Talk:Lordship of Ireland

message: Added surrender & regrant. Removed Henry viii's excommunication (he wasn't / relationship veered from obedience to strong dislike). Henry burnt protestants at the stake; hated Luther and the Papacy.Red Hurley 15:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: further cleanup

message: I propose we merge Norman Ireland + Anglo and Gaelic Ireland 1367–1536 into this article. All three articles cover the exact same period and thus there's a lot of duplicated information. Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 02:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. On the logic that 1+1+1 > 3. Mergeing the three would make for a better overall article IMHO. Norman Ireland could in time be spun out again into its own article. I don't get what the "Anglo-Gaelic Ireland" article is about. There is another article, Gaelic Ireland, that I think deserves to be left separate. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Merge, the first one certainly. It might be useful to have an overview article for this Gaelic kingdoms which never became part of the Lordship. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The dates given on the Gaelic Ireland article extend as far as the Battle of Kinsale (past the LOI even into the KOI). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So we're agreed then? Merging Norman Ireland + Lordship of Ireland shouldn't be hard, but I'm not sure what to do with the other one. ~Asarlaí 07:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge it with Gaelic Ireland is my 2¢? It hasn't been substantially changed since its first edits in 2005. I think it's purpose has since been overtaken by the Gaelic Ireland article, particularly the secton post-the Norman invasion. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Gaelic Ireland + Anglo and Gaelic Ireland 1367–1536 have been merged. ~Asarlaí 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lordship of Ireland, the official English title which the English called their claimed lands in Ireland by, sounds like late medieval Ireland - all of it - has just been thrown into a nice and neat English framework. That is ahistorical by any standards, even in the Pale, to say nothing of Tir Chónaill, Conamara or the vast majority of Ireland which was not under English rule. For an inclusive title, Late Medieval Ireland would be better. 86.44.17.226 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Please see Talk:History of Ireland where I have put forward an alternative proposal that "Norman Ireland" be moved to "History of Ireland 1169-1536".  Scolaire (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I have opened a discussion on a reorganisation of the series of articles dealing with Irish history at Talk:History of Ireland#RFC: Irish history series. --RA (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Irish history series 

message: Is Lord of Ireland a peerage title or feudal title ?
Siyac 11:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I am removing the following sentence from the lead, as every part of it is inaccurate or plain wrong:
*It was governed from the Pale by the Parliament of Ireland and was a fief of the Angevin Empire, with the Lord of Ireland coming from the House of Plantagenet.
It was never governed by the parliament, it was governed by the Lord Lieutenant and his deputy. The Pale only existed for part of its life, the House of Plantagenet for only a short part and the Angevin Empire for only a very short part. I can't say whether it was explicitly a fief of the Angevin Empire, but I don't think it was.  Scolaire (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence in lead 

message: The first sentence underwent a couple of changes recently. It currently says "The Lordship of Ireland...refers to Ireland under the rule of the king of England". I don't think that is correct. In any book I've looked at, Ireland is referred to simply as Ireland. "The Lordship of Ireland", strictly speaking, was only a title granted by Henry II to his son John, and retained by his successors. This is the sense in which it is used in most history books. In the wider sense, it refers to the English claim to lordship over Ireland, or to English institutions in Ireland. These varied widely over the course of 400 years between extensive and purely theoretical outside the Pale. The Kingdom of Ireland was different because it was entirely under English rule, and subject to the king, for the whole of its history. But the important point is that even contemporary English documents, or 19th century imperialist histories, don't use "The Lordship of Ireland" to refer to Ireland. A better phrasing is needed for the opening sentence.  Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: In many websites and Wikipedia articles, they have said that the Norse in Ireland had become assimilated with the Irish, both linguistically and culturally.  They certainly contributed to Irish culture and civilizationn, fouding the first urban institutions in Ireland but was Old Norse still spoken after 1171? Abrawak (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Norse may still have been spoken in urban centres, such as Dublin and Waterford - but it died away in the century or so there after. English was the official language of the Lordship. Irish was spoken by the vast majority. French (or Old Norman) was the native language of the Norman invaders. The tendency of the settlers to become more Irish than the Irish themselves (and speak Irish) necessitated the passing of the Statutes of Kilkenny, which required the subjects of the king to speak English (not Irish). --Tóraí (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:Old Norse and other non-irish languages 

message: I feel compelled to point out that the present image in the article is not accurate. It implies that that the Lordship did not claim all Ireland, only certain areas. In fact it covered the entire island. As Katharine Simms has stated "just before and after AD 1300 marks the fullest geographical extent of English authority... In those years there was not a single Irish territory whose chief was not legally subject either to King Edward I, or to an Anglo-Irish earl or baron." (Katharine Simms, “Relations with the Irish”, pp. 66-86, in Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-Century Ireland: The Dublin Parliament of 1297, edited by James Lydon, Dublin, 1997). Perhaps it would be more accurate if the image noted that this was the maxim extent of Norman settlement? Though even there it is not accurate, implying settlement where there was none (north-western County Mayo, east and south-central Connacht, County Clare, the midlands, etc). Fergananim (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably it merely indicates those territories that recognised the Lordship as its feudal superior, whereas the non pink areas didn't (whatever the Lordship's claim over the whole island was). I doubt that it even indicates areas over which the Lordship exercised effective control. DeCausa (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Agree with Fergananim. If the maps shows the extent of the effective control at some time then it needs a label that says that - along with a date and a source. --Tóraí (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lordship of Ireland image

message: I've put a note at Template talk:Infobox former country#Problem when no flag about the problem with the blank flags in the infobox for previous states. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried a text fix for now. Murry1975 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warring over infobox