WI: the Kingdom of Ireland doesn't join the UK

Last night I found myself thinking on this one a lot for some reason. WI the 1800 act of union does not pass?
Let's say that those in Britain who are really not too keen on the idea voice their opinions more vocally and are able to draw in a bit of support thus the entire effort is rather more half-hearted and falls flat. Let's also hand wave away any attempts to try again for a fair few years at least.
So...how do things go for 'free Ireland'?.....

My thoughts- not well.
1: Catholic emancipation: Dream on.
In the UK this did happen. Not right away due to the king getting in the way but by 1829 it had passed. Religion just wasn't that big a deal anymore, though barring Catholics from parliament may well have been a very prudent move a century ago the threat to Britain has long since passed by the 19th century. Besides, how many Catholics actually had the wealth to be able to vote? And how big a percentage of the total population of the UK were Catholics? In both cases the number was rather small.

Ireland meanwhile was in quite a different situation to the UK. There the Catholics quite overwhelmingly outnumbered the protestants; by 9:1 a quick wiki check tells me. Even considering a wealth based franchise Catholic emancipation could really threaten the very shape of the country's government. Given that the country was ruled by the protestants its highly unlikely they would ever consider giving up their power. Purely looking at this point alone I could well see the protestants continuing to rule Ireland well into modern times when Britain and other countries finally begin yelling at them to stop being medieval gits.

2: The potato blight: It occurring exactly as it did IOTL is a bit ASBish but it does seem likely that something would happen to Ireland's potato crop if they continued with the monoculture that they did have. What would be the effects of them being out of the union if such a thing did happen though?
Again, I don't think things will be the rosy picture the Celtophiles paint.

2.1: Export/Import of food- Unless a trade deal was reached separately from a act of union (this could well happen I believe, Ireland was a very tempting market for Britain) trading restrictions would still exist between the UK and Ireland. This could well work out well for Ireland here on the surface, one of the most common arguments against the British in the famine is that Ireland exported food still during the famine. Of course those of who who know something respond that this food was privately owned and that lack of food was not the problem. In this alternate timeline without the union perhaps selling food to the mainland would not be so profitable, there was afterall the corn laws (they came into place after the POD but...the situation remained mostly similar sans Ireland) and it would have to stay local? Perhaps. Big perhaps.
This may save a few lives however the problem with the famine was that those dying just didn't have any money to buy food. More being available would help little here other than dropping the prices- they'd still be out of their reach though.

2.2: Government- As said the British get a lot of flack for the famine. The government did indeed respond quite stupidly to it, they put all their faith in their market system to right itself (much like Hoover during the depression).
What of the alternate Irish government though? This is quite unanswerable for me. It'd require quite a indepth study of Irish political parties and extrapolating trends. They could take more of a active role in trying to stop the famine or they could also rely on it to fix itself. It could go either way, better or worse.
Another thing to consider though here before we finish is that this Ireland is ruled by the protestant rich. Would they really be too bothered about poor Catholics dying en masse? Could many of them in fact perhaps welcome it? Perhaps ITTL the famine could actually be a genocide. One the British would have to step in to stop. Now that would make for a interesting TL....

2.3: Charity- A big thing that is forgotten by many in their ranting over the famine is the massive charity effort across the country to help the Irish. Huge sums of money were raised all across Britain to help the Irish poor. It was front page news, a horrible thing happening to their fellow countrymen, how could any decent Briton not throw in a few pennies to help some poor suffering paddy?
What would happen in this time line though? Would the famine remain such a big deal? It wasn't happening in the UK here, just in their poor neighbour.
Additionally, assuming all the funding is there, would British charities be free to act in Ireland the way they did IOTL? Both countries are in personal union and Ireland is suffering so on the surface it seems likely they would be welcomed but...then you have to consider the incident of Queen Victoria and the Ottoman Sultan. She'd be embarrassed if he helped more than her.
Consider that prior to the act of union the Irish government were quite fiercely independent, they really didn't like being seen as Britain's poor relation. It seems likely at the very least that charitable efforts would be severely hindered here.

2.4. Emigration- So many things to consider here.
Firstly- moving to Britain would not be so easy. They were not the same country, laws could well be put in place specifically to stop cheap Irish labour drowning out the British- personal union or no such concerns existed as early as the 17th century with Scotland and England in union.
Secondly- moving to the US. Americans were rather racist people and they were no great fans of the Irish. Could it be possible they too would hinder Irish immigration? This would be a lot easier done with Ireland as a separate entity rather than it being mixed in with the highly desirable British immigrants.

3. Economy- Britain led the way in industrialisation. Much of this seeped over into Ireland too. With a border standing in the way would it go as strong? Perhaps even Britain would actively seek to stop it so that British industry could dominate.

4. Rebellion- So, we have the big nasty Irish protestants actively stamping on the country rather than the quite indifferent British government just making sure things keep ticking over smoothly. Could this then lead to a repeat of 1798? Perhaps several of them.
The Irish government would of course call on the British to help them out and the British would have no choice but to do so but what of the aftermath? Would they leave things as they are or make changes to stop another rebellion?

5- Union- Its defeated in 1800 and immediate future attempts are stopped but what about further into the 19th century? Would the time come that Ireland eventually does join the union? Perhaps as the aftermath of 1798 2.

So there...Just organising my thoughts onto a page. Perhaps a TL to come in the future. For now though I'd be interested on others views.
 
<i>The government did indeed respond quite stupidly to it, they put all their faith in their market system to right itself (much like Hoover during the depression).</i>

This is a myth about Hoover.
 
2: The potato blight: It occurring exactly as it did IOTL is a bit ASBish but it does seem likely that something would happen to Ireland's potato crop if they continued with the monoculture that they did have. What would be the effects of them being out of the union if such a thing did happen though?
Again, I don't think things will be the rosy picture the Celtophiles paint.

The disease was out there, and Ireland heavily potato dependent - something bad is going to happen at some point post 1810.

2.2: Government- As said the British get a lot of flack for the famine. The government did indeed respond quite stupidly to it, they put all their faith in their market system to right itself (much like Hoover during the depression).
What of the alternate Irish government though? This is quite unanswerable for me. It'd require quite a indepth study of Irish political parties and extrapolating trends. They could take more of a active role in trying to stop the famine or they could also rely on it to fix itself. It could go either way, better or worse.
Another thing to consider though here before we finish is that this Ireland is ruled by the protestant rich. Would they really be too bothered about poor Catholics dying en masse? Could many of them in fact perhaps welcome it? Perhaps ITTL the famine could actually be a genocide. One the British would have to step in to stop. Now that would make for a interesting TL....
Another question is would the Irish government be even able to afford extra food? The potato blight will raise prices across the entirity of northern europe (see OTL English and German food problems).

2.4. Emigration- So many things to consider here.
Firstly- moving to Britain would not be so easy. They were not the same country, laws could well be put in place specifically to stop cheap Irish labour drowning out the British- personal union or no such concerns existed as early as the 17th century with Scotland and England in union.
Secondly- moving to the US. Americans were rather racist people and they were no great fans of the Irish. Could it be possible they too would hinder Irish immigration? This would be a lot easier done with Ireland as a separate entity rather than it being mixed in with the highly desirable British immigrants.
You also would lack the British subsidised transport to Canada (which many Irish then used to hop to the US) and Oceania.
 

Thande

Donor
Good analysis.

Secondly- moving to the US. Americans were rather racist people and they were no great fans of the Irish. Could it be possible they too would hinder Irish immigration? This would be a lot easier done with Ireland as a separate entity rather than it being mixed in with the highly desirable British immigrants.
The U.S. hostility to the Irish in the mid-19th century was more holdover anti-Papism than racism as such, though the two overlap. Also remember how many Americans back then emphasised their Protestant Ulster ("Scots-Irish") ancestry.

But then a lot of immigrants got the short end of the stick in the USA but it didn't stop them coming, because oppression in their homelands was still worse. In TTL as you suggest a continuing Protestant dictatorship in Ireland rather than British rule is likely to increase Catholic Irish emigration both to the USA and to other countries.

4. Rebellion- So, we have the big nasty Irish protestants actively stamping on the country rather than the quite indifferent British government just making sure things keep ticking over smoothly. Could this then lead to a repeat of 1798? Perhaps several of them.
But 1798 was in many ways a movement dominated by secular francophiles from Protestant backgrounds. I agree rebellions are likely, but to my mind a better comparison is the Irish Catholic Confederation in the 1640s.
 
Very interesting, Leej; I've noticed we don't seem to have much discussion of Ireland here, so it's good to see more.

Two questions:

1. What do think will become of the Irish language ITTL?

2. If Irish emigration to Britain, the Empire, and the USA is curtailed, do you think we might see more emigration to Catholic countries in Europe (like in the 17th century) or to South America? Related to #1: if so, could Irish become a significant minority language in South America?
 
Very interesting, Leej; I've noticed we don't seem to have much discussion of Ireland here, so it's good to see more.

Two questions:

1. What do think will become of the Irish language ITTL?

2. If Irish emigration to Britain, the Empire, and the USA is curtailed, do you think we might see more emigration to Catholic countries in Europe (like in the 17th century) or to South America? Related to #1: if so, could Irish become a significant minority language in South America?

I'm no great expert on the history of the Irish language but from what I have read IOTL much of its survival is down to upper class Brits taking a academic interest in it. This could still occur in this TL so it may still survive.
Its anyone's guess what the Irish government will think of it though. They could be indifferent just as the British one was, they could see it as a nasty Gaelic thing and try to stamp it out or they could see it as something uniquely Irish to set themselves apart from Britain and hence appropriate it for themselves. I guess I'd lean more towards the latter if any extreme though this will just be with certain groups, the majority opinion for some time to come would be indifference.

Number 2 though is a very likely no. Irish speakers tended to be poor and from more rural areas, it's more likely to be the English speakers who have the opportunity/idea to emigrate. Unless of course recruiters come and specially target the poorest of the poor as IOTL.
A heavy Irish influence in Argentina is one thing I've been thinking of lately though, that's via a different WI of a British Argentina though.


But 1798 was in many ways a movement dominated by secular francophiles from Protestant backgrounds. I agree rebellions are likely, but to my mind a better comparison is the Irish Catholic Confederation in the 1640s.
I was just speaking in the big scary rebellion sense. What you say is mostly true- but I would note that though the leadership tended to be secular protestants much of the ground level support tended to be from the catholic masses (not too surprising given they were so much the majority).

A true 1798 2 could well arise though- I'd imagine the Irish parliament would be less keen to lower the franchise threshold as this would make for there being more Catholics only barred from voting through their religion.
Their power had 2 main defenses- the religious one and the fact that not many Catholics were rich anyway. They'd lose one of these with lowering the franchise....
Then again on the other side if Irish industrialisation does go well you will see a lot of middle class protestants in Ulster.....So....hmm...yeah I'd think the franchise will be lowered eventually. Perhaps slower than in the UK though and when it comes to bringing the working class into the fold things will get very iffy.
 
My thoughts- not well.
1: Catholic emancipation: Dream on.
In the UK this did happen. Not right away due to the king getting in the way but by 1829 it had passed. Religion just wasn't that big a deal anymore, though barring Catholics from parliament may well have been a very prudent move a century ago the threat to Britain has long since passed by the 19th century. Besides, how many Catholics actually had the wealth to be able to vote? And how big a percentage of the total population of the UK were Catholics? In both cases the number was rather small.

Ireland meanwhile was in quite a different situation to the UK. There the Catholics quite overwhelmingly outnumbered the protestants; by 9:1 a quick wiki check tells me. Even considering a wealth based franchise Catholic emancipation could really threaten the very shape of the country's government. Given that the country was ruled by the protestants its highly unlikely they would ever consider giving up their power. Purely looking at this point alone I could well see the protestants continuing to rule Ireland well into modern times when Britain and other countries finally begin yelling at them to stop being medieval gits.
Actually, IIRC, the situation was a lot more ... complicated. We are so used to "protestant" vs "catholic" that we project that back hundreds of years when it wasn't the breakdown at all.

I believe that the franchise for elections to the Irish parliament was limited to Church of Ireland (i.e. Anglicans), and that BOTH the Calvinists (Presbyterians of various stripes) AND the Catholics were disenfranchised.

While just makes the situation even worse!

If there is no act of union, then the CoI ruling class has little incentive to allow others the vote, so neither the Ulster ScotsIrish (mostly Presbyterian) nor the native Catholic Irish would be enfranchised any time soon.
 
Very interesting, Leej; I've noticed we don't seem to have much discussion of Ireland here, so it's good to see more.
...

2. If Irish emigration to Britain, the Empire, and the USA is curtailed, do you think we might see more emigration to Catholic countries in Europe (like in the 17th century) or to South America? Related to #1: if so, could Irish become a significant minority language in South America?

Desmond

As Lee said in his reply it was generally the more prosperous Protestants who emigrated in large numbers, at least before the famine and develops in transport made it easier. However, presuming other things don't get butterflied I could think of one area probably seeking reliable Catholic agricultural settlers. How about an influx of Irish to Algeria to help strengthen the French hold on the region? Not sure what view either the Irish Protestant government or the British government would have on this.

I do think however that there would be strong pressure for reform before the 1840's and that the most likely way would be for a union. [The Protestant Supremacy in Ireland would not only oppose catholic Emancipation to any degree it would fear it greatly with Britain to protect its own position]. Also by this time Britain has passed the reform act, Emancipated its own Catholics and ended slavery. I find it difficult to believe it wouldn't have felt it necessary to do something about the running sore that was Ireland. Especially since it would probably be an important point of pressure from various Catholic powers.

Steve
 
Very interesting, Leej; I've noticed we don't seem to have much discussion of Ireland here, so it's good to see more.

Two questions:

1. What do think will become of the Irish language ITTL?

2. If Irish emigration to Britain, the Empire, and the USA is curtailed, do you think we might see more emigration to Catholic countries in Europe (like in the 17th century) or to South America? Related to #1: if so, could Irish become a significant minority language in South America?

Maybe they could go to Mexico? IIRC the was an Irish-American unit that turned over to the Mexican side during the Mexican-American War.
 
Desmond

As Lee said in his reply it was generally the more prosperous Protestants who emigrated in large numbers, at least before the famine and develops in transport made it easier. However, presuming other things don't get butterflied I could think of one area probably seeking reliable Catholic agricultural settlers. How about an influx of Irish to Algeria to help strengthen the French hold on the region? Not sure what view either the Irish Protestant government or the British government would have on this.


Steve

What you say about Algeria is very interesting, Steve. I've actually wondered about the possibility for that myself, and I think it's very plausible, especially given the fact that France had given refuge to Irish emigres in the past (anyone ever wondered how France got a President MacMahon?)

I suspect the British government would take a very dim view of this, however. When Irish Catholics emigrated to Spain and France in the 16th and 17th centuries, a lot of them joined those countries' armies and ended up fighting against England/Britain. With lots of Irish in Algeria, Victorian Britain might find itself facing off against an Irish African Legion at Fashoda or something :D
 
Actually, IIRC, the situation was a lot more ... complicated. We are so used to "protestant" vs "catholic" that we project that back hundreds of years when it wasn't the breakdown at all.

I believe that the franchise for elections to the Irish parliament was limited to Church of Ireland (i.e. Anglicans), and that BOTH the Calvinists (Presbyterians of various stripes) AND the Catholics were disenfranchised.

This was the case traditionally that but with the big reform in 1782, amongst other things, the franchise was extended to all protestants. Not that it mattered really though, most of those rich enough to vote were CoI.

And yeah, the situation was indeed a lot more complicated than Catholics vs. protestants even well into modern times. My family is catholic but they fought for the union during the Irish civil wars period.



As for emigration: I'd think they would tend towards British colonies. With America more closed off to them perhaps more would end up in Canada, the Quebecois would certainly welcome some more Catholics if they really must have more Anglos.
And then in S.Africa, Australia and the like catholic/protestant didn't really matter as much. They just wanted more white people.
 
Last edited:
This was the case traditionally that but with the big reform in 1782, amongst other things, the franchise was extended to all protestants. Not that it mattered really though, most of those rich enough to vote were CoI.
Umm... OK. I had thought that came with/after Union. Do you have a link? I googled 'reform 1782 ireland' and didn't find anything useful (lots of links talking about Ireland's parliament becoming 'independent', and lots talking about lack of catholic franchise, but nothing about extending the franchise to other protestants). Note, I'm not doubting you, I want to read up on it.
 
Umm... OK. I had thought that came with/after Union. Do you have a link? I googled 'reform 1782 ireland' and didn't find anything useful (lots of links talking about Ireland's parliament becoming 'independent', and lots talking about lack of catholic franchise, but nothing about extending the franchise to other protestants). Note, I'm not doubting you, I want to read up on it.

Nothing online. Wikipedia has a bit on it though.
Try searching the web for the protestant ascendancy.
 
Top