The Irish Revolution

[awkwardcustomer]

My own family name can be traced back to Normans who settled in Ireland during the 12th century.  Is this evidence of another plantation?

That is fascinating. "Customer," when said with a stress on the first syllable with nasality, certainly does resonate a Franco Anglo mix.

[awkwardcustomer]

The Norman invasion of Ireland took place in stages during the late 12th century and led to the Anglo-Normans conquering large swathes of land from the Irish. At the time, Gaelic Ireland was made up of several kingdoms, with a High King claiming lordship over the lesser kings.

In May 1169, Anglo-Norman mercenaries landed in Ireland at the request of Diarmait Mac Murchada (Dermot MacMurragh), the ousted King of Leinster, who had sought their help in regaining his kingdom. Diarmait and the Normans seized Leinster within weeks and launched raids into neighbouring kingdoms. This military intervention had the backing of King Henry II of England and was authorized by Pope Adrian IV.

Oh well, so they were invaders, not settlers.  Sorry about that.  But at least it was an invasion approved of by the Pope.  That must count for something.

And of course, those barbarous, semi-pagans (according to St Bernard of Clairvaux) needed to be civilised, didn't they?

John of Salisbury, Secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke in Rome about the "barbaric and impious" people of Ireland. In 1149, influential French abbot Bernard of Clairvaux had written a book about Saint Malachy, in which he described Ireland as barbaric and semi-pagan. According to historian F. X. Martin, Ireland was "barbaric" in Bernard's eyes simply because it "had retained its own culture and had remained outside the Latin secular world". John and Bernard's depiction of Ireland, rather than the truth about its reforms, became established throughout Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_invasion_of_Ireland

[mikemac]

Yeah I'd go with F. X. Martin's take on it.

Adrian IV was the one and only Anglo-Saxon Pope.

[awkwardcustomer]

Adrian IV, original name Nicholas Breakspear, also known as Hadrian IV, (born 1100?, Abbot's Langley, near St. Albans, Hertfordshire, Eng.—died Sept. 1, 1159, Anagni, near Rome [Italy]), the only Englishman to occupy the papal throne (1154–59).

Ah yes, it's worth remembering that the Anglo-Saxons were Catholic too.  And the Normans.

Catholics haven't always been nice to each other.

[awkwardcustomer]

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Anglo-Saxon_art

[mikemac]

Just in case you missed this on the 'Normans in Ireland' page.

Their fortunes took a dip in the 17th century, when they became known as The Old English and much of their caste merged with native Irish Gaels under the denominator of "Irish Catholic." This was because a New English Protestant elite had arrived as a new ruling class in Ireland during the Tudor period.

I was at a friends parents place a few years ago with him.  His sir name is Flynn.  We were talking about Irish history.  His father said some Norman Irish are more Irish than the Irish, or something along that line.  His wife's maiden name was Wallace, a Norman sir name. 

[awkwardcustomer]

Just in case you missed this on the 'Normans in Ireland' page.

Their fortunes took a dip in the 17th century, when they became known as The Old English and much of their caste merged with native Irish Gaels under the denominator of "Irish Catholic." This was because a New English Protestant elite had arrived as a new ruling class in Ireland during the Tudor period.

I was at a friends parents place a few years ago with him.  His sir name is Flynn.  We were talking about Irish history.  His father said some Norman Irish are more Irish than the Irish, or something along that line.  His wife's maiden name was Wallace, a Norman sir name.

The names remain but does the ancestry?  The invading Normans subjugated the Anglo Saxons of England and the Gaels of Scotland, Wales and Ireland.  But they also established in these lands a European, Catholic culture which brought the 'outliers' (especially the Gaels) into the fold, established Feudalism as a system, and led to the wonders of the Medieval period.  And then the Normans more or less merged with the Gaels through intermarriage mainly, and why not?  They were both Catholic.

The planting of Protestants, on the other hand, into Ireland has created a hostile and exclusive minority that will never merge and will continue to be a thorn in Ireland's flesh.  This sort of demographic tactic is very effective.  I've wondered if Moslem immigration into the West is being facilitated for a similar reason, to create a hostile and distinct minority which can be used to agitate and worry the natives, keeping them unbalanced and unable to unite in any meaningful way.

[mikemac]

I think it's an exaggeration to say the Catholic culture of the Celts before the Normans were 'outliers'.  Rome had recognized the Church in Ireland and Scotland from early on.  They had been Catholic for a few centuries before the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans (Norse) and the Vikings converted.  You may want to read a book by Thomas Cahill, titled "How The Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland's Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe".  "Cahill argues a case for the Irish people's critical role in preserving Western Civilization from utter destruction by the Huns and the Germanic tribes (Visigoths, Franks, Angles, Saxons, Ostrogoths, etc.). The book retells the story from the collapse of the Roman Empire and the pivotal role played by members of the clergy at the time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Irish_Saved_Civilization

Osway the king of Northumbria, Elfred and Egfrid reeked havoc on the Culdee houses.  In Scotland a controversial reform was inaugurated by Queen Margaret and carried through by her sons Alexander I and David I.  It seems the Benedictines and the Cistercians were covetous of the Culdee houses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culdees

To the contrary, the hostile and distinct minority of the planted Protestants united the Irish Catholics and the Old English (Normans), didn't it?  The Irish eventually got most of their country back.  And me thinks with demographics they will eventually have a united Ireland.  Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland are having more babies.  The Moslem immigration into the West may turn out the same, but not because of demographic reasons.

Edit to add;

Feudalism has recently been outlawed in Scotland.  Now the question that is being asked is "Who owns Scotland?"  Both Feudalism in Scotland as well as the Lyon Court are Norman constructs.  Feudalism in Scotland clearly was not a "wonder of the Medieval period"; it was a way to steal land. 

[awkwardcustomer]

I think it's an exaggeration to say the Catholic culture of the Celts before the Normans were 'outliers'.  Rome had recognized the Church in Ireland and Scotland from early on.  They had been Catholic for a few centuries before the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans (Norse) and the Vikings converted.  You may want to read a book by Thomas Cahill, titled "How The Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland's Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe".  "Cahill argues a case for the Irish people's critical role in preserving Western Civilization from utter destruction by the Huns and the Germanic tribes (Visigoths, Franks, Angles, Saxons, Ostrogoths, etc.). The book retells the story from the collapse of the Roman Empire and the pivotal role played by members of the clergy at the time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Irish_Saved_Civilization

I agree, that's why I put 'outliers' in scare quotes.  And I'm familiar with Thomas Cahill's book and am well aware of the argument which I don't doubt.

Osway the king of Northumbria, Elfred and Egfrid reeked havoc on the Culdee houses.  In Scotland a controversial reform was inaugurated by Queen Margaret and carried through by her sons Alexander I and David I.  It seems the Benedictines and the Cistercians were covetous of the Culdee houses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culdees

Another example of the oppression of the Gaels, this time by the Benedictines and Cistercians!

Those poor Gaels just can't win.

To the contrary, the hostile and distinct minority of the planted Protestants united the Irish Catholics and the Old English (Normans), didn't it?  The Irish eventually got most of their country back.  And me thinks with demographics they will eventually have a united Ireland.  Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland are having more babies.  The Moslem immigration into the West may turn out the same, but not because of demographic reasons.

A diverse and non-Catholic Ireland is what the Irish will get, an Ireland grateful for the crumbs that fall from the tables of its new Globalist masters.

If the Irish had any sense at all, they would be clamouring to leave the European Union along with a majority of the UK electorate.  But what do they do instead?  They collude with Brussels to thwart Brexit.

Just as Eamon de Valera refused Churchill's offer of the 6 counties, thereby aiding and abetting the war against their old enemies the English, so Leo Varadkar is aiding and abetting the EU against the people of Britain who voted to leave.

The Irish cannot see how they are being played because they are blinded by their ancient hatred of the Anglo Saxons, a hatred and victimhood which their new masters in Brussels are more than willing to encourage.

Feudalism has recently been outlawed in Scotland.  Now the question that is being asked is "Who owns Scotland?"  Both Feudalism in Scotland as well as the Lyon Court are Norman constructs.  Feudalism in Scotland clearly was not a "wonder of the Medieval period"; it was a way to steal land.

Just as it was in England.  But that doesn't count because the land being stolen belonged to the Anglo Saxons!!!

[mikemac]

Feudalism has recently been outlawed in Scotland.  Now the question that is being asked is "Who owns Scotland?"  Both Feudalism in Scotland as well as the Lyon Court are Norman constructs.  Feudalism in Scotland clearly was not a "wonder of the Medieval period"; it was a way to steal land.

Just as it was in England.  But that doesn't count because the land being stolen belonged to the Anglo Saxons!!!

Are you trying to make some sort of point here?  England that the Normans conquered from the Anglo Saxons was stolen by the Anglo Saxons from the Britons.  They both fought over a land that didn't belong to either of them.  Besides the Normans and Anglo Saxons united to become the English, because of their similar Norse/Germanic culture.

Yeah the Norse and the Anglo Saxons were sure covetous of that land that didn't belong to either of them.  Just a couple of weeks before the Battle of Hastings the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson defeated an invasion force led by his own brother Tostig, and the Norwegian King Harald Hardrada.  But in the end the Norse (Normans) won out with Williams victory at Hastings on October 14, 1066.

[awkwardcustomer]

Feudalism has recently been outlawed in Scotland.  Now the question that is being asked is "Who owns Scotland?"  Both Feudalism in Scotland as well as the Lyon Court are Norman constructs.  Feudalism in Scotland clearly was not a "wonder of the Medieval period"; it was a way to steal land.

Just as it was in England.  But that doesn't count because the land being stolen belonged to the Anglo Saxons!!!

Are you trying to make some sort of point here?  England that the Normans conquered from the Anglo Saxons was stolen by the Anglo Saxons from the Britons.  They both fought over a land that didn't belong to either of them.  Besides the Normans and Anglo Saxons united to become the English, because of their similar Norse/Germanic culture.

Yeah the Norse and the Anglo Saxons were sure covetous of that land that didn't belong to either of them.  Just a couple of weeks before the Battle of Hastings the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson defeated an invasion force led by his own brother Tostig, and the Norwegian King Harald Hardrada.  But in the end the Norse (Normans) won out with Williams victory at Hastings on October 14, 1066.

Yes, I'm trying to make a point. 

For example, the Irish Gaels once ruled part of Scotland, the Kingdom of Dalraida which included most of present day Argyle and the Isles.  The Kingdom of the Picts therefore had to see off both the Gaels and the Anglo Saxons, as the article linked to describes.

Then the Picts just disappeared and their language became extinct, as a result of the increasing influence of Gaelic culture which eventually subsumed them. 

It is no coincidence that the Picts mysterious disappearance occurs at the same time as the creation of the kingdom of Alba. For many years Gaelic influence in Pictland had been on the rise. The Gaelic religion of Christianity had spread throughout Pictish lands and with it many Gaelic traditions. Furthermore, through a mixture of conquest and inter-marriage Gaelic or Gaelicised royalty had succeeded to the Pictish throne (a notable example of this being Kenneth MacAlpin).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/history/articles/kingdom_of_the_picts/

The poor Picts never stood a chance, what with the Anglo Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans and the Gaels.

Do you see my point?


https://www.historyscotland.com/articles/scottish-history/picts-gaels-and-scots

[awkwardcustomer]

Feudalism has recently been outlawed in Scotland.  Now the question that is being asked is "Who owns Scotland?"  Both Feudalism in Scotland as well as the Lyon Court are Norman constructs.  Feudalism in Scotland clearly was not a "wonder of the Medieval period"; it was a way to steal land.

Just as it was in England.  But that doesn't count because the land being stolen belonged to the Anglo Saxons!!!

Are you trying to make some sort of point here?  England that the Normans conquered from the Anglo Saxons was stolen by the Anglo Saxons from the Britons.  They both fought over a land that didn't belong to either of them.  Besides the Normans and Anglo Saxons united to become the English, because of their similar Norse/Germanic culture.

Yeah the Norse and the Anglo Saxons were sure covetous of that land that didn't belong to either of them.  Just a couple of weeks before the Battle of Hastings the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson defeated an invasion force led by his own brother Tostig, and the Norwegian King Harald Hardrada.  But in the end the Norse (Normans) won out with Williams victory at Hastings on October 14, 1066.

Yes, I'm trying to make a point. 

For example, the Irish Gaels once ruled part of Scotland, the Kingdom of Dalraida which included most of present day Argyle and the Isles.  The Kingdom of the Picts therefore had to see off both the Gaels and the Anglo Saxons, as the article linked to describes.

Then the Picts just disappeared and their language became extinct, as a result of the increasing influence of Gaelic culture which eventually subsumed them. 

It is no coincidence that the Picts mysterious disappearance occurs at the same time as the creation of the kingdom of Alba. For many years Gaelic influence in Pictland had been on the rise. The Gaelic religion of Christianity had spread throughout Pictish lands and with it many Gaelic traditions. Furthermore, through a mixture of conquest and inter-marriage Gaelic or Gaelicised royalty had succeeded to the Pictish throne (a notable example of this being Kenneth MacAlpin).

https://www.historyscotland.com/articles/scottish-history/picts-gaels-and-scots

The poor Picts never stood a chance, what with the Anglo Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans and the Gaels.

Do you see my point?

[awkwardcustomer]

Sorry Gaels, but the Picts are the real victims in all this.

[mikemac]

Feudalism has recently been outlawed in Scotland.  Now the question that is being asked is "Who owns Scotland?"  Both Feudalism in Scotland as well as the Lyon Court are Norman constructs.  Feudalism in Scotland clearly was not a "wonder of the Medieval period"; it was a way to steal land.

Just as it was in England.  But that doesn't count because the land being stolen belonged to the Anglo Saxons!!!

Are you trying to make some sort of point here?  England that the Normans conquered from the Anglo Saxons was stolen by the Anglo Saxons from the Britons.  They both fought over a land that didn't belong to either of them.  Besides the Normans and Anglo Saxons united to become the English, because of their similar Norse/Germanic culture.

Yeah the Norse and the Anglo Saxons were sure covetous of that land that didn't belong to either of them.  Just a couple of weeks before the Battle of Hastings the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson defeated an invasion force led by his own brother Tostig, and the Norwegian King Harald Hardrada.  But in the end the Norse (Normans) won out with Williams victory at Hastings on October 14, 1066.

Yes, I'm trying to make a point. 

For example, the Irish Gaels once ruled part of Scotland, the Kingdom of Dalraida which included most of present day Argyle and the Isles.  The Kingdom of the Picts therefore had to see off both the Gaels and the Anglo Saxons, as the article linked to describes.

Then the Picts just disappeared and their language became extinct, as a result of the increasing influence of Gaelic culture which eventually subsumed them. 

It is no coincidence that the Picts mysterious disappearance occurs at the same time as the creation of the kingdom of Alba. For many years Gaelic influence in Pictland had been on the rise. The Gaelic religion of Christianity had spread throughout Pictish lands and with it many Gaelic traditions. Furthermore, through a mixture of conquest and inter-marriage Gaelic or Gaelicised royalty had succeeded to the Pictish throne (a notable example of this being Kenneth MacAlpin).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/history/articles/kingdom_of_the_picts/

The poor Picts never stood a chance, what with the Anglo Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans and the Gaels.

Do you see my point?


https://www.historyscotland.com/articles/scottish-history/picts-gaels-and-scots

No, I do not see your point.  You seem to be all over the place, including with some misconceptions.

I've always understood that Kenneth MacAlpin united the Picts, Scots of DalRiata and Brits of Strathclyde in mutual defense against the Anglo Saxons of Northumbria.  The BBC link that you posted above says the Angle-Saxons "rapidly expanded north" and mentions a few battles.  It says "Since 653 AD many of the major groups of people in Scotland - Britons, Gaels and much of Pictland - had been subject to the overlordship of King Oswui. In 672 AD, after the death of Oswui, the Picts rose against their overlords, expelling Drust, their Northumbrian puppet king."

This page does not clearly identify Kenneth MacAlpin as a Pict or a Scot.  But it certainly puts into question any conquest of the Picts by the Scots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_MacAlpin

... Rather than a conquest of the Picts, instead, the idea of Pictish matrilineal succession, mentioned by Bede and apparently the only way to make sense of the list of Kings of the Picts found in the Pictish Chronicle, advanced the idea that Kenneth was a Gael, and a king of Dál Riata, who had inherited the throne of Pictland through a Pictish mother. Other Gaels, such as Caustantín and Óengus, the sons of Fergus, were identified among the Pictish king lists, as were Angles such as Talorcen son of Eanfrith, and Britons such as Bridei son of Beli.[3]

Later historians would reject parts of the Kenneth produced by Skene and subsequent historians, while accepting others. Medievalist Alex Woolf, interviewed by The Scotsman in 2004, is quoted as saying:

    The myth of Kenneth conquering the Picts – it's about 1210, 1220 that that's first talked about. There's actually no hint at all that he was a Scot. ... If you look at contemporary sources there are four other Pictish kings after him. So he's the fifth last of the Pictish kings rather than the first Scottish king."[4]

Many other historians could be quoted in terms similar to Woolf.[5]

A feasible synopsis of the emerging consensus may be put forward, namely, that the kingships of Gaels and Picts underwent a process of gradual fusion,[6] starting with Kenneth, and rounded off in the reign of Constantine II. The Pictish institution of kingship provided the basis for merger with the Gaelic Alpin dynasty. The meeting of King Constantine and Bishop Cellach at the Hill of Belief near the (formerly Pictish) royal city of Scone in 906 cemented the rights and duties of Picts on an equal basis with those of Gaels (pariter cum Scottis). Hence the change in styling from King of the Picts to King of Alba. The legacy of Gaelic as the first national language of Scotland does not obscure the foundational process in the establishment of the Scottish kingdom of Alba.

Besides the Picts, the Scots and the Brits were all Celts.  DalRiata was in both Scotland and northern Ireland.  They traveled back and forth between Ireland and Scotland even long before DalRiata.  Another name for the Picts is the Cruthin.  There were also Cruthin in Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruthin

The Cruthin (Old Irish pronunciation: [?k??????n??]; Middle Irish: Cruithnig or Cruithni; Modern Irish: Cruithne [?k???hn???]) were a people of early medieval Ireland. Their heartland was in Ulster and included parts of the present-day counties of Antrim, Down and Londonderry. They are also said to have lived in parts of Leinster and Connacht. Their name is the Irish equivalent of Priteni, an ancient name for the Celtic Britons, and was sometimes used to refer to the Picts.[1] However, there is a debate among scholars as to the relationship of the Cruthin with the Britons and Picts.

The Cruthin comprised a number of túatha (territories), which included the Dál nAraidi of County Antrim and the Uí Echach Cobo of County Down. Early sources distinguish between the Cruthin and the Ulaid, who gave their name to the over-kingdom, although the Dál nAraidi would later claim in their genealogies to be na fír Ulaid, "the true Ulaid".[2] The Loígis, who gave their name to County Laois in Leinster, and the Sogain of Leinster and Connacht, are also claimed as Cruthin in early Irish genealogies.[3]

By 773 AD, the annals stopped using the term Cruithne in favour of the term Dál nAraidi,[1] who had secured their over-kingship of the Cruthin.

The Celtic language of the Picts was Brythonic like the Brits.  There are both Brythonic and Goidelic place names in Scotland.


Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages

There are Scottish clans to this day that claim to be of Pictish descent.  Although I certainly wouldn't believe the claims of some of the clans, I do believe a few of them, like Clan Macnaghten.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Macnaghten

The Clan Macnaghten are amongst the Scottish clans who claim descent from the early Pictish rulers of the Mormaer of Moray.[4] The name Nectan means pure or clear and was popular in at least one Pictish royal branch.

So no matter what the BBC says, the Picts did not mysteriously disappear at the same time as the creation of the kingdom of Alba (Scotland).

Although coincidentally later on, during the "so called" Scottish Wars of Independence a group of Normans in Scotland signed a document that was addressed to Pope John XXII.  It was written in 1320 by Bernard of Kilwinning, then Chancellor of Scotland and Abbot of Arbroath at the Benedictine Abbey at Arbroath, hence the name the Declaration of Arbroath.  This group of Normans that signed the document were claiming sovereignty over Scotland and get this.  In the document it claims they "wiped out the Picts".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath

Well these Normans clearly didn't "wipe out the Picts", as they claimed in the Declaration of Arbroath.  But what they may be talking about is the Battle of Stracathro.  Máel Coluim mac Alaxandair, son of Alexander I had a claim to the Scottish throne and had the backing of Óengus of Moray.  The Battle of Stracathro was a pretty decisive victory for David I and his Norman retainers.     

When Alexander I died in 1124, his uncle David I seized the throne with the help of King Henry I of England and David's own Norman retainers. Orderic Vitalis reports that Máel Coluim mac Alaxandair "affected to snatch the kingdom from [David], and fought against him two sufficiently fierce battles; but David, who was loftier in understanding and in power and wealth, conquered him and his followers"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1el_Coluim_mac_Alaxandair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stracathro

[awkwardcustomer]

No, I do not see your point.

In an earlier post you stated that in England, the Anglo Saxons and the Normans fought over territory that didn't belong to them, since both groups were invaders who had stolen the land from the original Britons.

Well, my rather obvious point is that the Gaels were also invaders from Ireland into Scotland, who carved out their kingdom of Dalraida from land originally inhabited by the indigenous Picts.  Yes, the Northumbrian Anglos also made war on the Picts.  But so did the Gaels.  And who were the real losers in all this?  The Picts were, because their language is now extinct, unlike Gaelic.

I'm guessing you won't like that version of events because it undermines the good Gael/bad Anglo narrative. But there it is.  The Gaels were invaders too, who stole land from its original inhabitants and contributed to the annihilation of their culture.