Results of a separate Angevin Irish Kingdom?

[The Professor]

In my current revision of my Angevin TL John is crowned as King of Ireland whilst England goes to an ATL son of Richard & Alais (btw Philippe II died in 1184 ATL)

What I'd like to know is: what could happen to a separate Kingdom of Ireland?

I don't see the Kings of Ireland being able to dominate the whole country but could they maintain their rule over it?
Would it resemble France or HRE with more autonomous nobles?
What relationships could develop internally and externally?

Your thoughts please.

rgds
Prof

[Errnge]

well the traditional irish way of governing was very much a confederacy with one high king ruling over the others. it would, i think, be like a micro Holy Roman Empire,

except for now you have a foreign dynasty, which leeds me to think they would instill themselves as rulers, perhaps using the old 5 kingdoms as the outline for governmental regions

[Yorel]

Originally Posted by Errnge

well the traditional irish way of governing was very much a confederacy with one high king ruling over the others. it would, i think, be like a micro Holy Roman Empire,

except for now you have a foreign dynasty, which leeds me to think they would instill themselves as rulers, perhaps using the old 5 kingdoms as the outline for governmental regions

Another possibility would be to have John Lackland or his children marry into important Irish families. That may help the Angevin secure control of Ireland.

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Yorel

Another possibility would be to have John Lackland or his children marry into important Irish families. That may help the Angevin secure control of Ireland.

I was thinking of him marrying a daughter of Hugh de Lacy, Lord of Meath, by Princess Rose Ní Conchobair, daughter of King of Ireland, Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair.
But would he still support Hugh's 2nd son Hugh in taking the Earldom of Ulster from John de Courcy or would he do so himself?

[Falastur]

I have to agree with the above. In all likelihood what happens is (either straight away or after a few generations) the Kings of Ireland intermarry with the ruling Irish Kingdoms, lose their Angevin/English heritage and become part of the establishment, as happened when Strongbow first invaded. In all likelihood the strong King position would eventually disappear too as it would be merged with the part-elective part-military-strength tradition of the High Kingship, and in 100 years Ireland would likely be back to its former position of having a number of vying states and no clear King.

Of course this could be avoided if the Kings of Ireland can rely on English aid to keep their position intact, but if that happens, the Kings (of Ireland) will face hostility from the Irish petty Kingdoms, who will resent the idea of foreign imposition, and so they will likely be far more unruly and harder to control, at least for a few generations.

[MNP]

Originally Posted by Falastur

I have to agree with the above. In all likelihood what happens is (either straight away or after a few generations) the Kings of Ireland intermarry with the ruling Irish Kingdoms, lose their Angevin/English heritage and become part of the establishment, as happened when Strongbow first invaded. In all likelihood the strong King position would eventually disappear too as it would be merged with the part-elective part-military-strength tradition of the High Kingship, and in 100 years Ireland would likely be back to its former position of having a number of vying states and no clear King.

Of course this could be avoided if the Kings of Ireland can rely on English aid to keep their position intact, but if that happens, the Kings (of Ireland) will face hostility from the Irish petty Kingdoms, who will resent the idea of foreign imposition, and so they will likely be far more unruly and harder to control, at least for a few generations.

Yes, Ireland has a lot of places hard to get into (i.e. rough country, forests, swamps) where people can hide out from central authority then emerge once the troops are gone. There's got to be some reason it's better to obey the central authority than strike out on your own.

[Bee]

John was notoriously treacherous and would have intrigued to take the English crown from his nephew if there was ever an opening. This might backfire. There's a decent chance that John would have offended the Normans in Ireland, the native kings (see below), or both, and that some combination might offer the crown to John's nephew.

[When Henry II had sent the young John to Ireland as his representative, he had irritated the native chiefs by pulling their long beards.]

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Falastur

I have to agree with the above. In all likelihood what happens is (either straight away or after a few generations) the Kings of Ireland intermarry with the ruling Irish Kingdoms, lose their Angevin/English heritage and become part of the establishment, as happened when Strongbow first invaded. In all likelihood the strong King position would eventually disappear too as it would be merged with the part-elective part-military-strength tradition of the High Kingship, and in 100 years Ireland would likely be back to its former position of having a number of vying states and no clear King.

Of course this could be avoided if the Kings of Ireland can rely on English aid to keep their position intact, but if that happens, the Kings (of Ireland) will face hostility from the Irish petty Kingdoms, who will resent the idea of foreign imposition, and so they will likely be far more unruly and harder to control, at least for a few generations.

Originally Posted by MNP

Yes, Ireland has a lot of places hard to get into (i.e. rough country, forests, swamps) where people can hide out from central authority then emerge once the troops are gone. There's got to be some reason it's better to obey the central authority than strike out on your own.

Hmm. Would the Norman Crown disappear that quickly?
The Lordship managed to survive quite a while though steadily reduced.
Would having a King on site (as it were) mean a larger Pale?
I see an analogue with France of the early Capets with the Irish Kings being the autonomous Dukes.

Originally Posted by Bee

John was notoriously treacherous and would have intrigued to take the English crown from his nephew if there was ever an opening. This might backfire. There's a decent chance that John would have offended the Normans in Ireland, the native kings (see below), or both, and that some combination might offer the crown to John's nephew.

[When Henry II had sent the young John to Ireland as his representative, he had irritated the native chiefs by pulling their long beards.]

Who is available for John to scheme with?
But if he does try, and fails, his crown would likely go to his sons and we're off towards what Falastur described.

Assuming we end with a High King model under a FitzJohn King with Irish Earl-Kings and Norman-Irish Earls of Waterford, Ulster, etc, what impact can we expect from outside?
Would the Irish King interfere with the Kings/Lords of the Isles v Scotland v Norway?
What are relations with Wales like? Irish support could provide an independent Welsh Prince/Kingdom.

[Falastur]

Originally Posted by The Professor

Hmm. Would the Norman Crown disappear that quickly?
The Lordship managed to survive quite a while though steadily reduced.
Would having a King on site (as it were) mean a larger Pale?
I see an analogue with France of the early Capets with the Irish Kings being the autonomous Dukes.

The Lordship survived so long because it was invested in a man who would traditionally never visit Ireland and was brought up and lived his entire life on English culture. History shows us that Dublin just didn't have enough of an English court-culture aspect to it. When Englishmen went to Ireland and spent their lives wrapped up in Irish culture, the result was that those Englishmen fell into the Irish culture and after a generation or two were indistinguishable from the native Irish they had come to rule. John would be based in Ireland and so he would be no different, though since he'd be based in Dublin and not on a country castle/manor, the transition might be slower. The only way it could be resisted is if John and the future Kings of Ireland spend half their time in England, but that will build resentment amongst the Irish who might therefore seek to get rid of the Kings, and it will inevitably ultimately lead to the Kings of Ireland doing an OTL John in some way, and saying "a King should not be subordinate to a King". If they have a good claim to the throne then in a period of an English succession crisis they would probably push to be crowned King of England and Ireland would be forgotten. If they don't have a claim at the time, they would push for independence.

[Elfwine]

Could this - or anything else around this time - lead to a more centralized Irish state, or would that require a fundemental change to Irish society?

Centralized at least in the sense unity between the separate kingdoms, not necessarily One Kingdom.

[Falastur]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Could this - or anything else around this time - lead to a more centralized Irish state, or would that require a fundemental change to Irish society?

Centralized at least in the sense unity between the separate kingdoms, not necessarily One Kingdom.

It could, if the King/High King or whatever exists at the time can actually exert suzerainty for more than one generation. Ireland's major problem with centralisation was that Kings were willing to follow a warlord, but as soon as that warlord was dead they generally wanted to be independent again. It didn't have a legacy of a strong central Kingship, and I suspect that unlike England, Scotland, France etc, the idea of a single Irish state would have been totally alien and unappealing to the Irish (nobles). They associated with each other ethnically but saw no real reason why that ethnic link meant they had to be part of the same country. Rather they had regional Kingdoms, for them.

[MNP]

Originally Posted by Falastur

The only way it could be resisted is if John and the future Kings of Ireland spend half their time in England, but that will build resentment amongst the Irish who might therefore seek to get rid of the Kings, and it will inevitably ultimately lead to the Kings of Ireland doing an OTL John in some way, and saying "a King should not be subordinate to a King".

This is why you crown an emperor!

I suspect that unlike England, Scotland, France etc, the idea of a single Irish state would have been totally alien and unappealing to the Irish (nobles). They associated with each other ethnically but saw no real reason why that ethnic link meant they had to be part of the same country. Rather they had regional Kingdoms, for them.

Well what are the widespread institutions of Ireland? The church obviously, so if you can somehow keep the churchmen from being family members to the local lords or a unified institution...

[The Professor]

Hmmm I certainly don't see a unified island state before 1400 at the earliest (and 1600 is more likely).

Is a fairly unified large Eastern Irish Kingdom - containing Earldoms - that traditionally holds the High Kingship possible? (with the Irish Kings referred to as Princes by the Norman-Irish "King of All Ireland").
Such a State would certainly be supported by the Church in Rome if the King backs Roman appointments

Tho I would think that a Ireland reverting to its pre1100 disparate state would be useful to my timeline since I could just ignore it until the late 1400s

I'm also tempted to have an Earl of Ulster as Prince of the Isles

[Falastur]

Originally Posted by MNP

Well what are the widespread institutions of Ireland? The church obviously, so if you can somehow keep the churchmen from being family members to the local lords or a unified institution...

How do you do that when the clergy solely and uniquely come from the noble classes, and join their local monastery?

[MNP]

Originally Posted by Falastur

How do you do that when the clergy solely and uniquely come from the noble classes, and join their local monastery?

Indeed that is the problem when your brother or your son is the bishop or abbot.

[Falastur]

I highly doubt a unified Catholic Church would unite Ireland anyway. I mean, if a King wants to be independent, why would his bishop saying "oh by the way, I now recognise the authority of the Archbishop of Dublin" change it? If anything he would fly into a fury at the bishop and try to get rid of him. More likely perhaps is that he instead he simply shrugs and says to the Bishop "so what?". Ultimately, political, not religious, pressures cause the unification of a nation.

[MNP]

Originally Posted by Falastur

I highly doubt a unified Catholic Church would unite Ireland anyway. I mean, if a King wants to be independent, why would his bishop saying "oh by the way, I now recognise the authority of the Archbishop of Dublin" change it? If anything he would fly into a fury at the bishop and try to get rid of him. More likely perhaps is that he instead he simply shrugs and says to the Bishop "so what?". Ultimately, political, not religious, pressures cause the unification of a nation.

I'm not looking for cause, but ways to keep the thing more solid past the life of an individual warlord if his successors aren't equally as capable. Obviously the main basis for any initial unification would be force and/or self-interest.

ED: You know I can't find my source for the claim I just made about the bishops, so until I do I am removing it.