Talk:Flight of the Earls

message: This would benefit from a paragraph or two at the very top summarising the page. I found the text difficult to follow - too much detail, not enough explanation. Why is this a famous event? --Willbown (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, and when did it start to be celebrated by Catholics, who lost so much from it? There were no 100th, 200th or 300th anniversaries, so why the 400th? Tourism? Go on!78.17.60.231 (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tourism and misguided romanticism. The "Flight of the Earls" is always painted in such a romantic light these days by Gaelic/nationalists ignoring the fact these earls, who where plotting further rebellion, fled to save their own skins (not all earls fled, notably those who weren't planning rebellion) and abandoned their own people to suffer whatever consequences where to come from the forfeiture of their lands due to the conditions of the "Surrender and Regrant" which made them earls in the first place. Neve mind the fact their earlier rebellion caused their people an incredible amount of unnecessary hardship as it was. Mabuska (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to follow 

message: This article is replete with pseudo-historical assertions, and no useful references cited. It needs to be completely re-written. Seneschally 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since no one else got around to tidying this, I managed to do so on 14 September, 400th anniversary of the Flight of the Earls. Enjoy,....and add more!! Seneschally 22:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudo-historical

message: Some additions, and corrected Philip II's title of king in 1555 - it was because he was married to Mary. The papal bull merely reflected the reality on the ground. That is why we had "King's County" and "Queen's County", shired in 1556, named after them.Red Hurley 13:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions

message: Most books give Friday 04 September 1607 as the date of departure from Rathmullen.
Others, as here, give 14 September. (One source only says 03 September.)
Is this confusion between 04 Old Style, which would at that time have been 10 New Style; or is there some other reason?.
Korhomme (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which date? 

message: The map shows them landing at Coruna, with the text - "Journey of Irish Earls traveling to Rome after losed war. Created: 2014-06-25 0:34". But they landed in France, and hadn't lost a war in 1607, they were trying to start one. Hoping it's all right to remove it.PatrickGuinness (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed they where planning a new rebellion hence their decision to flee before the authorities could get them. At the time they had accepted Surrender and Regrant and the picture statement is wrong. Though the map does show them landing in France after Coruna... did they by any chance dock at Coruna before reaching France? Mabuska (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They planned to land at Coruna, being the nearest Spanish port, but were blown to France. So the map is wrong, but well intended.78.17.4.89 (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: The map

message: Just looking at this which is completely wrong. The attainder was formalised by the Dublin Parliament in 1614 simply because it didn't sit between 1608 and 1613. The earls' titles were granted by James as King of Ireland; they had tried to levy war against him (rightly or wrongly); so in 1608 he took back the titles he had given them. Quote from the article:
"Their titles were attainted in 1614, although they continued to be recognised on the Continent. It can be noted that the attainder of these titles in 1614—six years after Earl of Tyrconnell’s death in Rome in 1608—can hardly have been considered legitimate, at least in continental Catholic countries of the day. Even within the context of English and colonial Irish rule, the attainder came about six years after Rory, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell, had already died. As accused, for him to have been properly tried, he should have been tried by his peers in the Peerage of Ireland, under the presiding authority of the Lord High Steward of Ireland. However, he was already dead, unable to stand in his own defence, and his title already inherited by his son Hugh “Albert” O'Donnell; therefore in order to attaint the title, the trial would have to have been of Hugh “Albert”, who had in fact committed no crime. Under English legal theory the title had potentially lapsed as soon as he embarked on the ship without permission to leave Ireland, and when it lapsed it could not then pass to his descendants without some special waiver.
The attainder was therefore considered by his supporters as a travesty of justice and was considered null and void by many on the Continent. The succession of the Earl of Tyrconnell's son, Hugh “Albert” O'Donnell, as 2nd Earl of Tyrconnell (1st creation) was therefore recognized as valid abroad, not least in the Spanish realm."78.18.216.200 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section is unsourced. If you have a reliable source then please feel free to rewrite the entire thing removing and rewording what needs be. Mabuska (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section comes across as sour grapes, given the king's proclamation. If you want to overthrow a state by a war then of course it will take everything away from you and your heirs.78.17.46.148 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The attainders section

message: The Flight of the Wild Geese is a notable Irish history topic. It seems helpful to notify users of the difference, as is done on the other page. Would a different hatnote template be appropriate for this objective? RexSueciae (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit I have often confused the two. When I saw "Flight of the Earls" I would think, "was that the one with Patrick Sarsfield?" I think the hatnote is a useful addition.  Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguish from "Flight of the Wild Geese" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flight of the Earls. 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/20100505080507/http://www.flightoftheearls.ie/ to http://www.flightoftheearls.ie/
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) 09:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flight of the Earls. 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/20080725012245/http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-22643 to http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-22643
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317071530/http://www.flightoftheearls.ie/history.html to http://www.flightoftheearls.ie/history.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) 00:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the following passage from the "Journey" section: The act was significant as the date of the exile from Rathmullan was the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. First, the tag has been in place for 16 moths with no clarification. Second, the dates simply do not work, especially not in context of the sections. The preceding sentence says, "They finally reached the Continent on 4 October 1607," but the Feast of the Cross (aka the 'Exaltation') happens on 14 September. At best the sentence needs to be placed earlier to keep some semblance of chronology. Even assuming they left Ireland on 14 September, it took twenty days to get from the Emerald Isle to Spain? That seems... excessive even considering the transportation technology available. If you have an WP:RS for the dates, please put the sentence back, in chronological order, with that ref tag. Last1in (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates & The Feast of the Cross 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion