<..>
> Blimey, you're confusing a very simple definition here Bru, no wonder > you're sighing. Erm, what definition would that be? > 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. And completely academic but you started it :-) > 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!) And now I would assert that you're confusing 'conquered' and 'ruled' Henry II most certainly conquered Ireland - he landed a large body of troops and seized a lot of territory in the West following which most of the petty kings of Ireland submitted to Henry and swore fealty to him. What Henry was unable to do was to go on to properly rule the country. Some of the Irish kings, particularly in Ulster, resisted the Norman (I'll stick with Norman since every text I'm using as references refers to this period as such) invasion. In addition, there was a tendency for the Norman lords who gained power in Ireland to go native. That notwithstanding, the Normans founded numerous castles, churches and towns, established feudalism and more efficient land use and the system of counties that continues to this day. Whilst the English kings struggled to gain total control over Ireland, the Normans had a major influence in the development of the country. Their impact on Irish society, particularly in the South and East of the country, was essentially similar to their impact on English society. Oh and how many Irish surnames begin with Fitz...? Fitz is a Hiberno-Norman* prefix derived from the French 'fils' meaning 'son of' *Hiberno-Norman is a term of reference to the Normans in Ireland who became integrated into Irish society as opposed to Anglo-Normans who did not. By the 13th century, Anglo-Norman control in Ireland was largely confined to an area around Dublin enclosed with a fence and ditch rampart. This area became known as 'The Pale' and 'beyond the pale' the Normans and Irish became increasingly hard to tell apart. Now, interesting though this is to me as a student of Medieval history, it's extremely off-topic! Furthermore, it's heading rapidly towards being a proper grown up historical debate and to properly continue it I'd have to start doing proper grown up research with source references, library visits etc. which I'd love to do if only I had the spare time at the moment :-) Perhaps it's time to drop this topic before it gets really academic! Bru
