The Ulster-Scots

[Tyndale]

[FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]Ulster-Scots are the people descended from the mainly Lowland Scots who settled Ulster (the northern most province of Ireland) in the 17th century and today make up the majority Protestant population of Northern Ireland.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]Ulster-Scots, whether born in Northern Ireland or the descendants of those who left the north of Ireland for Britain's former colonies are closer ethnically to Scots (a mixture of Pict, Celt, Gael, Norse and Saxon) as opposed to Gaelic Irish.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]Over three quarters of those Protestant peoples who settled Ulster in the 1600's were Presbyterians from Scotland. Inter-marriage with the other smaller numbers of settlers from the North of England, Wales, French Huguenot, Manx, German, Dutch and Danish as well as a substantial number of Irish converts produced the people today known as Ulster-Scots.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]The term Scots-Irish (or Scotch-Irish) is an American term used by those descended from the Presbyterian Ulster-Scots who settled America in the 1700's, to differentiate themselves from the later influx of Gaelic Catholic Irish following the potato famine.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]Ulster is the most northern of Ireland's four provinces and consists of 9 counties, six of which make up the state of Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. The term Ulster and Northern Ireland are used inter-changeably.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]Northern Ireland has a population of approximately 1.65 million, 900,000 Ulster-Scots Protestants and 750,000 Irish Catholics.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]The Ulster-Scots Protestants wish to remain part of the United Kingdom in partnership with Scotland, England and Wales. The Ulster Protestants generally feel they have more in common with their ancestral homeland of Scotland than they do with the Irish.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]The Irish Catholics generally wish to see Northern Ireland removed from the UK and united with Catholic Southern Ireland. [/FONT]


The Ulster-Scots in America

[FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]The Scottish Presbyterians who settled Ulster (Northern Ireland) in the 1600's became known as Ulster-Scots. Those Ulster-Scots who left the north of Ireland to settle America a century later became known as the Scotch-Irish. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]Northern Irish Presbyterian families had been sailing from Ulster to America since the 1690's, but in the year 1717 the trickle became a torrent. In a fifty year period in excess of 250,000 Ulster-Scot Presbyterians had left Ulster to make a new home in America.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]The reason so many left their homeland in the north of Ireland is due both to religious persecution and economic hardship. The Ulster-Scots Presbyterians were often viewed by the Anglican landowners in Ireland as more of a threat than the local Irish Catholic population[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]The Test Act of 1704 was particularly hard on Presbyterians. Marriages conducted by Presbyterian ministers were invalid and they were unable to worship in churches or hold public office. In addition tariffs were imposed on the north of Ireland linen industry to stop the Ulster-Scots from competing on an equal footing with the linen industry in England. In this climate it is no surprise that over a quarter of the north of Ireland's Ulster-Scots Presbyterian population opted for a new life in the new world.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]It was a Ulster-Scots Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Francis Makemie who organized the first Presbyterian Church in America in 1693. The Ulster-Scots are credited with the spread of Presbyterianism across the US. The fact that Presbyterian ministers were required to be university educated and bible school trained meant there was a shortage of Presbyterian clergy for the growing population. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]As Baptist pastors at the time did not need the same degree of formal training, they were more readily available and this led to the Baptist Church eventually overtaking the Presbyterian Church as the main Protestant denomination in America.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]The Scots-Irish settlers made superb frontiersmen in early Colonial America. Their experiences over the previous few centuries, first in the Scottish Borders and then fighting the Irish Catholics in the north of Ireland had created a race of hardy unyielding people who were ideally suited to clearing the forests to build farms and pushing the borders further and further west.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]Their experience of religious discrimination in Ulster by their Episcopal English landlords meant the Ulster-Scots had no hesitation in taking the side of the rebels in the War of Independence. In the words of Professor James G. Leyburn "They provided some of the best fighters in the American army. Indeed there were those who held the Ulster-scots responsible for the war itself". [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]No less a figure than George Washington once said "If defeated everywhere else I will make my last stand for liberty among the Ulster-Scots of my native Virginia".[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]The Ulster-Scots provided 25 Generals and about a third of the revolutionary army. The Pennsylvania Line was made up entirely of Ulster-Scots emigrants and their sons. The Battle of Kings Mountain was a Ulster-Scots battle where a militia of mainly Ulster-Scots Presbyterians defeated an English army twice its size. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]President Theodore Roosevelt said of the Ulster-Scots "in the Revolutionary war, the fiercest and most ardent Americans of all were the Presbyterian settlers and their descendants"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]The Declaration of Independence was printed by an Ulster-Scot, John Dunlop, read in public by a first generation Ulster-scots American Colonel John Nixon and the first signature came from another Scots-Irish Presbyterian, John Hancock.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]The Ulster-Scots embraced America and gradually lost their distinct Ulster-Scots identity to be Americans period. The name Ulster-Scots fell out of use for a period of time until the arrival of the Catholic Irish almost a century later following the potato famine. In order to differentiate themselves from the famine refugees who were Catholic Gaelic Irish, the term Ulster-Scot was reintroduced. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]The Irish tended to congregate in Catholic Irish communities in cities such as New York, Chicago and Boston and maintained their Irish identity, while the Scots-Irish population was spread throughout America, particularly in the American Mid West and the Southern States. Today there are approximately 27 million Protestant Ulster-Scots Americans and 17 million Catholic Irish Americans (although a fair percentage of those from Protestant backgrounds and bearing Scottish surnames wrongly regard themselves to be Irish-Americans). [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]Famous Ulster-Scot Americans including Andrew Jackson, Davy Crocket, Sam Houston, Stonewall Jackson, Woodrow Wilson and John Wayne are testament to the great influence of the Ulster-Scots in the formation and development of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial Narrow, Lucida Handwriting]the United States.[/FONT]

This mural is one of three painted in Londonderry to note the contribution of the Ulster-Scots to American independence. This 1st mural quotes George Washington's recognition of the role played by Ulster-Scots soldiers in the Colonial Army.

From Pioneers to Presidents - 2nd portrait of President Theodore Roosevelt, 26th US President 1901 – 1904, showing Apprentice Boys shutting the gates of Derry, "My forefathers were…the men who had followed Cromwell and who shared in the defence of Derry, and in the victories of Aughrim and the Boyne…"

3rd Portrait of James Buchanan, 15th USA President with images of pioneers, "My Ulster blood is my most priceless heritage". USA crest reads "From Pioneers to Presidents".


Davy CrockettWe Ulster-Scots were serious in our outlook upon life, but had a good sense of humor and were fond of sports, and were by no means unsocial. Our rough exterior often covered a great tenderness of feeling, especially for animals. Our love of family was deep, strong, and enduring. Steadfast and loyal, we were hospitable to friends and unrelenting to foes. Prompt to resent an affront or to avenge an injury, our nature still rebel's against anything that savored of injustice or deceit. Our thrift is proverbial, and it has been said, "the Ulster-Scots keep the Commandments of God, and every other good thing they can get their hands on.

Today our descendants are found across the entire continent, the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia form the most influential and presumably the most numerous element in the white population of those States; and in all probability the same thing is true of the population of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. One should also remember that many tens of thousands of Ulster Scots still exist in Northern Ireland, and as you know are still involved in a struggle with Irish nationalists to this day.
A sad but true fact is that even in 2002 some Irish elements still seek to expel the Ulsterman from his home, one of the most common anti Protestant insults which can be heard in Ulster is "go away back to Scotland where you belong" , unfortunately those still in Ulster have not won freedom and acceptance as we have long since in the USA.

Daniel Boone An Ulster-scot saying in colonial America was " what we have we hold" from the same belief's and principals in Ulster to this day can be heard the equally poignant Ulster-Scot call of " No Surrender " Hollywood movies and myth would have us all believe that the conflict in Ulster has been between the British and Irish but to the Ulster men and women who live there and have suffered greatly at the hands of Irish terrorists it has been a long campaign of ethnic cleansing, hate and intolerance.

Country and folk music owes a great deal to the Ulster-Scot pioneers, some of the most popular country songs in history such as "Sallie Gooden," to mention just one came from the Ulster-Scot immigrants, of course there is also one of the worlds most recorded songs Danny Boy written by Presbyterian Billy McCurry in Limavady, Ulster and transported to America by Jane Ross. I will also add here that songs like "The Great Speckled Bird" can be traced back to English colonists of the American Revolution and "Frankie and Johnny" has more than a hundred variants, all deriving from a Scottish ballad. I only mention the latter two as its wouldn't be factual or fair to claim that the Ulster-Scots were responsible alone for country music as we know and have known it, but it is very fair to say they have been by far the biggest influence. Having said that according to some Irish musicians apparently we lack genes required to compose memorable ballads such as Danny Boy.​

Storytelling has always been the cornerstone of country music through the ages, it's a rich tradition particularly when it comes to the age-old tradition of telling stories through song. Not only can the origins of country music be traced to the story's, Hymns and ballads of the Ulster-Scots, but the connections between the two are not nearly as remote as many used to think.

 

[Steezie]

The English sent the Specials out to shoot the people down
they thought the IRA were dead in dear old Belfast town
But they got a rude awakening with the rifle and grenade
When they met the 1st Battalion of the Belfast Brigade.

Glory, glory to old Ireland, glory, glory to this island
Glory to the memories of the men who fought and died
"No surrender" is the war cry of the Belfast Brigade.

The soldiers came from Holywood equipped with English guns
They had men by the thousands, ammunition by the ton
But when they got to Belfast they were seriously delayed
By the Fighting 1st Battalion of the Belfast Brigade.

Glory, glory to old Ireland, glory, glory to this island
Glory to the memories of the men who fought and died
"No surrender" is the war cry of the Belfast Brigade.

We have no ammunition or no armoured tanks to show
But we're ready to defend ourselves no matter where we go
We're out for our Republic that Orangemen may live in dread
"No surrender" is the war cry of the Belfast Brigade.


Glory, glory to old Ireland, glory, glory to this island
Glory to the memories of the men who fought and died
"No surrender" is the war cry of the Belfast Brigade.

Come all ye gallant Irishmen and join the IRA
To strike a blow for freedom when there comes our certain day
You know our countries history and the sacrifice it made
Come join the 1st Battalion of the Belfast Brigade.

Our Day Will Come

 

[Tyndale]

Come all ye gallant Irishmen and join the IRA
To strike a blow for freedom when there comes our certain day
You know our countries history and the sacrifice it made
Come join the 1st Battalion of the Belfast Brigade.

Our Day Will Come

You'll have to resort to weapons again Steezie if you think your day will come. The Ulster-Scots people aren't moving and they aren't giving up their identity, culture or heritage for anyone, let alone a bigoted and flawed sense of Irish history by the IRA.

 

[OttovonBismarck]

Ugh. Don't give us this irredentist bullcrap. Using culture as a reason for the continued division of Ireland is about as stupid as a politician in the Netherlands arguing for a complete political merger with Germany. The "Ulster-Scots" only have the barest similarities with the Scots. The Protestant North Irish, due to intermarriages early on and more modern shared historical blips, are now just a facet of Irish history. Trying to create a Pan-Scottism movement is just a silly old trick being used by politicians who have it in their interest to prey on the inherent prejudices found in humanity.

 

[Tyndale]

Ugh. Don't give us this irredentist bullcrap.

The Protestant North Irish, due to intermarriages early on and more modern shared historical blips, are now just a facet of Irish history. Trying to create a Pan-Scottism movement is just a silly old trick being used by politicians who have it in their interest to prey on the inherent prejudices found in humanity.

Replies like that are nothing less than pure bigotry against Ulster-Scots.

The Ulster-Scots are mentioned by name and on record by the English and American Presidents. The fact that they're not well known today is because of English and Irish oppression and dominance. Especially in America the Irish have claimed the Ulster-Scots under their Irish banner. This just simply isn't true.

 

[Steezie]

You'll have to resort to weapons again Steezie if you think your day will come. The Ulster-Scots people aren't moving and they aren't giving up their identity, culture or heritage for anyone, let alone a bigoted and flawed sense of Irish history by the IRA.

We arent asking the Ulsters to leave, we're TELLING the British they need to leave.

The Ulsters can sing for the birds for all most Irish care. Its the BRITISH we have issues with. If an Ulster supports the British, then yes we have issues with it. Just as many issues as we have with other Irish people who support the British. You are mistaking racism for mis-placed political support.

By the way, is it customary for you to call anything that disagrees with you bigoted?

 

[Tyndale]

We arent asking the Ulsters to leave, we're TELLING the British they need to leave.

The Ulsters can sing for the birds for all most Irish care. Its the BRITISH we have issues with. If an Ulster supports the British, then yes we have issues with it. Just as many issues as we have with other Irish people who support the British.

With statements like that you really do show your intolerance for others. You fail to recognise that people make up the British nation and identity, the British is not just associated with an army, it's a collection of people and the Ulster-Scots just happen to be British.


When Irish political leaders declared independence in 1919, the Ulster-Scot majority in Ireland's northeast corner elected to remain within the United Kingdom. Thus was founded the country of Northern Ireland. From the outset, it has been divided between Ulster-Scot unionists (those who value the union with Britain) and nationalists (those who want a united Ireland). While Ulster-Scots take pride in what they call "our wee country," many nationalists wrongly refer to the "partition" of Ireland as an act of British imperialism against the Irish people. They fail to recognise that there's another people on the island with an identity different to their own.

When 13 of Britain's American colonies declared independence in 1776, Canada didn't join them, and even today Canadians choose to retain close links with the United Kingdom. To understand Northern Ireland's politics, try to imagine that a determined minority within Canada had doggedly opposed their country's British affiliations, with some taking up arms and declaring Canadian soldiers and police officers fair game for assassination. Suppose that this determined minority were "American nationalists," seeking to unite Canada with its neighbor to the south. Imagine they and their supporters in the United States declared that, because a majority of North Americans favored Canada's absorption into the United States, anything less would be undemocratic.

 

[Steezie]

With statements like that you really do show your intolerance for others. You fail to recognise that people make up the British nation and identity, the British is not just associated with an army, it's a collection of people and the Ulster-Scots just happen to be British.

They can be whatever they want and call themselves whatever they want. The issues come when they insist on ousting native governments in favor of thier precious monarchy.

If you want to be ruled by the Queen of England, dont come to Ireland and expect it to happen with no resistance.

When Irish political leaders declared independence in 1919, the Ulster-Scot majority in Ireland's northeast corner elected to remain within the United Kingdom. Thus was founded the country of Northern Ireland. From the outset, it has been divided between Ulster-Scot unionists (those who value the union with Britain) and nationalists (those who want a united Ireland). While Ulster-Scots take pride in what they call "our wee country," many nationalists wrongly refer to the "partition" of Ireland as an act of British imperialism against the Irish people. They fail to recognise that there's another people on the island with an identity different to their own

People who were placed there by the British government to give them a political edge in future dealings.

 

[Tyndale]

They can be whatever they want and call themselves whatever they want. The issues come when they insist on ousting native governments in favor of thier precious monarchy.

If you want to be ruled by the Queen of England, dont come to Ireland and expect it to happen with no resistance.

The throne of England is the old throne of Ireland and Scotland, don't' you know that? So, for you or anyone to claim the monarchy should expect resistance in Ireland, shows the kind of bigoted history republicanism has spread. Republicanism does not speek for the whole island, it thinks it does and wishes it does, but the fact is it doesn't and never will.

People who were placed there by the British government to give them a political edge in future dealings.

What? like the Irish Americans?.....Opps, by your understanding the Irish Americans shouldn't exist, should they?

"...The Scots who made the move to Ulster seem to have been a relatively balanced cross-section of the national population. At the upper end of the scale were small landowners and substantial tenants who saw the venture as an unprecedented opportunity for economic advancement... below this élite class was a broad social spread which included artisans and labourers as well as farm servants and cottars. Significantly for every four men, three women moved to Ulster... this was an important influence which helped to maintain the distinctive identity of the Ulster Scots..."
T.M Devine
Scotland's Empire 1600 - 1815
(London, 2003)

 

[Steezie]

The throne of England is the old throne of Ireland and Scotland, don't' you know that?

Yes, AFTER Ireland was conquered and subjugated in 1169, allthough in all fairness, the English didnt really start exacting REAL control untill the Reformation. Incidentally, the Reformation marked the beginning of the English policy of Plantation. This involved bringing over English and Scottish Protestant settlers and putting them in new towns, the first of which was Kerrycurihy on land leased from the Earl of Desmond. This process began under the reign of Henry VIII and continued under Mary I, Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I, and Cromwell (May the gods sear his soul).

You keep firing the "bigot" cannon, Im guessing in hopes that I'll react like most white middle-class people do and say ANYTHING to avoid looking like a bigot/racist. Personally I dont care because I think your POV seems a little ethnocentric, the Ulster-Scots are right because they have the might of the British Empire backing them. The Ulster-Scots were there to provide England with a sympathetic population base that would later serve to politically (and possibly in a counter-revolutionary function later on) cement English rule in Ireland. The Ulster-Scots were used by the English to sink thier black teeth further into Ireland.

 

[Tyndale]

The throne of England is the old throne of Ireland and Scotland, don't' you know that?

Yes, AFTER Ireland was conquered and subjugated in 1169, allthough in all fairness, the English didnt really start exacting REAL control untill the Reformation. This involved bringing over English and Scottish Protestant settlers and putting them in new towns, the first of which was Kerrycurihy on land leased from the Earl of Desmond.

Your removing a valuable fact steezie. Ireland was not conquered, Ireland was a gift from Pope Hadrian IV. He authenticated this gift to Henry II in a document called the "Bull Laudabiliter," Until this time the greatest friendship existed between the British and the Scot/Gael Christians. Why don't you avenge your anger towards Rome instead of England? Remember, Pope Hadrian IV declared he was God's representative on Earth, so any English King would be thinking he wasn't abiding by God will if he didn't accept the offer.

You are also mixing up earlier settlements with the Hamilton and Montgomery Ulster-Scot settlement which arrived in the Ards Peninsula. Us Ulster-Scots did not settle in the South, we settled in Ulster.

You keep firing the "bigot" cannon, Im guessing in hopes that I'll react like most white middle-class people do and say ANYTHING to avoid looking like a bigot/racist. Personally I dont care because I think your POV seems a little ethnocentric, the Ulster-Scots are right because they have the might of the British Empire backing them. The Ulster-Scots were there to provide England with a sympathetic population base that would later serve to politically (and possibly in a counter-revolutionary function later on) cement English rule in Ireland. The Ulster-Scots were used by the English to sink thier black teeth further into Ireland.

That's a slightly one-sided view of things steezie. Initial researches have indicated that the lands which Hamilton and Montgomery acquired in Antrim and Down were desolate, depopulated and wasted. The English/Irish wars of the late 1500s had caused great devastation before the arrival of the Scots and as I've pointed out previously them wars were started from religious Rome, not Protestant England.

You claim that the Ulster-Scots were used by the English to sink their black teeth further into Ireland. Well, the Ulster-Scots aren't English, they're British.

Using your analogy one could say the English were used by the Vatican to sink their black teeth further into Ireland.........

Would you agree with that analogy steezie?

 

[Steezie]

Your removing a valuable fact steezie. Ireland was not conquered, Ireland was a gift from Pope Hadrian IV. He authenticated this gift to Henry II in a document called the "Bull Laudabiliter," Until this time the greatest friendship existed between the British and the Scot/Gael Christians. Why don't you avenge your anger towards Rome instead of England? Remember, Pope Hadrian IV declared he was God's representative on Earth, so any English King would be thinking he wasn't abiding by God will if he didn't accept the offer.

God or no, the English invaded and treated the Irish people like animals. There is no exscuse for that.

There is also much debate about the papal bull that allegedly gave the king of England authority over Ireland. No original coppies of the "Laudabiliter" exist and later coppies are not worded as papal bulls of it's time. Also, England was applying pressure on the Pope for added support because the English feared the creation of a Normal state in Ireland.

The English cheated thier way onto Irish soil and cut the throats of anyone who stood against them.

That's a slightly one-sided view of things steezie. Initial researches have indicated that the lands which Hamilton and Montgomery acquired in Antrim and Down were desolate, depopulated and wasted. The English/Irish wars of the late 1500s had caused great devastation before the arrival of the Scots and as I've pointed out previously them wars were started from religious Rome, not Protestant England.

Rome gave the OK to do something the English were going to do anyways. Henry II invaded Ireland in 1171, the bull wasnt ratified untill 1172. Henry had NO apparent intention of waiting for the pope to sign off on his little escapade.

You claim that the Ulster-Scots were used by the English to sink their black teeth further into Ireland. Well, the Ulster-Scots aren't English, they're British.

Fine, they were used by the monarchy based in London to provide a political support to said monarchy. Better?

 

[Tyndale]

God or no, the English invaded and treated the Irish people like animals. There is no exscuse for that.


There is also much debate about the papal bull that allegedly gave the king of England authority over Ireland. No original coppies of the "Laudabiliter" exist and later coppies are not worded as papal bulls of it's time. Also, England was applying pressure on the Pope for added support because the English feared the creation of a Normal state in Ireland.

The English cheated thier way onto Irish soil and cut the throats of anyone who stood against them.

Rome gave the OK to do something the English were going to do anyways. Henry II invaded Ireland in 1171, the bull wasnt ratified untill 1172. Henry had NO apparent intention of waiting for the pope to sign off on his little escapade.

Fine, they were used by the monarchy based in London to provide a political support to said monarchy. Better?

Your take on the English fearing the creation of a Norman state in 'Ireland' pressured Pope Adrian iV to comply (who himself was an Englishman) is based on the Papal bull being created after 1166, isn't it? Can you show some proof of the Bull being created after this date?

....and why did the papal bull grant overlordship over Ireland to the papacy, if Henry II was the boss?

Again, show me some proof that the bull wasn't ratified untill 1172. In Dr. W. L. Alexander’s book 'Iona', he states the bull was created in 1151.

The only other reference I can see in 1172, is the Synod of Cashel. At this Synod Roman Catholicism was proclaimed as the only permitted religious practice in Ireland. Again, I need more proof from you to accept that the Papal Bull was created after Henry invaded?

....I hope you can understand my questioning, because it's very much in the Vatican's nature to issue a Bull declaring something before it happens

 

[Steezie]

Your take on the English fearing the creation of a Norman state in 'Ireland' pressured Pope Adrian iV to comply (who himself was an Englishman) is based on the Papal bull being created after 1166, isn't it? Can you show some proof of the Bull being created after this date?

The original bull cannot be found, only coppies. The coppies do not have the same wording and phrasing as papal bulls of that time and its still a major bone of contention in the scholarly world if the bull existed at it's given timeframe

....and why did the papal bull grant overlordship over Ireland to the papacy, if Henry II was the boss?

Because England was still Catholic untill Henry VIII

Again, show me some proof that the bull wasn't ratified untill 1172. In Dr. W. L. Alexander’s book 'Iona', he states the bull was created in 1151.

Yes, CREATED in 1151, creation is not the same as ratification. Ratification makes the bull official and church policy. The bull was not RATIFIED untill 1172, one year after Henry had already sent troops to Ireland

The only other reference I can see in 1172, is the Synod of Cashel. At this Synod Roman Catholicism was proclaimed as the only permitted religious practice in Ireland. Again, I need more proof from you to accept that the Papal Bull was created after Henry invaded?

We seem to be going off on a tangent, however I'll indulge. Only coppies of the bull survive and the coppies are not worded as papal bulls were at that time. This leads many scholars to doubt the authenticity of the coppies and that the original bull existed within it's claimed time-frame.

 

[Tyndale]

The original bull cannot be found, only coppies. The coppies do not have the same wording and phrasing as papal bulls of that time and its still a major bone of contention in the scholarly world if the bull existed at it's given timeframe

Surely Adrian IV was different to all other Popes of that time, he was the only English Pope, was he not?....Would the wording of the so-called coppies happen to have an English influence?

Who wrote the copy?

Because England was still Catholic untill Henry VIII

Now Steesie my dear, that must be the one of the worst excuses you have given this thread. You painted the picture that Henry II wanted to conquer Ireland and was prepared to slay the Irishmen and get his black teeth into the Irish land even if the Pope didn't support him and was prepared to do so without Papal authority.

So, if Henry II was the ring-leader and took the Vatican with him for the ride, why did the Vatican grant overlordship over Ireland to the papacy, and not Henry?

Why would Henry II give overlordship to a Papal power and Pope who was brought alone as a lucky mascot?

Yes, CREATED in 1151, creation is not the same as ratification. Ratification makes the bull official and church policy. The bull was not RATIFIED untill 1172, one year after Henry had already sent troops to Ireland

So the Vatican and the Pope had it written that they were owners of Irelands spirituality and people. They just didn't ratify it as holy yet.....Am I right here?

We seem to be going off on a tangent, however I'll indulge. Only coppies of the bull survive and the coppies are not worded as papal bulls were at that time. This leads many scholars to doubt the authenticity of the coppies and that the original bull existed within it's claimed time-frame.

You said earlier they were created in 1951, so why do you now point to the idea that they aren't authentic?

Can I ask why you care if the Papal Bulls are authentic or not since your a Pagan?

 

[Steezie]

Surely Adrian IV was different to all other Popes of that time, he was the only English Pope, was he not?....Would the wording of the so-called coppies happen to have an English influence?

True, but Im sure scholars have taken that into account.

Who wrote the copy?

Thats part of why the copies are suspect is that we dont know.

Now SteeZie my dear, that must be the one of the worst excuses you have given this thread. You painted the picture that Henry II wanted to conquer Ireland and was prepared to slay the Irishmen and get his black teeth into the Irish land even if the Pope didn't support him and was prepared to do so without Papal authority.

I do believe thats what his actions show

So, if Henry II was the ring-leader and took the Vatican with him for the ride, why did the Vatican grant overlordship over Ireland to the papacy, and not Henry?

What? The Laudabiliter granted lordship to HENRY

So the Vatican and the Pope had it written that they were owners of Irelands spirituality and people. They just didn't ratify it as holy yet.....Am I right here?

The papacy never asserted that they were the controllers of Ireland, but that Catholocism was the official religion of Ireland.

You said earlier they were created in 1951, so why do you now point to the idea that they aren't authentic?

1951?

Can I ask why you care if the Papal Bulls are authentic or not since your a Pagan?

Henry wanted something to use as an exscuse to invade Ireland so he used the Laudabiliter even though it hadnt even been ratitifed yet. Its the beginning of the occupation of Ireland by a foreign invader

 

[Tyndale]

thanks for replying Steezie, I'm glad you made the effort and there's some things I will consider, thanks, but the majority is anti-English.

 

[CCGirl]

Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Don't Make Them Have To Take It Away
Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Make Ireland Irish Today

Great Britian You Are Tremendous
And Nobody Knows Like Me
But Really What Are You Doin'
In The Land Across The Sea

Tell Me How Would You Like It
If On Your Way To Work
You Were Stopped By Irish Soliders
Would You Lie Down Do Nothing
Would you give in or go berserk

Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Don't Make Them Have To Take It Away
Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Make Ireland Irish Today

Great Britian And All The People
Say That All People Must Be Free
Meanwhile Back In Ireland
There's A Man Who Looks Like Me

And He Dreams Of God And Country
And He's Feeling Really Bad
And He's Sitting In A Prison
Should He Lie Down Do Nothing
Should Give In Or Go Mad

Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Don't Make Them Have To Take It Away
Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Make Ireland Irish Today

Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Don't Make Them Have To Take It Away
Give Ireland Back To The Irish
Make Ireland Irish Today

 

[Tyndale]

CCGirl, it's Irish propeganda poems like the one above which provided the ammunition for Irish hatred towards all the people in the Isles.

Such nationalism is dangerous. We only have to look at Nazism to understand how a flawed sense of history, coupled with an anger against a people, can lead to much maligned patriotism and death. This false type of nationalism eventually lead to the Irish rebelling against, and disowning their own people simply because they wanted a union with the other inhabitants of the British Isles.

I really don't understand why certain Irish nationalists try to promote that the Island is only for the Irish, when it was the Normans, with the Vaticans blessings, who united the Island and remaned the native Gaels, Irish.

So, infact, they want independance from the Roman Catholic English who they are descended from and owe their Irish identity to

 

[Steezie]

CCGirl, it's Irish propeganda poems like the one above which provided the ammunition for Irish hatred towards all the people in the Isles.

And Im sure the fact that British soldiers would basically murder un-armed civilians has NOTHING to do with it.

Such nationalism is dangerous. We only have to look at Nazism to understand how a flawed sense of history, coupled with an anger against a people, can lead to much maligned patriotism and death. This false type of nationalism eventually lead to the Irish rebelling against, and disowning their own people simply because they wanted a union with the other inhabitants of the British Isles.

How did I know that somehow this was going to involve the Nazis. The Irish want thier own country back and they dont want to be shot, arrested, or harassed for supporting it.

I really don't understand why certain Irish nationalists try to promote that the Island is only for the Irish, when it was the Normans, with the Vaticans blessings, who united the Island and remaned the native Gaels, Irish.

Who says that? I said Ireland belongs to the Irish people. If you want to live there, go ahead. Just dont expect to bring your government with you. I dont go to Britan and expect the US government to come with me.