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 Previous Page 2 of 10 pages

ancavker | May 04, 2011, 09:32 AM EDT

At the end of the day, who cares about these royals, and there silly titles. And furthermore, it is not an Irish title, it is a British one.

Report abuse

kerryboy | May 03, 2011, 08:58 PM EDT

Can't we all get along after all these years? Its the 21st century, why evoke all thes old tired historical insults & battles.

Report abuse

SeamusRua | May 03, 2011, 06:43 PM EDT

I found out recently that the brits still maintain the title of baronet of New York. That was William Johnson's title before the war. Funny people those anglo-whatists.

Report abuse

Kilsally | May 03, 2011, 01:11 PM EDT

patriot says "There is only the OCCUPIED region of Ireland and the british and their scottish plantationers" hmm seeing as Scotland takes it name from the Scotti tribe from Ireland, seeing as the Kingdom of Dalriada encompassed parts of Ulster and Scotland and seeing as Ireland was only ever United under one High King and the `English` ..not quite sure what your point is as Ireland was many Kingdoms....

Report abuse

Kilsally | May 03, 2011, 01:08 PM EDT

Kevin714 - The largely English settlers started well before that - the so called Anglo-Irish encompassed the whole island. The plantation of Ulster didn`t really start until 1611 but the Ayrshire Scots Hamilton & montgomery piloted in a couple of Ulster counties in 1606 - it was the successful Ulster plantation that inspired the US plantations starting with Virginia / Jamestown.

Report abuse

casualMBA | May 03, 2011, 01:07 PM EDT

sure, ancavker

Report abuse

ancavker | May 03, 2011, 09:47 AM EDT

Kevin: The Elizabethan plantations were for the most part a failure, and were not conducted on the same scale as in Ulster.

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | May 03, 2011, 07:54 AM EDT

What’s your point Jeffery? You didn’t like the wedding? Nobody made you watch it…I had better things to do, but then it wasn’t my business to say how some royals plan a wedding…I know nothing about the bride, and care less…

Report abuse

jefferysmcgraw | May 03, 2011, 06:39 AM EDT

Somebody needs to put the British royals in their place. For as much respect as I had for Diana for speaking out and being her own person, her new "replacement" is just the opposite - willing to do everything they want her to do to fit in. Whatever. Diana's wedding was spectacular, but this latest one was boring as hell. It all has to do with the players involved.

Report abuse

Kevin714 | May 02, 2011, 11:33 PM EDT

Aughavey, The plantations started in 1565 in Offaly under Queen Mary. Its easy to verify do a web search and you will see.

Report abuse

Kevin714 | May 02, 2011, 11:29 PM EDT

Aughavey, I must correct you the plantations started in 1565, remember I am a student of history and it is all documented as plain as day. Read for yourself; http://www.libraryireland.com/HullHistory/Plantations1.php

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | May 02, 2011, 06:28 PM EDT

Patriot – True to form as usual… in a previous post you stated ‘bloody queen is a legitimate military target’, so it seems you couldn’t wait to add another member of her family to your list of ‘legitimate military targets’, could you? – Who the hell gave you a licence to ‘target’ a Head of state of a neighbouring country…although I don’t think they’ll lose any sleep over it - as all armchair republicans, you won’t have the balls to put your money where you big, fat stupid Irish-American mouth is!! There’s a peace process over here, morons like you may not like that…tough!!

Report abuse

casualMBA | May 02, 2011, 05:51 PM EDT

Reference plantations and the “Duke of Pluto,” I am no orator on behalf of unquestioned privilege, yet there are meaningful distinctions in society, and not all determined by the amount of euros one might control. Is it just, for instance? When things are stacked up, to include titles, does the next Dr. Salk, the next Einstein, the next Bono, the next Bill Gates, merit some extra courtesy? A smooth transit to the next meeting?

Report abuse

Towngate | May 02, 2011, 05:35 PM EDT

vsaccsys - notwithstanding Aughavey's excellent points, what you say is true also. Of course there was gerrymandering of the Border by the Boundary Commission to tilt the balance. It was not a Democratic exercise, but a Political one. Britain didn't want to fight either parties in the dispute but the terms of the Treaty meant they couldn't make a clean break, thanks to the Carson threat amonghst other considerations. With equal voting rights and the increasing Nationalist population, in theory the situation will normalise in the fullness of time. It began as all Ulster - then the Six Counties - what next? - Three? - Two? - One? - just Carrickfergus? .......I don't think so! When the tipping point comes, I bet some bright spark will come up with a justification for maintaining the 'status quo'.

Report abuse

patriot | May 02, 2011, 05:16 PM EDT

Aughavey: There is no such thing as "a smaller region of Ireland". There is only the OCCUPIED region of Ireland and the british and their scottish plantationers are not wanted in any part of it. So head on home and peace will reign on the emerald isle.

Report abuse

Next Previous Page 2 of 10 pages