St George`s day

[Chas]

What you on about, I didn't know there was one.

Hi Brian and All,

Here it is, the Saint George Tartan:



Note the red cross on white. Details from the Scottish Tartan Register:

STA ref: none
STWR ref: 3178
Designer: David McGill of International Tartans
Tartan date: 01/06/2006
Registration date: This tartan was recorded prior to the launch of The Scottish Register of Tartans.
Category: Unknown
Restrictions:
Registration notes: For Universal use.

And by the way, welcome to Xmarks, Brian from Norfolk, England.

Regards

Chas

[Wolfhawk]

Happy St. George's Day

[McClef]

Wrong.
Ireland was a kingdom from 1542–1801, initially under Henry VIII. The king of England had previously held the title Lord of Ireland, given by the 1155 Laudabiliter papal bull, issued by Pope Adrian IV, the only English Pope (one did more than enough damage, no more thanks! ). The King in question (the first Lord of Ireland) was Henry II.
The Acts of Union that gave rise to the modern United Kingdom and the Union Flag were uniting three Kingdoms and three Crowns: Ireland, England and Scotland.

I was of course referring to Ireland as a kingdom in its own right ruled by its own king. A "takeover" is not the same whether by dint of conquest or a Papal load of Bull. The Kingship of Ireland by an English monarch was disputed and resisted and was something that could not be enforced for centuries and when it was it was always against the wishes of the majority of its people. I know of no English monarch that was awarded the crown of or crowned in Ireland. As I pointed out also, the Acts of Union were to do with the Parliaments as Scotland had its own until 1707 and Ireland until 1801. Wales did have its own parliament at Machynlleth, established by Owain Glyndwr but this was dissolved by force rather than bribery as was the case with the others.

Whether it is correct for Ireland to still be represented on the Union Flag and especially on the Royal Standards, in a fashion that could be regarded as an ongoing claim, is another question entirely, and one that could be seen as just as provocative and political as Ireland's previous constitutional claims to Northern Ireland, so I for one am not getting into it.....

Because, as MOR has pointed out, Wales is a Principality, of the Kingdom of England, not a kingdom in it's own right.

I doubt the Union Flag will be changed voluntarily any time soon, and I doubt if Wales will ever have a big enough voice to make it happen, so while Wales is still in the UK, I guess you are stuck with it .

That claim was amended by a referendum and became part of the Good Friday Agreement.

Wales is a Principality but NOT of the Kingdom of England (which has not existed since 1603 in any case). Lichtenstein is also a Principalty, as is Monaco, but they have their own (resident) rulers, nationality and flags. So the "not a kingdom" argument simply does not hold water. Furthermore its has a largely self governing status as Scotland does and has the right, like Scotland, to vote itself independent by referendum should a majority vote be gained for that.

Scotland at least cannot claim it is being insulted by being not included in the Union Flag and Scottish Unionists can proudly point to the Saltire flying in the design. It may be that we are moving to a Federal system that stops short of full independence but even a Federal system, such as that of the US makes sure, that all parts of that are given a presence on the flag. If Puerto Rico, for example, ever became the 51st state then an extra star would appear on the US flag without argument. It is not a question of voice so much as a question of what is right.

[macwilkin]

A "takeover" is not the same whether by dint of conquest or a Papal load of Bull.

I'm not so sure that referring to a Papal Bull as a "load of Bull" is very appropriate, given that we do have a number of Roman Catholics who are also members of Xmarks.

Respectfully,

Todd

[McClef]

No insult was intended I assure you. I was a Catholic myself once but even then I would not have been offended by a pun that dealt with something historical regarding a period when arguments and wars were common within Christendom.

The context was regarding a political act by the medieval papacy and was not intended to raise theological debate.

If I did offend anyone I apologise but that was certainly not my intent.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I was of course referring to Ireland as a kingdom in its own right ruled by its own king.

Which it was. By the beginning of the 12th century, Ireland had become semi-feudalized, and the high kingship had come to be vested in the O'Conors of Connaught. In the late 12th century McMurrough Kavanagh in Wexford challenged the authority of the king, Rory O'Conor. Kavanagh went to England where he met with the English king, and arranged for knights, archers, and men at arms to be sent to Ireland to help him in his rebellion against the king. Henry of England granted Kavanaghs request on the condition that he, Henry, be recognized as Lord of Ireland. Kavanagh agreed, and the Pope issued a bulla to that effect.

... A "takeover" is not the same whether by dint of conquest or a Papal load of Bull.

Setting aside your rather disrespectful comments concerning the papacy, I should point out that England had precious little do do with any sort of "takeover"-- 12 knights, three score of horses, 60 archers, and about 200 men-at-arms, set sail from Bristol in 1189 at the request of a minor king (roughly the equivalent of an English earl) to engage in a free-booting exercise to possibly wrest the Irish crown from the King of Ireland, Rory O'Conor, and place it on the head of McMurrough Kavanagh.

The Kingship of Ireland by an English monarch was disputed and resisted and was something that could not be enforced for centuries and when it was it was always against the wishes of the majority of its people.

Well, this just isn't accurate, or true. It may be 19th century anti-British, pro-Irish inddependence propaganda, but it sure ain't the reality of history.

I know of no English monarch that was awarded the crown of or crowned in Ireland.

The same is equally true of any British monarch with regard to Scotland; not since 1651 has the sovereign been crowned in Scotland, but that fact doesn't mean that ERII isn't the Queen North of the Tweed.

As I pointed out also, the Acts of Union were to do with the Parliaments as Scotland had its own until 1707 and Ireland until 1801.

Precisely why Ireland was included in the national flag.

Wales did have its own parliament at Machynlleth, established by Owain Glyndwr but this was dissolved by force rather than bribery as was the case with the others.

Owain Glyndwr, following a personal dispute with Lord Grey, was in rebellion between 1402 and his death in 1416. During this time he assumed the style of "Prince of Wales", and at various times allied himself (with little success) with Lord Percy, Ireland, Scotland and France. That he did establish the machynlleth is of interest, mostly from the point of view that it was ineffective (as was Glyndwr) in governing Wales.

Wales is a Principality but NOT of the Kingdom of England (which has not existed since 1603 in any case).

Wales is an appanage of the crown, rather like the Dukedom of Normandy, or the Channel Islands. It is, in effect, the personal property of the monarch. Here's the historical time line:

Edward I conquers Wales in 1283, and immediately divides the territory into two halves. About 1/3 of the territory is retained by the king and is elevated to the status of a principality; the remaining 2/3 is chopped up into Shires and parceled out to various "marcher" lords; this status remains until the period 1536-1543 when parliament passes a number of acts which annex the shires of the Marcher Lords to the Principality (thus lessening their power) whilst at the same time giving Wales 27 seats in the Westminster Parliament.

Lichtenstein is also a Principalty, as is Monaco, but they have their own (resident) rulers, nationality and flags. So the "not a kingdom" argument simply does not hold water.

You should hold your water. Lichtenstein is an appanage of the King of Bohemia and is 100% the property of the current representer of that now-defunct kingdom. Monaco is a 19th century invention of French politics-- and owes its status to the political expediency (and on going grace and favour) of succeeding French governments.

Furthermore...(Wales) has a largely self governing status as Scotland does...

The Welsh National Assembly does not have anything near the powers of the Scottish National Talking Shop. This was one of the gripes voiced by Plaid Cyrmu when the WNA was created.

and has the right, like Scotland, to vote itself independent by referendum should a majority vote be gained for that.

So, theoretically, does Quebec, but neither prospect is likely. I think, if you go back and read the Act, you will discover that independence can not be achieved by a unilateral decision in either Wales or Scotland.

Scotland at least cannot claim it is being insulted by being not included in the Union Flag and Scottish Unionists can proudly point to the Saltire flying in the design. It may be that we are moving to a Federal system that stops short of full independence but even a Federal system, such as that of the US makes sure, that all parts of that are given a presence on the flag. If Puerto Rico, for example, ever became the 51st state then an extra star would appear on the US flag without argument. It is not a question of voice so much as a question of what is right.

It is true that if Puerto Rico chose statehood over its commonwealth status, it would be accorded a star on the national flag. That is because it would be coming into the union. In the instance of Wales, like it or not, it has been a part of "greater Britain" since at least 1536, if not since Edward I took it, and sliced it up, and divvied it out to his pals, in 1283.

Look, I'm all in favour of people having cultural pride-- like I said originally, I think it's great that Welsh men and women fly the livery banner of "Bluff King Hal" as their own. But, to accord Wales a special place on the national flag? Sorry Trefor, you just haven't managed to convince me that it's the thing that needs to be done.

[Paul Henry]

from MOR: The same is equally true of any British monarch with regard to Scotland; not since 1661 has the sovereign been crowned in Scotland, but that fact doesn't mean that ERII isn't the Queen North of the Tweed.


Actually she is Queen Elizabeth the FIRST of Scotland ,not QEII

[Good Egg]

Another actually? Gor Blimey Guv!

Actually he was born in Cappadocia. Cappadocia is NOW most definately in Turkey... or it was last time I was there. But you are right of course, St George? definately not Turkish... 1 point to you sir... Thankyou for pointing that out.

Not sure about the Greek though, not in a riding a moped everywhere, 1.12 Euros to the Pound, zatsiki and pita, Shirley Valentine sort of Greek anyway. Much like Cappadocia isn't (or wasn't) Turkey. Could it not be argued that as his Dad was a Roman Army Bloke (Cappadocia Detachment? probably Armenian) and his Mum was a Palastinian he was possibly more Roman than Greek? In the broad sense of course. He was born around 250AD and Cappadocia became a Roman Province in 17AD under Emperor Tiberius and after that was Byzantine... Do we really care? Does anyone really care?

Happy St George's Day!

Are you saying he is actually Brian?

[thanmuwa]

I was of course referring to Ireland as a kingdom in its own right ruled by its own king. A "takeover" is not the same whether by dint of conquest or a Papal load of Bull. The Kingship of Ireland by an English monarch was disputed and resisted and was something that could not be enforced for centuries and when it was it was always against the wishes of the majority of its people. I know of no English monarch that was awarded the crown of or crowned in Ireland.

Irrelevant really. From Henry VIII onwards, the King of England was also the King of Ireland, until the Act of Union, 1801. A monarchy is not the same as a democracy, the opinion of the people is unimportant. On a related note, it also makes me laugh that in the UK, the media has debates as to who should be the next monarch.... don't those people realise they should be abasing themselves, tugging their forelocks and certainly not being vulgar enough to voice an opinion about their betters?

That claim was amended by a referendum and became part of the Good Friday Agreement.

Yes, but my point was that as contentious as that claim was is how contentious Irish people see references to Ireland still being included within the the UK's flags, trappings, army regiment names etc.

Wales is a Principality but NOT of the Kingdom of England (which has not existed since 1603 in any case). Lichtenstein is also a Principalty, as is Monaco, but they have their own (resident) rulers, nationality and flags. So the "not a kingdom" argument simply does not hold water. Furthermore its has a largely self governing status as Scotland does and has the right, like Scotland, to vote itself independent by referendum should a majority vote be gained for that.

The Kingdom of England existed until 1707. Wales is a principality of the kingdom of England (link).

Scotland at least cannot claim it is being insulted by being not included in the Union Flag and Scottish Unionists can proudly point to the Saltire flying in the design. It may be that we are moving to a Federal system that stops short of full independence but even a Federal system, such as that of the US makes sure, that all parts of that are given a presence on the flag. If Puerto Rico, for example, ever became the 51st state then an extra star would appear on the US flag without argument. It is not a question of voice so much as a question of what is right.

The US is a Constitutional Republic, where, at least on paper, all people are assumed equal. Wales is part of a Constitutional Monarchy where people are by definition not equal. And within the Constititional Monarchy that is the UK, Wales is not considered important enough to include on the flag. Such is life eh?

Which it was. By the beginning of the 12th century, Ireland had become semi-feudalized, and the high kingship had come to be vested in the O'Conors of Connaught. In the late 12th century McMurrough Kavanagh in Wexford challenged the authority of the king, Rory O'Conor. Kavanagh went to England where he met with the English king, and arranged for knights, archers, and men at arms to be sent to Ireland to help him in his rebellion against the king. Henry of England granted Kavanaghs request on the condition that he, Henry, be recognized as Lord of Ireland. Kavanagh agreed, and the Pope issued a bulla to that effect.

The feudalisation of Ireland didn't happen of it's own accord. The Papal interference was a lot more to do with curbing the power of an increasingly independent Irish church, justifiably proud of itself after almost single-handedly weathering the Dark Ages and reintroducing Christianity and learning to most of Europe. The Irish church had seperate dates for Easter, didn't pay tithes to Rome and numerous other differences. The Papal Bull was about re-establishing Rome dominance and getting the Irish to pay their pound of flesh. The need to raise funds within Ireland for those tithes was what really forced feudalism onto Ireland.

Setting aside your rather disrespectful comments concerning the papacy, I should point out that England had precious little do do with any sort of "takeover"-- 12 knights, three score of horses, 60 archers, and about 200 men-at-arms, set sail from Bristol in 1189 at the request of a minor king (roughly the equivalent of an English earl) to engage in a free-booting exercise to possibly wrest the Irish crown from the King of Ireland, Rory O'Conor, and place it on the head of McMurrough Kavanagh. Well, this just isn't accurate, or true. It may be 19th century anti-British, pro-Irish inddependence propaganda, but it sure ain't the reality of history.

I would have to disagree with you there. A takeover by stealth is still a takeover. It may have started small, but it expanded into the Pale and centuries of fighting between Normans and native Irish.

from MOR: The same is equally true of any British monarch with regard to Scotland; not since 1661 has the sovereign been crowned in Scotland, but that fact doesn't mean that ERII isn't the Queen North of the Tweed.


Actually she is Queen Elizabeth the FIRST of Scotland ,not QEII

He didn't say she was ERII of Scotland, just that she is Queen north of the Tweed .

[Good Egg]

from MOR: The same is equally true of any British monarch with regard to Scotland; not since 1661 has the sovereign been crowned in Scotland, but that fact doesn't mean that ERII isn't the Queen North of the Tweed.


Actually she is Queen Elizabeth the FIRST of Scotland ,not QEII

She is Queen Elizabeth the Second in Scotland and in all countries where she is head of State. Australia has never had a Queen Elizabeth before either. If there is a future king James he would be James V111 despite England not having 7 previous James.