Talk:Plantations of Ireland/Archive 1

2005 post
I've added quite a long piece on the Ulster plantation. Maybe it should be taken away from here, put on the Plantation of Ulster page and replaced here with a synopsis? Jdorney 10:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean: this is now a far better and more detailed article than the one it is supposed (by Wiki rules) to summarise! The contrary argument is that the Ulster text here is proportionate in size and content to its Munster and Leinster (midlands) texts: it would be wrong if it were otherwise. (Excellent stuff, btw).


 * In an ideal world, the detailed article Plantation of Ulster would be made to redirect here, because really it makes no historical sense to consider it in other than an all-island (sic) context. I predict another civil war if you do that! It's not ideal, but I really don't see a realistic alternative to maintaining essentially the same content in both articles.  --Red King 13:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok then. Just looking at the article, its very large now and its not even finished! (Though most of the main bits are done). Maybe it would be better to break it up, I dunno, but as you say, it can only be understood as an ongoing process in Irish history Would be good also to get some images to break up the text, dunno where this could be got though Jdorney 20:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cheers for encouraging comments btw Jdorney


 * I think the specific slice of Irish history that this article concentrates on is the colonisation thing. It describes a specific facet of English policy: partly to give prizes to the winners, partly to keep the awkward squad from coming home, partly to pacify a dangerous neighbour, partly to close the back door (the Spanish Armada was still living memory).  Unless there was a distinct change of policy at any stage, then it has to be taken as a whole.  That's why I thought that essay had an interesting 'take': why did the PoU succeed when the PoM and PoL failed?


 * Pictures would be good: if there are any contemporary drawings then they are certainly out of copy-right. If they have been re-engraved, it's arguable. That's why I added the re-engraving note to my 1641 map of Galway .  Unfortunately, I don't have anything else to scan.  Hopefully someone else will contribute?

Right. All done. Whadya think? feel free to edit away of course.

re pictures, the one of Galway proably wouldn't be much use for this article, but it would be good for the History of Galway page and an upcoming article on the siege of Galway that User:Fergananim is working on. to be honest, I don't actually know how to work the images here at wikipedia, althoug hthere are smoe images I have on my own computer that I'd like to use for various things. Jdorney 13:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I did it for the History of Galway article. I wasn't suggesting that it be used here, my point is that modern engraving of old images may not count as simple reproductions so they need to be checked for clearance.


 * There is a tutorial on pictures at Picture_tutorial.

Ah yes! probably should have red the whole post! Beautiful map though, where did you get it?

I have a look for images for this on the net. A map with the plantations marked would be good, espcially for people who aren't familiar wit hteh geography of Ireland.

What do you think of the text I've written? Maybe it could do with an epilogue on how the plantations have affected modern Ireland, esp the partition of the north and south? Any other comments? Jdorney 16:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I bought a reproduction in Galway many years ago: as it is a mere facsimile with no claim to renewed copyright, I decided that that it was public domain based on expiry of the engraver's work of 1820, when it was included with Hardiman's History of Galway, and scanned it. The orginal is in the library of Trinity College and is about 2 meters wide.  The reproduction is bigger than A3, possibly double foolscap so I had to do multiple scans and photoshop them back together (hence the shade artefact in the upper left!).


 * Yes, a map would be good - is there aleady a wiki map of the four provinces that you could manipulate?


 * The text is excellent - the absence of further edits is a recognition of that.


 * Yes, a short para on consequences would be good, but primarily in the form of summaries to refer readers to the relevant sections of History of Ireland.
 * --Red King 11:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just adding a note to explain the re-formatting. reading through the article, it seemed to me that it would make more sense for the reader who was not familiar with Irish history if it was put in chronological order.

Re images: We need a map of Ireland that is shaded or something to show the planted areas. However I have no idea how to do this. I illustrated the Irish Confederates Wars and related pages - maybe those images could be of some use here. Also, do you know if it is possible to email your own images to wilipedia and then use them? If so, how is this done? Jdorney 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, should be Irish Confederate Wars above. Use you map btw! Jdorney


 * There are some good maps on History of Ireland, but maybe don't have all the detail and phasing you need. To create the maps, I think you need Photoshop or PaintshopPro.  I haven't come across any way to e-mail: I think you have to upload as per Picture_tutorial.  --Red King 23:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irish Descendancy
"The descendants of the British Protestant settlers largely favoured a continued link with Britain, whereas the descendants of the native Irish Catholics wanted Irish independence."

Isn't Adams an English name? This all assumes that the different peoples didn't intermarry, a common myth, but one not borne out by historical documents of the time - or people's surnames. --MacRusgail 11:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, fair point, you could also cite people like Terence O'Neill and Lenny Murphy, who were Protestants, but as a generalisation, it still stands up. Most people in Ireland with surnames derived from Irish are catholics and the majority of people whose surnames originate in England or Scotland are Protestants. The last thing I want to do is to perpetuate sectarian mythology, but by and large the ethno-religious communities of the 17th century are still broadly the ancestors of the current ones in NI - at least in outline - and the poltics of today cannott be explained without some reference to the plantations. Jdorney 12:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I would point out that loads of Irish native surnames were altered to sound like English names e.g. O'Coileáin became Collins. As such, while some intermarriage did take place, it seems that the article is largely right broadly speaking.- Peter

....My family name is Scott from Fermanagh- you would think most certainly of planter ancestory, but we have been Catholic / Nationalists for as long back as we can trace... I don't belive it is accurate to assign religious / political beliefs to surnames...

Long term results
Does anyone else think that
 * Since many present day unionists (Ireland) are descended from the Gaelic Irish (e.g. Terence O'Neill) and many Irish nationalists are descended from British settlers (e.g. Gerry Adams)

is rather irrelevant in this paragraph and certainly should not be in the primary element of a sentence that ends in The Troubles in Northern Ireland are therefore in some respects a continuation of the conflicts of the 17th century. (which really sums up the whole paragraph). --Red King 17:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Doherty
I would like to add a link from the section on the Ulster plantations to the article I created on the Doherty family history. As well I may do the same in future for stubs I would like to write on Cahir O' Doherty and O' Doherty's Rebellion. If that would be acceptable. Kevlar67 13:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * provided you put it in "See also", I doubt that anyone would find cause to object. --Red King 18:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro
I had just linked to this article from British Empire and thought the size of the intro para was offputting. I left a small piece as the intro, and transferred the rest into the body as an overview section. OK?--80.4.252.114 12:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Jdorney 15:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment
Not entirely sure if this is normal Wiki protocol but I'd just like to congratulate you all on an informative piece that manages to avoid POV. Thanks, I learnt a lot.130.237.175.198 10:32, 19 May 2 thanks............

Cavan in Ulster Plantation
I believe Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan where not included in the Ulster Plantation. I only heard this, so I would be very happy if anybody would like to comment on this.19-Lenny-89 20:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Plantation of Ulster article says Six counties were involved in the official plantation — Donegal, Coleraine, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Armagh and Cavan. The County of Coleraine was the main part of what became Co. L'derry with the most organised plantation. Presumably Antrim and Down already had significant Scottish populations. --Rumping (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Monaghan privatly planted
The map of the plantations at the top of the page says monaghan was privately planted which is wrong. It was the only Ulster countie not to be planted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.15.218 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Plantation of King's County and Queen's County
Is this one plantation or two? The article is ambiguous as written.

"The first such scheme was the Plantation of King's County (now Offaly) and Queen's County (now Laois) in 1556, naming them after the new Catholic monarchs Philip and Mary respectively."

Was this a single scheme as stated at the beginning, or were there two schemes or plantations as implied by the "them" later in the sentence? It seems from later text that there was a single plantation with both names attached, but the ambiguity needs to be cleared up. --143.239.96.226 (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it was single plantation across what later became two counties (Kings and Queens, now Laois and Offally). Jdorney (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

New map needed
The Ireland 1450 map in this article is inaccurate and misleading. Reasons being the MacDonnells in Ulster are not native Irish but Scots-Gaels, and the Burkes are not native Irish but Anglo-Irish. Mabuska (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Burkes were pretty Gaelicised by that time though and the MacDonnells, well at that tiem tehre easn't that much distinctio between Gaelsin Ulster and those in western Scotland, so I don't think it's misleading really.
 * Jdorney (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * They are still different. The MacDonnells can't be claimed as being native Irish when they descend from Norse-Gaels from the Western Isles, and along with that some of their septs have Norman pedigrees as well. The Burkes whether they were Gaelicised or not doesn't make them "native Irish". They are still Anglo-Irish/Hiberno-Norman in their descent. Being Gaelicised does not make you instantly native Irish. Mabuska (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * But it does make you effectively 'Gaelic' in the case of the Burkes anyway, as far as the adminstration in Dublin and London in concerned. But look if you can explain the complexity there clearly and concisely then go for it.Jdorney (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how simply becoming Gaelicised means that you can't be Anglo-Irish/Hiberno-Norman? There is nothing to explain as its only the map that needs altering. I don't see why map of boundaries in 1450 is being used anyways seeing as the first plantations were in the second half of the 16th century. Surely a more contemporary map of the mid 16th century would be better.


 * We could also just call them Old English. It even states that the Burkes amongst others are more suitably called Hiberno-Norman, which that article states was a term replaced by Old English. Mabuska (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well to be honest we're getting into very muddy waters here because the term Old English was first used in the early 17th century in a very different politcal context - to highlight the right of the older, Catholic, elite against the "New English" Protestant settlers. It's not really appropriate for Gaelicised lordships like the Burkes in the 14 and 1500s. 'Norman' by 1500 is anachronistic and while they were of "Anglo" origin, in the 1500s the two Burke lordships (Clanrickarde and MacWilliam) were held in the Gaelic manner - that is by "tanistry" or election and they raised troops and exacted tribute in the Gaelic manner, as well as being Gaelic in language and culture etc. So it's more relevant to put them in the "Gaelic" than "anglo-Irish" camp at that particular time. For instance the Palesmen wrote of the Battle of Knockdoe in 1504, Kildare Fitzgeralds and Pale V Clanrickarde Burkes and allies as the "victory of the English over the Irish".


 * Re the actual map. As I said, if you have, or can make, a better map, please go ahead. However even a slightly flawed illustration is better than none. Jdorney (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Map needs to be recoloured. On many screens the browns are indistinguishable.


 * I am on about the classification of "Native Irish" in contrast to "Anglo-Irish" not "Gaelic" in contrast to "Non-Gaelic". You can be Gaelic in all your customs if you so wish and not native Irish you know but still Anglo-Irish. I think we are crossing-hairs on what we area reading into it. For me i am taking a sourced geneaological perspective on this - paternally they are still Norman which as far as im aware aren't native Irish. A new map would be easy enough to create, and a more relevant and accurate map. Mabuska (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, you have my full support, fire away!Jdorney (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Map needs to be recoloured. On many screens the browns are indistinguishable.

Verifiable and reliable???
Jdorney is what i'd say close to engaging in an edit-war over the following:

These communities contended with the Roman Catholic elite who shared a common identity and set of political attitudes.

This is what was there and is sourced by the quotation given. However Jdorney seems to need to feel that it must explicitly state "shared a common Irish identity" despite the fact the quote given doesn't state so.

Now in an attempt to vindicate their continual persistence in adding this in they have "expanded" the quote to ensure that it does state Irish:

Padraig Lenihan, Confederate Catholics at War p. 5-6, "The Gaelic Irish and Old English were increasingly seen by outsiders and defined themselves, as undifferentiatedly Irish...By the 1630s, members of the Catholic elite, whatever their paternal ancestry, shared a common identity and set of political attitudes...Conversely it is possible to speak of a contending Protestant/New English/British group. The term 'British' has validity because of its contemporary usage (in referring to grantees in the Ulster Plantation for example) and, especially, because it embraces, as it was designed to, both English and Scottish interests in Ireland...the consciousness of being a privileged minority in a hostile enviroment"

It now looks like the mashing together of two different sentences to create a source for "common shared Irish identity". If anyone else has access to this source can it be proven that Jdorney isn't inventing content up to back themselves up and that this is actually in the source given? Mabuska (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Drop the confrontational tone please. Read it for yourself if you think I'm 'inventing' things . Don't appreciate the accusation by the way. Incidentally it was me who wrote the original piece and you who keeps changing it to say something it does not say. Jdorney (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of the initial reverts why didn't you just expand the quote in the first place and ref the link to the Google books one essentially since it was so problematic in the first place? The google link would of helped resolve the issue quickly after my first revert.


 * Also if you look i actually changed it to say what was said in the quote. You are one who kept editing it to say something not backed up by the quote until you expanded it. Querying your addition to the quote especially after your reverts is a fair and right question to ensure reliability and verifability. Mabuska (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plantations of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011192652/http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/act/pub/0029/sched1.html to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/act/pub/0029/sched1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Medieval settlement edits
The anonymous user writes: "he argument was not that the Normans had no allegiance to Norman England or Normandy which was ruled by a french speaking elite, but that by the tudor period the Anglo-Normans were nearly entirely Irish and had no direct relationship to the English colonization of Ireland. The tiny minority within the pale that followed English customs were Norman French speaking elite. Any claims that they did is like saying the European colonization of north America is a continuation of the Vikings."

All of these statements are incorrect. The first one is very incorrect. Ireland was considered by the King of England and those who bore him alelgaince to be part of his lordship. The Anglo Normans who arrived in the 12th century in 1171 explicitly gave their allegiance to King Henry II of England, who was also culturally an Anglo Norman. He proclaimed himself King of Ireland as were his heirs, who were represented in Ireland by the Lord Deputy, based in Dublin Castle. While the elite of the conquest were indeed Anglo Norman and French speaking in culture, most of the ordinary settlers were English speaking. French ceased to be used as a language of law and government in the 14th century in Ireland, in favour of English. The majority language of the English Pale (and that was its name) was always English.

E.g. here  Steven Ellis notes that in the Pale "discriminatory legislation against ‘the king’s Irish enemies’ was actively enforced. And given the frontier context—two nations, laws and cultures, and a pervading rhetoric of difference—the Palesmen were highly sensitive to their English identity, because to be English was to be free and civilised, whereas Irishness was synonymous with servitude and savagery. It is, in any case, a nonsense to talk about ‘Anglo-Irish subjects’: there was no such legal category." While some Irish speakers did live in the Pale they were never close to being a majority, in fact they were actively discriminated against there.

The same was true in towns such as Galway, Wexford, Limerick and Cork, which were all English speaking. Some of the rural lords who were descended from the Anglo Norman conquerors, it is true did become Gaelicised and were by the 16th century largely Irish speaking. However, they were never termed 'Normans' by that date, but Old English (Ireland).

The point about North America is not an apt comparison at all. The structure of English administration and its laws in Ireland remained constant from the medieval period into the 17th century.

Additionally the anonymous user is changing the direct quotes referenced from various articles so that they say things, which do not make sense, e.g. that 16th century Galway and Limerick were strongholds of the 'Norman language', which is a bizarre statement, and also not what the quote referenced actually says.

Jdorney (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

--

I think this can be cleared up relatively easily, you're just confused. It's absolutely apt. Yes the King of England King Henry II who was born in France and spoke French.

The language spoken in the Pale wasn't English, linguistic class 101 the language spoken was Norman French or "Anglo-Norman" there was no English language as we know it today, the language of the Anglo-Normans was incomprehensible to the Tudor settlers and the English you're referring to old English developed into the now extinct dialects of Yola.

Edmund Spenser wrote of the old English: "they are more sharpely to be chastised and reformed … for they are more stubborne, and disobedient to the law and government, than the Irish". So here we get a statement from edmund spencer saying the old English or Normans in Ireland need to be subjected and brought into new English culture.

The language you're referring to of a minority in the pale would have been gibberish to both the English and the Irish at the time, Colonel Solomon Richards says "Whoever hath read old Chaucer(Old Chaucer spoke Old English) and is at all acquainted therewith, will better understand the barony of Forth dialect than either an English or Irishman, that never read him, though otherwise a good linguist"

The Normans in Ireland came mostly from Wales not England, the term combro normans is used, however as Duffy points out that's to be criticized also as they spent only 100 years in Wales from Normandy France and several hundred years in Ireland. The Irish nationality was formed when the Normans became Gaelicised by merging culturally and intermarrying with the Gaels. Some may have chosen to integrate into the newly arrving Tudor culture, but you can find just as many who became Irish even the Palesmen. The problem with your "evidence" is it it's vague and misquoted because you don't understand the subject properly.

No sorry to break it to you, but there was no consistent rule, the Anglo-Normans which isn't a correct term for them weren't English not like the Tudors were, there was several centuries of blackout among the English in Ireland, an elite few in the pale were mixed, some of the "Anglo-Normans" attempted to adopt the New English identity in the 16th century with the coming of the tudors, but even that minority spoke Anglo-Norman, they became new English in Ireland, while those that kept the old identity where old English, but both terms are nonsense as I have explained.

And all of this assumes you realize that's just the pale, you're arguing for something that's supported by no historian. The English were clueless when it came to Ireland, King henry even sent out scouts to survey Irish land to understand the people, this doesn't suggest English familiarity with the land. The English in the pale or in England had as much similarity with wild Ireland as Virginia or china, not something that retained control for several hundred years.

I think you're confused and misinterpreting evidence in poor throw-away sources at that, common sense alone says if English had such control over Ireland there would have been no need for colonization in the 16th century by the tudors. The idea of English rule from 12th century on was invented by early historians with an agenda looking to extend their identity. The reality is the Tudors viewed the wilde Irish as akin to savages comparable to the native Americans which is attested and contemporary quoted, the Anglo-Normans of the pale were viewed as backward needing to be reformed to new English culture.

Irish was most definitely a majority in the pale and there were no substantial English speakers in the places you mentioned other than yola speakers.

Speaking of upholding English laws, Spenser writes at the time of the Munster planations "there be many wide countries in Ireland which the laws of England were never established in, nor any acknowledgment of subjection made; and also even in those which are subdued, and seem to acknowledge subjection, yet the same Brehon law is practised among themselves, by reason, that dwelling as they do whole nations and septs of the Irish together, without any Englishman among them, they may do what they list" Ireland was not considered part of England, it was considered a Realm before King henry VII declared himself lord of Ireland in the 16th century, however this attempt to become king of Ireland fell on deaf ears, so in reality England had no jurisdiction.

16th century Galway and Limerick were strongholds of the 'Norman language', Not me I don't know what you're talking about but the dialects of Yola would have come from the same sources as those spoken in what you mentioned in tiny isolated areas even in the 16th-17th century, but what happens beyond the pale is anyone's guess. So no English was spoken outside of the Pale in anyway worth mentioning, and the minority of "Old English" in the pale didn't speak English either, not one that would be comprehensible to the English New settlers.

Upheld by merely every historian worth their salt, that England remained Profoundly ignorant of Ireland even up until the 16th century after King Henry declared himself lord of Ireland in London. The idea of continuous English rule might have been a good theory in the 16th century but only because it was propaganda by the Tudors themselves, no historian considers it continuous anymore, they're two different episodes spanning different centuries, sorry. The Wilde Irish 99% of the population were savage aliens to be turned English, quotes from both Edmund Spenser, Walter Raleigh etc speaking a different language with different customs entirely, even inside the pale the tiny minority old "English" were to be considered obsolete and in need of reform from old Norman and Irish ways. You're arguing against this yet I'm wondering how, what's your evidence?, other than a misinterpreted source and Raymond hickey saying English was introduced into the island by the Normans when we both know that's nonsense and Hickey considers Yola dialects English, and Hickey concluded the same that the Irish language was the majority in Dublin before the Tudor colonization. Look forward to your response.

(Ó Cuív, 1951: 14). There were several authors who collected a distinctive moment in Irish history in order to show how English was understood by hardly anyone. One of them was Stopford (1911), who explains “Irish speech was so universal that a proclamation of Henry VIII in a Dublin parliament had to be translated into Irish by the earl of Ormond”. Hickey also refers to this moment: […] the account from the sixteenth century of the proclamation of a bill in the Dublin parliament (1541) which officially declared the assumption of the title of King of Ireland by Henry VIII (Dolan 1991: 143). The parliament was attended by the representatives of the major Norman families of Ireland, but of these only the Earl of Ormond was able to understand the English text and apparently translated it into Irish for the rest of the attending Norman nobility.

(Hickey, 2007a: 34) Written English was dedicated to official matters, and it resembled in its form to that of England. For that purpose, it was used by both English and Irish speakers. Nonetheless, spoken English language was almost reduced to the recent English foreigners 16th century, whereas Irish won the favour of the “Old English”, becoming their main language6 (Van Hattum, 2012: 44)

https://minerva.usc.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10347/23788/Salvado%20M%C3%ADguez%2C%20Yassmina.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Consider it akin to North American than or India, neither would have been totally unfamiliar with the white man when the English arrived.

"Sir William Herbert composed Croftus Sive Hibernia Liber between 1590 and 1593. In 1586, he received over 13,000 acres at Castleisland as his allotment in the Munster plantation, and in 1587/8 wrote to Sir Francis Walsingham expressing his intention to establish “a colony of my planting” and write a “volume,” which seems to be what became Croftus"

"Sir John Davies, of the writers to be examined the most deeply involved in Irish government, published in 1612 his A Discovery of the True Causes Why Ireland Was Never Entirely Subdued: [And] Brought Under Obedience of the Crown of England Until the Beginning of His Majesty’s Happy Reign" "New English planters as good seeds which should replace Irish weed"

The land is a ‘mother’ to any colonist in that it is expected to provide sustenance, and their fantasies of good and bad nursing can usefully be related to Melanie Klein’s work on infantile splitting of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ breast as a consequence of unsatisfying or anxious feeding.7 The power of threatening metaphor reaches a peak in T. C.’s description of the son of the Earl of Clancare (McCarthy Mór) as a “man-devouring beast” and as we shall see later suggestions that the Irish are cannibals or vampires pervade New English writing of the period.

Out of everye corner of the woode and glenns they came creepinge forth upon theire handes, for theire legges could not beare them; they looked Anatomies [of] death, they spake like ghostes, crying out of theire graves; they did eate of the carrions, happye wheare they could find them, yea, and one another soone after, in soe much as the verye carcasses they spared not to scrape out of theire graves; and if they found a plott of water-cresses or shamrockes, theyr they flocked as to a feast for the time, yett not able long to contynewe therewithall; that in a shorte space there were none almost left, and a most populous and plentyfull countrye suddenly lefte voyde of man or beast.

All sounds very particularly like the alienation rhetoric you would hear in the colonies of North America or India, not something you would hear if it was the same country like you're suggesting.

Also the laws in Ireland were generally ignored and unfamiliar definitely not the same as the Norman period.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6991/e9da22bc349ec67208f4fa56adae7b3e336e.pdf

The Ideology of English Colonization: From Ireland to America Nicholas P. Canny