Register to Comment
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 89
Like Tree61Likes
  1. #21
    ergo2 ergo2 is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14,388

    Quote Originally Posted by shiel View Post
    It is typical of this forum that any thread that has a bit of ancient history in it that cannot be used in some present day row is dropped.

    I find this interesting.

    I was trying to name the dioceses the other day and ran out at 27.

    starting at the north east I got

    Down and Connor
    Armagh
    Kilmore
    Clogher
    Derry
    Raphoe
    Dromore
    Elphin
    Killalla
    Achonry
    Tuam
    Galway
    Clonfert
    Ardagh and Clonmacnoise
    Meath
    Dublin
    Kildare and Leighlin
    Ossory
    Ferns
    Waterford and Lismore
    Cloyne
    Cashel
    Cork
    Killalloe
    Limerick
    Ardfert
    Kerry

    I cannot remember any more.
    From memory
    Galway which covers that city and an area around Galway Bay, and North Clare was a Wardenship and did not become a diocese until later

    When it did become a diocese it had two other areas Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora attached. These may be old dioceses
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    dubhthach dubhthach is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    869

    Quote Originally Posted by ergo2 View Post
    From memory
    Galway which covers that city and an area around Galway Bay, and North Clare was a Wardenship and did not become a diocese until later

    When it did become a diocese it had two other areas Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora attached. These may be old dioceses
    Kilmacduagh represents the Trícha-Cét of the Uí Fiacrhach Aidhne (eg. O'Shaughnessy, Hynes etc.) in South Galway. Kilfenora represnted the Trícha-Cét of the Corco Modhruadh, which later spilt into two branches one ruled by a O'Connor family and other by O'Loughlin (These were a native O'Connor family -- not Connacht O'Connor's)
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    Malcolm Redfellow Malcolm Redfellow is offline
    Malcolm Redfellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,737
    Twitter
    @

    Well done, Catalpa: another great post. Sorry to hear of the health problem.

    But — to the topic at hand.

    In TCD, once upon a time, O my Best Beloved, there were two professors, and they ate ill-prepared undergraduates alive. Legend held these two professors (Otway-Ruthven and Lydon) were daggers-drawn over (e.g.) King John. Therefore, one always looked first at the top of the exam paper to see who would be marking the answers.

    On one issue (as far as I recall) they concurred: they firmly linked Laudabiliter to the Henrician invasion. So I never questioned the connection until recently.

    Then, in Strand Books, for a whole $9.95, I acquired a copy of Marie Therese Flanagan's Irish Society, Anglo-Irish Settlers, Angevin Kingship — and she does, in the first few pages, question just that:
    In 1933 JF O'Doherty cautiously questioned this assumption, querying why Henry took so long to implement a plan he had conceived allegedly in 1155, and pointing out that Henry's response to Diarmait Mac Murchada's appeal for help in 1166-7 was not very enthusiastic. O'Doherty postulated that the moving force behind the Council of Winchester in 1155 and the procure of Laudabiliter was not Henry II but the see of Canterbury, and that Canterbury's involvement arose from its links with the Irish Church. Canterbury had consecrated bishops for a number of sees from the eleventh century, but this practice was ended by the establishment of an independent diocesan structure for the Irish Church, which received papal recognition at the Synod of Kells in 1152. The obtainment of the bull Laudabiliter, suggested O'Doherty, represented Canterbury's reaction to the Synod of Kells; and he further argued that when Henry II did intervene in Ireland in 1171 it was not to realize an ambition to conquer Ireland which he had entertained since 1155, but because he felt obliged to exercise restraint over those of his subjects who had already gone there in response to Diarmait Mac Murchada's request for military aid.
    I'm prepared to go with Flanagan here (and she goes into much greater depth than the above gobbet). In which case Cardinal Paparo would be the villain of the Canterbury peace — not least because the outcome of the Synod of Kells had implications for English control of Welsh sees. So what happened after 1167 could be little more than a continuation of the power grab in Wales.

    I'm marking up this thread as "good stuff".
    Last edited by Malcolm Redfellow; 6th March 2017 at 07:16 PM. Reason: Blasted auto-spell correction (and typos)
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    shiel shiel is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,303

    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm Redfellow View Post
    Well done, Catalpa: another great post. Sorry to hear of the health problem.

    But — to the topic at hand.

    In TCD, once upon a time, O my Best Beloved, there were two professors, and they ate ill-prepared undergraduates alive. Legend held these two professors (Otway-Ruthven and Lydon) were daggers-drawn over (e.g.) King John. Therefore, one always looked first at the top of the exam paper to see who would be marking the answers.

    On one issue (as far as I recall) they concurred: they firmly linked Laudabiliter to the Henrician invasion. So I never questioned the connection until recently.

    Then, in Strand Books, for a whole $9.95, I acquired a copy of Marie Therese Flanagan's Irish Society, Anglo-Irish Settlers, Angevin Kingship — and she does, in the first few pages, question just that:

    I'm prepared to go with Flanagan here (and she goes into much greater depth than the above gobbet). In which case Cardinal Paparo would be the villain of the Canterbury peace — not least because the outcome of the Synod of Kells had implications for English control of Welsh sees. So what happened after 1167 could be little more than a continuation of the power grab in Wales.

    I'm marking up this thread as "good stuff".
    Brilliant stuff.

    The relevance to present day is that Henry 11 signed the treaty of Windsor in the early 1170s but that treaty was torn up before the ink was dry.

    Brexit's tearing up the Good Friday Agreement is a modern day equivalent,
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    Catalpast Catalpast is offline
    Catalpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    16,308

    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm Redfellow View Post
    Well done, Catalpa: another great post. Sorry to hear of the health problem.

    But — to the topic at hand.

    In TCD, once upon a time, O my Best Beloved, there were two professors, and they ate ill-prepared undergraduates alive. Legend held these two professors (Otway-Ruthven and Lydon) were daggers-drawn over (e.g.) King John. Therefore, one always looked first at the top of the exam paper to see who would be marking the answers.

    On one issue (as far as I recall) they concurred: they firmly linked Laudabiliter to the Henrician invasion. So I never questioned the connection until recently.

    Then, in Strand Books, for a whole $9.95, I acquired a copy of Marie Therese Flanagan's Irish Society, Anglo-Irish Settlers, Angevin Kingship — and she does, in the first few pages, question just that:

    I'm prepared to go with Flanagan here (and she goes into much greater depth than the above gobbet). In which case Cardinal Paparo would be the villain of the Canterbury peace — not least because the outcome of the Synod of Kells had implications for English control of Welsh sees. So what happened after 1167 could be little more than a continuation of the power grab in Wales.

    I'm marking up this thread as "good stuff".
    Thanks Malcolm

    Yes I think it more than likely that ecclesiastical rivalry was an important factor in all that followed

    - Henry II as you know had to look busy post the Murder of his troublesome priest Thomas a Beckett in Canterbury Cathedral

    - an expedition to Ireland to impose the rules of the English Church

    - must have gained him Brownie points with the Clergy back home

    BTW My health is fine thanks!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    scolairebocht scolairebocht is offline
    scolairebocht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    875

    shiel
    "The dioceses are based on old gaelic divisions whereas the counties are not."

    No I think you will find that the vast majority of Irish counties also reflect the ancient territorial divisions of the various Irish clans e.g. Cavan being the ancient patrimony of East Briefne controlled by the O'Reillys, Leitrim being West Breifne owned by the O'Rourkes etc etc.

    There are a tiny number of exceptions to this I admit, but just a few, e.g. the reasoning behind the division between Westmeath and Meath is hard to figure out sometimes although I think they could have been placing the Plunkett territories in the Meath part.

    Anyway good work Catalpa obviously but did anybody hear the story that all Irish dioceses are supposed to border the sea? I am not sure its entirely correct but if you look at a map it is kind of curious that way and it would be interesting to speculate why they did it like that?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    shiel shiel is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,303

    Quote Originally Posted by scolairebocht View Post
    shiel
    "The dioceses are based on old gaelic divisions whereas the counties are not."

    No I think you will find that the vast majority of Irish counties also reflect the ancient territorial divisions of the various Irish clans e.g. Cavan being the ancient patrimony of East Briefne controlled by the O'Reillys, Leitrim being West Breifne owned by the O'Rourkes etc etc.

    There are a tiny number of exceptions to this I admit, but just a few, e.g. the reasoning behind the division between Westmeath and Meath is hard to figure out sometimes although I think they could have been placing the Plunkett territories in the Meath part.

    Anyway good work Catalpa obviously but did anybody hear the story that all Irish dioceses are supposed to border the sea? I am not sure its entirely correct but if you look at a map it is kind of curious that way and it would be interesting to speculate why they did it like that?
    The Irish counties were set up by the colonial power.

    They are equivalent to the English shires.

    They sent in a sherriff to keep the natives in check.

    Westmeath was set up by Henry viii. I assume he thought the natives there were getting a bit uppity and needed a sherriff all of their own.

    Gaelic games have teams that represent counties set up by the colonial power.

    But they do not have teams for counties set up by the native government.

    There is no Gaelic team for Fingal, Dun Laoire, South Dublin or Dublin City.

    WHY NOT?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    Cellachán Chaisil Cellachán Chaisil is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,575

    Quote Originally Posted by scolairebocht View Post
    shiel
    "The dioceses are based on old gaelic divisions whereas the counties are not."

    No I think you will find that the vast majority of Irish counties also reflect the ancient territorial divisions of the various Irish clans e.g. Cavan being the ancient patrimony of East Briefne controlled by the O'Reillys, Leitrim being West Breifne owned by the O'Rourkes etc etc.
    You're forgetting tullyhaw Teallach Eachdhach i.e. which is the neck of modern day county. So it is probably more to say that the building blocks of the counties were the old Gaelic divisions, not that the counties equated to the old Gaelic divisions. A closer comparison is probably the baronies and the old Trícha Cét, though they aren't one to one either.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    McTell McTell is offline
    McTell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,200
    Twitter
    @

    Quote Originally Posted by shiel View Post
    ....
    Gaelic games have teams that represent counties set up by the colonial power.

    But they do not have teams for counties set up by the native government.

    There is no Gaelic team for Fingal, Dun Laoire, South Dublin or Dublin City...

    There ya go. The colonists of the 1170s became the Irish catholic rebels of 1641.

    The colonists of 1650 became the rebels of 1798.

    The less colonists, the less aggro for us natives.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    shiel shiel is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,303

    Quote Originally Posted by McTell View Post
    There ya go. The colonists of the 1170s became the Irish catholic rebels of 1641.

    The colonists of 1650 became the rebels of 1798.

    The less colonists, the less aggro for us natives.
    Without the colonists there would have been no need for rebellions.

    Why are there no Gaelic teams for Fingal, Dun Laoire, South Dublin or Dublin City?
    Last edited by shiel; 18th March 2017 at 02:22 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment