Ireland gets the Union and Parliament

WI the Act of Union did join the Irish and English monarchies, but it allowed the Parliament of Ireland to remain intact? Would this improve Anglo-Irish relations any? Or was it only a matter of time before England tried to get total control of Ireland?
 

Thande

Donor
WI the Act of Union did join the Irish and English monarchies, but it allowed the Parliament of Ireland to remain intact?

That doesn't make sense.

That's like saying 'what if the CSA became independent, but stayed in the Union?'

The Act of Union was solely the act of merging the Irish and Great British parliaments.

Fenwick said:
Would this improve Anglo-Irish relations any? Or was it only a matter of time before England tried to get total control of Ireland?
:rolleyes:

Read some history books, kid.

a) There was no England at this point; b) the Act of Union was concocted because the Protestant-dominated Irish parliament was seen as being incapable of governing with the Grattan powers granted in the 1780s; c) the Act was supposed to come with Catholic emancipation for Ireland, but the Irish parliament struck that out. The Act was Pitt the Younger's brainchild for attempting to stabilise and improve the Irish situation by merging the Irish parliament (home to much corruption and largesse) with Westminster. Of course, in the long run it didn't work.

Much like after the Treaty of Limerick Britain (or rather England then) promised Catholic rights retained in Ireland, but the Irish parliament again struck it down.

The only way that you can blame England or Britain for any of this is that we didn't stop the Irish parliament continually striking down pro-Catholic legislation - in other words, you're blaming us for not invading and overturning the Dublin government's legislation. :rolleyes:
 
The only way that you can blame England or Britain for any of this is that we didn't stop the Irish parliament continually striking down pro-Catholic legislation - in other words, you're blaming us for not invading and overturning the Dublin government's legislation. :rolleyes:

Why did Dublin keep striking down the pro-Catholic legislation?
 
Why did Dublin keep striking down the pro-Catholic legislation?

Actually, originally the only voters were Anglicans (Church of Ireland), so both the Presbyterian Ulstermen and the Catholics were discriminated against (the latter more so, I'm sure). At one stage the Presbyterians and Catholics were on the same side! (at least on some issues)
 
That doesn't make sense.

That's like saying 'what if the CSA became independent, but stayed in the Union?'

The Act of Union was solely the act of merging the Irish and Great British parliaments.


:rolleyes:

Read some history books, kid.

a) There was no England at this point; b) the Act of Union was concocted because the Protestant-dominated Irish parliament was seen as being incapable of governing with the Grattan powers granted in the 1780s; c) the Act was supposed to come with Catholic emancipation for Ireland, but the Irish parliament struck that out. The Act was Pitt the Younger's brainchild for attempting to stabilise and improve the Irish situation by merging the Irish parliament (home to much corruption and largesse) with Westminster. Of course, in the long run it didn't work.

Much like after the Treaty of Limerick Britain (or rather England then) promised Catholic rights retained in Ireland, but the Irish parliament again struck it down.

The only way that you can blame England or Britain for any of this is that we didn't stop the Irish parliament continually striking down pro-Catholic legislation - in other words, you're blaming us for not invading and overturning the Dublin government's legislation. :rolleyes:

The Irish Catholics could easily have defeated the Irish Protestant minority. Only the British army and navy kept the Irish Protestants in power. In fact, if the British had apologised to the Irish Catholics the Irish Catholics would have not hated the British nearly as much as they did. The Irish Catholics would have avenged themselves on the Irish Protestants and even more Irish Protestants would have immigrated to America than in OTL.
Invasion by the British army was not necessary. The Irish would have just imported enough guns to settle accounts and done just that. There were more Irish Catholics with military experience than Irish Protestants because they were serving in the British army and would promptly have formed the Irish army if allowed.
 
What Thande said.
Especially good point on Britain not invading and taking over being the big complaint that should be made.

The British and Irish crowns were already united long before the act of union too.
 
The Irish Catholics could easily have defeated the Irish Protestant minority. Only the British army and navy kept the Irish Protestants in power. In fact, if the British had apologised to the Irish Catholics the Irish Catholics would have not hated the British nearly as much as they did. The Irish Catholics would have avenged themselves on the Irish Protestants and even more Irish Protestants would have immigrated to America than in OTL.
Invasion by the British army was not necessary. The Irish would have just imported enough guns to settle accounts and done just that. There were more Irish Catholics with military experience than Irish Protestants because they were serving in the British army and would promptly have formed the Irish army if allowed.

wkwillis

So your saying that the British government had stood aside and allowed the massacre of the Protestant minority by the Catholic majority everything would have been OK?:confused: Despite the recent history of attempts by hostile powers to use Catholic unrest as proxies for the defeat and occupation of Britain, and the continued religious tension and mistrust across Europe at the time?

It is also uncertain whether the Catholics would have had the simple military victory you suggest. A disproportionate number of Catholics were in the British army and served well and loyally there. However it is doubtful the British could have allowed mass desertion for the purpose of killing other British citizens. Also the Protestant minority were also somewhat disproportion ally represented in the military and had far more access to weapons and the necessary skills for military leadership. Even if the British government had been insane enough to encourage bloody civil war, stayed out of it and prevented anyone else intervening the result would have been the sort of savage slaughter that Ireland suffered on the 1630s and 40's with an eventual winner, if any, pretty uncertain.

I agree with other people that it would have been better if the London government had obtained Catholic emancipation earlier but whether that would have been politically possible earlier, without union is difficult to say. Also would the Catholic majority then have simply sort to discriminate against the Protestant minority in turn as hard liners did historically.



Steve

PS - Just thought what this reminded me of. Although your asking a group to support the persecution of a minority that it identifies with rather than a different cultural group there are parallels with the Serbian actions in Bosnia in the 90's and the Sudanese in Darfur now.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
In fact the forerunners of the IRA, the Irish volunteers were, strictly speaking, more loyal than the Ulster volunteers.

The process by which the Irish Volunteers became infiltrated by the IRB and subverted is interesting, and the same happened with Sinn Fein (which favoured the establishment of the dual monarchy mentioned in the first post).

Of course, most of the Irish Volunteers were, by 1916, soldiers of the 10th and 16th (Irish) Divisions. Their loyalty was far less questionable to the government than the Ulster Volunteers (whose offer of service was only accepted much later, hence their number as the 36th (Ulster) Division, numbered after all the Kitchener Divisions*)

*British Divisional numbers:

1st-8th: Regular Army in the UK
9th-14th: 1st Kitchener Army (inc 10th (Irish))
15th-20th: 2nd Kitcherner Army (inc 16th (Irish)
21st-26th: 3rd Kitchener Army
27th-29th: Regular Army returned from the colonies
30th-35th: 4th Kitchener Army (35th was Bantam)
36th-41st: 5th Kitchener Army (inc 36th (Ulster), 38th (Welsh) and 40th (Bantam))
42nd-62nd and 64th-73rd and 75th: Territorials (inc Home Service units)
63rd: Royal Naval

As you can see, the Ulster Volunteers were only accepted after Bantam Divisions were formed, whereas the Irish Volunteers were some of the first New Army troops accepted.

K1 and K2 Divisions were raised on a regional basis, K3-5 on a come as you are basis (except 36th and 38th Divs)
 
a) There was no England at this point; b) the Act of Union was concocted because the Protestant-dominated Irish parliament was seen as being incapable of governing with the Grattan powers granted in the 1780s; c) the Act was supposed to come with Catholic emancipation for Ireland, but the Irish parliament struck that out. The Act was Pitt the Younger's brainchild for attempting to stabilise and improve the Irish situation by merging the Irish parliament (home to much corruption and largesse) with Westminster. Of course, in the long run it didn't work.

As for a), perhaps there wasn't an England as a legal entity, but 'England' and 'Britain' were interchangeable to many at the time.

b) I thought the main reason for the Union was to secure Ireland from foreign interference, what with the French role in the 1798 rebellion. Given the ongoing turmoil in Europe it made sense.

c) No, the Irish Parliament did not strike down Catholic Emancipation - George the III did.

As for the Irish Parliament being the home of 'much corruption and largesse', it was not the Irish parliament that gave rise to the term 'rotten boroughs':cool:

Much like after the Treaty of Limerick Britain (or rather England then) promised Catholic rights retained in Ireland, but the Irish parliament again struck it down.

The only way that you can blame England or Britain for any of this is that we didn't stop the Irish parliament continually striking down pro-Catholic legislation - in other words, you're blaming us for not invading and overturning the Dublin government's legislation. :rolleyes:

Well, discrimination against Catholics was widespread at the time. After all, the Catholic Relief Act had to be passed by the British parliament in 1829 to allow Daniel O'Connell, a Catholic, to take his seat in Westminster.:rolleyes:

Starviking
 
Top