In rhe Leon Uris book "Trinity", he wrote the two worst things to ever happen to Ireland, were the English and the Catholic Church. He sure got that right.
Ireland is England's oldest colony, its greatest exemplar of 'might is right', and the place where it first honed its imperial policy of 'divide and rule'. But despite being still divided, it defeated the greatest empire in the world to achieve its independence and establish one of the longest surviving and most successful democracies, the Republic of Ireland. It is a blessing and a privilege to be one of its citizens.
I suppose the Welsh were the first colony, but they complied with English rule and were treated better. As for being a successful economy etc, that's true, but we lost our language in the process to a large extent..
@@shaneshankly4518For close on 800 years the Sasanach murdered the Irish. Robbed them of their lands, their language, outlawed their religion, their very way of life. For all that time the Irish resisted until finally they raised the Irish Flag on 26 of their 32 Counties. But be assured Tiochfaid are La.
The act of union was in 1536 when the English stole Cymru. Unfortunately, Ireland is still an English state. No where in Eire, can one hear the Irish language in its streets. Its so sad that the sacrifices made by the likes of Padraig Pearse are forgotten. No one seems to stand up for the Irish language, like the people of Cymru did.
During the 1,100's, Dublin was the centre of the European Slave Trade. When Ireland was invaded (after being sold to the English for a penny per person), the Irish Celtic (not Catholic) Church considered this God's punishment on Ireland for engaging in the Slave Trade.
Dublin was the center of the Norse (not European) slave trade before their defeat by Brian Boru in 1014. That didn't continue after the Irish victory. As someone interested in Irish history all my life (I'm 64 and Irish), the rest is news to me. Where are your sources, I'd like to read them.
@@memisemyself I would like to see your sources as well. Try reading 'The Vicars of Christ' by Peter de Rosa. That will get you started. A very interesting read.
@@jwrobin21 What has that got to do with Dublin and the slave trade? Does it include the information referring to the sale of Ireland? I'm surprised that no Irish history has ever mentioned that, at least none that I've read.
@@memisemyself Perhaps you should read a bit more. Irish Catholics would not be too pleased to learn that The Holy Father had sold them to the English with a legally binding bill of sale. Come back to me when you have done a bit more reading. Also, it will be interesting to see if you are so keen to tell people the new knowledge that you have learned.
@@jwrobin21 A simple question "what are your sources?" should be easy to answer but instead you go on the attack. What's that old saying? Oh yes, I remember "when you can't answer the question, attack the questioner."
Congratulations on actually addressing the start of Irelands problems, Pope Adrian the IV and his English buddy Henry IV who collectively set out to destroy the Irish Independent Kingdoms and forcefully combine into one English nation. A policy and fictional version of history now unfortunately adopted by Irish Republicans in their English Pale tradition to justify their colonialist ambitions.
Ireland had spent the previous 800 years since the end of the Roman presence in Britannica raiding Wales, England, and Scotland, taking slaves, plunder, and engaging in general piracy against the "britons". The reason the Normans invaded Ireland was to put an end to the raids. The fact that the "British" presence in Ireland was also 800 years is quite ironic.
England was England’s first colony seeing as she was completely subjugated and colonised by a Norman French aristocracy, before that self same Norman French aristocracy made further inroads into Wales, Scotland, and finally Ireland. In fact Ireland was the only area where native kings held out against them, seeing as independent Gaelic kingdoms survived into the 16th century, a feat not achieved by the English, Scots, or Welsh. Quit the crying over a ‘colonial’ status that many actual medieval Irish successfully fought against.
ENGLISHMAN MISSUSED HIS OFFICE and Italians were not in the knowledge of Geopolitical situation in that region, trusting Englishman who came from that region of Europe
If you take a historical look at the actions of Christianity from its earliest days (under Roman Empire rule) through to the present day, you will find that the Authorities of the various strains /sects of Christianity were ALWAYS INVOLVED IN POLITICS. Consider too that the era that this Pope Adrian existed in , the 1100s, were essentially the 'Dark Ages'. 95% of the population had Zero Education - just the Nobility & Clergy were. Those in power jealously guarded their positions - speaking out against either the Nobles or the Church was a sure way to a quick death. The history of the actual Papacy is littered with individuals whose powerful family/political connections saw them ascend to the throne. It was the decisions of the Popes that laid the groundwork for all of the Crusades (Alibegensian Heresy, the Holy Land) and the genocides they entailed.
@@bernardpearce3478 Your question misses far too many points. Briefly - the Irish Christian Church in its earliest days was isolated entirely from Rome. As a result it ended up bearing a greater similarity to Coptic Christianity (North Africa). This would have inevitably brought it into conflict with the Rome authorities when the latter started accumulating more and more power and influence. Rome occupied a unique position in the medieval world of power - it was the Pope/Roman Church that conferred 'ultimate power from God' on to those anointed Kings, Queens, Emperors. Even if there were lots of Irish scholars in the Vatican back then, they were there either as clerics/monks/novitiates studying to become clerics. All would have been under a vow of obedience to the Pope & Cardinals. In addition, it would be safe to assume that the Church authorities would have viewed the Irish with a degree of wariness/suspicion. I suggest you read Thomas Cahill's book 'How the Irish saved Civilization' to get a general history of that era.
Once we have the trotting out of stereotypes. The only Englishman to ever hold the Papacy is just the first. Can anyone assert what was Nicholas Brekspir's first language? Was he an Anglo-Saxon, a Norman? What did such categories mean in the Twelfth century? Laudabiliter was a useful document which could be used by Henry of Anjou to win papal favour after his extra-judicial killing of Thomas Beckett. I recall attending a lecture by Lewis Warren, Henry's biographer, in which he asked his audience whether the year 1189 when Henry died had any other significance. A legal scholar reminded everyone that it was the year which marked the limits of the recording of popular memory.
Surely it was a Norman conquest of Ireland, just like the previous Norman conquest of England. Also the Irish are not innocent bystanders, the Irish Scotti colonised completely what was then Alba, so much so, that they changed its name to Scotland.
SCOTIA WAS EGYPTIAN THE DAUGHTER OF THE PHARAOH AKHENATEN LIVED AND WAS BURIED IN KERRY. THERE WAS A HIDDEN LIBRARY FOUND IN TIBET AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRANSLATING BOOKS FROM THE VATICAN VAST LIBRARY MAYBE THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT SOON.THERE IS A GREAT STORY ABOUT THE BATTLE OF VENTRY IN KERRY ON TALES AND SCEALS WHERE THE KING OF THE WORLD WAS KILLED AND THE KING OF FRANCE ITS JUST LIKE HELEN OF TROY
It was more the Anglo-Norman conquest. The 'Normans' who crossed from Wales to Ireland were the grandchildren of those who crossed from France to England. Surely, after three generations in England and Wales they are not Norman but are of Norman heritage. The question is; "at what point do the descendants of settlers stop being the nationality of the settlers and acquire the nationality of the place they live in?" It's a fuzzy line, depending on whether there's intermarriage with the locals or not but the invaders of Ireland had intermarried, so calling their children Norman is incorrect. The Irish colonised western Scotland but it didn't take the form of a military invasion. There were, obviously, conflicts and battles but it wasn't a sustained, organised attempt to take over the country and eliminate the native population. It happened over a short period of time and settled into a relatively peaceful coexistence. The usual internal conflicts within Scotland happened, common all over Europe and probably the world, at the time. However, Ireland didn't send army after army over centuries to subjugate the native population and depopulate the country, replacing the natives with colony after colony. The Irish only ever occupied part of western Scotland and the isles, never attempting to extend that area. The difference between the two invasions is the length of time involved, the level of violence and the fact that later British colonies remained separate from the Irish. There is no generations old community in Scotland claiming be be Irish, with a god given right to be part of the Irish state and willing to use violence to achieve that.
Though its claimed that Pope Aiden gave the Papal bull to King Henry II no one has ever been able to find it and many doubt its existence. However, how 'English' was King Henry II ,he was born in Anjou France where he was the Count and couldn't even speak English. So perhaps the Irish should start to hate the French instead and give the English a break.
England England England, should read French Norman invaders of the british isles..the first victims of this aggression was ENGLAND!...STOP BLAMING THE ENGLISH GET YOUR BASIC FACTS RIGHT!
The French will call them Vikings too, but they ruled England and their descendants still rule it today. That will be similar to Germans pointing out the Hitler was Austrian or The French pointing out that Napoleon was Italian. England was the beneficiary and the conflict with Ireland continued for centuries after that.
The dreary island called Ireland , has been filling-up in recent decades with immigrants from Ukraine , sub-Saharan Africa , and many other places , but yet , these IRISH are still fixated on grievances from centuries ago !!
Ireland did nothing to preserve "Western Civilization" during the "Dark Ages". It wasn't, in the literal sense of living in cities, even part of civilization. Its recently imported church had a role in the conservation of a version of the new (and alien to Ireland) Christian religion in North-Western Europe, but that is all and only a good thing if you are a Catholic Christian.
Really? So what exactly did happen in the Dark Ages of Europe to the various 'pillars of civilization' after the collapse and fall of the Roman Empire, followed by the subsequent waves of tribal invasions?
@@fawltyoldboybasil.2178 Idiocy, the Church predated the Reformation which split Christianity. How can something that is the origin of Christianity going back to Peter, who the Popes represent as heads of the Church, be a branch of Christianity?
In rhe Leon Uris book "Trinity", he wrote the two worst things to ever happen to Ireland, were the English and the Catholic Church.
He sure got that right.
"Our revenge will be the laughter of our children." - Bobby Sands
Who ?
Go raibh maith agut a chara ☘️🕊️
@@geovanniali6060 Fáilte romhat, amigo.
Ireland is England's oldest colony, its greatest exemplar of 'might is right', and the place where it first honed its imperial policy of 'divide and rule'. But despite being still divided, it defeated the greatest empire in the world to achieve its independence and establish one of the longest surviving and most successful democracies, the Republic of Ireland. It is a blessing and a privilege to be one of its citizens.
I suppose the Welsh were the first colony, but they complied with English rule and were treated better. As for being a successful economy etc, that's true, but we lost our language in the process to a large extent..
I am Irish clearly you aren't none are you awake to the real world . Ireland has never had a minute of freedom or independence
@@shaneshankly4518For close on 800 years the Sasanach murdered the Irish. Robbed them of their lands, their language, outlawed their religion, their very way of life. For all that time the Irish resisted until finally they raised the Irish Flag on 26 of their 32 Counties. But be assured Tiochfaid are La.
The act of union was in 1536 when the English stole Cymru. Unfortunately, Ireland is still an English state. No where in Eire, can one hear the Irish language in its streets. Its so sad that the sacrifices made by the likes of Padraig Pearse are forgotten. No one seems to stand up for the Irish language, like the people of Cymru did.
Joe Rogers, what nonsense Irish propaganda.
The church gave permission for English crimes in Ireland, then spoke of peace when we fought back.
There should be no peace until Ireland is free.
Free? Free to make-up your gender?
Adrian was English. That's why
He gave it to a Norman King
For the same reason he did the same to Sicilly
Money!
During the 1,100's, Dublin was the centre of the European Slave Trade. When Ireland was invaded (after being sold to the English for a penny per person), the Irish Celtic (not Catholic) Church considered this God's punishment on Ireland for engaging in the Slave Trade.
Dublin was the center of the Norse (not European) slave trade before their defeat by Brian Boru in 1014. That didn't continue after the Irish victory. As someone interested in Irish history all my life (I'm 64 and Irish), the rest is news to me. Where are your sources, I'd like to read them.
@@memisemyself I would like to see your sources as well.
Try reading 'The Vicars of Christ' by Peter de Rosa.
That will get you started.
A very interesting read.
@@jwrobin21 What has that got to do with Dublin and the slave trade? Does it include the information referring to the sale of Ireland? I'm surprised that no Irish history has ever mentioned that, at least none that I've read.
@@memisemyself
Perhaps you should read a bit more.
Irish Catholics would not be too pleased to learn that The Holy Father had sold them to the English with a legally binding bill of sale.
Come back to me when you have done a bit more reading.
Also, it will be interesting to see if you are so keen to tell people the new knowledge that you have learned.
@@jwrobin21 A simple question "what are your sources?" should be easy to answer but instead you go on the attack. What's that old saying? Oh yes, I remember "when you can't answer the question, attack the questioner."
Amazing John Goodman turns up in all kinds of unexpected places.
Congratulations on actually addressing the start of Irelands problems, Pope Adrian the IV and his English buddy Henry IV who collectively set out to destroy the Irish Independent Kingdoms and forcefully combine into one English nation. A policy and fictional version of history now unfortunately adopted by Irish Republicans in their English Pale tradition to justify their colonialist ambitions.
They were Brehon laws, not Brechon. Cahill is not pronounced cayhill. Drogheda is not pronounced Droggeeda! Do some research please!
Ireland had spent the previous 800 years since the end of the Roman presence in Britannica raiding Wales, England, and Scotland, taking slaves, plunder, and engaging in general piracy against the "britons". The reason the Normans invaded Ireland was to put an end to the raids.
The fact that the "British" presence in Ireland was also 800 years is quite ironic.
England was England’s first colony seeing as she was completely subjugated and colonised by a Norman French aristocracy, before that self same Norman French aristocracy made further inroads into Wales, Scotland, and finally Ireland. In fact Ireland was the only area where native kings held out against them, seeing as independent Gaelic kingdoms survived into the 16th century, a feat not achieved by the English, Scots, or Welsh. Quit the crying over a ‘colonial’ status that many actual medieval Irish successfully fought against.
Never have an Englishman as Pope
thought they all got excommunicated?
ENGLISHMAN MISSUSED HIS OFFICE and Italians were not in the knowledge of Geopolitical situation in that region, trusting Englishman who came from that region of Europe
You honestly think such a decision fell on the shoulders of one man ?
So all those Irish scholars in the Vatican were geographically ignorant of their own country too?
Bollox.
If you take a historical look at the actions of Christianity from its earliest days (under Roman Empire rule) through to the present day, you will find that the Authorities of the various strains /sects of Christianity were ALWAYS INVOLVED IN POLITICS. Consider too that the era that this Pope Adrian existed in , the 1100s, were essentially the 'Dark Ages'. 95% of the population had Zero Education - just the Nobility & Clergy were. Those in power jealously guarded their positions - speaking out against either the Nobles or the Church was a sure way to a quick death. The history of the actual Papacy is littered with individuals whose powerful family/political connections saw them ascend to the throne. It was the decisions of the Popes that laid the groundwork for all of the Crusades (Alibegensian Heresy, the Holy Land) and the genocides they entailed.
@@bernardpearce3478 Your question misses far too many points. Briefly - the Irish Christian Church in its earliest days was isolated entirely from Rome. As a result it ended up bearing a greater similarity to Coptic Christianity (North Africa). This would have inevitably brought it into conflict with the Rome authorities when the latter started accumulating more and more power and influence. Rome occupied a unique position in the medieval world of power - it was the Pope/Roman Church that conferred 'ultimate power from God' on to those anointed Kings, Queens, Emperors. Even if there were lots of Irish scholars in the Vatican back then, they were there either as clerics/monks/novitiates studying to become clerics. All would have been under a vow of obedience to the Pope & Cardinals. In addition, it would be safe to assume that the Church authorities would have viewed the Irish with a degree of wariness/suspicion. I suggest you read Thomas Cahill's book 'How the Irish saved Civilization' to get a general history of that era.
EXCELLENT ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Once we have the trotting out of stereotypes. The only Englishman to ever hold the Papacy is just the first. Can anyone assert what was Nicholas Brekspir's first language? Was he an Anglo-Saxon, a Norman? What did such categories mean in the Twelfth century? Laudabiliter was a useful document which could be used by Henry of Anjou to win papal favour after his extra-judicial killing of Thomas Beckett. I recall attending a lecture by Lewis Warren, Henry's biographer, in which he asked his audience whether the year 1189 when Henry died had any other significance. A legal scholar reminded everyone that it was the year which marked the limits of the recording of popular memory.
Surely it was a Norman conquest of Ireland, just like the previous Norman conquest of England.
Also the Irish are not innocent bystanders, the Irish Scotti colonised completely what was then Alba, so much so, that they changed its name to Scotland.
SCOTIA WAS EGYPTIAN THE DAUGHTER OF THE PHARAOH AKHENATEN LIVED AND WAS BURIED IN KERRY. THERE WAS A HIDDEN LIBRARY FOUND IN TIBET AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRANSLATING BOOKS FROM THE VATICAN VAST LIBRARY MAYBE THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT SOON.THERE IS A GREAT STORY ABOUT THE BATTLE OF VENTRY IN KERRY ON TALES AND SCEALS WHERE THE KING OF THE WORLD WAS KILLED AND THE KING OF FRANCE ITS JUST LIKE HELEN OF TROY
It was more the Anglo-Norman conquest. The 'Normans' who crossed from Wales to Ireland were the grandchildren of those who crossed from France to England. Surely, after three generations in England and Wales they are not Norman but are of Norman heritage. The question is; "at what point do the descendants of settlers stop being the nationality of the settlers and acquire the nationality of the place they live in?" It's a fuzzy line, depending on whether there's intermarriage with the locals or not but the invaders of Ireland had intermarried, so calling their children Norman is incorrect.
The Irish colonised western Scotland but it didn't take the form of a military invasion. There were, obviously, conflicts and battles but it wasn't a sustained, organised attempt to take over the country and eliminate the native population. It happened over a short period of time and settled into a relatively peaceful coexistence. The usual internal conflicts within Scotland happened, common all over Europe and probably the world, at the time. However, Ireland didn't send army after army over centuries to subjugate the native population and depopulate the country, replacing the natives with colony after colony. The Irish only ever occupied part of western Scotland and the isles, never attempting to extend that area.
The difference between the two invasions is the length of time involved, the level of violence and the fact that later British colonies remained separate from the Irish. There is no generations old community in Scotland claiming be be Irish, with a god given right to be part of the Irish state and willing to use violence to achieve that.
Please get it right. Pope Adrian 4th gave Henry permission. It was a pivotal move in history with tragic consequences for Ireland.
And Norman, which is more important
Er, you mention the invasion of Oliver Cromwell with a picture showing the post-1800 Union Flag.
Though its claimed that Pope Aiden gave the Papal bull to King Henry II no one has ever been able to find it and many doubt its existence. However, how 'English' was King Henry II ,he was born in Anjou France where he was the Count and couldn't even speak English. So perhaps the Irish should start to hate the French instead and give the English a break.
As though the Catholic church had anything positive to say about England.
Plantation is a terrible thing.
England England England, should read French Norman invaders of the british isles..the first victims of this aggression was ENGLAND!...STOP BLAMING THE ENGLISH GET YOUR BASIC FACTS RIGHT!
The French will call them Vikings too, but they ruled England and their descendants still rule it today. That will be similar to Germans pointing out the Hitler was Austrian or The French pointing out that Napoleon was Italian. England was the beneficiary and the conflict with Ireland continued for centuries after that.
@@ValorandVice How many of the elites of today's Ireland have British or Norman names? Quite alot.
Whereas........😅😅😅
SAM ALLARDYCE was pope ? 😂😅
The dreary island called Ireland , has been filling-up in recent decades with immigrants from Ukraine , sub-Saharan Africa , and many other places , but yet , these IRISH are still fixated on grievances from centuries ago !!
Ireland did nothing to preserve "Western Civilization" during the "Dark Ages". It wasn't, in the literal sense of living in cities, even part of civilization. Its recently imported church had a role in the conservation of a version of the new (and alien to Ireland) Christian religion in North-Western Europe, but that is all and only a good thing if you are a Catholic Christian.
Catholic Christian?
Catholic or Christian.
Can't be both.
@@geordiewishart1683 Yes you can and are . The only ones who dont think Catholics are Christians are hardline Evangelical Protestants .
@@geordiewishart1683 Catholicism is a branch of Christianity.
Really? So what exactly did happen in the Dark Ages of Europe to the various 'pillars of civilization' after the collapse and fall of the Roman Empire, followed by the subsequent waves of tribal invasions?
@@fawltyoldboybasil.2178
Idiocy, the Church predated the Reformation which split Christianity. How can something that is the origin of Christianity going back to Peter, who the Popes represent as heads of the Church, be a branch of Christianity?