An earlier (role for) Kingdom of Ireland

So imagine if (with minimal butterflies) John Lackland becomes King of Ireland.

When his brother dies he still claims England over Arthur and unites the two.


What are the major butterfly targets when the King of England also carries the title of King of Ireland?
How is the claim to the succession sorted?
What arms do John and his successors adopt?

None at all, he was made Lord of Ireland in OTL and while he never got around to becoming King, not least thanks to Papal Opposition and his inability to conquer the place he still held the title Lord of Ireland for the rest of his life and passed it on. If the Pope had let him become King and the OTL deaths of his brothers happens then the Kingdom of Ireland is going to go the same course as the Lordship of Ireland. It'll be just another Royal Title and future Justicars will rule on behalf of the Kingdom of Ireland rather than the Lordship of Ireland.

Arachnid said:

None at all, he was made Lord of Ireland in OTL and while he never got around to becoming King, not least thanks to Papal Opposition and his inability to conquer the place he still held the title Lord of Ireland for the rest of his life and passed it on. If the Pope had let him become King and the OTL deaths of his brothers happens then the Kingdom of Ireland is going to go the same course as the Lordship of Ireland. It'll be just another Royal Title and future Justicars will rule on behalf of the Kingdom of Ireland rather than the Lordship of Ireland.

Click to expand...

So you don't think that any English claimants are going to first claim Ireland as a starting point?
And what about people such as Edmund Crouchback who were offered Sicily - could we see him getting Ireland as a default?

The Professor said:

So you don't think that any English claimants are going to first claim Ireland as a starting point?

Click to expand...

No, "English" Ireland was so massively outweighed by "English" England that any pretender who only ruled Ireland is doomed, though I suppose you could get an alt Henry IV go to Ireland first in order to take the easiest target before moving on to the harder target of London. But it would only ever be a short term, first stage in a campaign thing.

The Professor said:

And what about people such as Edmund Crouchback who were offered Sicily - could we see him getting Ireland as a default?

Click to expand...

Very unlikely, possible but very unlikely. Henry II had neatly reminded everyone why Carolingian style division of realms was a dumb idea and I doubt anyone would want a repeat.

But Henry II didn't give a Carolingian like division of realms - his problem is giving titles but not power to his sons, rather than giving them power.

Elfwine said:

But Henry II didn't give a Carolingian like division of realms - his problem is giving titles but not power to his sons, rather than giving them power.

Click to expand...

In the end he didn't because they all died apart from John. But by giving Geoffrey Brittany, Henry the Young King Normandy and Anjou and declaring him his heir for England, Richard Aquitaine and Gascony and John Ireland he clearly intended such a division.

Arachnid said:

In the end he didn't because they all died apart from John. But by giving Geoffrey Brittany, Henry the Young King Normandy and Anjou and declaring him his heir for England, Richard Aquitaine and Gascony and John Ireland he clearly intended such a division.

Click to expand...

John and Richard both outlived him, not just John.

More to the point, what he intended never came to pass with good or ill intentions, so saying that what he did do was "Carolingian-like division of realms" doesn't make sense. He'd have avoided the OTL problems of what he did with his sons if he really divided up his realm like that - would almost certainly have had other ones, but OTL is not a division in anything but title.

Arachnid said:

No, "English" Ireland was so massively outweighed by "English" England that any pretender who only ruled Ireland is doomed, though I suppose you could get an alt Henry IV go to Ireland first in order to take the easiest target before moving on to the harder target of London. But it would only ever be a short term, first stage in a campaign thing.

Click to expand...

Neither the population nor economic potential of England was disproportionately excessive compared with Ireland in 1200. Ireland had been strong economically up to the early 1100s. Afterwards, the introduction of continental fabrics from Flanders sent the economy into decline, but its trade position and export profile -- mostly craft goods -- was still not that of a backwater.

Angevin England was a powerhouse since William I had used his moment of limitless power to create a very advanced administration. But there's no question had John succeeded in creating a similar administration in Ireland that the country had the potential to emerge as a very significant power.

The succeeding four centuries of basically unceasing warfare destroyed the country but this wasn't fore-ordained. John's 1210 expedition was quite successful. Had he enjoyed similar success earlier, the Norman experience in Ireland might have more closely resembled that in Saxon England which was conquered in a single generation. Of course the country could also have reverted to Brehon law which was an anachronism at the time and would simply have resulted in another invasion.

dduff442 said:

Neither the population nor economic potential of England was disproportionately excessive compared with Ireland in 1200. Ireland had been strong economically up to the early 1100s. Afterwards, the introduction of continental fabrics from Flanders sent the economy into decline, but its trade position and export profile -- mostly craft goods -- was still not that of a backwater.

Angevin England was a powerhouse since William I had used his moment of limitless power to create a very advanced administration. But there's no question had John succeeded in creating a similar administration in Ireland that the country had the potential to emerge as a very significant power.

The succeeding four centuries of basically unceasing warfare destroyed the country but this wasn't fore-ordained. John's 1210 expedition was quite successful. Had he enjoyed similar success earlier, the Norman experience in Ireland might have more closely resembled that in Saxon England which was conquered in a single generation. Of course the country could also have reverted to Brehon law which was an anachronism at the time and would simply have resulted in another invasion.

Click to expand...

John conquering Ireland in a single generation and it being economically strong under (whoever) is not the same thing, though.

I think this claim to Ireland being potentially "very significant" needs some backup.

The most interesting POD, for me, is John becoming Count of Savoy.

In this case, it'd be interesting if John was left with just Ireland over a period, with his older brothers living longer and Richard having an adult son/nephew who gets England instead. Probably the only way we'd see any radical change for Ireland's development, even if just in parts.

Elfwine said:

John conquering Ireland in a single generation and it being economically strong under (whoever) is not the same thing, though.

I think this claim to Ireland being potentially "very significant" needs some backup.

Click to expand...

I don't have the figures to hand, but the agricultural potential of the country was very significant -- much better than Scotland, for example. Even in 1500 the country had GDP almost as high as Denmark and higher than Sweden (according to Maddison's figures), and trust me Ireland in 1500 was an appalling mess everywhere outside the immediate vicinity of Dublin. In 1820, Irish GDP was more than 4 times that of Denmark and more than 1.5 times that of Austria, and bigger than Belgium or the Netherlands (Maddison again, presumably using modern frontiers). Ireland in 1820 was likewise a mess.

You'll need to specify exactly the backup you need. I can't answer such an open question.

dduff442 said:

since William I had used his moment of limitless power to create a very advanced administration.

Click to expand...

Actually, he inherited most of that system from the Anglo-Saxon monarchy...

dduff442 said:

Neither the population nor economic potential of England was disproportionately excessive compared with Ireland in 1200. Ireland had been strong economically up to the early 1100s. Afterwards, the introduction of continental fabrics from Flanders sent the economy into decline, but its trade position and export profile -- mostly craft goods -- was still not that of a backwater.

Angevin England was a powerhouse since William I had used his moment of limitless power to create a very advanced administration. But there's no question had John succeeded in creating a similar administration in Ireland that the country had the potential to emerge as a very significant power.

The succeeding four centuries of basically unceasing warfare destroyed the country but this wasn't fore-ordained. John's 1210 expedition was quite successful. Had he enjoyed similar success earlier, the Norman experience in Ireland might have more closely resembled that in Saxon England which was conquered in a single generation. Of course the country could also have reverted to Brehon law which was an anachronism at the time and would simply have resulted in another invasion.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's simply incredibly unlikely. First of all the Norman Conquest was so successful precisely because Anglo-Saxon England had the most centralised and sophisticated government of any major state in Western Europe and one of the most modern economies in Western Europe. If you compare the Norman Conquests of England and Souther Italy you can see the enormous difference between the two, whereas in England the Normans were able to completely take over in Sicily there was a much greater degree of enforced co-option of locals and Southern Italy was relatively sophisticated. Gaelic Ireland on the other hand had just about the least sophisticated and centralised "government" in Western Europe, it was a tribal society. While that meant the sort of power projection that the English Kings employed was completely impossible for the Irish it also meant that a coup de main taking out the top 0.1% and thus completely taking over the country was impossible. England already had a manorial economy in place so a Norman Knight could easily replace a Saxon thegn etc. The same did not apply in Ireland.
Simple geography means Ireland will always be poorer and less populous in this period than England. The South East of England has some of the most fertile land in the world (East Anglia), a massive transport artery (the Thames), a multitude of ports on to the North Sea (the trading hub of Northern Europe), is opposite the Rhine Delta (the economic spine of Europe) etc. Ireland is off in the North Atlantic separated from everyone else by England, much of the land is low productivity bogland and has a poor river network.
A united Ireland would be marginally stronger than Scotland, a tough place to conquer (as in OTL) that probably could not be absorbed into England without extreme ruthlessness and an excessive amount of effort but would inevitably be very much a weaker player, a Portugal to England's Spain, a Mexico to England's USA etc.

Arachnid said:

I'm sorry but that's simply incredibly unlikely. First of all the Norman Conquest was so successful precisely because Anglo-Saxon England had the most centralised and sophisticated government of any major state in Western Europe and one of the most modern economies in Western Europe. If you compare the Norman Conquests of England and Souther Italy you can see the enormous difference between the two, whereas in England the Normans were able to completely take over in Sicily there was a much greater degree of enforced co-option of locals and Southern Italy was relatively sophisticated. Gaelic Ireland on the other hand had just about the least sophisticated and centralised "government" in Western Europe, it was a tribal society. While that meant the sort of power projection that the English Kings employed was completely impossible for the Irish it also meant that a coup de main taking out the top 0.1% and thus completely taking over the country was impossible. England already had a manorial economy in place so a Norman Knight could easily replace a Saxon thegn etc. The same did not apply in Ireland.
Simple geography means Ireland will always be poorer and less populous in this period than England. The South East of England has some of the most fertile land in the world (East Anglia), a massive transport artery (the Thames), a multitude of ports on to the North Sea (the trading hub of Northern Europe), is opposite the Rhine Delta (the economic spine of Europe) etc. Ireland is off in the North Atlantic separated from everyone else by England, much of the land is low productivity bogland and has a poor river network.
A united Ireland would be marginally stronger than Scotland, a tough place to conquer (as in OTL) that probably could not be absorbed into England without extreme ruthlessness and an amount excessive amount of effort but would inevitably be very much a weaker player, a Portugal to England's Spain, a Mexico to England's USA etc.

Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between being "Portugal to England's Spain" and "Ireland to England's England".

Ireland was administratively primitive in the 12th Century, and it is correct that total conquest would have been required. The characterisation of Ireland as a "tribal society" is simply flat wrong, however. It wasn't even a tribal society when the Cáin Adomnán was passed in 697.

Rather it was both economically and legally sophisticated. The constitution (requiring measures such as Adomnán's to fix) was very sophisticated if you were one of the beneficiaries, i.e. if you were a mercenary, if you were a clergyman etc. This constitutional arrangement didn't persist by some accident of history in spite of being totally and obviously unsuited to the requirements of 12th Century Europe. It persisted because there was always and everywhere a faction that stood to lose a lot of power and money if it failed.

And though it certainly did guarantee administrative primitivism in the secular domain, there was a body of written law and established precedent entirely outside of rulers' control that was a match in sophistication for any in Europe. The Monasteries were powerful secular domains also, but were in no sense primitive culturally or administratively. See, e.g. Cong, Baltinglass, Clonmacnoise etc.

It is a myth that the Viking cities were the first towns in Ireland; every large Monastery in the pre-Viking period had a large town outside its gate. The difference is that these were a) subsidiary to the Monastery and b) not trading towns per se.

I can only describe the characterisation of 12th Century Ireland as "a tribal society" as totally uninformed -- you've no business commenting if that's your level of understanding. Read Thomas Charles-Edwards or any other authority on the period and you'll find a practically verbatim echo of what I've written.

The Norman conquest of Ireland was totally successful where it was carried out at all -- in fact the Norman lords in Ireland were conspicuously more successful in retaining their social position than the average English baron who had to negotiate centuries of infighting. In Ireland, the barons were absolutely the last to suffer which is why the exact same names cover the exact same territories in 1500 as in 1200 -- de la Roche, FitzEustace, FitzGerald, de Burgh etc. Their remoteness made them beyond effective royal supervision.

The Munster FitzGeralds thrived for centuries with no outside support whatsoever. Had the Norman conquest been carried out to its logical conclusion, there's no reason to suspect it would have been different elsewhere in the country.

dduff442 said:

There's a huge difference between being "Portugal to England's Spain" and "Ireland to England's England".

Click to expand...

It was a broad reference to being a nation with a much more powerful neighbour, though Portugal is a bit too strong to make the comparison work.

dduff442 said:

Ireland was administratively primitive in the 12th Century, and it is correct that total conquest would have been required. The characterisation of Ireland as a "tribal society" is simply flat wrong, however. It wasn't even a tribal society when the Cáin Adomnán was passed in 697.

Rather it was both economically and legally sophisticated. The constitution (requiring measures such as Adomnán's to fix) was very sophisticated if you were one of the beneficiaries, i.e. if you were a mercenary, if you were a clergyman etc. This constitutional arrangement didn't persist by some accident of history in spite of being totally and obviously unsuited to the requirements of 12th Century Europe. It persisted because there was always and everywhere a faction that stood to lose a lot of power and money if it failed.

And though it certainly did guarantee administrative primitivism in the secular domain, there was a body of written law and established precedent entirely outside of rulers' control that was a match in sophistication for any in Europe. The Monasteries were powerful secular domains also, but were in no sense primitive culturally or administratively. See, e.g. Cong, Baltinglass, Clonmacnoise etc.

It is a myth that the Viking cities were the first towns in Ireland; every large Monastery in the pre-Viking period had a large town outside its gate. The difference is that these were a) subsidiary to the Monastery and b) not trading towns per se.

I can only describe the characterisation of 12th Century Ireland as "a tribal society" as totally uninformed -- you've no business commenting if that's your level of understanding. Read Thomas Charles-Edwards or any other authority on the period and you'll find a practically verbatim echo of what I've written.

Click to expand...

You're right I mis-spoke. 90% of Secular Ireland was a tribal society with a religious establishment and a few trading ports grafted on. However in the secular sphere, which even in Ireland was by far the largest sphere, it was very primitive. There was no manor-hundred-shire-Kingdom hierarchy, there was no standardised coinage, there wasn't comprehensive* transport network, secular bureaucracy was entirely absent, urbanisation was low etc. Even the Irish Church was past it's zenith by the 11th century, while it was still the most sophisticated organisation on the island it was falling behind the Continental and English Churches.

As for the status of Irish towns it is a complex issue. I would personally argue that the urban structures which undoubtedly surrounded Monastic establishments don't qualify as towns despite their size. A town is more than just cluster of people living together, it has an independent existence of its own. Medieval London or Paris weren't just off-shoots of the court, there were merchants, artisans and townsfolk who had an economic existence separate from the court. The closest you can get in Ireland is Dublin which did act as a port and trading hub, though on a very limited scale. Irish monastic "towns" in contrast were simply the support apparatus of the monastery and entirely dependent on it.

dduff442 said:

The Norman conquest of Ireland was totally successful where it was carried out at all -- in fact the Norman lords in Ireland were conspicuously more successful in retaining their social position than the average English baron who had to negotiate centuries of infighting. In Ireland, the barons were absolutely the last to suffer which is why the exact same names cover the exact same territories in 1500 as in 1200 -- de la Roche, FitzEustace, FitzGerald, de Burgh etc. Their remoteness made them beyond effective royal supervision.

The Munster FitzGeralds thrived for centuries with no outside support whatsoever. Had the Norman conquest been carried out to its logical conclusion, there's no reason to suspect it would have been different elsewhere in the country.

Click to expand...

I don't see how the relative success of a number of Norman families is relevant. In fact the nature of their success is another reminder that during this period Ireland was simply much less sophisticated and incapable of supporting the sort of polities that existed on the Continent or in England. Remember they survived by becoming Irish, the use of things like sealed writs, charters etc. either stagnated or at some points declined after the initial invasion, they rapidly adopted Irish manners and law and ended up "more Irish than the Irish". If the Norman conquest had been even more successful you would simply have differently surnamed Gaelic speaking chiefs, you would not have a base for a "significant power".

*by Medieval standards

Arachnid said:

It was a broad reference to being a nation with a much more powerful neighbour, though Portugal is a bit too strong to make the comparison work.



You're right I mis-spoke. 90% of Secular Ireland was a tribal society with a religious establishment and a few trading ports grafted on. However in the secular sphere, which even in Ireland was by far the largest sphere, it was very primitive. There was no manor-hundred-shire-Kingdom hierarchy, there was no standardised coinage, there wasn't comprehensive* transport network, secular bureaucracy was entirely absent, urbanisation was low etc. Even the Irish Church was past it's zenith by the 11th century, while it was still the most sophisticated organisation on the island it was falling behind the Continental and English Churches.

Click to expand...

This is all just nonsense. It is not reasonable to describe as "tribal" a society culturally homogeneous from SW Ireland to the North of Scotland, one having skilled craftsmen (1, 2, 3), a plentiful supply of of people literate and numerate in Latin and Greek as well as Irish, Neoplatonic philosophers, musical theorists, independent trading links with continental Europe as well as Britain, an extensive body of written law etc.

As for the 10% figure, I don't understand what conceivable relevance it has. What percentage of Anglo Saxons were literate etc? Of course you're only talking about an elite if you're talking about administration of any sort in Medieval Europe.

Arachnid said:

As for the status of Irish towns it is a complex issue. I would personally argue that the urban structures which undoubtedly surrounded Monastic establishments don't qualify as towns despite their size. A town is more than just cluster of people living together, it has an independent existence of its own. Medieval London or Paris weren't just off-shoots of the court, there were merchants, artisans and townsfolk who had an economic existence separate from the court. The closest you can get in Ireland is Dublin which did act as a port and trading hub, though on a very limited scale. Irish monastic "towns" in contrast were simply the support apparatus of the monastery and entirely dependent on it.

Click to expand...

And Dublin etc which had been Irish for more than 150 years by the time of the Norman invasion? What evidence do you have of its "very limited scale" as a trading hub?

Arachnid said:

I don't see how the relative success of a number of Norman families is relevant. In fact the nature of their success is another reminder that during this period Ireland was simply much less sophisticated and incapable of supporting the sort of polities that existed on the Continent or in England. Remember they survived by becoming Irish, the use of things like sealed writs, charters etc. either stagnated or at some points declined after the initial invasion, they rapidly adopted Irish manners and law and ended up "more Irish than the Irish". If the Norman conquest had been even more successful you would simply have differently surnamed Gaelic speaking chiefs, you would not have a base for a "significant power".

Click to expand...

That was precisely because the Norman conquest was not carried to a conclusion and they got sucked into not just the pattern of rule but also the pattern of settlement of the Gaelic lords. This was an inevitable consequence of the political structures. But these political structures were themselves a consequence of Henry II's failure to complete the conquest when he might easily have done so.

The fact is that a carbon copy of English administration was created in the East of the country that persisted for centuries, one entirely dependent on local skilled labour and actually enthusiastically welcomed by a significant section of society, viz. the Roman faction of the Church. Within a few years of Henry's arrival, a highway had been constructed running from Dublin to Kerry. How do you think he managed that? By hiring McAlpines on contract?

Your description of the country as "simply much less sophisticated" is just fatuous. Quote a single historian that makes any claims even remotely like this. Otherwise, this is all just bloviation and I see no sense in entertaining you.

dduff442 said:

I don't have the figures to hand, but the agricultural potential of the country was very significant -- much better than Scotland, for example. Even in 1500 the country had GDP almost as high as Denmark and higher than Sweden (according to Maddison's figures), and trust me Ireland in 1500 was an appalling mess everywhere outside the immediate vicinity of Dublin. In 1820, Irish GDP was more than 4 times that of Denmark and more than 1.5 times that of Austria, and bigger than Belgium or the Netherlands (Maddison again, presumably using modern frontiers). Ireland in 1820 was likewise a mess.

You'll need to specify exactly the backup you need. I can't answer such an open question.

Click to expand...

Backup on the idea of Ireland being this economically prosperous.

Comparing favorable to Scotland in agricultural production and 1500 Sweden is one thing, "more than 1.5 times that of Austria" in 1820 is another.

But for discussion's sake, sources on Ireland being this developed in - roughly - 1200-1500 ("The Middle Ages").

From what I know, and this is very much bits and pieces, Ireland is a chaotic mess full of fighting precisely because any sort of organization is . . . underwhelming.

And why the Normans not having full control of Ireland means that the areas that Norman families do control are incapable of being maintained as Anglo-Norman instead of Irish is something I'd appreciate elaboration on - I'm not saying its untrue, but you've studied this more than I have (just about all of what I've read is is a consequence of reading about what happened there as it relates to England, so any and all elaboration would be appreciated).

It didn't apply to the Marcher Lords in Wales. What's making it the case here?

Here are Maddison's 1990$ GDP figures for Europe between 1500 and 1820 (a figure for 1000AD not being available for Ireland):

1500; 1600; 1700; 1820

Austria 1,414; 2,093; 2,483; 4,104
Belgium 1,225; 1,561; 2,288; 4,529
Denmark 443; 569; 727; 1,471
Finland 136; 215; 255; 913
France 10,912; 15,559; 19,539; 35,468
Germany 8,256; 12,656; 13,650; 26,819
Italy 11,550; 14,410; 14,630; 22,535
Netherlands 723; 2,072; 4,047; 4,288
Norway 183; 266; 361; 777
Sweden 358; 532; 945; 2,107
Switzerland 411; 750; 1,068; 2,165
United Kingdom 2,815; 6,007; 10,709; 36,232
Ireland 421; 615; 1,377; 6,231
Greece 433; 725; 795; 1,482
Portugal 606; 814; 1,638; 3,043
Spain 4,495; 7,029; 7,481; 12,299


The huge increase in Irish GDP between 1500 and 1820 occurred even though per capita the country was one of the poorest in Europe in 1820, being poorer only than Finland and Greece in 1500 and than Norway, Sweden, Finland and Greece in 1820. It was the result of the tremendous increase in the acreage devoted to tillage. Having risen by only 25% between 1500 and 1600 -- an era of relentless and endemic violence but violence of a scale insufficient to register in popular histories -- the population nearly doubled between 1600 and 1700 and more than trebled between 1700 and 1820. The principle trading activity of the country throughout this period was the export of food!

In 1500, the country was barely tilled at all. Substantial areas were grazed, but huge swathes of the country were entirely deserted, being covered in Woodland, gorse and brambles. Drainage of marshes etc. was practically unknown.

But all this was the product of the relentless decline in Gaelic culture between 1172 and 1500. Google "Irish Sea Province" for the significance of Ireland as a trading destination in the early-mid medieval period (e.g. here).

The most eloquent testimony of the country's potential was the reaction of successive English monarchs to Norman expeditions to Ireland -- Henry II in pursuit of Strongbow, John I in pursuit of de Courcy and so on. They well understood the dangers such adventurers -- enthusiastically welcomed as pious Catholics by the most educated segment of Ireland's population, a faction exclusively Irish by language and culture, the Roman faction of the church -- held for England. But within a generation, this opportunity was lost. The Rome-oriented faction of the church ceased to exist having achieved its principle purpose -- unification with Canterbury. Rather, when new fissures appeared within the Church they did so entirely along cultural lines

The problem with Norman lordship outside of a small part of the east of the country was that it in no way corresponded to Norman administration. Rather, once a Norman lord passed outside the direct authority of the King he soon tended to decide that life as a ruler independent for all practical purposes was preferrable to meeting troublesome Royal demands. Rather than feeling protected by them, the towns tended instead to fear them. So cities like Cork, Limerick or Galway (almost as big as Dublin at that time, and much larger than the others) identified very strongly as "English" even though the numbers of actual English that ever settled there was tiny.

This was consistent with when these cities were under 'Viking' rule -- the 'Viking' heavy infantry, ringerike craftsmen etc were almost entirely Irish by ancestry (link) and, even though it was initially imposed, 'Viking' culture proved self-perpetuating even after the last 'Viking' had long since left.

Very interesting.

Although I'm not sure - pardon me if I sound just plain dense or annoying - I ask for more information/clarification on this point:

The problem with Norman lordship outside of a small part of the east of the country was that it in no way corresponded to Norman administration. Rather, once a Norman lord passed outside the direct authority of the King he soon tended to decide that life as a ruler independent for all practical purposes was preferrable to meeting troublesome Royal demands.

Click to expand...

Its not as if the Marcher Lords were fond of - or docile towards - Royal demands, but they didn't turn into Welshmen. Hell, no lords particularly liked Royal demands.

Well I think it's generally true that marcher lords had much greater leverage over their sovereigns than regular vassals. This effect was much much greater in Ireland however, due to i) their remoteness ii) the attendant expense as well as time required to bring them to heel iii) the futility of chasing them around the countryside when they could disappear at will or hold out for long periods in their castles iv) the futility of attacking them in lands almost totally lacking in planted crops, especially when they were entirely ruthless enough to lay waste to such crops as existed v) the special problems (iv) entailed when there were hardly any roads, vi) the fact that many of their own vassals were in fact Irish, especially in Connaught and Munster, and vii) the genuinely invaluable services they rendered in protecting the towns.

Of course (vii) in particular was frequently seen (and frequently was) nothing more than a sort of protection racket, though the destruction of the FitzGeralds did result in a dramatic escalation of depredations visited on the residents of the Pale.

But the often hostile relations between the Norman lords and the cities pushed them into the arms of their local allies and meant long periods of open hostility to the crown -- look up how often different Norman (or later Irish as well) lords were "excused" attendance at Parliament. Sometimes they went decades without entering a Town they did not personally control.

So the short answer is "because they could get away with it". But an Irish King -- be he Irish, Viking, English, Norman or whatever -- would never have tolerated this behaviour as he would have understood that to do so would have meant his own destruction (unless he subscribed to Brehon law in its pure form, which would have had the same effect). The English kings tolerated the Norman lords' blatant disloyalty because fully conquering the country was not worth the expense in the short term and they were too useful.

There's a copy here of a study of translations and transliterations of names in 16th and 17th Century Ireland. The numbers of "Irish" names of English, Welsh and Norman origin is striking -- and many of them got re-anglicised later, even though they may have had almost no English ancestry. But equally striking is the number of English names resulting from transliteration from Irish having no English antecedents whatsoever: Parson, Nicholson, Shelly, Deane, Edward, Gardener, Campbell, Darby, Sharpe, Wyndham, Lane, Swords, Smith etc. etc. So it's as reasonable to ask why an Ó Sealbhaigh might choose to be English as a FitzGerald might to be Irish.