Ireland becomes more British

Is it possible to get Northern Ireland situation in entire Ireland? That is British (or English or protestant or whatever as long as they are loyal to London) majority (or at least not too much of a minority status) overall or at least to such degree that some local minority doesn't matter.

POD at your choice.
 
Is it possible to get Northern Ireland situation in entire Ireland? That is British (or English or protestant or whatever as long as they are loyal to London) majority (or at least not too much of a minority status) overall or at least to such degree that some local minority doesn't matter.

POD at your choice.

Maybe a far earlier Catholic emancipation?
 
I remember reading a very short What If in a book of What Ifs speculating about the Stuart royals dying in 1641 in the plague outbreak. The throne is inherited by the conciliatory Calvinist Counts Palatine, who the book then suggests would solve the rising Civil War problems by being less ultra-monarchist, and could possibly implement a measured religious policy in Ireland. History also has often shown that in areas where one religion is in control but the ruling group is tolerant to other religions, over time you can see a gradual move to conversion to the state religion. You might be able to get maybe a 50-50 split in Catholic-Protestant loyalty that way, and I think you'd certainly get at least a semblance more of loyal behaviour by the Irish.
 
A significant number of English settle in the east and south of Ireland from 1171, the date of the English invasion by Henry II. They gradually spreading west and north, so that by 1500 the Gaelic Irish are confined to the heartlands of Connacht and Ulster.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Ireland was plenty "British" until the late-19th century. The idea of "Irishness" as a distinct entity from "Britishness" is an invention of late-19th century writers, influenced by the Irish-American community.

Anything that prevents this from forming is a possibility.
 
Ireland was plenty "British" until the late-19th century. The idea of "Irishness" as a distinct entity from "Britishness" is an invention of late-19th century writers, influenced by the Irish-American community.

Anything that prevents this from forming is a possibility.
I'm going to disagree. They definitely considered themselves Irish long before the late 19th century. It's just that they were willing to go along with staying part of Britain once they actually had rights from Catholic Emancipation. However, they still very much considered themselves Irish, equal subjects of the Empire sure, but the same identity as the English? Hell no.

Though, as you said, it was definitely excaberated by the Irish-American community to make them actually want independence. Even with that though most Irish would have been perfectly happy with Home Rule or some form of devolution. The main reason Ireland didn't become "British" was the constant errors of both sides in history. Britain was on the whole pretty benevolent(well...more benevolent than say Russia with the Poles), but errors on Britain's part(Potato Famine for one) and the overreaction to the Easter Rising are what swayed Ireland to want independence. Have Britain be far more understanding towards the Easter Rising, less executions or such, and Ireland might remain a dominion of Britain.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I'm going to disagree. They definitely considered themselves Irish long before the late 19th century. It's just that they were willing to go along with staying part of Britain once they actually had rights from Catholic Emancipation. However, they still very much considered themselves Irish, equal subjects of the Empire sure, but the same identity as the English? Hell no.

Though, as you said, it was definitely excaberated by the Irish-American community to make them actually want independence. Even with that though most Irish would have been perfectly happy with Home Rule or some form of devolution. The main reason Ireland didn't become "British" was the constant errors of both sides in history. Britain was on the whole pretty benevolent(well...more benevolent than say Russia with the Poles), but errors on Britain's part(Potato Famine for one) and the overreaction to the Easter Rising are what swayed Ireland to want independence. Have Britain be far more understanding towards the Easter Rising, less executions or such, and Ireland might remain a dominion of Britain.

Sorry that's just whitewashing of British behaviour in Ireland, while I dislike the Plastic Paddys the behaviour of the British in Ireland can't be described as benevolent, for one thing while the Potato Famine wasn't deliberated (in the same way the famines in Ukraine wasn't deliberated), it was worse than anything Russia did to Poland, if we look at the population reductions, it was worse than anything that Germany did to Poland
 
Sorry that's just whitewashing of British behaviour in Ireland, while I dislike the Plastic Paddys the behaviour of the British in Ireland can't be described as benevolent, for one thing while the Potato Famine wasn't deliberated (in the same way the famines in Ukraine wasn't deliberated), it was worse than anything Russia did to Poland, if we look at the population reductions, it was worse than anything that Germany did to Poland

Huh? Yes, it had a worse effect because Ireland's population was far smaller and thus was less resilient to things going wrong. In the same way, an earthquake or tornado or something in America can be a tragedy, but if it happened in, say, Liechtenstein it would kill off percentages of the population. That doesn't make the disaster a hundred or whatever times worse in Liechtenstein. It just makes the disaster have more effect on the community. The British mishandled the situation but you make it sound like they engineered it. They didn't start the Potato Famine as a means of genocide, for goodness sake...
 
Sorry that's just whitewashing of British behaviour in Ireland, while I dislike the Plastic Paddys the behaviour of the British in Ireland can't be described as benevolent, for one thing while the Potato Famine wasn't deliberated (in the same way the famines in Ukraine wasn't deliberated), it was worse than anything Russia did to Poland, if we look at the population reductions, it was worse than anything that Germany did to Poland
The Great Potato Famine was terrible, true. However, it wasn't deliberate. Was it a moronic move by the British? Of course. That's one of the main things that gave the Irish-American groups the anti-British grudge they carried up to WWI(and beyond). I'm aware of how terrible it was, for god's sake Native Americans raised money to help them(when the NA's see a group of people as being in a worse position than them, it's pretty damn bad) but Falastur has a good point. And since the attempted revolution in the 1790's(I think) there had not been any full-fledged military repressions by Britain in Ireland, which is certainly more than we can say for the Russians and their conquered nations.

Still, I'm trying to play balancing act here. No one's ever going to be happy when Ireland's brought up. The British here get defensive if they're criticized too much, and the plastic paddies get angry if the Brits are criticized too little. Just can't win.:rolleyes:
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Huh? Yes, it had a worse effect because Ireland's population was far smaller and thus was less resilient to things going wrong. In the same way, an earthquake or tornado or something in America can be a tragedy, but if it happened in, say, Liechtenstein it would kill off percentages of the population. That doesn't make the disaster a hundred or whatever times worse in Liechtenstein. It just makes the disaster have more effect on the community. The British mishandled the situation but you make it sound like they engineered it. They didn't start the Potato Famine as a means of genocide, for goodness sake...

No they started it out of indifferency to human suffering, ideology and pure incompetance (sound familiar?), while it would have been a disaster no matter what, British policy transformed it to one of the worst famine in history (in precent), Ireland has still fewer people than before the Famine, beside it can't be compared to Liectenstein because Ireland is great deal bigger and more populated, and then even moreso than today.
 
I'm not sure I'd say the famine is a sign of British malice so much as negligence; but I'm more curious about what 67th Tiger thinks of the United Irishmen, Tone, and the uprising in the 1790s.
 

Deleted member 5719

Ireland was plenty "British" until the late-19th century. The idea of "Irishness" as a distinct entity from "Britishness" is an invention of late-19th century writers, influenced by the Irish-American community.

Anything that prevents this from forming is a possibility.

Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. There was an attempted a nationalist/republican revolt in 1798 under the leadership of the Protestant Wolfe Tone, which used the name "United Irishmen". The defining characteristic of the Irish up to the 1820s was the Irish language, English didn't become the most spoken language until after the famine.

Do you really believe they saw no difference between themselves and the English or Welsh? I'm not saying this identity was political, but people were aware they were Irish (both protestants and Catholics) and this was their primary identity. Many people were also proudly British, but this was a very abstract notion next to the day to day fact of their Irishness.

BTW, the POD is Auld Vicky makes one of her sons the Prince of Ireland. Alternatively, LESS Protestant settlement, making a more homogenous Catholic Unionist land-owning class. Catholicism ceases to be a political badge, and the church's influence declines, the Irish language is spoken by 20-30% in 1990 rather than being reduced to bog-latin necessary for government jobs but rarely spoken.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Do you really believe they saw no difference between themselves and the English or Welsh? I'm not saying this identity was political, but people were aware they were Irish (both protestants and Catholics) and this was their primary identity. Many people were also proudly British, but this was a very abstract notion next to the day to day fact of their Irishness.

Completely missed the point of two equal, and equally valid identities. You should have read my first closer.

Is being a New Yorker and an American two exclusive identities? No. Nor, until the drift ca 1880 were Irish and English exclusive (they'd use the word English, the separate "British" is a 1930's construct), they they complementary identities; state and nation.
 
Completely missed the point of two equal, and equally valid identities. You should have read my first closer.

Is being a New Yorker and an American two exclusive identities? No. Nor, until the drift ca 1880 were Irish and English exclusive (they'd use the word English, the separate "British" is a 1930's construct), they they complementary identities; state and nation.
OK, English and Irish were definitely exclusive. If you were talking British, I'd agree with you, but there is no way a majority of Ireland thought itself as English. That's about as likely as saying a majority of Croats thought of themselves as Austrian-Germans. Loyalty =/= considering themselves the same group as the people who run the empire that dragged them in. Don't forget, Ireland always viewed England as the historical bad guy, once it became Britain and the idea of a British identity came up, then they were willing to maybe bury the hatchet. English was never a professed identity of most of Ireland, even if they spoke the language.
 
No they started it out of indifferency to human suffering, ideology and pure incompetance (sound familiar?), while it would have been a disaster no matter what, British policy transformed it to one of the worst famine in history (in precent), Ireland has still fewer people than before the Famine, beside it can't be compared to Liectenstein because Ireland is great deal bigger and more populated, and then even moreso than today.

I'm sorry for saying this, but I'm not sure that you understand how agriculture works. You can't make a drought "work" by the action of inaction. Crop failures happen because of weather conditions and overworked soil - not things that a government can trigger. Potato famines happened repeatedly in Ireland because the land isn't that good for growing crops. It's just that the British didn't do enough to relieve the suffering Irish during the famous one.
 
Ireland was plenty "British" until the late-19th century. The idea of "Irishness" as a distinct entity from "Britishness" is an invention of late-19th century writers, influenced by the Irish-American community.

It's always those fuckers isn't it?

You know if we'd wanted this level of American interference we wouldn't have let you win the revolution.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Sorry that's just whitewashing of British behaviour in Ireland, while I dislike the Plastic Paddys the behaviour of the British in Ireland can't be described as benevolent, for one thing while the Potato Famine wasn't deliberated (in the same way the famines in Ukraine wasn't deliberated), it was worse than anything Russia did to Poland, if we look at the population reductions, it was worse than anything that Germany did to Poland

In fact, there was no famine in the strictest sense; even the Irish expression for the period, "The Great Hunger" makes the point. Ireland's markets were full of produce in the years 1846-9; however, there was an unemployed underclass with no money to buy this food. Unemployment in Ireland hit 25% during this depression (and it was a Europe-wide depression).

Ireland in 1810 was a rich nation, with a typical European income level. Ireland in 1840 was poor in parts, because the population boom had caused the very bottom rungs of society to become dependent on sustainance agriculture, earning no income beyond the small excesses they sold. When their primary crop failed they couldn't buy food (which was rapidly heavily subsidised, with some nasty knock-on effects), they had no money. They could go and take employment on the public works, but that would mean abandoning their small plot of land. Eventually the government gave up, and simply started handing out food. They laid a large part of the bill at the Irish landowning class for allowing this situation to develop in the first place.

One of the knock-on effects of the subsidy was that food prices in Ireland halved during the famine (yes, food got cheaper since it was far more abundant in the market, supply and demand). This hit the smaller Irish producers who saw their income half as a result. The result was it became increasingly difficult for a tenant farmer to turn a profit, at a time where HMG was squeezing their landlords to pay for the crisis they'd allowed to occur. Tens of thousands ended up defaulting.

The net result is a lot of emigration to find work, and an often exagerated number of excess mortalities (bearing in mind Ireland was on the downslide of a population boom, the crash, even before 1845).

I'm still not sure what HMG were supposed to do. The amount spent on famine relief was 10.5 million pounds between 1846-9 (a line in the budget approaching the Army Estimates, which were around 6m pa, divided over the 3 budgets of the crisis, we see HMG on average spent a sum equal to half the Army budget on Irish poor relief). Even this wasn't enough.
 
Top