminator
Michael Merrigan
the_ver...@comcast.net wrote:
> Don't be absurd; ALL societies have an aristocracy of one sort or
> another.
>
> Being recognized as such by the laws of the society is immaterial. The
> members of the society recognize this fact even if the laws of said
> society do not.
Evidently, "Verminator" you may have missed the context of these
statements. I suggest that you note the subject matter of this thread
i.e. Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006, and maybe you'll note that
attempts to have an "Irish aristocracy" recognized in Irish law is
absurd as to do so would encounter constitutional problems.
Therefore, my statements in this context are entirely correct.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<GSI.Se...@familyhistory.ie> wrote:
>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
>> That's the trouble with these purist republicans - they surround
>> themselves with so much hatred that they see offence in everything .
>> Like it or not the Irish Peerage is part of Ireland's history and what
>> harm would it do anyone to accord peers their titles on a purely
>> courtesey basis?
>
>Once again Patrick, as has been pointed out many times before,
>legislation is required to provide the Irish government with a facility
>to offer "courtesy recognition" to holders of "titles of nobility" -
>whether such titles are of Gaelic, Anglo-Norman, English or whatever
>origin.
Why does there have to be legislation? Why not merely an instruction
to civil servants that if writing to a Peer of Ireland then the
appropriate honorofics should be used as a courtesy?
>
>Such legislative provisions would not be considered by Irish
>parliamentarians because such "courtesy recognition" would be
>problematic constitutionally.
>
>Also, as has been said before, since Ireland constitutionally has no
>aristocracy nor nobility of whatever hue - it seems strange that
>"purist monarchists" are unable to accept the reality of the legal
>situation here in Ireland.
Michael - please do not take me for an idiot - I do understand and
accept that Ireland is a republic, as are many other countries in the
world. But some Irish citizens bear titles pre-dating the Republic
(and there is no way the Irish Government can take these titles away
from them) so what is the harm in them freely using the said titles
and, should they happen to be in correspondence with some arm of the
Irish Government, being addressed by their title? After all, this is
what so many other republican Governments do around the world.
>
>Until there is a proper statutory basis for heraldry in Ireland,
>consideration of some British-Irish Protocol on the mutual recognition
>of Grants of Arms and by extension titles of the grantees must await
>developments on the Irish legislative front. Maybe once legislation is
>in place in Ireland to provide for the State's delivery of heraldic
>services, a formal agreement between London and Dublin could provide
>for the mutual recognition of Grants of Arms and the right of grantees
>to use such in both the United Kingdom and Ireland.
>
>Kindest regards
>
>Michael Merrigan
>www.familyhistory.ie
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
barrassie
Lord Blank, if that is what he is cxommanly called that is his name,
there is no need all to recognise nobility or titles in a modern state,
a number of the old historic republics granted titles and the
legislature was elected by the nobility. However for the most part that
has gone. Why is legislation required to call a person Lord or Earl
Grey or Viscount Powerscourt? There are a number of persons from the
USA called Earl Whatever or Duke Ellington, does the Irish State
require to pass legislation to enable to address a person by their
legal name. It appears to me that Seamus O'Leary can change his name by
deed pole to Count MacFadden and he would be able to use his name in
Ireland without legislation. Some years ago a man fighting a Dail seat
wished to have his Party named Dublin Bay Prawn or some such, he was
not able, he therefre took that name by deed pole and fought the
election under that name or one like it. Therefore there should be no
problem of anyone taking a name that sounded like a title and being
refered to by it. That does not mean that the State recognises titles
or nobility so there should be no problem.
There is no nobility within the Irish State, so what a person is called
or calls themselves should be of no import.
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
> ======================================================
Sean J Murphy
. . . . .
> There is no nobility within the Irish State, so what a person is called
> or calls themselves should be of no import.
Actually, where an individual calls himself The Mac Carthy Mór, or the
Count of Clandermond, or The Maguire of Fermanagh, and is not entitled
to such titles, it is very much a matter of import. Particularly so when
they use their titles and the certification of corrupt heraldic
officials to con money out of people.
Sean Murphy
The Niad Nask http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/niadhnask.htm
Michael Merrigan
Once again, may I point to the subject matter of this thread i.e.
Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006 and therefore, the issue of "courtesy
recognition" should be understood in that context and in respect of
matters to be entered on Letters Patent or Certificates of Grants of
Arms as provided for by the Bill.
Any attempt to have legislative recognition of an "Irish aristocracy"
will not be successful as it won't even be considered by Irish
parliamentarians because of the constitutional problems that would most
certainly arise. This folks is a fact - like it or leave it - this
situation will NOT change - therefore, alternatives must be explored if
this issue of what can be entered on Letters Patent etc is to be
resolved.
One suggestion could be that once a sound legislative basis for the
State's delivery of heraldic services is established through the
enactment of the Bill then it could be possible that a British Irish
Protocol on the mutual recognition of Grants of Arms and by extension,
the title(s) of the grantee, could be agreed between Ireland and the
United Kingdom. This could, for example, permit grantees (of the COA,
Lord Lyon & Chief Herald of Ireland) to use their Arms lawfully in all
parts of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
But, once again, this is a difficult issue for the Republic because we
cannot, by default, be creating a "nobility" by any legislative
instrument as this would be unconstitutional.
Kindest regards,
Michael Merrigan
www.familyhistory.ie
George Lucki
news:1154469092....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I've been giving this one a bit of thought - the same question can arise in
other republics. I've formed the opinion that the issue is not one of
aristocracy or nobility but of how we approach history and heriatge and its
complicated legacy.
Unlike some other republics that simply made the difficult transition from
monarchy to republic (sometimes as aa response to specific social problems
Ireland also made the transition from foreign occupation and foreign rule (I
am oversimplifying I know) to independence and self-government. The former
Irish Peerage is a creature of the occupying power and it is not only the
(unpopular in many democracies and perhaps constitutionally prohibited)
notions of hereditary social classes that must be overcome also but the fact
that this was an established elite of a foreign power. The fact that many
peers were undoubtedly of Irish extraction and made good careers sometimes
in the service of UK or English interests weighs emotionally on the
decision.
Yet these titles, relicts of the past that they may be are a living part of
Irish history and a reminder of the former social order. My suggestion would
be that these titles be preserved - with no further legal meaning attached
to them as a family heritage and as an Irish heritage. The challenge of
course for these families would be to measure up to the grand title and
demonstarte the contributions they might make to modern Ireland. My thought
is that the Republic has matured to the point where such titles that some
*citizens* bear as a historical fact does not threaten notions of equality.
The other side of the equation is that Ireland has had for decades no real
way to honour its own and help recognize new elites of leadership and
accomplishment. Valuing education there has been the opportunity to award an
honorary degree but overall few ways to recognize significant merits. To the
extent that these can be symbolically conveyed to future generations -
symbols of service to the people and state could motivate family traditions
and encourage others. The suggestion you had made of emeritus arms is one
very positive step in this direction. Such arms could be a way of
recognizing service for the recipient and also serve as a tangible reminder
of an ancestors accomplishments to future bearers of these arms. In that
approach (not at all inconsistent with a Republic) we find both
recognition/reward and hereditary encouragement - both important factors in
the historical establishment of hereditary honours in other societies
(although these are not of course hereditary honours in that sense).
The best example I can give are the provisions of several Polish-Lithuanian
treaties from 1386 onward that led to the long-standing union of these
states. Poland had a tradition of an untitled nobility (titles were seen as
an affront to liberty and equality) and the idea of a noble republic where
all nobles were equal and were citizens. Lithuanian tradition divided the
nobility into higher and lower and the dynastic princely families (actually
quite numerous) understandably wished to keep their titles. The compromise,
affirmed several times was to allow these families to retain their titles
while enshrining that these titles gave no precedence above the untitled
nobility and that it was only the office or military rank that was held that
gave precedence (and there were no hereditary offices). Ultimately this led
to the election of kings and the notion that the king was CEO of the
republic, the elcted first among equals. Titles and republican traditions
are not incompatible.
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Kind regards, George Lucki
Joseph McMillan
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
>
> Michael - please do not take me for an idiot - I do understand and
> accept that Ireland is a republic, as are many other countries in the
> world. But some Irish citizens bear titles pre-dating the Republic
> (and there is no way the Irish Government can take these titles away
> from them)
Sure there is. I don't need to recite the catalogue of new republics
that have done precisely that--abolish all noble titles and forbid
their further use. For that matter, history is replete with monarchs
who stripped nobles of their titles on the flimsiest of pretexts, and
surely a sovereign republic could, if it wished, do the same.
Besides, hasn't the Republic already stripped these people of their
titles in a legal sense by writing into its constitution that there is
no nobility in Ireland? Presumably the Irish state (unlike, in
principle, the German and Austrian states) simply takes no interest in
what these former nobles choose to call themselves and each other in
private. But if there is no noble class in Ireland, then the premier
duke of Ireland himself is in fact not a duke at all but merely a
citizen like any other, and in the eyes of the Republic the fact that
he calls himself Duke of Leinster is of no more significance than if I
decided to style myself Emperor of Montana.
Joseph McMillan