Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:58 am
800years of occupation was enough thanksPerryashburtongroves wrote:I'm all for a unified Ireland. Under British rule.
Page 2 of 3
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:37 pm
Ive never bought into the english imperialist empire bollix and by the same token I dont apologise for it as it had feck all to do with me .
I remember as a kid watching the civil rights marches in 68 the viscious violence of the B specials and how the the troops who were welcomed initially as peacekeepers became the enemy ,and the slide into an occupying force and the rise of the provisional IRA .
Problem for us was the biased reporting from the BBC and others who scoffed at republican claims of injustices in housing, jobs, and of course policing and in most cases a complte ignorance of the Irish cause !
Events like Bloody Sunday were reported as acurately as the Sun reported Hillsborough !
There was almost No coverage of the bombing of Dublin in '74 nor for a very longtime the nefarious acts of the Proddy paramilitaries in the North ex but the attrocities committed by the IRA were large on everybodies mind .
Nobody thought the Guilford 4 or the Birmingham, 6 were innocent and some still think they are Guilty !
I hate the IRA but I hate the UFV and all the proddy bigots too !
All this could have been different if it wasnt for that *word censored* de velara and that monster winston churchill who stiched poor michael collins up like a kipper !
I remember as a kid watching the civil rights marches in 68 the viscious violence of the B specials and how the the troops who were welcomed initially as peacekeepers became the enemy ,and the slide into an occupying force and the rise of the provisional IRA .
Problem for us was the biased reporting from the BBC and others who scoffed at republican claims of injustices in housing, jobs, and of course policing and in most cases a complte ignorance of the Irish cause !
Events like Bloody Sunday were reported as acurately as the Sun reported Hillsborough !
There was almost No coverage of the bombing of Dublin in '74 nor for a very longtime the nefarious acts of the Proddy paramilitaries in the North ex but the attrocities committed by the IRA were large on everybodies mind .
Nobody thought the Guilford 4 or the Birmingham, 6 were innocent and some still think they are Guilty !
I hate the IRA but I hate the UFV and all the proddy bigots too !
All this could have been different if it wasnt for that *word censored* de velara and that monster winston churchill who stiched poor michael collins up like a kipper !
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:10 pm
Oliver Cromwell enjoyed the odd jaunt in Ireland!...
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:33 pm
I'm approaching my mid fifties and in that time I have witnessed bar stool Republic bigots as I'm sure there were the opposite on the other side of the border..
Now I think the desire and appetite for a United Ireland is by and large gone..I don't think it is a change of political beliefs as much as an irrelevance of the issue.. I have no desire for a united Ireland. If it came to be that the majority in Northern Ireland wished for a united Ireland then maybe, but even if the majority in the North wanted it it would be interesting to see if the majority south of the border would feel the same..
It is beyond religious differences, there are massive cultural differences also.
There was blind Republicanism in the South back in the 60s, 70s and 80s..Bar stool stuff, stupid arguments about Liverpool or ManUtd being more pro Irish /pro Catholic than other clubs..It was easy hide behind the Ballad Sessions miles south of the border..
It is rarely discussed now, haven't heard it in the workplace in years..The 1916 centenary celebrations were respectful and dignified. There was no mass revival of Republicanism..
The economic implications of Brexit is more relevant in Ireland today.
Now I think the desire and appetite for a United Ireland is by and large gone..I don't think it is a change of political beliefs as much as an irrelevance of the issue.. I have no desire for a united Ireland. If it came to be that the majority in Northern Ireland wished for a united Ireland then maybe, but even if the majority in the North wanted it it would be interesting to see if the majority south of the border would feel the same..
It is beyond religious differences, there are massive cultural differences also.
There was blind Republicanism in the South back in the 60s, 70s and 80s..Bar stool stuff, stupid arguments about Liverpool or ManUtd being more pro Irish /pro Catholic than other clubs..It was easy hide behind the Ballad Sessions miles south of the border..
It is rarely discussed now, haven't heard it in the workplace in years..The 1916 centenary celebrations were respectful and dignified. There was no mass revival of Republicanism..
The economic implications of Brexit is more relevant in Ireland today.
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 8:32 pm
[url]ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perrot[/url] an ancestor on my mothers side.
Munster[edit]
In 1570 Perrot reluctantly accepted the newly created post of Lord President of the Irish province of Munster, which was in the throes of the first of the Desmond Rebellions. He landed at Waterford in February of the following year and, in a vigorous and gruelling campaign, reduced the province to peace.
The chief rebel, Fitzmaurice, eluded government forces for some time. In one grisly incident, after fifty rebels had been slain, Perrot sought to awe his enemy by cutting off the heads of the corpses and fixing them to the market cross of Kilmallock. Fitzmaurice still refused to come in, and Perrot issued him with a challenge to single combat, which the rebel declined with the comment, "For if I should kill Sir John Perrot the Queen of England can send another president into this province; but if he do kill me there is none other to succeed me or to command as I do." Perrot's challenge provoked mutterings from the more level-headed servants of the Crown, and his reputation for rash judgment was confirmed when he was ambushed by the rebels, who outnumbered his force ten to one, only to be relieved when the rebels mistook a small cavalry company for the advance party of a larger Crown force. But in 1572, after a second and successful siege of the rebel stronghold of Castlemaine, he was vindicated on Fitzmaurice's submission.
During his presidency Perrot authorised over 800 hangings, most of them by martial law. After the rebellion he criticised the Crown's reinstatement of Fitzmaurice's superior, the Earl of Desmond, as chief nobleman of Munster. He requested his own recall, but this was in vain and in July 1573 he quit Ireland without leave. Upon presenting himself at court he was permitted to resign his office, and was succeeded by Sir William Drury.
Lord Deputy of Ireland[edit]
In 1584 Perrot was appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland, to replace Lord Grey de Wilton who had been recalled to England by the Queen two years earlier. His chief task was to establish the plantation of the southern province of Munster, a significant escalation of colonial policy. The Crown sought to parcel out lands at nominal rents from the confiscated estates of the lately defeated Earl of Desmond – some 600,000 acres (2,400 km²) — on condition that the undertakers plant English farmers and labourers to build towns and work the land.
Before he had time to begin in the south Perrot got wind of raids into the northern province of Ulster by the Highland clans of Maclean and MacDonnell at the invitation of Sorley Boy MacDonnell. He marched his army beyond the Pale to confront the invaders, but Sorley Boy escaped by crossing over to Scotland, only to return later with reinforcements. Elizabeth roundly abused her deputy for launching such an unadvised campaign, but by 1586 Perrot had brought Sorley Boy to a mutually beneficial submission. At about this time he also sanctioned the kidnap of Hugh Roe O'Donnell (lured to a wine tasting on a merchant ship and then sealed in a cabin and brought to Dublin), a move which gave the crown some leverage in western Ulster. Perrot's northern strategy also secured the submission of Hugh Maguire, Lord of Fermanagh.
The plantation of Munster got off to a slow start in the face of lawsuits brought by landowners associated with the Geraldine rebels. In the west Perrot did have success in 1585 by perfecting a composition of the province of Connaught, an unusually even-handed contract between Crown and landowners by which the Queen received certain rents in return for settling land titles and tenant dues. In the same year a parliament was convened at Dublin, the first since 1569, with great hopes expressed upon the attendance of the Gaelic lords. The sessions proved a disappointment: although the act for the attainder of Desmond (clearing the escheat of the rebel's estates to the Crown) was passed, the ambitious schedule of legislation ran into difficulty, particularly over the suspension of Poynings' Law. At the prorogation in 1587 Perrot was so frustrated with the influence of factions within both houses of parliament (orchestrated to a large degree by the Earl of Ormond) that he begged to be recalled to England.
Perrot's unsparing criticism of his associates in government made him numerous enemies. His plan for the conversion of the revenues of St. Patrick's Cathedral to fund two colleges led to a sustained quarrel with the Archbishop of Dublin, Adam Loftus, which Perrot wilfully aggravated by his interference with the prelate's secular authority as Lord Chancellor. He also interfered with Bingham's government of Connaught; caused the council secretary Sir Geoffrey Fenton to be imprisoned for debt; and in May 1587 was accused of striking the elderly Knight Marshal, Sir Nicholas Bagenal, in the council chamber, an incident his enemies blamed on his drunkenness. In January 1588 Elizabeth granted Perrot's request for recall. Six months later, at the height of the Armada emergency, he was succeeded by Sir William Fitzwilliam.
Munster[edit]
In 1570 Perrot reluctantly accepted the newly created post of Lord President of the Irish province of Munster, which was in the throes of the first of the Desmond Rebellions. He landed at Waterford in February of the following year and, in a vigorous and gruelling campaign, reduced the province to peace.
The chief rebel, Fitzmaurice, eluded government forces for some time. In one grisly incident, after fifty rebels had been slain, Perrot sought to awe his enemy by cutting off the heads of the corpses and fixing them to the market cross of Kilmallock. Fitzmaurice still refused to come in, and Perrot issued him with a challenge to single combat, which the rebel declined with the comment, "For if I should kill Sir John Perrot the Queen of England can send another president into this province; but if he do kill me there is none other to succeed me or to command as I do." Perrot's challenge provoked mutterings from the more level-headed servants of the Crown, and his reputation for rash judgment was confirmed when he was ambushed by the rebels, who outnumbered his force ten to one, only to be relieved when the rebels mistook a small cavalry company for the advance party of a larger Crown force. But in 1572, after a second and successful siege of the rebel stronghold of Castlemaine, he was vindicated on Fitzmaurice's submission.
During his presidency Perrot authorised over 800 hangings, most of them by martial law. After the rebellion he criticised the Crown's reinstatement of Fitzmaurice's superior, the Earl of Desmond, as chief nobleman of Munster. He requested his own recall, but this was in vain and in July 1573 he quit Ireland without leave. Upon presenting himself at court he was permitted to resign his office, and was succeeded by Sir William Drury.
Lord Deputy of Ireland[edit]
In 1584 Perrot was appointed Lord Deputy of Ireland, to replace Lord Grey de Wilton who had been recalled to England by the Queen two years earlier. His chief task was to establish the plantation of the southern province of Munster, a significant escalation of colonial policy. The Crown sought to parcel out lands at nominal rents from the confiscated estates of the lately defeated Earl of Desmond – some 600,000 acres (2,400 km²) — on condition that the undertakers plant English farmers and labourers to build towns and work the land.
Before he had time to begin in the south Perrot got wind of raids into the northern province of Ulster by the Highland clans of Maclean and MacDonnell at the invitation of Sorley Boy MacDonnell. He marched his army beyond the Pale to confront the invaders, but Sorley Boy escaped by crossing over to Scotland, only to return later with reinforcements. Elizabeth roundly abused her deputy for launching such an unadvised campaign, but by 1586 Perrot had brought Sorley Boy to a mutually beneficial submission. At about this time he also sanctioned the kidnap of Hugh Roe O'Donnell (lured to a wine tasting on a merchant ship and then sealed in a cabin and brought to Dublin), a move which gave the crown some leverage in western Ulster. Perrot's northern strategy also secured the submission of Hugh Maguire, Lord of Fermanagh.
The plantation of Munster got off to a slow start in the face of lawsuits brought by landowners associated with the Geraldine rebels. In the west Perrot did have success in 1585 by perfecting a composition of the province of Connaught, an unusually even-handed contract between Crown and landowners by which the Queen received certain rents in return for settling land titles and tenant dues. In the same year a parliament was convened at Dublin, the first since 1569, with great hopes expressed upon the attendance of the Gaelic lords. The sessions proved a disappointment: although the act for the attainder of Desmond (clearing the escheat of the rebel's estates to the Crown) was passed, the ambitious schedule of legislation ran into difficulty, particularly over the suspension of Poynings' Law. At the prorogation in 1587 Perrot was so frustrated with the influence of factions within both houses of parliament (orchestrated to a large degree by the Earl of Ormond) that he begged to be recalled to England.
Perrot's unsparing criticism of his associates in government made him numerous enemies. His plan for the conversion of the revenues of St. Patrick's Cathedral to fund two colleges led to a sustained quarrel with the Archbishop of Dublin, Adam Loftus, which Perrot wilfully aggravated by his interference with the prelate's secular authority as Lord Chancellor. He also interfered with Bingham's government of Connaught; caused the council secretary Sir Geoffrey Fenton to be imprisoned for debt; and in May 1587 was accused of striking the elderly Knight Marshal, Sir Nicholas Bagenal, in the council chamber, an incident his enemies blamed on his drunkenness. In January 1588 Elizabeth granted Perrot's request for recall. Six months later, at the height of the Armada emergency, he was succeeded by Sir William Fitzwilliam.
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:52 pm
Grand in theory but not in reality, the north is fucked now that the eu won't be bailing them out, we can barely provide for the people we have now let alone the ones in the north, a nice high "trump" wall along the border please, at a push we'll take Derry but that's it!
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:08 pm
As someone brought up as a catholic during the troubles I should in theory support a united ireland! however it's a big no thanks from me! With all due respect to all our roi posters on here , apart from gangland Dublin the place is a third world country run by crooks!
I'll take my chances in the uk and out of the Eu which I voted for and hope that Westminster takes back control of the north from our bigoted politicians
I'll take my chances in the uk and out of the Eu which I voted for and hope that Westminster takes back control of the north from our bigoted politicians
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:26 pm
Being an Englishman and agnostic never understood what all the fighting was for .
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:41 pm
You don't need to buy in to it Herd, or apologise for it, just realise and acknowledge that it's true.Herd wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:37 pmIve never bought into the english imperialist empire bollix and by the same token I dont apologise for it as it had feck all to do with me .
I remember as a kid watching the civil rights marches in 68 the viscious violence of the B specials and how the the troops who were welcomed initially as peacekeepers became the enemy ,and the slide into an occupying force and the rise of the provisional IRA .
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:14 am
OIRELAND OIRELAND FOREVER STANDING TALL. SHOULDER TO SHOULDER, WE'LL ANSWER IRELAND'S CALL.
My Irish mate who we went to Arsenal with for years hated this song. More because he just didn't like rugby than his political views I think!
My Irish mate who we went to Arsenal with for years hated this song. More because he just didn't like rugby than his political views I think!
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:53 am
He was a wise and hetrosexual man your mate.northbank123 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:14 amOIRELAND OIRELAND FOREVER STANDING TALL. SHOULDER TO SHOULDER, WE'LL ANSWER IRELAND'S CALL.
My Irish mate who we went to Arsenal with for years hated this song. More because he just didn't like rugby than his political views I think!
Nothing funnier than a crowd of fat closet jobs in a pub, stood up, arms around each other's shoulders, collars up, singing that poxy fucking song, and then screeching "Drive! Engage!" all the way through the fucking slow mind numbing tedious shit that is the game of homo-erotic wrestling, or "rugger" as the closet jobs call it!
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:04 am
I'm only too aware matey , I saw braveheart ,ghandi and michael collins !arseofacrow wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:41 pmYou don't need to buy in to it Herd, or apologise for it, just realise and acknowledge that it's true.Herd wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:37 pmIve never bought into the english imperialist empire bollix and by the same token I dont apologise for it as it had feck all to do with me .
I remember as a kid watching the civil rights marches in 68 the viscious violence of the B specials and how the the troops who were welcomed initially as peacekeepers became the enemy ,and the slide into an occupying force and the rise of the provisional IRA .
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 11:25 am
Jesus will get you for that.Brightonnxtround wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:26 pmBeing an Englishman and agnostic never understood what all the fighting was for .
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:05 pm
Brightonnxtround wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:26 pmBeing an Englishman and agnostic never understood what all the fighting was for .
Dont think being Irish and Christian makes it much clearer
Re: A United Ireland?
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:53 pm
flash gunner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:05 pmBrightonnxtround wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:26 pmBeing an Englishman and agnostic never understood what all the fighting was for .
Dont think being Irish and Christian makes it much clearer
True. There is very little that you could call "Christian" about the savage way both sides murdered living fuck out of each other.
