St George`s day

[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 .