AHC: No independent Ireland

[VirginiaHistoryTeacher]

I will admit that I know precious little on the topic and didn't want to resort to Wikipedia as many are prone to do. I'm looking for ways to keep Ireland in the United Kingdom without them wanting to secede and without requiring bloodshed from either side. How can this happen?

 

[MrNumbahOne]

The Irish lose war of independence. It's quite possible.

Edit: Sorry, skimmed through the OP. Don't really see how it could happen.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The Irish lose war of independence. It's quite possible.

It is, but the OP said no bloodshed.

I'd guess that either less anti-Catholic bigotry on the part of the English, or a successful attempt to Protestantise Ireland, would help quite a bit. A better handling of the potato famine would also be good.

 

[carpediem]

I suspect you'd have to butterfly Cromwell and/or the Irish Famine away. The Irish dislike the English for many good reasons (lets be honest here, it is the English, not the British that are at fault here).

 

[deathscompanion1]

It is, but the OP said no bloodshed.

I'd guess that either less anti-Catholic bigotry on the part of the English, or a successful attempt to Protestantise Ireland, would help quite a bit. A better handling of the potato famine would also be good.

I thought the rule was no bloodshed?

The only Protestant part of Ireland came about after years of warfare that could be well called genocide in the Kingdom of Ulster that was actually a bastion of resistance for a long time.

 

[The Admiral Hook]

The Irish lose war of independence. It's quite possible.

The OP said no bloodshed...

...and while I don't like to throw around the "ASB" word I can't see it being plausible.

Maybe if Elizabeth I married Irish and their line was very pro-Ireland you might see the roles of Ireland and Scotland reversed ttl. As in Irish loyalists given Scottish plantations?

But then, of course, Scotland would want like hell to be free and independent.

Edit: Is there an echo in here? All the ninjas!

 

[Danth]

The Irish Parliamentary Plan to turn the UK into the British-Irish Empire of a Austria-Hungary model. It would never pass the Lords though, and it quickly lost support in the IPP

 

[The Admiral Hook]

The Irish Parliamentary Plan to turn the UK into the British-Irish Empire of a Austria-Hungary model. It would never pass the Lords though, and it quickly lost support in the IPP

I like to consider myself pretty knowledgable and I've never heard of this.

Source, please? I believe you, I'm just intrigued.

Also just wanted to say (not that anyone said otherwise) concerning religious problems in Ireland... In response to the above discussion about "Protestantizing Ireland"...

The problem is not that Ireland is Catholic. The problem is that Ireland is Ireland, not England and not Great Britain. Had the Anglos known when to quit (before they began) Ireland could have been free from north shore to south. And, imho, should be.

 

[sparky42]

Less discrimination against the catholic Irish, more investment in industries and a better response to the Potato Famine would all be helpful without question.

Does home rule/ Dublin Parliament count or does it have to be after the 1801 Act of Union?

 

[sparky42]

The Irish lose war of independence. It's quite possible.

Edit: Sorry, skimmed through the OP. Don't really see how it could happen.

Given the scale of the damage of the War of Independence, I'm doubtful that short of maintaining substantial forces in Ireland that the UK could really hold it. And at that point is still part of the UK or just occupied territory?

 

[Shimbo]

Before the First World War, Britain had legislated Home Rule for Ireland.

The bill legislated for:

• A bicameral Irish Parliament to be set up in Dublin (a 40-member Senate and a 164-member House of Commons) with powers to deal with most national affairs;
• A number of Irish MPs would continue to sit in the Imperial Parliament (42 MPs, rather than 103).
• The abolition of Dublin Castle [British administration], though with the retention of the Lord Lieutenant.

Implementation was suspended because of the war.

Without the First World War, Home Rule would have come in, the republicans would not have gained the level of support they did, the Irish political mainstream, whose goal was home rule, not independence, would not have suffered heavy casualties in the fighting and instead would have been in the driving seat.

Ireland would have remained part of the United Kingdom, although having its own parliament legislating on domestic matters.

So stop the First World War (or even delay it for a decade) and you quite likely butterfly Irish independence away.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_home_rule
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Rule_Act_1914

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I thought the rule was no bloodshed?

The only Protestant part of Ireland came about after years of warfare that could be well called genocide in the Kingdom of Ulster that was actually a bastion of resistance for a long time.

IOTL, sure; but then, IOTL there were no real attempts to spread Protestantism among the Irish people. Contrary to what some people seem to think, the Irish aren't genetically pre-determined to remain Catholic no matter what; it's entirely possible that, with a more sensible approach to converting them, the Irish would have turned Protestant after a few generations, just like the English and the Scots.

 

[sparky42]

IOTL, sure; but then, IOTL there were no real attempts to spread Protestantism among the Irish people. Contrary to what some people seem to think, the Irish aren't genetically pre-determined to remain Catholic no matter what; it's entirely possible that, with a more sensible approach to converting them, the Irish would have turned Protestant after a few generations, just like the English and the Scots.

Considering the Penal Laws, they did plenty to try and force the Catholics to convert, perhaps less stick and more carrot?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I suspect you'd have to butterfly Cromwell and/or the Irish Famine away. The Irish dislike the English for many good reasons (lets be honest here, it is the English, not the British that are at fault here).

IMHO Cromwell is significant more as a lightening rod for Irish resentment towards the British than for anything else. His own actions in Ireland weren't particularly savage compared to those of contemporary generals, and his forces were arguably quite well-behaved compared to those fighting in the Thirty Years' War. Take away the general English misrule and the sack of Drogheda would be no more remembered than the sack of Magdeburg.

The potato famine, on the other hand, definitely needs to go; that, or the British government needs to do more to stop it.

(Also, I'm not sure that "it is the English, not the British that are at fault here" is really accurate. For one thing, many of the settlers who displaced native Irish Catholics were in fact Scots.)

 

[sparky42]

Before the First World War, Britain had legislated Home Rule for Ireland.

The bill legislated for:


Implementation was suspended because of the war.

Without the First World War, Home Rule would have come in, the republicans would not have gained the level of support they did, the Irish political mainstream, whose goal was home rule, not independence, would not have suffered heavy casualties in the fighting and instead would have been in the driving seat.

Ireland would have remained part of the United Kingdom, although having its own parliament legislating on domestic matters.

So stop the First World War (or even delay it for a decade) and you quite likely butterfly Irish independence away.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_home_rule
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Rule_Act_1914

And the possibility of Civil War from the Ulster Unionists?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Considering the Penal Laws, they did plenty to try and force the Catholics to convert, perhaps less stick and more carrot?

Probably, yes. Translating the Bible into Gaelic would be a good start.

 

[TFSmith121]

Pre-1900 gives one a lot of potential deltas...

For one, have the Tudors value their "celtic" heritage generally, as opposed to the "welsh" element.

Simply granting Henry the annulment he wanted probably would have led to a "different" reformation in England.

Cromwell was a conqueror born, but if the Commonwealth actually became a republic under the Agreement of the People, several centuries of ethnic strife rallying around religion presumably could have been avoided...

There are others.

Best,

 

[Shimbo]

And the possibility of Civil War from the Ulster Unionists?

What is now Northern Ireland had a 'temporary' opt out from Home Rule, which they would have exercised. I don't see any driver for a civil war once the legislation comes in.

 

[Danth]

I like to consider myself pretty knowledgable and I've never heard of this.

Source, please? I believe you, I'm just intrigued.

.

In the 1870s, using the Dual Monarchy of Austria–Hungary as a model, the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and William Ewart Gladstone proposed that Ireland and Great Britain form a dual monarchy.[1] Their efforts were unsuccessful, but the idea was later used in 1904 by Arthur Griffith in his seminal work, The Resurrection of Hungary. Griffith noted how in 1867 Hungary went from being part of the Austrian Empire to a separate co-equal kingdom in Austria-Hungary. Though not a monarchist himself, Griffith advocated such an approach for the Anglo-Irish relationship. The idea was not embraced by other Irish political leaders, and Ireland eventually fought a war of independence (1919–1921) to leave the Union of Great Britain and Ireland and form a separate state, the Irish Free State in 1922.

Most historians opt for 28 November 1905, as a founding date because it was on this date that Griffith first presented his 'Sinn Féin Policy'. In his writings, Griffith declared that the Act of Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800 was illegal and that, consequently, the Anglo-Irish dual monarchy which existed under Grattan's Parliament, and the so-called Constitution of 1782 was still in effect. Its first president was Edward Martyn.

The fundamental principles on which Sinn Féin was founded were outlined in an article published in 1904 by Griffith called The Resurrection of Hungary, in which, noting how in 1867 Hungary went from being part of the Austrian Empire to a separate co-equal kingdom in Austria-Hungary. Though not a monarchist himself, Griffith advocated such an approach for the Anglo-Irish relationship, namely that Ireland should become a separate kingdom alongside Great Britain, the two forming a dual monarchy with a shared monarch but separate governments, as it was thought this solution would be more palatable to the British. This was similar to the policy of Henry Grattan a century earlier. However, this idea was never really embraced by later separatist leaders, especially Michael Collins, and never came to anything, although Kevin O'Higgins toyed with the idea as a means of ending partition, shortly before his assassination.

It was an idea floated around, it just never got into a stage where it could be actually implemented

 

[BELFAST]

You could deport all the Irish to the colonies in the British empire( maybe New Zealand) and replace them with English settlers.