2008/12/20 Bru Peckett <[email protected]> > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > On Behalf Of Steve Haywood > > Sent: 20 December 2008 17:28 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [canals-list] Re: News from 19 century > > > > 2008/12/20 Bru Peckett <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > In fact, Ireland as a nation state did not exist when the English (or > > to be > > > more precise the Normans) first conquered the country in the 1100's. > > > > > > > I'll leave the concept of the nation state to others, but I'd take > > issue > > that the Angevins (which is the term you're looking for - not Normans!) > > The Angevin kings are often included by historians in a Norman dynasty > stretching from William the Conqueror through to Richard II (although other > learned authors consider the Norman dynasty to have ended with Stephen or > even his predecessor Henry I - the latter being the second of the only two > Kings in a direct male line of descent from William I). > > However, they are also sometimes considered to be the first House in the > Plantagenet dynasty (covering the houses of Angevin, Plantagenet, Lancaster > and York)! > > To make it even more confusing, not all historians include the houses of > Lancaster and York in the Plantagenet dynasty <sigh> > >
Blimey, you're confusing a very simple definition here Bru, no wonder you're sighing. I take your word that there are historians who include the Angevins in a continuing Norman dynasty but it's not helpful. Generally Henry II is understood to be the first of the Angevin kings. True he was the great grandson of the Conquerer, but his claim to the throne came through his mother who was Henry I's daughter. All this a bit tedious, IMO. More interesting is your assertion that Ireland was 'conquered' in the 1100's. This is a stock university question in that it speaks to the nature of real power in a feudal society in which - as an example - a king like Henry II with an empire that stretched to the Pyranees owed fealty to the king of France who had lands around Paris and... err.. that's it. Henry certainly termed himself Lord of Ireland, I think he was the first English king who did. In practice though this meant very little. To support the assertion he 'conquered' Ireland in any real sense you'd have to establish the transferral of resources in terms of taxes, dues etc etc. which as far as I know hasn't been possible (though I know people are working on it) I'd be interested what they teach in Ireland. What do you say Brian? (if it's not too close to Christmas to get interested!) Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
