Talk:Province of Maryland

message: The article presently lists Maryland as 6 million acres, but every source I've checked cites a high figure.  Alan Taylor, American Colonies, p.136 states that the land grant was "about twelve million acres."  Present-day Maryland is about 6,700,000 acres, but it is smaller than the original Maryland colony because it lacks the territory granted to the District of Columbia as well as disputed territory that eventually became part of Pennsylvania.  I will edit the article to reflect this ambiguity.  Drfryer 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of Maryland

message: My maternal family from Bristol became Anglican Irish baronets under King Charles I of Ireland for service in Ulster, although my branch was from a younger son and did not ever get the baronetcy.  The essential issue is that they obtained a new identity, culturally attached to the Irish issues and the British ones were vacated from their lives as a result.
Lords Baltimore would undoubtedly be conjoined with Irish issues as opposed to British issues if they were a Duke of Albany for instance, except that the Albanys had also been Earl of Ulster and that made them responsible for maintaining an Irish presence as well.  When I brought up the Plantagenet Angevins, it was to remark on the point of government interests and political identification--regardless of primary residence or birthplace.
If you cannot understand an earlier era of Ireland, then perhaps George W. Bush being born in New Haven and attending Yale University in Connecticut but becoming Texas governor and then campaigning for presidency based upon his state of residence and especially Texas oil interests must delineate the situation about the Calverts compared to the Bushes (Southern Baptist support, instead of Yankee secularism etc).  If you still do not understand, then God help you.  Hasbro 17:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Calverts did not reside in Ireland.  George W. Bush grew up in Texas.  George H. W. Bush might be a closer example of what you want, but he lived in Texas for far longer than George Calvert lived in Ireland (and I don't see any evidence that Cecil Calvert ever lived in Ireland at all). The Calverts were English by any reasonable measure. john k 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: er, most Irish lords that I am familiar with were not Catholic.  And, again, George Calvert didn't live in Ireland, except, apparently, for a two year stretch in 1625-1627.  Cecil Calvert didn't live in Ireland at all.  The fact that they were Catholic is a total red harring.  Yes, they had lands in County Longford, but so what?  Lord Palmerston is generally called the most English of British politicians in the 19th century.  But he too was an Irish peer.  I have never, even once, seen Palmerston described as Irish.  he was born in London and died in London, and spent most of his life in London.  How such people are to be described as Irish is beyond me. john k 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Second Baron Baltimore did spend his whole life in England.  The Baltimores are not comparable to the Catholic Old English nobility that dated back to Norman times. john k 20:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have to possess Irish ancestry to be Irish? 

message: The fact that George Calvert was made a peer of Ireland most certainly does not indicate that his family was Irish.  Being a member of the Peerage of Ireland certainly does not make one Irish, and, in fact, a fairly high percentage of such peers never went to Ireland at all, and some even had no connection to Ireland.  I would think that one should look at the specific cases:
*George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore (1580-1632) was, according to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, born in 1580 in Yorkshire, of a longstanding Yorkshire gentry family.  He studied at Oxford, and then studied law at Lincoln's Inn.  He travelled briefly to the continent in 1601-1603, and then returned to England.  He married in London in 1604.  He seems to have in this time been a figure at the court of James I.  He was appointed to some Irish positions, but does not seem to have gone to England.  He served in parliament for Bossiney (in Cornwall, I think?) in 1609.  He became a clerk of the privy council in 1610.  He travelled to the continent in 1610-1611.  He seems to ahve received another Irish sinecure in 1611, but still no indication he went to Ireland.  He apparently briefly travelled to Ireland in 1613.  He went to the Palatinate in 1615.  He was knighted in 1617, and in 1619 became a Privy Councillor.  He was elected to parliament for Yorkshire in 1620.  He got some land in Newfounaldn in 1620, and in Ireland in 1622, but again, no indication that he went to Ireland.  He was MP for Oxford University in 1624.  He resigned as Secretary of State in 1624, and converted to Catholicism at the same time.  He was at that time created Baron Baltimore.  He moved the family to Ireland shortly thereafter, in 1625.  He married for a second time in Ireland, but returned occasionally in London, in particular during his lobbying of Charles for his new colony, and also travelled a number of times to America.  He died in London, and was buried there.
*His son, Cecil Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore (1605-1675), was born in Kent.  He metriculated at Oxford in 1621.  He converted to Catholicism in 1623, after a journey to Rome.  He married in 1628 a daughter of Lord Arundell of Wardour, a Catholic peer.  There is no implication in his (rather brief) ODNB article that he lived in Ireland at all.  He died in London
From these biographies, it does not seem appropriate to me to call either of these men Irish.  Both were born and raised in England, attended university in England, and seemingly spent most of their lives in England.  That they had Irish titles and owned land in Ireland seems irrelevant.  That they were Catholic was entirely unrelated to whether they were Irish - they were pretty clearly English Catholics, and George Calvert's family, the ODNB indicates, had in fact been recusants in Yorkshire in the 16th century.  I don't see how one can justify referring to the Calverts as Irish.  john k 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did not joining the Irish Parliament and recusing themselves of Protestantism essentially mean they embraced the insurgent Irish culture, or at least be aligned with mutual causes?  After all, it was little different from Yorkist alliances in Ireland against Henry Tudor, except that these men actually held Irish titles.  Hasbro 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no, it does not mean that at all.  Calvert did not "join the Irish Parliament."  He was granted a peerage that gave him the right to sit in the Irish House of Lords, something which it does not appear he actually ever did.  The conversion to Catholicism had no relationship whatsoever to the fact that they had lands in Ireland.  The two were independent.  It's possible that Calvert's Catholicism made him more sympathetic to his tenants than a Protestant landlord would have been, but who knows?  His son would appear to have been an absentee landlord for his entire life.  How can a man who never lived in Ireland be "Irish"?  Would you also call Lord Palmerston an Irishman?  There are certainly Irish peers who one could consider Irish - Wellington, or Castlereagh, or the Dukes of Abercorn are good examples.  I don't see how one can possibly consider Baltimore to be so on the basis of his apparent two year stint in his Irish lands.  john k 19:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So, you are basically stating that the whole issue is filled with "false friend" associations that could lead to one interpretation among a few...one interpretation that splits hairs instead of broad brushes the subject?  I'm comfortable seeing it broadly, not pedantically.  The Calverts did not represent general British culture in any way, nor did they support the emerging standards of their day.  So then, where does that leave them?  It IMHO, indicates their affiliation with Irish Catholic circumstances and/or British minorities.  One would have seen Lords Baltimore support British rule in Ireland, but condemn Cromwellians and not support Orangism either.  That's the difference and one has to look to pre-Jacobite/Williamite circumstances than reinterpret the data from a modern perspective.  My essential viewpoint is presented from a contemporary standpoint.  The mere fact that Calverts invested much more heavily in America than Ireland is besides the point; palatine powers over their colonies were inextricably wired to their Irish lordship and not the position George held as an English Secretary before his resignation and disowning England for elsewhere.  This topic appears to be sucking into a Black Hole.  Hasbro 19:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is a rejection of Occam's razor to state that despite the originating source of the Recusancy, one would see the cultural alignments not fitting.  Lords Baltimore were not Dukes of Norfolk, which is apparently how you are trying to paint the Calverts.  Hasbro 20:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand that they had the same deprived segment of the old aristocracy, the old order of things whether in England or Ireland.  On the other hand, circumstances are such that the Calverts had their investments in Ireland and not as the Howards in England.  They were of the same social position relative to their religious affiliation, but they had two largely separate fields of dominion.  As for absentee landlordism, the Howards visited Norfolk...how often?  Regardless, they were primarily East Anglian lords by affiliation.  Calverts were not affiliated with the English House of Lords; Howards were unaffiliated with the Irish House of Lords.  They were not lords in the same country, even if they shared ancestral origins with the same social movement that transcended national borders and augmented by a shared monarch.  Hasbro 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Calverts were Catholic, but they were not Irish 

message: In 1650, the population was 4500. The population in 1700 was 25,000, and 130,000 by 1750. http://www.socyberty.com/History/The-Maryland-Colony.8034  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Through Time 

message: Cresap's War is completely missing from this article. Toddst1 (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cresap's War]] 

message: Since Maryland is in the South, it has a very warm climate. The winters are very mild. The summers were very hot and humid, therefore spreading disease. The warm weather was wonderful to grow crops.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.55.168 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: This article is full of minor typos, including word drops, grammatical errors and laughably erroneous dates. Someone with more expertise on this subject than I can claim should do a thorough edit. Ftjrwrites (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy  

message: copying the whole topic into the lede is not an improvement 00:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:MOS and lede 

message: According to article on the Maryland flag, this is the flag associated with the Province of Maryland:
Whereas the flag presented for this article is the 1707−1776 flag for British America:
I would propose correcting the flag displayed in this article or showing both flags on the article page.  There doesn't seem to be any official flag for Maryland prior to 1904 though.
Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong flag 

message: In 1711, the Colony of Maryland created an Indian Reservation for the Indian River Indians (Nanticoke) that lasted until 1743. Where is it mentioned in the article? Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Askekesky? 

message: This section relied far to heavily on the outdated The American Heritage Book of Indians. It also contained numerous errors. For example, the claim that there were 300 Susquehannock in the Wyoming Valley in 1878 has absolutely no factual basis. Nor were the Susquehannock called the Conestoga in the 17th century. This exonym was applied to the group of Seneca and Susquehannock who established a village on the Conestoga River , and who were later massacred by the Paxton Boys. The section has been rewritten and reliable sources have been cited. The article as a whole needs more information about the Province of Maryland's relationship with Indigenous groups particularly the Piscataway. Griffin's Sword (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations with the Susquehannock