NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > Periscope > Prince William accepting Irish title a hostile move for many Irish

Periscope by Niall O'Dowd

Prince William accepting Irish title a hostile move for many Irish

Posted on Friday, April 29, 2011 at 06:05 PM

Larger Text

E-mail

136 Comments

RSS

Archives

There was a clear Irish subtext to the royal wedding from Prince William dressed in an Irish Guards uniform to shamrocks on Kate Middleton's wedding dress as well as the news that the dress was manufactured using old Irish lace traditions.

But the most significant announcement was the one that Prince William has become Baron Carrickfergus among many other titles.

That tips the balance for me between a benign interpretation on the Irish subtext to something more in your face.

On the one hand people can argue that the upcoming Queen's visit to Ireland ensures a new era and the Irish subtext to the royal wedding helped reinforce that.

On the other hand was it all a deliberate effort to state categorically that a part of Ireland was still under British rule and that the Irish could like it or lump it?

Baron Carrickfergus certainly lays claim to disputed land between the Irish and the British, one settled by Protestant planters in the 16th century when the native Irish were driven off.

It was also the landing point for King William of Orange when he arrived in Ireland to enforce Protestant domination.

It will provide valuable fodder for those republican dissidents who claim nothing has really changed in Northern Ireland.

The British decision to revive the title and clearly make sure that nationalists who live in the town are under His Royal Highness is a curious one.

None of these decisions are made by accident. The exclusion of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from the wedding was payback for what was seen as them having transgressed the royal family.

The royals have long memories, which is one of the reasons they have endured.

Staking their continuing claim to Northern Ireland is another manifestation of that.

Read more: The royal history behind Prince William’s new Irish title

E-mail

136 comments

Next Page 1 of 10 pages

McNamara31 | Sep 24, 2011, 07:50 PM EDT

Sorry, But who cares?

Report abuse

CitizenWhy | May 10, 2011, 08:48 PM EDT

Yes, the plantations started under Mary Tudor, a Catholic. William of Orange, from the Lowlands where religious tolerance was practiced, was willing to grant rights to Irish Catholics but the ultra-Protestant, magnate-dominated Irish Parliament refused to endorse his treaty. made with the Catholic Sarsfiled at Limerick. The Catholic James Stewart fought for the absolute right of monarchy, which Parliament naturally opposed, so they chose a Protestant Stadtholder used to ruling in a more republican system. The monarchical succession in the late 1600s was a complex issue but English rule in Ireland was a disgrace in the 1700s and early 1800s, as it was in England itself, where absolute property rights trampled on the humanity of the people.

Report abuse

CitizenWhy | May 10, 2011, 08:35 PM EDT

Oy, I thought William Windsor was going to be blamed the Duke of Ballykissangel. Got that wrong.

Report abuse

Kevin714 | May 05, 2011, 10:53 PM EDT

714 Bastille day, very insightful casual, has nothing to do with why I picked that number though but interesting.

Report abuse

casualMBA | May 05, 2011, 07:33 PM EDT

So long, Bastille Kevin

Report abuse

Kevin714 | May 05, 2011, 10:19 AM EDT

Your right Han**** whatever, its all water under the bridge and this thread has grown boring so take care all.

Report abuse

hancock | May 05, 2011, 12:21 AM EDT

What ever gets through the night.

Report abuse

Kevin714 | May 04, 2011, 07:52 PM EDT

Kilsally; Ever here of the Gaelic Re-Surgence 1250 to 1550AD? Look it up you may learn something if you can keep an open mind. You see, the Native Gaels took back most of their land and the Normans had to become more Irish than the Irish to survive. Ireland absorbed and transformed every wave of invader except yours so far, but maybe with some more time you too will become more irish than the irish. Just saying:) Didn't a recent genetic study prove the brits are all basically celtic anyway:) And its a shame it's still about religion since Robert Emmett and Wolf Tone were both protestants. Even in the south there were members of prominent families who converted in order to keep there lands and titles. If you know irish history than you would know that one of the weaknesses of the irish is they had no concept of nationalism until very late in the game it was more about family and sept over a concept of nationhood. If they had united under Brian or any of the O'Neills(or even the Anglo/Irish Earl of Kildare) the world would definitely be a different place. Just saying:)

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | May 04, 2011, 03:27 PM EDT

As a constituent part of a country of 60M people, with a permanent seat at the UN, etc. etc. it obviously doesn’t fit, but serves to demean it inhabitants.

Report abuse

hancock | May 04, 2011, 02:34 PM EDT

If the statelet fits.

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | May 04, 2011, 02:19 PM EDT

ancavker – the avowed aim of many Nationalists on independence was to ‘de-Brit’ the country, and to have a pastoral, Gaelic speaking, Catholic country… the Unionists did not think their way of life, beliefs and loyalties could be accommodated in the New Ireland they saw unfolding before them......yes, they could have taken a chance on things working out… gamble on letting go of a degree of certainty…leaving the imperial power that purchased their ships and other factory output…who could have sold this option to the workers of Belfast in 1921? The ‘realpolitik’ of the time needs to be taken into account...btw using terms like ‘Statelet’ doesn’t help to show ‘Parity of Esteem’.

Report abuse

ancavker | May 04, 2011, 12:09 PM EDT

Yes, but none of those countries you mention, got to carve out their own little statelet once they became independent. You know Ulster could have said maybe before it said no to the idea of independence.

Report abuse

Kilsally | May 04, 2011, 12:01 PM EDT

Was the plantation of Ulster ok? Was the plantation of America, or Australia or New Zealand or South Africa or Rhodesia / Zimbabwe? Not an easy question as the world might be a very different place if those things hadnt happened and perhaps I would be in Scotland now rather than in Northern Ireland if some of my ancestors hadn`t moved to Ulster during the plantation (other `native` Irish ancestors seem to have converted from Catholicism to Church of Ireland)?

Report abuse

ancavker | May 04, 2011, 09:39 AM EDT

kilsally What is your pint, that the plantation of Ulster was OK? Ireland was never a strong unified country , as such it cannot be one now? The lowland Scots that were planted in Ulster were far different from the Irish tribes that settled in the highlands and islands of Scotland, and gave it it's name and the Gaelic language.

Report abuse

ancavker | May 04, 2011, 09:36 AM EDT

Kilsally Ireland had more than one high King over the years. Of course it was symbolic, but still recognized by all the other Chieftains, that Ireland was one unit. It is a little hard to unite when you are constantly being invaded, and of course the Irish love to fight with each other, which of did not help.

Report abuse

Next Page 1 of 10 pages