Talk:Tudor conquest of Ireland

Scottish Immigration
The last part of the "Crisis" section states that the Scottish settlers brought into the private plantations of Antrim and Down "replaced the Irish residents". My understanding was that Irish residents were only replaced in the official plantations of western and central Ulster. This part has no citation. 80.5.23.215 (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks to Jdorney for this article and the others on Tudor Ireland - all accurate, concise and balanced. My 4 minor rewrites of this one don't add up to a major rewrite. Some may take issue with my deletion of the term Roman Catholic and its replacement with the simple Catholic: in my view, the term Roman Catholic is an oxymoron - open to debate - but its use in this historical context is undeniably incorrect. Anyone wanting to follow this up, please check out the discussion page on the unfortunately entitled Roman Catholic Church article.--shtove 20:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Tudor buildings still extant in Ireland
If anybody would know the answer it's you lot. Do any of you know of the remains of any of the original Tudor architecture in Ireland, especially Dublin? Amid all the "tudor style" houses (one of which I was brought up in long, long before I knew what Tudor meant), is there any fine example of such architecture (Like the Powerscourt Townhouse or Newman House would be considered an example of Georgian architecture)? If there is enough to do an article on, I'd be interested in getting into it. El Gringo 20:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In 1995 I used to walk to work in the 4 Courts in Dublin City centre, through Temple Bar and along the south quays. There was one 16thC. house, fairly small, charmingly lopsided - nothing fine about it - and at the time it was surrounded by sites cleared for development (between the end of Temple Bar and the quayside sculpture of the viking longboat). I'd bet my voluptuous nose it had a preservation order on it, but I don't know if it survived Fianna Fail councillors' Galway Races interpretation of the law. The Dublin Castle-Civic Offices vicinity is where you'll find the survivors (if any). In the planning tribunals, wasn't there evidence that a tudor house in Kildare got bulldozed by the, "Will we give him a receipt? Will we fuck!" developers? I'm in England now, and when I drive through a town like Salisbury on business I see more Tudor architecture than survives in all of Ireland's towns put together. Fianna Fail's roots as a developers' association go back way before independence.--Shtove 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Title?
Why is this entitled the "Tudor reconquest"? If anything, it should be the "Tudor conquest", as the Tudors had never previously conquered Ireland and therefore there is no "re" necessary. Furthermore, the English had never conquered Ireland, only parts of it, so this article could safely be entitled the "English conquest of Ireland" because it wasn't until 1603 that the English controlled all of Ireland for the first time. 86.44.17.226 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the concept is that the Lordship was recognised under international law (such as it was) as part of the English Crown polity from 1172. That became a Kingdom in 1542, or 1555 for Catholics. Within this "de jure" /legal eggshell, large parts were out of control, or ruled autonomously, but still linked to England in a legal sense. Actual "boots on the ground" de facto conquest was not required unless somebody was in revolt, usually a warlord plundering his neighbours, and in most such cases pardons were issued.78.18.195.253 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved
You are correct. In academia, on both islands, it is far more often called the Tudor conquest, not re-conquest of Ireland. I have corrected the title and will now begin to correct those articles linking here with the wrong title. What has happened, it would appear, is that it became widespread in Wikipedia early and most editors have since assumed re-conquest to be correct. DinDraithou (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably the re- part is due to the fact that it was conquered by the Tudors' predecessors, the Angevins (sometimes inaccurately referred to as the "Norman" conquest of Ireland). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not conquered by the Plantagenets, only briefly occupied, and then only two thirds of the island, and that after Dermot MacMurrough invited the invasion then died before he could control it. The re- comes from the popular imagination and the occasional faux-academic political manifesto intended to make the Tudor conquest look right. But the Plantagenets, Normans, and Tudors all knew there had been no earlier conquest, as scholars still know, on both sides. DinDraithou (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a bit of a bold move. "Reconquest of Ireland" is a common term for the period. Regardless of whether the title of this page is "conquest" or "reconquest", please don't "correct those articles linking here with the wrong title". (See also, don't "fix" redirects.)
 * With respect to "only briefly occupied", that's a but much. We are talking about extended periods of time (about 150 years after 1169) and vast swathes of Ireland. Compare: 1250, 1300, 1450.
 * --RA (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't lecture a relatively experienced editor. I've looked at those maps, none of which are satisfactory, plenty of times. I am familiar enough with the period. Also, some results refer to Cromwell's reconquest, and then to the Williamite. And once you filter for Connolly and go as far as you can you will get only about 320 results total, including Cromwell and William. Search the web itself and the vast majority will lead back to Wikipedia. DinDraithou (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll drop a line on your talk. --RA (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds ominous. So no offense, but I prefer you don't unless it's not in reference to me. And anything related to this article should be discussed here. DinDraithou (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! I thought I had pressed STOP before that had been posted. I'll drop a line now anyway since I said I would. --RA (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note on changing these links. There's no need to change links to articles after a page move. As you know, the old page will redirect anyway. I appreciate that you think "reconquest" is inaccurate but many editors eyes had seen those links. If they had thought (in the past) that "reconquest" was inaccurate they could have piped it. --RA (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ireland was conquered by the Angevins as much as England was by William the Conqueror ... certainly in Angevin and papal eyes. Nominally, Ireland remained ruled by the English crown thereafter, though this became a fiction outside the Pale/cities after the Bruce invasion. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably it is one of those things that could be debated at length without changing anybody's point of view. I personally approve of the change, simply because "conquest" is the term I am familiar with, and "re-conquest" sounds like overkill to me. I'm mildly amused by RA saying "That was a bit of a bold move" as though boldness was something that is frowned upon on WP ;-) Scolaire (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah no ... that's not how I mean it. God knows, I'm bold enough myself! But there no harm in acknowledging when something is bold. That's different from suggest it is bad. Personally I'm more of the opinion that I don't see the benefit of the move. And that changing the links is bad idea. I don't see it as "correcting" just "changing" (though I personally would be of the view that "reconquest" is better ;-)) RA (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not much room for debate on the Angevin conquest. But besides that, the Tudors were actually enforcing pre-existing nominal ruler (as far as they were concerned). Nominal rule in that the English ruler claimed to rule the whole island in theory. Most Gaelic and Anglo-Irish magnates throughout the preceding three centuries either openly acknowledged the king's overlordship or were tolerant of the claim. Both 'Conquest' AND 'reconquest' may be a bit misleading, since the Tudor 'reconquest' is closer to a centralization drive like those of contemporary Russia and France than what was going on in contemporary Mesoamerica. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm...That sounds like a debate to me.
 * @RA, speaking only for the articles that are on my watchlist, I approve of the links being changed, for the same reasons that I approve of the article being moved. Scolaire (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaelic Ireland amendment
Further to @Shtove's query, I feel there is an issue in using the term "Gaelic Ireland" to refer to one side of the conflict. It causes a number issues: 1.) Makes it appear that the Gaelic people of Ireland at this point were a monolith, entirely unified behind one side of the conflict and opposed to the Tudor monarchy. Of course this is not true, while a great many were opposed to Tudor rule, many other objectively Gaelic lords fought on the side of the Tudors in both this conflict and the Nine Years War. When I mention this I specifically refer to men like Donogh O'Brien Earl of Thomond, Sir Cathaoir Ó Dochartaigh (known after as Queen's O'Doherty) and Maelmora O'Reilly son of Sir John O'Reilly, ruler of East Breifne among others. 2.) Because we've mentioned that terminology, we end up linking to other wiki pages not directly relevant to the subject matter at hand, namely Gaelic Ireland and Gaels. These pages tell us nothing of who was fighting whom. Looking forward to the discussion. Alssa1 (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for opening the discussion. I don't have a fixed view, but feel there are two issues: should the term be discarded altogether, and if not should it be replaced?
 * The problem with discarding, as I think you propose, is that the war involved all-island strategies on all sides and all-island consequences in the outcome. Royal legitimacy within Ireland was at stake, not just the flow of power between periphery and centre, so it would be inadequate just to refer to individual Gaelic belligerents.
 * Should it be replaced? I think not. It is a well established term, backed with citations; and the mind boggles trying to come up with an alternative. Irish speaking Catholic lords? I would prefer to open Pandora's box on a COVID ward.
 * Perhaps the best analogy is with Alfred's Angelcynn, conceived in opposition to Viking belligerence, yet vaguely defined by relations between language, territory and religion, during a conflict in which people and places often switched sides. Mind you, the Great Heathen Army article, which does refer to Angelcynn as an ethnonym, simply lists the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the belligerents box.
 * I say keep it but sleep on it - perhaps for a very long time. Shtove 17:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My preference would certainly be to replace; either with listing the belligerents or by using the terminology 'Allied Clans' (or some variant of), similar to what is done with Desmond Rebellions. In regards to the specific term "Gaelic Ireland", I can't see a specific source that justifies the use of that terminology; would you be able to point me in the right direction? Alssa1 (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hard to understand sentence
In the 'Situation before the Tudors' section, second paragraph, this sentence is hard to understand: 'Ireland was not formally a realm, but rather a lordship; the title was assumed by the English monarch upon coronation.' What title does this refer to and how does it relate to the status of Ireland conferred by the English that the first half of the sentence discusses? Breatheforpeace (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "What title does this refer to" Lord of Ireland, held by the various rulers of the Lordship of Ireland since the reign of John, King of England. Henry VIII of England was the last Lord of Ireland. The Crown of Ireland Act 1542 proclaimed him to be the King of Ireland, turning the lordship into a new Kingdom of Ireland. Dimadick (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that really helps me to understand - I made a couple of small edits to make the sentence clearer based on that Breatheforpeace (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)