Discuss the reading you have done for this seminar. What are the main findings or conclusions you have drawn from it? Did any historian take a particular argument or present a certain perspective you found interesting? Much of this may be unfamiliar to many of you so take your time to outline what you found new or interesting.
Coming into this class I had this idea that there was a clear division of English versus Irish and the identities of the people living in Ireland and England. I thought it was as simple as you were either English or Irish and you either fought for the English crown or for the Irish. This was quickly corrected in my readings.
‘Contested Island: Ireland 1460-1630’ showed me that it wasn’t as simple as being a supporter of the English cause, even while fighting for the English cause in battle. The Battle of Knockdoe was won by the Earl of Kildare, who fought for the English. For me this would have meant he and those who fought with him supported the English crown. Connolly suggests that it was never quite so clear, and that the depth of kinship, alliances and rivalries sometimes superseded the cause that was being fought for. Kildare was supported by people who were loyal to him through marriage (O’Neills and O’Connors) and those who had political alliances with him (Magennises and O’Hanlons). This meant that despite being formally on the side of the English King their actual reason for joining the fight were their alliances with Kildare. Kildare was also followed into battle by those who were not loyal to him, but simply the rival of the opposing side (Burkes of Mayo) who were fighting not because they were wanting to assert royal authority but because they were trying to stop the extension of the Clanricard Burkes dominion. It is also possible that Kildare was only fighting for the English King because it was a way to extend his own power in Ireland whilst also having the added benefit of a small section of the royal army behind him. He could have simply been taking advantage of a distant King. In later chapters, Connolly demonstrates that support wasn’t always continuous and it was easy to break away from their allies when things were no longer in their favour or more could be gained from the other side, as demonstrated by the Kildare’s later breaking from supporting the English, to actively fighting against them when their position of power was removed from them and when their rivals were allowed to gain in power. This further showed that support was more often determined by what could be gained over the actual meaning of the cause.
Through various readings I’ve began to understand that national and cultural identity was more fluid than the clear division I had believed in before entering this course. I thought it was as simple as having the English and having the Irish, but my readings have shown that there is more of a grey area. Firstly, there was identity was split along the lines of Irish, 12th century English arrivals and then later English arrivals. ‘William Cecil, Ireland, and the Tudor State’ by Christopher Maginn discusses the issues of identity in his first chapter where he outlines how the English would slowly adopt aspects of Irish culture and society, and vice versa where the Irish would adopt the English society and culture. This led to people of English descent speaking Gaelic, and some Irish people speaking English. Whilst I had known that there would be some level of acculturation where the English would adopt some parts of Irish culture, I hadn’t thought that there would be some who would completely make that change over to the other. I also had not considered that the Irish would adopt English culture because I had incorrectly believed that they were completely hostile to the English and their culture, and that they would not support the English either. However in reading ‘The Royal Supremacy and Ecclesiastical Revolution’ by G. A. Hayes-McCoy, this split in society that I had believed existed was one that the English crown had sought to maintain. They did not want intermingling of the two cultures and people, and actively sought to prevent this with policies and laws that made this illegal. I suppose the reasoning behind this was to prevent situations arriving like that of Gerald Fitzgerald of the Kildare’s, who was of English descent and part of the Old English, where he was rebelling against the English crown. As his family had intermingled and intermarried with the Irish, he was shielded from the English authorities by the Irish side of his family while relatives on his English side were actively aiding the English crown in the search for him. Connolly also discusses this sense of acculturation, or ‘biculturalism’ as he calls it, in ‘Contested Islands’ in the fact that it lead to a further delineation in identities creating sects of the English loyal to the crown, the English who rebelled against the crown, the Irish insurgents and then finally the Irish who were loyal to the crown. He also discusses the question of whether it was biculturalism or actually dilution of their lineage and ethnicity.
Another source that discusses the issues with identity in Ireland was ‘Collaboration Without Anglicisation: The MacGiollapadraig Lordship and Tudor Reforms’ by David Edwards. In this he shows that perhaps the Irish adoption of English culture was just a means of power extension, rather than true acculturation. The MacGiollapadraig families become the Fitzpatricks under the Surrender and Regrant policy, where they promise to follow English common law and the English method of succession (primogeniture), whilst simultaneously dropping their Irish culture and laws. The MacGiollapadraig’s were the first to receive English titles under this policy (Baron of the Upper Ossory). However even though they agreed to follow the English way, in reality they did very little and change very little. Brian Fitzpatrick’s (MacGiollapadraig) promises were empty, as his land and people retained their Irish culture, law and language. Brian, himself, never spoke English despite promising he and his people would. They continued to follow Brehon Law, and even founded a Brehon Law School within his lands. The Fitzpatricks actually gained through their promises to follow the English King, where they were granted licenses that allowed them to have a market when others were not allowed to, which further allowed them to fund their Irish way of life, under the cover of anglicisation. However Edwards suggests that the King was aware of the Fitzpatrick’s continuation of their Irish lifestyle but turns a blind eye to it. The King does this because the Fitzpatricks were crucial to keeping the power of the Butler’s in check, which the King was also keen on doing. This suggested that the anglicisation was less important to the king than previously thought, despite what his policies suggested as long as he held power and those he was against were prevented from gaining in power.
A really lovely post Charmain – reflective and thoughtful but you’ve also coherently outlined the nuances in terms of identity and loyalty. Much of this we will discuss in subsequent seminars but concepts of ideology or principle are questionable in this context – issues such as self or kindred/preservation or advancement and local/regional priorities are often to the fore. And yes, the English would play it both ways, introduce legislation to prevent the intermingling of Irish and English, but then conveniently turn a blind eye when it suited them (to be fair, many of the Irish were no better).
Nicholls. ‘Political Structures and the Forms of Power’ in Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages (2003)
The political structures of late medieval Ireland as outlined by Nicholls bore some similarities to those prevailing in the Gàidhealtachd in the south west of Scotland but stood in sharp contrast to wide parts of Europe where feudalism and primogeniture were firmly established. Ireland was not under the control of one monarch or even one ruling family but comprised of countless lordships and chiefdoms which should not be understood as closed and defined territories but rather as a complex of rights over land, tributes and authority.
Unlike most European monarchies where title and lands were transmitted to the first-born son (or his descendants) upon the death of a lord or sovereign, from the eighth century until 1606 the Irish used the traditional system of tanistry, relying on the group of derbfine (those who were descendants of a common ancestor in four generations) to nominate the chief’s successor/tanist during his predecessor’s lifetime. Effective lordship depended upon a ‘strong man’ who could impose his will upon his kinsmen and the people of his territory. Accordingly, a tanist would be chosen on the grounds of being the ‘eldest and worthiest’ (which usually meant richest). However, it was not uncommon for a tanist to be challenged and ousted by a stronger contender upon the death of the previous chief. The confrontation of equally matched candidates frequently led to temporary or permanent division of a lordship, and prevented the political situation in Ireland from settling down. I found this quite interesting as it suggests a lot more conflict within the wider family than I had expected and suggests to me that chiefs did not necessarily enjoy the support of their kindreds.
Revenues from a lordship in Ireland varied: it was common to pay rent in kind, but tenants could also be expected to provide a day’s provision for twenty-four ‘horseboys’ twice a year as well as owing labour service. Whatever they wanted to sell they first had to offer to their lord who enjoyed the right of pre-emption. Most taxation in Ireland was collected not in money but in free entertainment which has often be viewed as ‘indication of the relatively unsophisticated nature of the Irish policy and economy’. This is supported by the absence of any really extensive domestic manufacture which led to an economy that was founded primarily on raw products and agricultural produce rather than finished and luxury goods (Quinn and Nicholls, 1991). However, considering just how mobile and engaged a Gaelic lord would have to be to effectively rule and defend his lordship, keep opposition within his own extended family at bay and prevent neighbouring chiefs from launching campaigns into his lands, it should not be surprising that most Gaelic chiefs preferred to collect rent in kind or entertainment rather than introducing a currency. It further reminded my of how during the Middle Ages, English kings would travel around the country with their households, enjoying the hospitality of the nobility and showing themselves to their subjects instead of moving only between royal palaces and sometimes summer residences.
Duffy, Edwards, FitzPatrick. ‘Introduction: Recovering Gaelic Ireland, c. 1250-c.1650’ in Gaelic Ireland, c.1250-c.1650: Lord, Lordship & Settlement (2001)
Throughout the sixteenth century, the Irish lordships retained a semblance of autonomy, offering obedience to no one. The English administration in Dublin was strong only along the east coast, and the Irish maintained units of political power outside the Pale until the start of the seventeenth century when Stuart policy started to change. Duffy, Edwards and FitzPatrick, drawing on a study by Simms, provide a short summary of how the pre-Norman kingdoms in Ireland were replaced with lordships during the thirteenth century, highlighting how the educated secular classes were used to validate the transformation and innovation of Gaelic power structures. Unlike most medieval kingdoms where lords merely represented and acted on behalf of an absentee king as the highest secular authority, power in the Irish lordships was intensely personal in character as politics was usually heavily localised. While Gaelic society appeared unstable at the top to contemporary (hostile English or Anglo-Irish) eyewitnesses, the lordships were highly structured places beneath the surface, representing a society in which everyone had their place. At the same time, most Gaelic lords were pragmatists whose main concern was the consolidation and maximisation of their power at minimum risk.
Ireland consisted of various lordships and Anglo-Irish territories linked to the English-controlled Pale on the east coast, leading to the creation of countless borderlands which were frequently raided and plundered by either side. Despite the ongoing hostilities, it is likely that normal socio-economic relations took place across lordship borders and it is undeniable that the Gaels and the English had an impact on each other: by the thirteenth century, people in Ulster had adopted a range of feudal practices which had been imported by English settlers. The borderlands were only extinguished by the imposition of a centralised political authority during the seventeenth century.
Well done Kat, you are able to see beyond interpretations that view the Irish as inferior or somehow lesser because of different cultural norms. When it comes to succession the custom of tanistry was often condemned because of the instability it created … but then consider the number of minorities, family squabbles and succession disputes that arose because of primogeniture (never mind family members killing potential rivals) in both England and Scotland. You’ve touched on economic issues too which is great and, yes, Irish lordship were a complex mix of ‘rights over land, tributes and authority’. No doubt we will discuss much of this in class.
This might seem a stupid/ obvious question, but I’m curious anyway. Was it then a case of the English wanting to change the succession customs in Ireland because they viewed it as unstable or just inferior? Did they want to create stability in Ireland to give them an easier time, or was it just a case of English is best? Because it’s obvious that each are going to think their way is the best course of action, and completely ignore the faults in their system, but I’m just curious if the English would have allowed tanistry to remain in place if it had benefitted them in any way or if it was inevitable that this would have to change.
Actually a very good question. It was both really – they viewed tanisty as unstable (and of course they wouldn’t acknowledge the flaws in their own system) because they felt it encouraged rivalry and violence. They also viewed Irish customs and practices as inferior. Yes stability would be easier for them as it meant they could rule Ireland more effectively (and it would cost less) but also, English customs were best. They were trying to impose English law, language, custom etc all onto Ireland with little consideration of Irish culture or tradition.
As to your last question about whether the English would have allowed tanistry to remain in place if it has benefitted them … oh yes! We get there when we look at Shane O’Neill. The English got themselves in a very difficult situation because of the ‘surrender and regrant’ policy. It was, as I will say many times, a clash of cultures.
Great questions!
Just to follow up on this – why were women excluded from inheriting property or land in Gaelic Ireland but not in Scotland?
Loss of land through female marriage was a permanent threat to landed Gaels in Scotland (as exemplified by the case of Muriel, heiress of Cawdor, at the end of the fifteenth century – when Muriel married into the Campbell clan, her lands passed into Campbell possession), so why did they not ban it like their Irish contemporaries?
Good question. The issue of female succession of lands is complicated – and the case of Muriel proves that. Accounts suggest she was more or less ‘kidnapped’ and married into the Campbell family (thus using marriage to acquire more territory). During the mid-sixteenth century the earl of Argyll also carefully arranged the marriage of the heiress of a branch of the MacLeods to ensure she made a marriage he could benefit from. Elsewhere in Scotland we have instances of the man taking the the woman’s family name, inheriting her lands and thus continuing her family name (the Setons and Gordons). Other clans have a tradition of a female heiress called Eva who brought clans with her via marriage – a cover I think for forced acquisition. Legally, according to Scots Law, women could inherit and as the influence of Scots Law spread in the Highlands so it was permitted. But along with that also went the practice of primogeniture – although many clan histories try to suggest this was followed rigidly, we know that not to be the case.
In Ireland, however, as you have acknowledged in a previous post … land wasn’t inherited in the same way. Indeed, an Irish lord could not transfer land from himself to a son. Lordship in Ireland was a complex mix of rights and lords asserted authority over resources and people but not necessarily over land.
I enjoyed reading all the posts. Upon reading Farrells The ‘Mere Irish’ and the Colonisation of Ulster. I thought as some do that it was a kind of us verus them but upon a bit of digging I realised there was a large element of ethnic cleansing. The plantations according to Farrell was an attempt to colonise Ireland and laying down control. For example, the Primary sources from the 12th July 1541 reflects this by the Lord Deputy Saint Leger giving orders to reform parts of the United Kingdom which is not instructed by law. On this point the Irish were seen as uncivilised and England felt duty bound to bring the country to bear. Colonisation was a direct assault without using military force and the orders went as far as eradicating Catholicism by prohibiting Ecclesiatical benefices. It was not as straight forward as this considering other points made in the blog so far.
Surrender and regrant was to the aim of the colonisation of Ireland to anglicise it and bring Gaelic and Anglo-Irish lordships under English sovereignty. The English crown would divide Ireland and distribute to Scottish and English ‘undertakers.’ This clearly shows intention to cleanse Ireland because as part of the distribution, up to 30% of the land must have ‘English style dwellings and bring settlers across the water and expel the native population.’
The anglicisation of Ireland would go as far as creating trade settlements and education establishments for the purpose of prosperity and converting Irish Catholics to Protestantism. The Crowns pland failed to an extent when colonist became greedy and did not uphold the bargain they made for the distributed land. In the end ethnic cleansing stopped in favour of levying fines to possibly force the Irish out.
Firstly, when starting the reading by S.J Connolly Contested Island 1460-1630 shows just how complex this idea of being either English or Irish can be. Connolly uses the battle of Knockdoe as an example of where he illustrates how fractured and ambiguous the political landscape is. For instance, with Kildare’s expedition to reassert the English Kings authority it becomes clear that he was not seen as an outsider and had backing of other Irish lords through chains of marriages and allegiances made such as with the O’Connor’s and O’Hanlon’s based on marriages and political discontent against the Burkes. I found it intriguing that there was a willingness to cooperate with the royal authority in order to curb one of their political rivals. Connolly shows that the allegiances and authority respected was never continuous and often alliances broke down and there was often in-fighting between the Irish feudal lords. This showed me just how integrated life between the English and Irish became in Ireland. and in many instances, life continued in a very similar way with the English authority present as it did without it. This does show me that this line between English and Irish was indeed a very blurred one. Connolly does show the differences between English and Irish culture and I think one of the more clear examples of this can be seen within the battle itself, with many of the Irish lords’ levies being equipped with more traditional weaponry and armour as well as shouting out their lords’ name in battle instead of the king’s. This shows there is still a cultural division, but one that is more complicated than English versus Irish but creates a more complicated image where there are both clear images of cultural independence and integration.
Farrell’s The Mere Irish and Colonisation of Ulster 1570-1641 told a very different story beginning from 1570 to 60 plus years after the battle of Knockdoe. Farrell argues that there was indeed a large aspect of colonisation and cultural repression over the Catholic inhabitants of Ireland. Although one thing I noticed when comparing the two sources was this idea of integration appears to change after the English protestant reformation. Where the majority of Ireland remained Catholic and from this point a greater attitude of Anglicising was adopted by the English crown over Ireland. Farrell shows us many examples of what he describes as an ethnic cleansing of the natives from expulsion and the seizing of land and forcibly integrating the ulster colonies to represent a more Anglican way of life. Farrell makes many comparisons of the Ulster province to that of the formed American provinces in the 17th century. Farrell suggest that after the protestant reformation and the beginning of the plantation projects the view of the native Irish changed to represent a more backwards way of life and had a view of the “mere Irish” which was used to show how wild the Irish seemed.
Overall, reading these two sources from two different points in time I notice how the view of Ireland changes from that of a more natural integration where there is little distinction between the differences of the English and Irish. Then comparing that to after 1570 and the protestant reformation the view of Ireland is changed to be devised along the line of Irish Catholics and Anglican protestants and are treated as a colony of England as opposed to a subject within its Kingdom.
A lovely post. You’ve engaged well with concepts of continuity and change over time while also trying to unpick the extent to which there was integration or assimilation or not. Interesting comment on the role of religious change and the extent to which is shaped how the situation in Ireland developed – no doubt something we will come back to in due course. Good work.
Apologies if this doesn’t post right or if something is wrong, I’ve been having some issues with navigating and accessing the Blog pages. Also feel free to let me know if my writing is illegible, too informal, needs refining, or if I’ve completely misunderstood the task.
Connolly, S. “Contested Island” Ch1-3
One of the things that fascinates me most about the medieval period – and by extension the past as a whole – is the many ways in which people organise society and develop an identity in relation to the land and their neighbours. I think it’s easy for people to look back in the past and impose modern conceptions of identity onto historical events and people, but by studying history we can see that people have defined themselves based on sociological, political and cultural factors that would be difficult for us in modernity to wrap our heads around. And I’m sure if we spoke to a medieval Irish peasant, he would have a hard time understanding how we organise and define ourselves too, language barrier aside. This was my main takeaway from the reading these last two weeks, as this period and place made for an excellent insight into both how people in this period thought, and the uniqueness of the Irish situation. It is also fascinating to see how this situation began to change and seeing the seeds of modern Ireland and Britain being planted and taking the first steps to what we see as ‘modernity’.
I liked how Connolly uses the Battle of Knockdoe as a case study; introducing us to the period and people involved in a digestible manner that illustrates the tangled nature of Irish politics up until the beginning of the early-modern period. What Connolly described as a web of shifting friendships and enemies based around the personal relations and marriages of Lords really reminded me of how the feudal system worked in the continent. However, Connolly took lots of time to explore Irish society and illustrate that Ireland was wholly unique to the continental systems of government. In fact, the ‘Sept’ system was different even to what one might consider Ireland’s closest cultural neighbour in Scotland with the clan system. The idea that really stuck with me was the concept that the Sept was essentially a lineage run like a corporation; with the governance of the lands and people under the authority of the Sept being divided and switched around between the different ‘employees’ or ‘managers’ within the family of the corporation when a shake-up is necessary after a chieftain’s death or to prevent an accumulation of too much power in an individual.
Another thing I found interesting was the relationship between the Irish and the presence of foreign cultures. On the surface, Irish history up until the late 15th-16th Century appears to be an endless number of cultures competing to spread their authority and influence over the Island. If anyone reading this has listened to ‘The Emerald’ by Thin Lizzy, I suppose you get what I mean. Yet whether it’s Romans, Saxons, Norse, Normans, Scots or, as Connolly illustrates, the English; there is a remarkable ability for them to become Hiberno-Norse or Anglo-Irish. At the battle of Knockdoe, both sides illustrated this fact. Kildare, despite on paper fighting on behalf of the English crown, was heavily invested in local Irish politics and marriages; so much so that Kildare’s reason for going to war is highly questionable as being solely in the interests of the crown. Indeed, the men fighting for Kildare that came from the Pale were somewhat problematic for the English as they were stubborn in giving up the Irish stye of warfare. Burke, despite his lineage originating from English settlers, had ‘Gaelicised’ and was fighting against the Crown his family were once subject to. The troops on either side had been levied on behalf of other allied lineages that would often back-and-forth between sides and fight heavily amongst each other, and the soldiers themselves would come from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds like the Norse-Gaelic Gallowglass. English and Latin were also generally understood even in the heart of Ireland, meaning that there wasn’t even a clear linguistic difference between the competing authorities.
In summary; I found this reading fascinating because it showed the unique nature of Irish society that I hadn’t known about before. I had always just presumed that Ireland was more rigidly feudal during this time, but this has illustrated the vibrancy of Irish culture that had endured with very few tweaks since the Romans. While one might be subject to Irish law over English, or hold a mix of Irish and English customs, their identity was more likely based on their allegiance to the lineage or Sept that held sway over them than to an abstract culture or to a specific Lord or Chief.
And while it’s interesting to see that English distain for what they saw as a primitive Irish culture went as far back as the English have been in Ireland, it was fascinating to see how this dynamic was pushed even further with the arrival of the New English and the Tudors, even against the Old English as religious reform served a deeper role in dividing the land. In fact, it’s even more fascinating to me to see that this change of dynamic was accompanied by a change of dynamic when it came to English policy in controlling Ireland. Less emphasised on the brutal local warfare of the last thousand years, and more on the surrender and regrant method which was in some ways a more aggressive method of attempting to assimilate the Irish aristocracy into the English structure, rather than the other way around as embodied by Burke and Kildare.
One last note; by far, my favourite aspect of this particular reading was that Connolly didn’t skip over a lot of the intricacies of Irish culture and life. Different ‘castes’ like the poets, bards and genealogists who held important cultural and political roles were explored, and the societies of the old and new English were also illustrated in great depth, even mentioning how the English disliked the Irish fondness for toilet humour is a hilarious, but authentic exploration into the lives and society of medieval Ireland.
In the theme of the other comments asking about inheritance law in relation to women, Connolly mentions that women had a certain degree of freedom within Irish society that made the English uncomfortable, mainly the fact that women would regularly drink with men. I’m wondering if this goes any further other than drinking practices, and if so, did this change under the surrender and regrant period as the English asserted authority?
I would’ve liked to have got more reading done this week, but it turned out to be pretty busy, hopefully next week I can compare and contrast different sources.
A great post about Irish culture, the constant intermixing of peoples and culture and the extent of assimilation between Irish and English culture, but also the acknowledgement that Irish culture was vibrant and certainly neither primitive nor backward as the English perceived it to be. We will dig down into both those aspects – Irish culture and how the English perceived it (and the reasons for those views) – in sessions 4 and 5.
For me, having read S.J Connolly’s ‘Contested Island: Ireland 1460-1630’ and Gerard Farrell’s ‘The Mere Irish’ (along with the podcasts), the most interesting thing I have read were the intricacies of Medieval Irish society socially and politically. As Connolly states “Cultural frontiers were clearly defined yet constantly crossed”. The use of the battle of Knockdoe as a case study is useful for highlighting the ambiguities of political and social relationships within Ireland- such as the delegation of executive power to the earl of Kildare, who governed with the title of lord deputy.
The political fragmentation of the island (that of petty kings) and the interaction between Dermot MacMurrough, the King of Leinster and Henry II in 1169 was particularly interesting to me as I hitherto had not known much of this era. The ‘gaelicisation’ of the old English and the political unit of the ‘Pale’ was a further cause of interest for me. Writing my dissertation on national identity and nationalism, it is fascinating to compare such modern concepts to the late medieval world. Connolly notes how ethnic identity was further complicated by the proximity to Scotland with the overlap of Gaeldom whilst Farrell refers to the arrive of the ‘new English’ at the turn of the 16th century that came with the Tudor reconquest of Ireland. However, it is key to remember that such modern concepts often cannot be forced upon medieval society- the lineages, clans, or septs provided the basis for loyalty.
Furthermore, I found the representations of Ireland thought-provoking; the English notion of Irish backwardness can be partly explained, alongside the more apparent political distinctions, in geographic terms with Connolly noting how the island “lying far out to the west” was never a part of the Roman Empire. Overall, the readings were very thought-provoking and I hope to read more views next week.
You too pick up on the perception of Irish backwardness … we will return to that. But you raise the issue of identity which is such a tricky one. Too often approached and handled too crudely (certainly in the Irish situation) and the existence of different communities in Ireland added to the complexity of the various identities that existed at this time. Well done.