AHC: No independent Ireland

[NthBelisarius]

I do not think it is ASB. I think it would be difficult certainly, as I said before, but I do not think it sufficiently implausible as to label it ASB.

There are two main problems (IMO) that are virtually certain using a POD in the last millennium:
1 - The fact that they have been conquered (nobody likes that)
2 - The differences in culture

Other problems however arise depending on how the Irish are treated afterwards, and are therefore possible to avoid. For example an Ireland which is allowed to develop as the rest of Britain did and where there is no Ascendancy to alienate the vast majority of the population would be a richer Ireland, and richer people are usually happier with the status quo and less likely to desire rebellion. These are not impossible tasks, and I think you are overstating the difficulty Belfast. However, having debated this with you before, I believe your views on this matter are inflexible, and so I do not expect anything I say will cause you to change your mind.

 

[RossN]

Honestly I think the Union was probably doomed from the beginning; Catholic emancipation in 1801 might have forestalled things but considering the climate in Britain would have been very difficult to achieve - and would have come with a whole host of problems.

The big issue throughout the 19th century was that Ireland had extremely limited industrial development that led to it falling further and further behind the rest of the UK in wealth and influence. Unless that is changed - and it is hard to see how - Ireland was always going to be poorer than, for instance, heavily industrialised Scotland. Hard to make a Unionist case when the Union was transparently failing to deliver the same kind of benefits that the other countries were enjoying. Most Chief Secretaries were English or Scottish, and no Lord Lieutenant was Irish, which speaks volumes about that influence Ireland genuinely had in Westminster - it is no coincidence that the only Irish PM in the entire period of Union was the utterly atypical Duke of Wellington.

I'm also unconvinced that bloodshed over Home Rule could have been avoided without the war; the situtation in 1914 was so ominous I think things would almost certainly have turned worse rather than better.

Finally even if it did happen Home Rule would not have lasted long. Within a few years Irish politicians would have been pushing for Dominion status.

Basically I think you would need a PoD before 1800 at the latest and probably a substantial change to Britain/England.

 

[SamGale]

One of the keys to the failure of the Protestant Reformation in Ireland was the Old English defection/attachment to the Catholic cause. While, they may have a little more recalcitrant than the English in England under Henry VIII and Edward VI, my impression is that the Marian restoration was decisive. Remember that at the beginning of the Reformation people were not "Catholics" or "Protestants" in any partisan sense but just Christians. This is why the populace was much more susceptible to change at the beginning, but not later when they developed partisan attachments. If the Old English had been staunchly Protestant (if, say, there is no Marian reign for one reason or another), those Irish under their rule would likely identify as Protestant.

Now, of course, the English at the time of the Reformation really only ruled part of Ireland, and in those areas still ruled by native Irish lords, even if as in OTL, they would be later conquered by the English, the populace would identify as Catholic. By the 17th century Ulster and Connaught would be largely Catholic, but large parts of Leinster and Munster would be Protestant. It seems likely that rebellions will still breakout in newly conquered Ireland and quite plausible that a successful English (or British, if there is still a union of crowns) plantation (perhaps in Ulster) would result.

Imagine now three major population groups: Catholic Irish, Protestant Irish, and Protestant English (or British) plants. If there is a strong religious conflict and a Protestant ascendancy the Protestant Irish could quite conceivably prefer English rule and affiliation to Catholic rule and Irish independence.

 

[libbrit]

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).

No, lets not be `honest`, because your notion of `honesty` in that regard, is nothing of the sort. Many of the settlers in Northern Ireland, or a fair chunk of them at least, were Scottish. Sent over by a Scottish king.

 

[DónalCam]

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

I don't wish to cause offence, but the language is Irish; the language family is Gaelic.

There is a Scots dialect of English, hence the terminology in the case of Scottish (Scots Gaelic) is usually considered acceptable up thereabouts.

'Gaelic' is often used in a pejorative tone in Ireland, by my compatriots, who feel an enlightened Utopia will ensue once we learn to abandon all our barbaric native trappings. Sadly (to me, anyway), they are slowly winning that battle.

The worst legacy of British rule in Ireland, more than the decline of the language, is the instilling, in a large body of society, of a contempt and fear of the language spoken by most of our great-great-grandparents, and a failure to realise the gift that the bilingual heritage can be.

PS: Bible and Book of Common Prayer were both translated during Elizabethan era anyway!

 

[DónalCam]

Sorry forgot the topic!

The topic in some posts has wandered somewhat away from the OP, i.e. a failed 1916 rebellion still means bloodshed.

Swap an X for a Y in Mary Tudor's chromosomes would be my suggestion.

Of course, one could argue that armed resistance began in 1169 at Baginbun, which renders the thread somewhat obsolete...

 

[BELFAST]

I do not think it is ASB. I think it would be difficult certainly, as I said before, but I do not think it sufficiently implausible as to label it ASB.

There are two main problems (IMO) that are virtually certain using a POD in the last millennium:
1 - The fact that they have been conquered (nobody likes that)
2 - The differences in culture

Other problems however arise depending on how the Irish are treated afterwards, and are therefore possible to avoid. For example an Ireland which is allowed to develop as the rest of Britain did and where there is no Ascendancy to alienate the vast majority of the population would be a richer Ireland, and richer people are usually happier with the status quo and less likely to desire rebellion. These are not impossible tasks, and I think you are overstating the difficulty Belfast. However, having debated this with you before, I believe your views on this matter are inflexible, and so I do not expect anything I say will cause you to change your mind.

It is hard to think of ways to stop the Irish rebelling.
if you could get rid of the thief of land by the invaders and leave let the Irish keep Brehon law and customs then you might be able to keep Ireland under British control.

 

[RossN]

Thinking on it the best way might actually be to have Ireland united with England through a union of the crowns - like Aragon and Castille. Maybe if one of the Irish dynasties had managed to produce a lasting national kingdom?

 

[funnyhat]

The Plantation of Ireland in OTL did not help matters. Sending in large numbers of foreign settlers to occupy the land and become privileged subjects could only have deepened the resentment of the native Irish. If James I had tried a more conciliatory approach to the Irish by perhaps trying to win over the old aristocracy there rather than dispossessing many to make room for settlers, who knows?

 

[RossN]

Unfortunately James wasn't the only one doing it; Elizabeth and Mary also launched plantation schemes.

Even without official plantations the Tudors seem to have been determined to antagonise the Irish lords (Gaelic and Old English alike) by enforcing the division of Ireland into shires.

 

[The Professor]

Thinking on it the best way might actually be to have Ireland united with England through a union of the crowns - like Aragon and Castille. Maybe if one of the Irish dynasties had managed to produce a lasting national kingdom?

Perhaps Richard has a son and so John or his son ends up becoming King of Ireland, then one of the sons dies without immediate heirs and they get unified that way

 

[Socrates]

People are being far too negative on this board. The idea that Catholic Emancipation is so hard to achieve is ridiculous - it passed parliament but was just quashed by one stubborn King. Until that point the Catholic Irish were actually supportive of the union, as they felt it would give them rights and protections that the native Protestant Ascendancy would not.

You could go from there to have the British political class adjust more to Catholic concerns in Ireland for political gains, and perhaps do some sort of land reform earlier. That in turn could lessen the effect of the potato famine. A more economically successful Ireland could reduce prejudice against the place, meaning that home rule gets the votes it needs in the late 19th century. Certainly doable.

 

[RossN]

Catholic Emancipation would also have been rejected by the Lords in Pitt's day so it wasn't just the King.

But that is not really important as emancipation in 1800 would still have left the vast bulk of the Catholic population unable to vote because of the property qualification so Irish MPs would have skewed heavily towards Protestant landlords (as they it did in OTL between 1829 and 1868).

I don't honestly think earlier emancipation would have made any difference in the long run.

 

[BELFAST]

Catholic Emancipation would also have been rejected by the Lords in Pitt's day so it wasn't just the King.

But that is not really important as emancipation in 1800 would still have left the vast bulk of the Catholic population unable to vote because of the property qualification so Irish MPs would have skewed heavily towards Protestant landlords (as they it did in OTL between 1829 and 1868).

I don't honestly think earlier emancipation would have made any difference in the long run.

One part of Ireland did become more loyal after the Ulster-Scots become loyalists after the 1798 rebellion. As Presbyterian and Methodist and other dissenters etc the were not part of the protestant ascendancy.
In those day only Church of Ireland Anglicans were considered to be protestants.
The Motto of the united Irish men who rebelled in 1798 was "Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_United_Irishmen

Also the 10 % tax every one had to pay to the state religion the Church of Ireland was a big problem at the time.

"
From the English Reformation in the 16th century, most Irish people chose to remain Roman Catholic and had by now to pay tithes valued at about 10% of an area's agricultural produce, to maintain and fund the established state church, the Anglican Church of Ireland, to which only a small minority of the population converted. Irish Presbyterians and other minorities like the Quakers and Jews were in the same situation.
The collection of tithes was violently resisted in the period 1831-36, known as the Tithe War. Thereafter, tithes were reduced and added to rents with the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act in 1836. With the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1869, tithes were abolished."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe#Ireland