Talk:Province of Maryland

Size of Maryland

The article presently lists Maryland as 6 million acres, but every source I've checked cites a high figure. Alan Taylor, American Colonies, p.136 states that the land grant was "about twelve million acres." Present-day Maryland is about 6,700,000 acres, but it is smaller than the original Maryland colony because it lacks the territory granted to the District of Columbia as well as disputed territory that eventually became part of Pennsylvania. I will edit the article to reflect this ambiguity. Drfryer 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

King Charles I of Ireland and the Irish Catholic Baron Baltimore

It's rather ignorant, but not unexpected, of the last reverter to try and erase Irish history and the original ethno-religious nature of Maryland. Whilst the rest of the colonies were British Protestant, Maryland was Irish Catholic. Geez, you'd think Wikipedia told the truth. Hasbro 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

From The Charter of Maryland of 1632[1]:

Charles, by the Grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, king, Defender of the Faith, &c. To all to whom these Presents come, Greeting.

II. Whereas our well beloved and right trusty Subject Caecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, in our Kingdom of Ireland, Son and Heir of George Calvert, Knight, late Baron of Baltimore, in our said Kingdom of Ireland, treading in the steps of his Father, being animated with a laudable, and pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion, and also the Territories of our Empire, hath humbly besought Leave of us, that he may transport, by his own Industry, and Expense, a numerous Colony of the English Nation, to a certain Region, herein after described, in a Country hitherto uncultivated, in the Parts of America, and partly occupied by Savages, having no knowledge of the Divine Being, and that all that Region, with some certain Privileges, and Jurisdiction, appertaining unto the wholesome Government, and State of his Colony and Region aforesaid, may by our Royal Highness be given, granted and confirmed unto him, and his Heirs.

Emphasis added. This pretty clearly indicates the colony was of the "English Nation", not of Irish Catholics. The religion of Lord Baltimore and of the religious toleration in the colony is described in the article. But it is incorrect to describe it as a colony of Irish Catholics. older ≠ wiser 18:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

English Nation was also used in reference to British government policy in Scotland with Jacobites and the Ulster Plantation (similar prejudice is highlighted in the Braveheart film with Mel Gibson, where Longshanks purportedly meant to "breed Scots out of Scotland"). Your archaic justification was based on quasi-racist (ever hear of Anglicising Irish surnames?) imperial bigotry back then and is highly inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. You stand to offend too many people with such obsolete, ethnocentric notions. The conditions of the colony as written, were also meant to seem as though it would be more palatable for the English Parliament to tolerate Irish Catholics having their own colony in the midst of all the Protestant ones. The King's words were to soften their demeanor, since the Protestants were attempting to outlaw any Catholicism at all in the King's dominions. Nevertheless, please don't get fundamentalist with the one source. You know what it was about, so don't pull this crap. Hasbro 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Get a grip. Read No personal attacks and Civility. Then, if you can, cite a reliable source that describes the colony as Irish Catholic. I've provided a reliable source that describes it as an English Colony. Also, beware that you don't wun afould of the three-revert rule. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you get a grip. Realize that simply relying on English notions of Ireland as "English domain" simply because of a shared monarch always dictated under English policies, doesn't deny the Irish their own place. English and subsequently British monarchs held possession of Ireland and thus, their colony founded by an IRISH LORD. Maybe it would be easier for you as an American to understand, if Ireland was still a kingdom and its peerage still held sway as it once did, as they did in Calvert's time. Like I said, quit the fundamentalism. You know full well that the affairs were more than that simple segment of a sentence. You know the English actions in Ireland and how the Irish feel about it even today. Don't play ignorant about it; it is even a constant feature of Irish American complaints about England. It is quite clear that you care only about winning on this article's version, rather than the truth if you read the history of Ireland and who OWNED MARYLAND from its inception. By the way, has it occurred to you to read the section on Baltimore's count palatine powers? This enabled the Calverts to circumvent the Church of England's ties to the monarch and thus, Catholicism was officially tolerated by the state. It was a special exception done away with during the Cromwellian regime. Just look around Wikipedia and all this is there. Hasbro 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So, when the charter which creates the colony says it is a "Colony of the English Nation", you say this actually means "Irish Catholic". Please provide a reliable source other than your own ranting to back this up. And when the charter says churches etc. in the new colony are to be "dedicated and consecrated according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of our Kingdom of England", you say this actually means "Irish Catholic". Please provide a reliable source other than your own ranting to back this up. older ≠ wiser 19:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you deny that Maryland was a proprietary colony founded by Irish Catholic nobles? Hey, your ranting is an exclusivist perception that focuses singularly on "Anglo-Saxonist" imperialism at the expense of the Irish. You deny the fact that the Calverts were palatine lords and had extralegal powers. Cromwell's government also denied the Irish their own place, by abolishing the Irish kingdom and supplanting their Parliament with the English one. Does that sound NPOV to you? How fair is it to the Irish? Please provide a reliable source which excludes the Founding Family of Maryland and the entire purpose of their excursion as separate from any other colony considered part of the quasi-British Empire of the time. I'm not denying the English nature of it at all. In fact, I already told you the English component and all historians will acknowledge the ancient English investment in Irish affairs. That does not cancel out the intrinsic differences qualifying the Lords Baltimore's colonial venture from those others. Hasbro 19:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything. I don't understand why you are so hostile. I've no particular interest in pushing an anti-Irish POV, although you apparently seem to think that I am. I haven't denied any of the things that you apparently assume that I am. All I'm asking is for you to provide a reliable source to back up your claims. Otherwise it looks like original research. The charter is the legal basis for the establishment of the colony. Please try to assume good faith before jumping all over another editor who requests verification of your edits. older ≠ wiser 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I already did tell you where to look, but you've denied it. I've never denied the worth of your source, but you apparently use the source to deny all others. I resent your own mischaracterisation of my edits in communication with you. It appears we have a miscommunication. Hasbro 19:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Err, sorry, but I don't see where you provided any specific reliable source (unless perhaps you were referring to Braveheart?). older ≠ wiser 19:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So sarcasm befits you? All these answers are on the Wikipedia, which I have not myself been editing (the Stuart-Cromwellian period as pertains Ireland and Maryland, etc). Hasbro 19:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, while you can certainly read a lot of interesting things on Wikipedia, many of them true, other Wikipedia articles are not acceptable as reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 20:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then that means Wkipedia can't be trusted anyways. What makes you think you can make this article more trustworthy than any other, using your logic? Hasbro 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it simply means that you cannot use Wikipedia articles as reliable sources to justify edits in other articles. older ≠ wiser 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is a Tertiary source. It can be used for research, but only as a starting point and a place to find other primary and secondary sources. So you can't cite one wikipedia article to justify an edit in another, but you can cite the source that the first article uses. -- Vary | Talk 22:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

George Calvert, 1st Lord Baltimore wasn't Irish, he was English. He was born in Yorkshire, from a family that had been in the area since the 1300's. He was an Englishman who was granted a title and estates in Ireland for service to the king, but he himself was not Irish. His first wife, Anne Mynne, was born in Hertfordshire, so his older children , including Cecil, were English as well.

Since the Charter also states that Maryland was an English colony, I think, in absence of a verifiable source for the new version, there's no question that the older version should stay in place. -- Vary | Talk 19:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a slight bit of research and couldn't find anything to justify calling the colony Irish. The Calverts were an English family that adopted an Irish title because it was politically expedient. The first colonists were English. I'd recommend using the more generic "British" which would include both England and Ireland. Kmusser 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? That's unneccessary shorthand. Charles was King of Ireland and this was a string of Irish lords with palatine powers, of genetically English origins. What set them so far apart from the Norman lords in the past? Hasbro 19:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get this string of Irish lords? George Calvert was the first of the family to ever move to Ireland and he only stayed there 2 years. Kmusser 19:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

His public status as a lord was Irish and Catholic. For instance, Richard Neville (the Kingmaker) was known as "Warwick" rather than Neville. I changed the language to rectify this. Hasbro 19:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide citations that refer to the Calvert family as being Irish? -- Vary | Talk 19:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get genetically ethnicist on this. We all know that English and Scottish born in Britain had colonised Ireland, but naturalised and became Irish ("more Irish than the Irish themselves" in case of the Catholics at least, even if not the Protestants). In fact, Calvert epitomised the Irish Catholic identity as it was solidifying--much like the British nation was formed out of two former separate countries. Hasbro 19:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really apply to the Calverts who owned land in Ireland for all of 7 years before the founding of Maryland. Kmusser 19:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The essential tough point is in coming up with a sentence that defines them as Anglo-Irish/Irish Catholic, at least as a compromising language to satisfy the background of the subject. Hasbro 19:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a phrase where I come from: "If the cat had kittens in the oven, I wouldn't call 'em biscuits." Calvert was an Englishman, from an old English family, married to an Englishwoman, who happened to own land in Ireland. The Calverts weren't Irish Catholic, they were Roman Catholic.

Why does owning some land in one region make you belong to that region more than to the one you were born in, where your family has lived for generations? And if it does, wouldn't that make Calvert an American? -- Vary | Talk 19:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you not understand naturalisation? America did not exist in that time. The Calverts resigned English offices and lived off of their Irish lordship, which included their subsidiary title to Maryland and Avalonia. Genetic origins are separate from nationality at birth. Don't believe me? Have you heard of the Mexican-American border problem? Hasbro 19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand naturalisation, thank you. Please provide a citation that shows that the Calverts were naturalized as Irish, or considered themselves Irish, during their two years living on their Irish estates. -- Vary | Talk 19:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Both George and Cæcilius Calvert were born in England and you haven't pointed to any evidence that they ever considered themselves anything else. Simply owning land in Ireland doesn't make you instantly Irish, if they had lived there for generations maybe, but they hadn't. Kmusser 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a citation that says any other Anglo-Irish lord or Scottish-Irish lord is not Irish. Increasingly, the problem remains that Victorian Anglo-Saxonism emphasised the Teutonic side of all colonies and thus the quasi-Celtic culture (the Calverts themselves embraced the Irish situation) has been left aside in the wake of it all. This has caused those people of that heritage to complain at being pushed aside. Well, Cromwell pushed them aside forcefully in Ireland and his adherents did the same in the colonies when Annapolis became the capital. I can see the forest for the trees, but you rely on stereotypes of the English dominant influence to obliterate all other ethnic qualities which have accompanied England. I therefore, am disgusted at the amount of ethnocentrist dialogues presented by you lot here on this talk page. I'm beginning to think that intellectuals do not work these pages and that there are more of those immersed in pop culture presentations of history. I've almost had enough of it. Give me some more and you'll have your wish--I'll leave and you'll win by sheer numbers. I do not intend to be part of your herd. Say those are personal attacks, but it feels like other parts of me I wish to claim are denied. I'm American and count Scottish and Irish just about equal to my primary English origins. I don't need you to diminish them because your Anglophilia blots out the rest. That's your debilitating problem and I will have none of it. Have a nice life. Hasbro 20:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting strategy. Malcontented ruminations maligning the intellectual rigour of other editors while simultaneously offering not one shred of verifiable evidence from a reliable source. Very convincing. Not. older ≠ wiser 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Hasbro, but I'm three quarters Irish. Kindly don't accuse me of being Anglo-centric or Anti-Irish.

Currently, the consensus on this page is against your additions - and I think that extends to the edits you've made to the individual pages of the lords of Baltimore today, labeling them all as 'Irish Catholic'. Aside from the nationality debate, I know for a fact that Fredrick was Anglican, although I can't recall if he was the only one who was - fourth grade, when we covered the Lords Baltimore in Civics, was a long time ago.

I'll gladly continue discussing this matter with you if you provide some citations and keep your comments civil, but the above comment and some of your others on this page are out of line. -- Vary | Talk 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not only are there overbearing Anglophiles who want to diminish the Irish contribution to America's founding (e.g. Barons Baltimore or James Hoban), but there are ethnic purists like yourself who wish to strike "all foreigners such as English or Scottish" in the cause of a "United Ireland". Come on! The Calverts did not have any status in the English Parliament, only the Parliament of Ireland. How can you dispute that legality? The Calverts voluntarily sought to withdraw from the developing British Protestant standard, whilst "going native" as it is called in reference to British who assimilate to Irish customs and culture, including religion. There was little difference between Lords Baltimore and any other ancestral English peer which acclimated to Irish politics and their situation. It happened under the Normans and Plantagenets, whilst it was present in the last Yorkists who rose against Henry Tudor. That this continued to be a somewhat popular way for Englishmen to abandon their English identity over into Stuart and even Hanoverian times is proof that the Calvert situation is no different, minus the religious element that eventually proved to be the image we have today of Republican Irish--Irish Catholics. Because of the British ties they kept, the Calverts were Unionists in the modern sense of the term. I understand that you all wish to apply some sort of "absentee landlord" status to these men, but the essential issue is that they embraced a stereotype apart from that, in respect to the British/Irish drama which has continued to unfold in Northern Ireland today. I am ethnically American. You may see fit to call that bullshit, but the fact remains that 1776 means for something that transcends previous ancestries elsewhere. The Calverts were granted Irish citizenship or subject status, or else they could not claim their barony; who here has sources to deny that claim? Y'all like to split hairs, when seeing the forest for the trees would allow you to note how those Calvert folks acquired a part of the collective identity most Irish-Americans themselves hold to be true about their own status, save for virulent Anglophobia. Non-noble American Calvert descendents and relatives were completely isolated from the insurgent movement which led to the 19th century UK, which ensured that they are rather naive about their own diminished statuses. Hasbro 03:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish, the real point

Identifying Calvert as Irish appears to be bogonic, but I see no attempt at all to justify the claim that the settlers were Irish. Mangoe 21:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. As near as I can tell, they were primarily English Protestants. Calvert's goal was not to create a Catholic colony (Irish, Roman, or otherwise), but to create a colony where Protestants and Catholics would at least try to get on with one another. -- Vary | Talk 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The first batch were definitely from England, [2] Kmusser 14:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is the Calvert family's social standing in Ireland vis a vis that in England, or Britain. Hasbro 17:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Avalonia and Maryland were founded for the Calverts and their related Catholic/Recusant families, with most prospective unrelated settlers being Protestant. The founders of Maryland were forced by necessity to permit Protestants (e.g. coup d'etat); this tactic was contemporaneous to King James II's reign. Nobody doubts that they did it because Protestant pressure forced their hands. The fact that you can talk about this as if you know something, doesn't impress me. You obviously do not in fact know what you are talking about at all. To be frank, it appears that you are talking out of your asses and wish to use sheer force of numbers to vanquish dissent. Hasbro 03:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations. No personal attacks. Thank you. -- Vary | Talk 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many things which you claim I have said aren't true and vice versa with my position about you. If you refuse to be personally accountable for your own actions, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to call on others to rectify their own. Come on and cite all the claims you lot have made to contradict my statements here, or is that above you? Thanks... Hasbro 03:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to prove the information is incorrect to keep it out of the article: it has to be cited and verified to be kept in. That's how wikipedia's verifiability policy works. If, as you stated in your lengthy comment on my talk page, the Calvert's Irish heritage, Maryland's status as an Irish Catholic colony and your other additions are common knowledge, it should be easy to verify these facts satisfactorily per WP:V. This isn't about 'doing it my way', as you suggested, but about doing it Wikipedia's way. If you think that citing your sources is a waste of time, as you said, you might want to look over Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Citing your sources is required here just as it would be in a paper encyclopedia or an academic journal.

The same goes for all of your recent edits to the article. Please cite sources for all of these additions if you want to keep them in the article; ie, for the 'coup' and for the claim that the only Catholics who were invited were related to the Calverts? I'm not saying it's not true, but we're not looking for truth here, just verifiability. The digression about the Calverts being the only lords with Irish peerages to receive charters for proprietary colonies is, I think, unnecessary, but if consensus on the page disagrees with me on that point, it will still have to be cited. -- Vary | Talk 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You repeatedly obfuscate the point. Lords Baltimore were Irish politically and govermentally, subject to the Kings of Ireland and not to the Kings of England or Scotland or Great Britain in right of their Irish peerage. That alone qualifies their status as Irish politicians, even if George Calvert was originally an English secretary of state who resigned his offices there. What is your problem with accepting official government and political convention, as they existed in those times? Don't get revisionist on this, with genetic/tribal origins interfering with social status as Irish lords (who said they had to be genetically Gaelic to be Irish?). You're obviously ignoring past conditions of Englishmen becoming lords in Ireland and becoming primarily affiliated with their newfound landscapes. The question is, why would you seek to create a division between the people and their peerage identity? All social conventions at the time considered him Lord Baltimore of County Longford, not George Calvert of Kiplin--that was his prior condition before accepting the lordship. You would want to dismiss the point about the Baltimores being the only Irish peers to have had proprietary colonies in the British Empire, to pretend like my edits have no substance whatsoever. It's just trivia that Irish people (e.g. Irish Wikipedians or browsers) might like to hear, as opposed to Anglophiles who insist that it was all an English or British issue and/or Irish purists who insist they never had been allowed opportunities to express themselves in the British Empire except as unfortunate subjects abused by Penal Laws. Those are agendas I do not share. This is just general, background info that you half acknowledge and try to squelch in the same breaths. Try not to do so. The coup d'etat is discussed here: [3] & [4] There is no need to split hairs about the Catholic nature of the Calverts and their intermarried families, associated with the Irish peerage and Irish Catholic struggles. That is symbolic enough to be interpreted as an Irish Catholic-oriented colonial venture. Hasbro 17:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

George Calvert was born in England, was granted lands in Ireland in 1625, lived there for two years before moving to his colony in Newfoundland in 1627. In 1629 he returned to England. Citations: [5], [6]. Cecilius Calvert was born, lived his entire life, and died in England. Citation: [7]Kmusser 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about absentee landlordism? Conditions in their contemporary era were much different. Recall that Angevin kings of England lived and died in France. That does not deny their English status. The fact that you would dispute this for other nobles in lower rungs (even though the Baltimores were feudal/palatine lords) is clear evidence that you don't understand aristocratic conventions as they existed. Anybody here at the Wikipedia who edits on aristocratic and royal titles as well as mediaeval history can and will support my statements. The fact that you are ignorant of it is of no consequence to the standing issues. If they (Proteus, John Kenney etc) had come by here, they would know the position I am raising and not ask so many questions. It appears that you are way out of your league. Hasbro 17:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hasbro, could you provide some evidence for the claim that the Barony of Baltimore conferred "palatine" authority? john k 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What other person than the Lord Baltimore wielded palatine powers over the colonies? Absence of contrary evidence is sufficient characterisation, especially since none has come forth since the inception of Avalonia and/or Maryland. Nobody has ever disputed the fact that it was always a Calvert with those powers. Where is your contrary evidence? This is mootness. Hasbro 20:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I know they had palatine powers in Maryland. You seemed to be implying that they had Palatine powers over their lands in Ireland. I suppose I misunderstood. john k 23:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's quite all right. Hasbro 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Because in the absence of any information to the contrary I'm going to assume someone has the nationality of where they were born. Upon getting a title in another country one might adopt that county, but they might not, there are plenty of examples of both. Above you say "You're obviously ignoring past conditions of Englishmen becoming lords in Ireland and becoming primarily affiliated with their newfound landscapes" - we aren't, it's just that that's only true of some Englishmen, others (and I'd say most that were there less then a generation) would've been very offended if you called them Irish just because they had an Irish title - you haven't offered any evidence that the Calverts fall in the former group - give us a citation. As to your Bush analogy below, Bush has made it clear in public statements that he's adopted Texas and those could be cited, we'd need something similar for the Calverts. You might be able to argue that he supported Irish causes, but that would still need a citation - and the boatload of settlers the Calverts sent were English, not Irish, so calling it an Irish colony seems dubious. Kmusser 18:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that Maryland was a microcosm of a dying age of English aristocrats fleeing Britain for Irish refuge; these affairs were embodied within the Calvert experience. All it takes is perception; you either have it or don't. Maybe this is a POV issue, rather than what you and Vary below me seem to think is more important. I would gladly resign arguing in favour of it being classed a NPOV dispute, rather than otherwise. Please let me know what you think. Hasbro 19:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But "perception" is original research. The closest I can find to your points is in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which isn't the most trustworthy source here, and even then it clearly points towards a small set of Catholic aristocrats and a much larger group of Protestant settlers. You need to produce citations. Mangoe 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, my friend. Perception is POV, a different ballgame. It is evident that you use your own perception to judge a source you yourself just came across. How is it that merely your narrow view of the issue is to stand for anybody else's takes on the subject? How selfishly arrogant. Hasbro 19:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hasbro, all we're asking is that you cite your sources. If your additions are sound, that shouldn't be a problem. Please stop accusing other editors of pushing a POV just because they've requested that you abide by Wikipedia's five pillars. This isn't an attack on you, this is not an attempt to push an Anti-Irish, 'revisionist history' agenda, it's just how we do things here. If you want to add something to Wikipedia, you have to provide a source for it. Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. We have rules, and they're important, because without them, Wikipedia doesn't work.

You have broken the three revert rule on this article, reverting four times in 24 hours: [8] [9] [10] [11] and debatably a fifth one here [12]. I ask that you please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, as your comments on this page suggest to me that you don't understand why we're requesting that you verify your additions. No one is trying to suppress anything, there's no Anglophiliac Cabal, we're just trying to make sure additions to the article are properly cited. -- Vary | Talk 18:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

How could you deny the Catholic Baltimore presence in Irish government? Calverts did not have to be native Irishmen to be considered Irish governmentally and they were Catholic to boot. They were not part of the Ulster Plantation, which some think qualifies those people as British in anachronistic depictions of Irish orientation vis a vis British loyalty. No, the Calverts did not represent the Protestant Ascendancy and "foreign domination". They were sort of in a grey area; one may see it either way, but a transitional stage seems most appropriate and best compromise. I'd like to see some joint language upheld, outlining the broadest inclusion of adjectives about the whole thing. Simply one or the other won't do. This is a content dispute because of NPOV problems, nothing more or less. Simply enough, I justify my perception of what we are going through by your own admissive statements apart from the red herring you allude to in regards to "citing sources". Hasbro 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Have to possess Irish ancestry to be Irish?

My maternal family from Bristol became Anglican Irish baronets under King Charles I of Ireland for service in Ulster, although my branch was from a younger son and did not ever get the baronetcy. The essential issue is that they obtained a new identity, culturally attached to the Irish issues and the British ones were vacated from their lives as a result.

Lords Baltimore would undoubtedly be conjoined with Irish issues as opposed to British issues if they were a Duke of Albany for instance, except that the Albanys had also been Earl of Ulster and that made them responsible for maintaining an Irish presence as well. When I brought up the Plantagenet Angevins, it was to remark on the point of government interests and political identification--regardless of primary residence or birthplace.

If you cannot understand an earlier era of Ireland, then perhaps George W. Bush being born in New Haven and attending Yale University in Connecticut but becoming Texas governor and then campaigning for presidency based upon his state of residence and especially Texas oil interests must delineate the situation about the Calverts compared to the Bushes (Southern Baptist support, instead of Yankee secularism etc). If you still do not understand, then God help you. Hasbro 17:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But the Calverts did not reside in Ireland. George W. Bush grew up in Texas. George H. W. Bush might be a closer example of what you want, but he lived in Texas for far longer than George Calvert lived in Ireland (and I don't see any evidence that Cecil Calvert ever lived in Ireland at all). The Calverts were English by any reasonable measure. john k 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Calverts adopt the Irish Catholic cultural scene, as perhaps an exclave or subculture in the British Empire? Their case was an exception to the stereotypes of British individuals in Ireland, since they did not have British offices whilst carrying their name nor did they carry out British policies--they were Irish lords just as much as the next guys and shared similar political, financial and religious views. Like stated above, they were known as Lords Baltimore (George Calvert, 1st Lord Baltimore) of County Longford. George was Sir George Calvert of Kiplin in the County of Yorkshire beforehand, but to apply that later on would be anachronistic and violate conventions. Hasbro 19:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

er, most Irish lords that I am familiar with were not Catholic. And, again, George Calvert didn't live in Ireland, except, apparently, for a two year stretch in 1625-1627. Cecil Calvert didn't live in Ireland at all. The fact that they were Catholic is a total red harring. Yes, they had lands in County Longford, but so what? Lord Palmerston is generally called the most English of British politicians in the 19th century. But he too was an Irish peer. I have never, even once, seen Palmerston described as Irish. he was born in London and died in London, and spent most of his life in London. How such people are to be described as Irish is beyond me. john k 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So Lords Baltimore did not represent an anachronistic segment of Irish society, when aristocrats had been English ancestrally but Catholic religiously? Their existence contradicts the policies sought by Elizabeth and especially the Ulster Plantation, but one cannot deny the situation. If the Protestants had not pressured Calvert to leave Ireland for America in the first place, where else do you think he would live? Would he spend his whole life in England and disregard his possessions in Ireland and America, as was done with the position as English Secretary of State? It is clear which path they took. Hasbro 19:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Second Baron Baltimore did spend his whole life in England. The Baltimores are not comparable to the Catholic Old English nobility that dated back to Norman times. john k 20:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, they were an anachronistic version thereof. They were however, associated with those people by virtue of personal interest rather than date of their entrance into Irish affairs. They were not the new Protestant upper class, even if they themselves were new lords. Hasbro 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Calverts were Catholic, but they were not Irish

The fact that George Calvert was made a peer of Ireland most certainly does not indicate that his family was Irish. Being a member of the Peerage of Ireland certainly does not make one Irish, and, in fact, a fairly high percentage of such peers never went to Ireland at all, and some even had no connection to Ireland. I would think that one should look at the specific cases:

• George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore (1580-1632) was, according to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, born in 1580 in Yorkshire, of a longstanding Yorkshire gentry family. He studied at Oxford, and then studied law at Lincoln's Inn. He travelled briefly to the continent in 1601-1603, and then returned to England. He married in London in 1604. He seems to have in this time been a figure at the court of James I. He was appointed to some Irish positions, but does not seem to have gone to England. He served in parliament for Bossiney (in Cornwall, I think?) in 1609. He became a clerk of the privy council in 1610. He travelled to the continent in 1610-1611. He seems to ahve received another Irish sinecure in 1611, but still no indication he went to Ireland. He apparently briefly travelled to Ireland in 1613. He went to the Palatinate in 1615. He was knighted in 1617, and in 1619 became a Privy Councillor. He was elected to parliament for Yorkshire in 1620. He got some land in Newfounaldn in 1620, and in Ireland in 1622, but again, no indication that he went to Ireland. He was MP for Oxford University in 1624. He resigned as Secretary of State in 1624, and converted to Catholicism at the same time. He was at that time created Baron Baltimore. He moved the family to Ireland shortly thereafter, in 1625. He married for a second time in Ireland, but returned occasionally in London, in particular during his lobbying of Charles for his new colony, and also travelled a number of times to America. He died in London, and was buried there.
• His son, Cecil Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore (1605-1675), was born in Kent. He metriculated at Oxford in 1621. He converted to Catholicism in 1623, after a journey to Rome. He married in 1628 a daughter of Lord Arundell of Wardour, a Catholic peer. There is no implication in his (rather brief) ODNB article that he lived in Ireland at all. He died in London

From these biographies, it does not seem appropriate to me to call either of these men Irish. Both were born and raised in England, attended university in England, and seemingly spent most of their lives in England. That they had Irish titles and owned land in Ireland seems irrelevant. That they were Catholic was entirely unrelated to whether they were Irish - they were pretty clearly English Catholics, and George Calvert's family, the ODNB indicates, had in fact been recusants in Yorkshire in the 16th century. I don't see how one can justify referring to the Calverts as Irish. john k 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Did not joining the Irish Parliament and recusing themselves of Protestantism essentially mean they embraced the insurgent Irish culture, or at least be aligned with mutual causes? After all, it was little different from Yorkist alliances in Ireland against Henry Tudor, except that these men actually held Irish titles. Hasbro 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, no, it does not mean that at all. Calvert did not "join the Irish Parliament." He was granted a peerage that gave him the right to sit in the Irish House of Lords, something which it does not appear he actually ever did. The conversion to Catholicism had no relationship whatsoever to the fact that they had lands in Ireland. The two were independent. It's possible that Calvert's Catholicism made him more sympathetic to his tenants than a Protestant landlord would have been, but who knows? His son would appear to have been an absentee landlord for his entire life. How can a man who never lived in Ireland be "Irish"? Would you also call Lord Palmerston an Irishman? There are certainly Irish peers who one could consider Irish - Wellington, or Castlereagh, or the Dukes of Abercorn are good examples. I don't see how one can possibly consider Baltimore to be so on the basis of his apparent two year stint in his Irish lands. john k 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[This posted after an edit conflict] Having read the above discussion more closely, and seen that Kmusser has already largely made these points, it seems to me that Hasbro's point is essentially based on a sophistry - the basic position seems to come down to the idea that an Irish peer is "politically and governmentally" Irish, whatever that means. This seems entirely indefensible to me. Obviously, the peerage itself is a peerage granted by the king in his role as King of Ireland, rather than his role as King of England, but this doesn't serve to make a person Irish. The Dukes of Richmond are Dukes of Aubigny in France, and the Earl of Arran, a Scottish regent in the 16th century, was made Duke of Chatelherault in France. But that doesn't make these people French, surely? Looking back to the early Plantegenets seems like a non sequitur in this regard. I think most people would agree that while Henry II and Richard I were Kings of England, they would probably best be described as "French" in nationality. But it's irrelevant. Being King of England is not at all like being Baron Baltimore in Ireland. The Lords Baltimore were, I suppose, qualified to sit in the Irish House of Lords. It seems unlikely, though, that they ever did so. They also owned some land in Ireland, but apparently only lived there between 1625 and 1627. Other than this, I fail to see how they have any connection to Ireland at all.

Their Catholicism is completely unrelated. George Calvert was granted land in Ireland before he converted to Catholicism, with specific Anti-Catholic restrictions. It actually had to be regranted to him without said restrictions after his conversion. He was given land in Ireland in spite of his Catholicism, not because of it. He was an English absentee landlord in Ireland who happened to convert to Catholicism, not an Irishman. john k 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you are basically stating that the whole issue is filled with "false friend" associations that could lead to one interpretation among a few...one interpretation that splits hairs instead of broad brushes the subject? I'm comfortable seeing it broadly, not pedantically. The Calverts did not represent general British culture in any way, nor did they support the emerging standards of their day. So then, where does that leave them? It IMHO, indicates their affiliation with Irish Catholic circumstances and/or British minorities. One would have seen Lords Baltimore support British rule in Ireland, but condemn Cromwellians and not support Orangism either. That's the difference and one has to look to pre-Jacobite/Williamite circumstances than reinterpret the data from a modern perspective. My essential viewpoint is presented from a contemporary standpoint. The mere fact that Calverts invested much more heavily in America than Ireland is besides the point; palatine powers over their colonies were inextricably wired to their Irish lordship and not the position George held as an English Secretary before his resignation and disowning England for elsewhere. This topic appears to be sucking into a Black Hole. Hasbro 19:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here. George Calvert never disowned England. He was granted an Irish peerage and briefly moved to Ireland. he later returned to England, and died there. His son never left England, apparently. The Calverts were English Catholics, as the Catholic heritage of George Calvert's family suggests. How can he be rejecting his English roots when, by converting to Catholicism, he is actually upholding the old traditions of his Yorkshire family? What does making a marriage alliance with Lord Arundell have to do with embracing Irish culture? You are making some kind of strange integral connection here between Catholicism and Irishness, but it's just not there. And most of what you are saying seems to be based on assumptions. You have yet to present any actual evidence for whether the Calverts viewed Ireland differently from other English landlords due to their Catholicism. You can't just assert things based on vague hunches. john k 20:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a rejection of Occam's razor to state that despite the originating source of the Recusancy, one would see the cultural alignments not fitting. Lords Baltimore were not Dukes of Norfolk, which is apparently how you are trying to paint the Calverts. Hasbro 20:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. No, George Calvert was not the Duke of Norfolk. But he had a lot more in common with the Duke of Norfolk than he did with the O'Neill Mór. Cecil Calvert married Lord Arundell of Wardour's daughter, and surely Lord Arundell is quite comparable to the Duke of Norfolk or the Earl of Shrewsbury? What Irish figure is even comparable to Baltimore? Most of the remaining Old English nobility, e.g. the Earl of Kildare, the Earl of Ormond, had become Protestants at this time. john k 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that they had the same deprived segment of the old aristocracy, the old order of things whether in England or Ireland. On the other hand, circumstances are such that the Calverts had their investments in Ireland and not as the Howards in England. They were of the same social position relative to their religious affiliation, but they had two largely separate fields of dominion. As for absentee landlordism, the Howards visited Norfolk...how often? Regardless, they were primarily East Anglian lords by affiliation. Calverts were not affiliated with the English House of Lords; Howards were unaffiliated with the Irish House of Lords. They were not lords in the same country, even if they shared ancestral origins with the same social movement that transcended national borders and augmented by a shared monarch. Hasbro 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Population Through Time

In 1650, the population was 4500. The population in 1700 was 25,000, and 130,000 by 1750. http://www.socyberty.com/History/The-Maryland-Colony.8034 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cresap's War

Cresap's War is completely missing from this article. Toddst1 (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Climate

Since Maryland is in the South, it has a very warm climate. The winters are very mild. The summers were very hot and humid, therefore spreading disease. The warm weather was wonderful to grow crops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.55.168 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Never a province

The word "province" was never part of the official name of any of the thirteen British colonies that later formed the United States, yet nine of the titles of the thirteen articles on those colonies include "province". All nine articles should be moved and retitled. WCCasey (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What's the proof about "official" name???--- no RS is given. for proof to the contrary see this document Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

See the complete debate at Talk: Thirteen Colonies. WCCasey (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Now, That the aforesaid Region, thus by us granted and described, may be eminently distinguished above all other Regions of that- Territory, and decorated with more ample Titles, Know Ye, that We, of our more especial Grace, certain knowledge, and mere Motion, have thought fit that the said Region and Islands be erected into a Province as out of the Plenitude of our royal Power and Prerogative, We do, for Ifs' our Heirs and Successors, erect and incorporate the same into a Province, and nominate the same Maryland, by which Name We will that it shall from henceforth be called."

" Therefore We have Given, and for Us, our Heirs, and Sucessors, do Give by these Presents, as full and unrestrained Power, as any Captain-General of an Army ever hath had, unto the aforesaid now Baron of Baltimore, and to his Heirs and Assigns, by themselves, or by their Captains, or other Officers to summon to their Standards, and to array all men, of whatsoever Condition, or wheresoever born, for the Time being, in the said Province of Maryland,...." Charles I, Charter of Maryland, 1632. -If the king who set it up calls it a province, why isn't it a province? See also: Alsop, George. A Character of the Province of Maryland (1666) Mannanan51 (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Sloppy

This article is full of minor typos, including word drops, grammatical errors and laughably erroneous dates. Someone with more expertise on this subject than I can claim should do a thorough edit. Ftjrwrites (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOS and lede

copying the whole topic into the lede is not an improvement 00:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Creation of the maryland colony

In Maryland, Lord Baltimore wanted to create a haven for English Catholics and show that Catholics and Protestants could live together peacefully in matters of religion. Cecil Calvert was himself a Catholic, a political setback because in the 17th century Roman catholics were considered enemies. He also hoped to turn a profit on the new colony. The Calvert family recruited Catholics and Protestant settlers for Maryland, luring them with land and religious toleration. To try to gain settlers, Maryland used what is known as the headright system, which originated in Jamestown. Settlers were given 50 acres of land for each person they brought into the colony, whether as settler, indentured servant, or slave. Of the 200 or so first settlers who traveled to Maryland on the ships Ark and Dove, the majority were Protestant. On November 22, 1633, Lord Baltimore sent the first settlers to the new colony, and after a long voyage with a stopover to resupply in Barbados, the Ark and the Dove landed on 25 March 1634 which was celebrated as "Maryland Day" at Blackistone Island, later known as St. Clement's Island, off the northern shore of the Potomac River, upstream from the Chesapeake Bay and Point Lookout. The new settlers were led by Lord Baltimore's younger brother Leonard Calvert, whom Baltimore had said to serve to be governor of the new colony.

wrong flag

According to article on the Maryland flag, this is the flag associated with the Province of Maryland:

Whereas the flag presented for this article is the 1707−1776 flag for British America:

I would propose correcting the flag displayed in this article or showing both flags on the article page. There doesn't seem to be any official flag for Maryland prior to 1904 though.

Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is Askekesky?

In 1711, the Colony of Maryland created an Indian Reservation for the Indian River Indians (Nanticoke) that lasted until 1743. Where is it mentioned in the article? Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Relations with the Susquehannock

This section relied far to heavily on the outdated The American Heritage Book of Indians. It also contained numerous errors. For example, the claim that there were 300 Susquehannock in the Wyoming Valley in 1878 has absolutely no factual basis. Nor were the Susquehannock called the Conestoga in the 17th century. This exonym was applied to the group of Seneca and Susquehannock who established a village on the Conestoga River c. 1690, and who were later massacred by the Paxton Boys. The section has been rewritten and reliable sources have been cited. The article as a whole needs more information about the Province of Maryland's relationship with Indigenous groups particularly the Piscataway. Griffin's Sword (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)