Talk:History of Ireland (1169–1536)

More work

I think the main page needs a little more work, it needs a lot more grammatical finesse but more importantly correction of some facts which seem to be dubious (such as the names of the Irish and English families which, I think, are inaccurate) --134.225.163.117 12:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change

Can I request that htis page be re-named "Medieval Ireland", "Anglo-Norman Ireland" or "The Lordship of Ireland"? The invaders would only have identified themselves as Normans in the early centuries of their presence and the decisive link was to the Kndom of England, not Normandy. Also, many modern medieval historians object to the use of the term Norman in thsi context, because the people in question came from England, Wales Flanders, and elsewhere as well as France. Moreover, the common settlers were predominantly English. Jdorney 15:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, i would say do it, i would put my support forward to Medieval Ireland. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Support . There is already an Early medieval and Viking era in the main article, so how about Late Medieval and Norman era or just Late Medieval Ireland? --Red King 18:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the leading families were in fact Norman, not English despite the emotionally charged outbursts of a particular British-born historian who believes in the concept of the "British Isles" and speaks about "Britishness" in 16th century Ireland. The Burkes, Barrys, Delamare, Nugents, Cusacks, Dillon, Roches, Tuites, Barnwells, Nettervilles, Blakes, Lynchs and well almost everyone that I can think of were of Norman origin, while the Plunketts claimed Danish origin. Even the earl of Kildare in the early sixteenth century was conscious of his Norman roots as he made clear in a letter to a distant cousin in Sicily in 1507, which can be read here: http://books.google.com/books?id=mKAJ1Ow1PLQC&pg=PA49&dq=connolly+divided+island&ei=6MrcSaWsB4PcygS5zpm2Dg#PPA40,M1. Norman Ireland is fine, but I have no objection to Late Medieval Ireland. "Anglo-Norman" Ireland is contrived attempt to fit it into the above English historian's "British Isles" worldview, and its ahistorical anglocentricity, a fact which is highlighted by the invasion itself being led by people from Wales (hence surnames like Walsh, Taafe, Joyce, and Griffith), rather than England. The English commoners were a later development, and even then to say the Berminghams (or is it Mac Fheorais?), for instance, were 'English' within a hundred years of arriving is stretching the concept of Englishness beyond all meaning. It's all just uncomfortably confusing for the "all roads lead to England" school of thought. 86.42.68.179 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiberno-Norman Ireland

OK, I've finally got myself a nick as suggested by Red King to me last August when I brought this up. And this is (much!)longer than I had anticipated. I would be opposed to calling it "Anglo-Norman Ireland" as it is ahistorical for reasons which should be self-evident, and which start with the fact that the vast majority of Norman mercenaries, and their leaders, were recruited from Wales- i.e. they were Cambro-Normans- not England. It was Hiberno-Norman Ireland and to ignore the unique cultural and political world which the Normans created here by calling it 'Anglo-Norman Ireland' is historically unsustainable.

Even the transfer of Norman administrative systems from England such as the legal system, following the loss of Calais, in the early 13th century had radically different outcomes (e.g. Black Rent, Marsh Law and right up until the latter part of the sixteenth century the official, Privy Council-sanctioned use of Brehon law within the Pale when appropriate) due to the vastly different context of Norman settlement here. And if, as Robin Frame argues (Colonial Ireland 1169-1369), law defined identity in Norman Ireland the development of the legal system in Ireland demonstrates how "un-anglo" those of descent from the Norman invasion actually were.

Mac Lysaght makes a valuable distinction in this regard between "Anglo-Norman" surnames and "Hiberno-Norman" surnames as this divide reflects the split within the settlers, a split which existed right into the 16th century. As a title I think 'Norman-Ireland' is very fine, as it avoids the differences within the Norman community such as those between, say, the Fitzgeralds of Desmond and, say, the Barnwells of Turvey (Dublin). The article itself can delve into those differences. Medieval Ireland is fine, too, except that we would have to include the works of Katharine Simms, Nichols, Ó Corráin and numerous other writers then- i.e. We'd fundamentally change the subject from Norman Ireland to Gaelic and Norman Ireland. Maybe we can just have an article called 'Norman Ireland' and another for 'Gaelic Ireland' and a section in each article covering the fluidity between both worlds?

There was enormous fluidity in identity in Late Medieval Ireland so we have to be careful not to straightjacket it by epithets like "Anglo-Normans" for a very diverse community. Gaelic Ireland cannot be excluded from an article on Medieval Ireland. In addition, while it is true that the invaders identified with the Kingdom of England, it was the kingdom of Norman England and moreover, when the Norman invasion happened, England was the secondary kingdom.

Interestingly, Wikipedia's article on The Normans in England states '...Normans began to identify themselves as Anglo-Norman; indeed, the Anglo-Norman language was considerably distinct from the "Parisian French", which was the subject of some humour by Geoffrey Chaucer. Eventually, even this distinction largely disappeared in the course of the Hundred Years war, with the Anglo-Norman aristocracy increasingly identifying themselves as English, and the Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon languages merging to form Middle English.' The Hundred Years war ended in 1453, which is roughly eighty years before the end of medieval Ireland/feudalism/fall of Kildare (OK, that's another point but let's leave it for the moment!). So, if the Normans in England were not even describing themselves as "Anglo-Norman" until such a late period surely this makes such an epithet for the Normans in Ireland redundant, even if we accept that the Normans who were closely aligned to government in the Pale would have perceived themselves to have a type of Anglo-Norman culture (the reality and this perception were of course vastly different- yet another article!).

Finally, I would contest the claim that the most common settlers were from England. One of Ireland's most common names is still Walsh/Breathnach, a surname which is of course Welsh and which came in with the Norman invasion. Where is the evidence that the most famous Norman surnames of all, the clearly Norman Burke/ de Búrca, Barry/ de Barra, Brown/ de Brún, Fitzgerald/Mac Gearailt and others came from England, as opposed to Wales where the leadership of the invasion most definitely came from? On the aptly named 'Cambro-Norman invasion of Ireland' page- http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/invasion.htm - there is a list of the surnames of the recorded invaders, and those who claimed to have been present. That list also provides information on the known whereabouts of many of those families prior to the invasion with a list of 'Pembrokeshire families' 'Devonshire families' etc etc.

I like the suggestion of 'Late Medieval and Norman Ireland' for its precision *but* "Late Medieval" includes Gaelic Ireland so its precision is apparent rather than real. 'Late Medieval Norman Ireland' is precise- but a tad unwieldy? 'Norman Ireland' is concise and accurate, and leaves room for expansion on the divisions between gaelicised ("King's English enemies") and loyal ("King's loyal lieges")residents who were descended from the Norman invasion. 'Hiberno-Norman Ireland' is a little longer, but even more precise as all those of descent from the Norman invasion were Hiberno-Normans (Mac Lysaght's distinction was shorthand for gaelicised and loyal settlers, but even the latter couldn't deny they were different from the English- no more than loyalists today would be deemed to be uninfluenced by their presence in Ireland regardless of their possible protestations). According to the available records, not even a majority of those of the same descent were of Anglo-Norman descent. The invasion was primarily a Cambro-Norman invasion, with some help from the Normans in England and the continent, but *all* of the descendants were Hiberno-Normans.

How long should it get on the talk page? I agree with the points made. Cambro-Norman is the term used by David Greene, and I think it is accurate - the links between Waterford, Pembroke and Devon remained strong for centuries, and were vital in the Tudor reconquest of the country. The events of 1169 don't constitute an invasion, and the actual conquest came about through the subsequent unilateral constitutional settlement, when Henry II was invited to join the party. From Sicily to Syria, the Normans were expert at charging in and kicking crap out of everyone, and then holding their hands up before marrying the bosses' daughters. The original conquest has been addressed repeatedly in Irish courts over the last hundred years - mostly over title to fishing rights on rivers (Magna Charta etc) - with the conclusion that the conquest was territorially thorough (certain parts excluded, but not south Donegal). In my view, that's nonsense, but the protection of property rights demands elaborate fibs, and Norman involvement in Ireland was all about establishing estates. Keep the title as it is, but elaborate the continental involvement eg. the Desmond claim to descent from the northern Italian Normans - Europe is not outer Mongolia, and Britain is not the centre of the Universe.--shtove 01:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

_________________ This article is supposed to be about the history of Ireland, from about 1171-1536, not only the colonial community. It is not supposed to exclude the Gaelic Irish. So how about "Later medievel Ireland"? If this needs to be expanded furhter to be acceptable, so be it. It looks like user:El Gringo has volunteered to do it! Jdorney 12:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, another central point. While I accept the point that many of the "normans" had pretty tenous English roots, Ireland was still made a lordship of the King of England in this period, which in the long term was the most important development. Jdorney

Normans in Ireland vs Angevins in Ireland

Who would like to bet that Ireland was conquered by the Normans instead of the Angevins? What, is a county not so impressive as a duchy? Or, is this a desperate attempt to make a widespread Norman identity? (See Angevin Empire) IP Address 11:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It was conquered under the Angevin Empire by mostly Norman nobles (Norman from Normandy, or England, or Wales). The Angevin and Aquitanian nobility did not devellop well in the British isles as they had little interest in leaving their rich homelands. Norman Ireland does not seem to be an abusive title to me.Matthieu 07:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's who?

"Firstly, numerous rebellious attacks were launched by Gaelic lords upon the English lordships, which at best stretched their resources and at worst regained territory from them. "

I don't get this. Who's resources are stretched, and why is that good, and who's worst is regaining territory? Masked marsoe 10:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The line means that the English came under attack. Arising out of this, in the best case scenario for them this stretched their resources but thy held off teh attacks, in the worst case scenario for them, they lost territory to the Gaelic Irish.

Jdorney 11:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Irish blood"

I've deleted that the Normans "absorbed Irish blood" (were they vampires or what?!)86.42.211.139 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Irish history series

I have opened a discussion on a reorganisation of the series of articles dealing with Irish history at Talk:History of Ireland#RFC: Irish history series. --RA (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Medieval Irish women

The following extracts are from "Medieval Ireland:An Encyclopedia", edited by Seán Duffy, 2005. I won't edit it into the article myself as I no longer feel competent to make such edits, but will leave it here for those who can. The section is titled "Women", the author is Katherine Simms and it is divided into the following sections:

"Women in Sagas Irish sagas set in the pre-Christian period feature some very masterful heroines, notably Medb, queen of Connacht ... This can give people the impression that women had greater freedom and control in pagan Ireland before the norms of Christianity redefined their role in society. However, there are two problems with this interpretation. First, most of the sagas were actually written between the ninth and the twelfth centuries or later, by Christian scribes adapting their rich inheritence of old traditions to suit the taste of their own times. Second, a number of their female protagonists, Queen Medb in particular, were based on goddesses or female symbols of soverignty, whose extensive powers reflect their own supernatural attributes rather than the role of ordinary women at any date." (p.520)

"Women in Saints' Lives Female saints also had supernatural attributes, in the sence that the Latin or Irish accounts of their lives credit them with many miracles. Otherwise they are shown as respected abbesses running communities of nuns ... . They show the nuns employing men to plow the lands attached to their communities, entertaining visiting bishops and abbots to hospitable meals that might include home-brewed beer, fostering young boys ultimatly destined for the priesthood, and giving them their early education. Certain saints, like Lasair of Kilronan, are reputed to have pursued academic studies under the instruction of male saints and to have become qualified to instruct male clerics themselves, but the Life of St. Lasair is a late text written in a secular school of hereditary male historians, and it is uncertain if this feature of the Life is bas on very early tradition. The fact is, we have no Latin works from early Ireland attributed to female authors, though we may have some Irish poems, such as "St. Íte's Lullaby to the Baby Jesus" or "The Lament of the Hag (or Nun) of Beare." ... as "heir" to the lands and authority endowing her nunnery, any abbess qualified as a female landowner, and this was the one class of female who did enjoy a degree of independene and power in early Irish law." (p.520)

"Landownership in the Laws ... Full status as a free citizen in early Ireland depended on landownership, and fmaily lands could only be transmitted through male heirs. If a man had no sons, his daughter might inherit his share of the family estate for her lifetime. Such an heiress would have the legal rights of a property owner, and the same public liability for tax and services as a male landowner. ... However, she could not pass on her estate to her children. After her death it would revert to her father's kindred, unless she married her first cousion on her father's side or another close relative, allowing her children to inherit the land through their father." (pp.520-21)

"Legal Capacity Apart from these exceptional heiresses, women received only movable property - cows, household goods, or silver - from their fathers, normally as marriage goods. They were thus "second-class citizens", legally dependent on their fathers or brothers if they were single, or on their husbands or grown-up sons if they were married. However, women were not completly without rights. Honor price (lóg n-enech) was a graded system applied to different classes in society, and used by lawyers to calculate the amount of compensation a freeman or noble could claim for insults or injuries. A wife's honor price was set at half the value of her husband's. ... The husband had an even greater right to object to his wife's contracts for a period of fifteen or twenty days after she agreed to a bargin. Secondary wives or concubines with children had lesser rights, and concubines with no children had even less control. ..." (p.521)

"Marriage Although Old Irish treatises on customary law bear all the sings of having been written by or for clerics, suprisingly they recognise many more types of union between man and woman than a monogamous Christian marriage. They were compiled between the seventh and the ninth century C.E. before Carolingian church reforms gave Continental clergy a greater tole in regulating marriage laws, and at a time when Christian Merovingian and Anglo-Saxon kings publicly kept concubines and sometimes passed on their thrones to the sons of those concubines. Old Irish law tracts give pride of place to a man's one offical wife, the "first in the household" (cétmuinter), who normally contributed movable property of her own to the joint housekeeping and was entitled to recieve it back, with any accumulated profits, if the couple divorced later. Divorce could be initiated by either the husband or the wife, on a number of grounds. A wife, for example, could cite her husband's impotence or sterility, beating her severly enough to leave a scar, homosexuality causing him to neglect her marriage bed, failure to provide for her support, disscussing her sexual preformance in public, spreading rumors about her, his having tricked her into marriage by using magic arts, or his having abandoned her for another woman. In this last case, however, the first wife had the right to remain in the marriage if she wished, and was then entitled to continued maintenance from her husband.

A man could only marry another cétmuinter if his first wife was a permanent invalid unable to fulfill her marital duty, but it was not uncommon for husband to acquire one or more secondary wives or concubines, known in the Old Irish tracts as airech', but significantly described in the later commentararies as adaltrach (adulteress). Irish marital customs attracted severe criticism from church reformers in the late eleventh century. Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury referred to Irishmen arbitrarily divorcing one wife in exchange for antoher "by the law of marriage or rather the law of fornication," and Pope Gregory VII heard it rumoured that many Irish "not only desert their lawful wives, but even sell them." (p.521)

"The Later Middle Ages ... Ordinary Irishwomen are first described by foreigners, medieval pilgrims to St. Patrick's Purgatory, or the bureaucrats of the Tudor reconquest. All report a generally relaxed attitude toward nudity and sex, which may relate to the failure of the Gregorian drive for clerical celibacyt to make much headway in rural Ireland. Christina Harrington has noted that Irish churchmen, often themselves married, did not normally dmonize women in their writings or project her as a temptress responsible for man's sins. Young girls in Cork were seen by Fynes Moryson grinding corn stark naked, presumably to preserve their clothes from flour. The rural prostitutes of sixteenth century Gaelic Ireland, described by Edmund Spenser as monashul (mná siúl:wandering women), in default of urban centers wandered from place to place and fair to fair, and were seen as just one of the lower-class entertainers like gamesters or jugglers, suitable recipients of a great lord's fringe hospitality. Moryson noted as unusual that gentlewomen and irish chieftains' wives stayed drinking "health after health" with the men at banquets, though unmarried maidens might be sent away after the first few rounds. Monder Irish Puritanism originated in the seventeenth century, promoted by the Counter-Reformation missionaries and the extension of English common law to Gaelic Ireland under James I." (p522) Author - Katherine Simms.

Related works noted by Katherine Simms are:

• Marriage in Ireland, ed Art Cosgrove, Dublin, 1985.
• Women and the Church in Medieval Ireland by Dianne Patricia Hall, Dublin, Four Courts Press, 2003.
• Women in a Celtic Church: Ireland 450-1150, Christina Harrington, Oxford Univrsity Press, 2002.

I hope this will be of use to the editors. Fergananim (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Irish kings, kingship, and kingdoms

I note there is some discussion on the above topics. As an aid, I shall add the following extracts from the above publication, titled "Kings and Kingship", by Bart Jaski, pp.251-254.

"Kings and Kingship Medieval Ireland was marked by the existence of dozens of kingdoms, each ruled by a king who in the early medieval period was technically the highest nobelman in the túath. Most kings were subject to over kings, who were the policy-makers of the time. They based their authority over other lords and kings on ties of blood relationship and alliance. The integrity of such alliances partially depended on the pwoer and personal qualities of the over king. The ruling kindreds of the Irish kingdoms were often caught between the forces of internal division and outward stability. The rule of inheritance and succession stiulated competetition among relatives and expansion by the kindred's branches. Yet it also gave the kindred as a whole a measure of stability and flexibilty, as the kindred hardly ever died out in the male line. Several royal dynasties remained in control of an area for many centuries." (p.251)

"Historial Roots The historical roots of Irish kingship are still debated. It has been argued that pagan sacral kings, who ruled over tribes, were replaced by aristocratic kings, who ruled over kindreds in the period of the coming of Christianity and the rise of expansionist dynasties. The monst anceitn collective names are those only found in the plural (such as Laigin and Ulaid), and those names enging in r(a)ige, from -rigion (kingdom), such as Cíarraige and Osraige. These are held to express a tribal feeling, since they are connected to matters usch as human characteristics, totem animals, or deities. Yet such "tribes" may well have been ruled by certain families, as they were among the continental Celts in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. ..." (pp.251-52).

"Royal Duties At around the eight century there were probably over one hundred territories that were ruled by a rí túaithe (king of a people or territory). Although the title rí means litterally "king", the holder was essentially the highest nobleman of the túath. He held the main nobilbity of the tuath in clintship; they owed him tribute and support in exchange for protection and representation. Together with the bishiop and the master-poet, the king had the highest status in the territory. A person's status was expressed by his honor price, wich determined his legal rights and entitlements. ... As leader of the people, the king hosted ayearly assembly (óenach), had a council (airecht; later oireacht)with members of the secular and ecclesiastical elite, and conferred with other kings at a meeting (dál). He had a number of servitors to support him in his office, such as a steward, messenger, judge, and champion." (p. 252).

"Succession According to theory, the headship of a royal or noble kindred was due the most suitable person in regard to descent, age, and abilities. When the head of a kindred died, and he had no other near relatives, this oldest son succeeded him. ... In practise, such matters were often resolved by internal struggle or by negotiation, by which a senior candidate could relinquish his claims in exchange for certain privileges. No candidate had an absolute right to the succession, not even the tánaise ríg. Daughters had no permanent right to kin-land, and heiresses could not pass on kin-land to their offspring. Hence, outsiders could not take the headship of a family that had died out in the male line by marrying an heiress, as became common in medieval Europe. When a lineage died out, their land reverted to their male next-of-kin. Theis catered to stability within the Irish dynasties in the long run, but division fo the kin-land and collateral succession often resulted in temporary fragmentation of the kindred's assets and political power." (p.252)

"Dynastic Kingship In theory, the descendants of the sons of a lord alternated in the headship of the kindred, as long as they were duly qualified. In practise, who who - for whatever reason - were passed over for the succession for often unable to attract sufficient clients to maintain noble status for several generations. Their descendants became commoners and clients of their more fortunate relatives. This fate could be avoided by joining the ranks of the poets or clerics, or by competing successfully for power."

"In order to relieve internal pressure and extend the domination of the kindred, a ruler could install brothers or sons as rulers over neighboring client-peoples. The new noble or royal branches thus created remained part of the same kindred, and nominally subject to an over king as their common head. The over kingship was often contested by the leaders of the most powerful branches of the kindred, and this often led to destructive succession struggles. An over king who was disobeyed raided the territory of his errant subkings, in order to drive off their cattle as tribute or to take their hostages as guarantees for future obedience. Internal wargare could weaken the kindred as a whole, with the succession erratically being taken by this branch or that."

"Usually, one or two branches came out on top and subjugated all others. Yet within a few generations the winningh branch would itself be split up into rival lineages, and the whole cycle would start anew. This process remained typical for irish dynastic kingship until the end of the Gaelic order in the decades around 1600." (pp.252-53)

"Over Kingships The importance of blood relationship for claims of submission and tribute is reflected in the Irish political nomenclature. The ruleing dynasties are all named after a legendary or historical ancestor, who name is preceded by a term expressing kinship, such as Corco (seed), Dál (division) Clann (children), Cenél (kindred), Síl (seed) and Uí (grandson or descendants). All those who recognized the same ancestor politically tied together. Certain dynasties were, by mutual consent or a procured relatioship, held to be related. This reflected in the Old-Irish word cairdes, which means "kinship" and by extension, "friendship." A popwerful over king could claim that others were his relatives, and thus claim authority over them. Genealogical bonds expressed political bonds, hence the importance of the recording of genealogy in the medieval sources."

"The law tracts of around 700 recognize a hierarchy of kings of a túath, king of several túatha, and the provincial kings. The provincial king ruled not only a powerful dynasty but also a defined territory that he habitually dominated, named a cóiced (literally "fifth"). A king of Ireland only existed on a theoretical basis, as no dynasty had bee able to rule Ireland permanently."(p.253)

"Political Structure Already before the eighth century the over kingship had begun to dissolve the túath as the basic sociopolitical unit. Most of the irish petty kings were subject to an over king, and many were hardly independent rulers. The power of the over kings over their dynasties and neighbouring kings increased in time, and about a dozen were of major consequence. The Uí Néill rule in Mide, Brega and The North (In Túasceirt); the Uí Briúin and Uí Fiachrach in Connacht; the Uí Meic Uais and Uí Chremthainn in Airgíalla; the Dál Fiatach and Dál nAraidi in Ulster; the Uí Dúnlainge and Uí Cheinnselaig in Leinster; and the Eóganachta in Munster. until the tenth century the over kings of the Ui Neill and Eóganachta dominated Ireland, and claimed suzerainty over Leth Cuinn and Leth Moga, respectively. ... The kings of Tara came to overpower the kings of Ulster and Leinster as well. Hence Máel Muire Othain (d. 887) attaches the Laigin and Ulaid (Dál Fiatach) to those whom shared a common ancestor with the Ui Neill in his poem on the Irish invasion myth. A few kings of Tara, from Máel Sechnaill I (ruled 846-862) onward, took hostage of the kings of Cashel and claimed to be kings of Ireland. Internal rivalry and losses against the Vikings were among the factors by which the Eóganachta and Uí Néill fell apart in the tenth century."(p.253)

"Later Developments The career of Brian Boru (d.1014) marked the end of the domination of the Eóganachta and Uí Néill. This gave other dynasties the opportunity to rise to power. Notable kings were now given the honoary title "high king" (ard-rí), a term subsequently used to denote the kings of Tara of old. This gave rise to the anachronistic notion of a high kingship of Ireland. In the new political order that ensued, the leading families were Mac Murchada (Uí Cheinnselaig) in Leinster, Mac Carthaig (Eoghanacht Caisil) in Desmond, Ua Briain (Dal gCais in Thomond) Ua Conchobair (Ui Briuin Ai) in Connacht, Ua Bruaic (Ua Briuin Breifne) in the northern Midlands, and Ua Domnaill Cenel Conaill) Ui Neill, and Mac Lochlainn (Cenel nEoghain) in the North. Apart from Mac Lochlainn, they remained powerful from around 1150 to 1600, which tesifies to the resilience of the main Irish dynasties. These families also had the tendency to extend the domination by planting branches on neighbouring territories. After the Anglo-Norman invasion there was an increading development toward the exercise of lordship among feudal lines, but on the whole Gaelic tendencies persevered. These included the donation of turastal and the impositions of coshering and coyne and livery. Internal rivalry, raiding, hostage-taking, and fluctuations in alliances and power remained characteristic for the Gaelic lordships. This hampered the implementation fo the English surrender-and-regrant policy in the decades around 1600, by which the Irish kings and lords were recreated as English earls and barons, with the promise to follow English law and custom. In the end, the irish royal families died out, lost power, or their chiefs went abroad, and few managed to keep up their noble stature." (p.253-53)

Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Present article

A great deal of work still to be done to improve it, and I am disappointed that no one seems to have made use of the above sections I included here for other editors nearly three years ago. Fergananim (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)