Restoration & Georgian Era Gov't of a Free Irish Kingdom

A two part question on the possible government of a Free Kingdom of Ireland:

With a POD in Restoration Era Kingdom of Ireland (Say 1688-89). Supposing the Kingdom of Ireland was able to break away from the England, what would the government of a Free Irish Kingdom be? A constitutional monarchy with a Stuart king?

In a Georgian POD, what do you feel a government of Ireland would look like? A Kingdom with some new dynasty (I imagine a Constitutional Monarchy myself)? A representative system with a Parliamentary system similar to Canada's (but without the British Monarch's role)? Something else entirely?

Thanks! :^)
 

samcster94

Banned
A two part question on the possible government of a Free Kingdom of Ireland:

With a POD in Restoration Era Kingdom of Ireland (Say 1688-89). Supposing the Kingdom of Ireland was able to break away from the England, what would the government of a Free Irish Kingdom be? A constitutional monarchy with a Stuart king?

In a Georgian POD, what do you feel a government of Ireland would look like? A Kingdom with some new dynasty (I imagine a Constitutional Monarchy myself)? A representative system with a Parliamentary system similar to Canada's (but without the British Monarch's role)? Something else entirely?

Thanks! :^)
Does something like a successful 1798 work?
 
The Stuart Ireland Scenario was interesting, but I wonder, what do people feel about what an Ireland with a POD somewhere in the last quarter of the 18th Century look? If a Kingdom with some new dynasty, then would it be someone new; perhaps invited by an Irish Parliament? A representative system with a Parliamentary system similar to Canada's (but without the British Monarch's role)? Something else entirely?

I personally don't see a Republic, either American style or insane Revolutionary France-style. Perhaps post 1820s or 1830s, but not before. Further, I don't feel an Irish independence would succeed during the Napoleonic Period and that immediately following.
 
You always need to remember that getting rid of Britain's Irish problem automatically creates Ireland's British problem.

Britain is extremely close in proximity to Ireland and has much greater mineral wealth, a larger population and is Ireland's main trading partner. Ireland's main exports being staple agricultural produce and horses and with very limited mineral resources (there is (even now) a little salt mining in Ulster, there were two decent(ish) hard coal mines, now exhausted and a little copper, lead, gold and silver mining. Copper and lead exhausted by 1900, silver by around 1850. Gold recently revived by modern mining techniques but had stopped prior to Famine).
Ireland has to remain on sufficiently friendly terms with Britain for Britain to allow them to trade there (which is why once having achieved Irish independence Collins, O'Higgins and Cosgrave started being extremely conciliatory). An independent Ireland might provide mercenary soldiers to France and Austria but would also have to temper this with not overly offending Britain. As I said in another forum, Britain doesn't have to declare war to bring an independent Ireland to its knees, just to place a few tariffs on Irish exports. Ireland has few or no unique selling points like cork, port, sherry, fine wines or amber that couldn't be readily obtained in other countries. Bluntly, Ireland needs the British market whereas Britain only finds the Irish market mildly desirable.

Remember too that the early independence of Ireland means a country that would be wildly unlike the Ireland we know today. Most Irish towns (including Dublin) were laid out by the great Ascendancy landlords in the late 1700s, so fewer Georgian squares and a slower investment in infrastructure like canals, roads and bridges (the British put a lot of cash into this during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, mainly for strategic reasons). And a lot less agricultural development. The "absentee English landlords and feckless local gentry" are the traditional picture but serious studies of Irish agricultural history actually tell a rather different story. In aggregate, the landlord class were a force for modernity and owed much of their unpopularity to their reluctance to allow farms to be equally divided among all the farmer's sons and their desire to introduce alien processes to traditional Irish farming. Like crop rotation. And the seed drill. So an independent Ireland might actually be more densely populated with less emigration and worse infrastructure by the time of the Potato Famine.

Moreover its agricultural economy would falter as the C19th progressed and increasing amounts of produce are imported from Russia, America, Argentina, Australasia and South Africa.
The shipbuilding industry would be unlikely to take off, aimed as it was at the British market and neither Harland nor Wolff being Irish. The linen industry being mainly Quaker and Presbyterian is likely to relocate to Lancashire or the Scottish borders over time as realistically it is hard to avoid a period of Catholic political dominance.
 

samcster94

Banned
You always need to remember that getting rid of Britain's Irish problem automatically creates Ireland's British problem.

Britain is extremely close in proximity to Ireland and has much greater mineral wealth, a larger population and is Ireland's main trading partner. Ireland's main exports being staple agricultural produce and horses and with very limited mineral resources (there is (even now) a little salt mining in Ulster, there were two decent(ish) hard coal mines, now exhausted and a little copper, lead, gold and silver mining. Copper and lead exhausted by 1900, silver by around 1850. Gold recently revived by modern mining techniques but had stopped prior to Famine).
Ireland has to remain on sufficiently friendly terms with Britain for Britain to allow them to trade there (which is why once having achieved Irish independence Collins, O'Higgins and Cosgrave started being extremely conciliatory). An independent Ireland might provide mercenary soldiers to France and Austria but would also have to temper this with not overly offending Britain. As I said in another forum, Britain doesn't have to declare war to bring an independent Ireland to its knees, just to place a few tariffs on Irish exports. Ireland has few or no unique selling points like cork, port, sherry, fine wines or amber that couldn't be readily obtained in other countries. Bluntly, Ireland needs the British market whereas Britain only finds the Irish market mildly desirable.

Remember too that the early independence of Ireland means a country that would be wildly unlike the Ireland we know today. Most Irish towns (including Dublin) were laid out by the great Ascendancy landlords in the late 1700s, so fewer Georgian squares and a slower investment in infrastructure like canals, roads and bridges (the British put a lot of cash into this during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, mainly for strategic reasons). And a lot less agricultural development. The "absentee English landlords and feckless local gentry" are the traditional picture but serious studies of Irish agricultural history actually tell a rather different story. In aggregate, the landlord class were a force for modernity and owed much of their unpopularity to their reluctance to allow farms to be equally divided among all the farmer's sons and their desire to introduce alien processes to traditional Irish farming. Like crop rotation. And the seed drill. So an independent Ireland might actually be more densely populated with less emigration and worse infrastructure by the time of the Potato Famine.

Moreover its agricultural economy would falter as the C19th progressed and increasing amounts of produce are imported from Russia, America, Argentina, Australasia and South Africa.
The shipbuilding industry would be unlikely to take off, aimed as it was at the British market and neither Harland nor Wolff being Irish. The linen industry being mainly Quaker and Presbyterian is likely to relocate to Lancashire or the Scottish borders over time as realistically it is hard to avoid a period of Catholic political dominance.
Yes, it was run by a group of Protestant landlords. They'd treat the Catholics even worse if they got independence.
 
Yes, it was run by a group of Protestant landlords. They'd treat the Catholics even worse if they got independence.
Specifically, it was run by a group of Anglican landlords. Presbyterians, Quakers and other Nonconformists also suffered religious and civil disabilities though these didn't impact as severely (weren't as strictly enforced) as on the Catholics as they weren't seen as a threat to the same degree. But the Anglican landlords didn't want independence with a few idealistic exceptions (Lord Edward Fitzgerald, William Smith O'Brien), they were content to remain within the British Empire which kept them at the top of the pecking order and supported them with its army and navy.
If Ireland becomes independent during this time period, it would be due to the efforts of the disaffected - Catholics and (prior to 1800) Presbyterians.
Post 1800, Presbyterians re-evaluate following the Wexford rebellion which degenerated into an anti-Protestant pogrom, victims including several Protestant members or sympathisers of the United Irishmen. Presbyterian United Irishmen start to wonder if they aren't turkeys voting for Christmas. The British Crown may deny non-Anglican Protestants like them the right to sit in Parliament or run local government, but it isn't about to treat them to a dose of murder and rapine. So when Robert Peel removes most religious disabilities as Chief Secretary in the 1820s and 1830s, the Presbyterians slowly move from radicalism to loyalism. The Catholic majority with a different cultural background and nativist sentiments move to nationalism.
 
Hrmm. I'm thinking I might have gotten us off on the wrong track. I wasn't really thinking about economical development; I was more focused on what both the Social and Political developments would be.

Although, @ShortsBelfast, that was an interesting point about city planning and architecture. I wonder, though, if the Ruling Classes wouldn't import some British stylings. I can see an interesting cooperation eventually working out between the two. Even New England found detente with the British useful following the War for Independence.
 

samcster94

Banned
Specifically, it was run by a group of Anglican landlords. Presbyterians, Quakers and other Nonconformists also suffered religious and civil disabilities though these didn't impact as severely (weren't as strictly enforced) as on the Catholics as they weren't seen as a threat to the same degree. But the Anglican landlords didn't want independence with a few idealistic exceptions (Lord Edward Fitzgerald, William Smith O'Brien), they were content to remain within the British Empire which kept them at the top of the pecking order and supported them with its army and navy.
If Ireland becomes independent during this time period, it would be due to the efforts of the disaffected - Catholics and (prior to 1800) Presbyterians.
Post 1800, Presbyterians re-evaluate following the Wexford rebellion which degenerated into an anti-Protestant pogrom, victims including several Protestant members or sympathisers of the United Irishmen. Presbyterian United Irishmen start to wonder if they aren't turkeys voting for Christmas. The British Crown may deny non-Anglican Protestants like them the right to sit in Parliament or run local government, but it isn't about to treat them to a dose of murder and rapine. So when Robert Peel removes most religious disabilities as Chief Secretary in the 1820s and 1830s, the Presbyterians slowly move from radicalism to loyalism. The Catholic majority with a different cultural background and nativist sentiments move to nationalism.
That is all very true. 1798 was run by an Anglican, but many of the people in it were other kinds of Protestants.
 
Top