Talk:Richard Bingham (soldier)

message: To User:Deb and User:Dismas - sorry for overriding your super-quick edits, but the article had to be finished with a prepared cut-and-paste, and I couldn't figure out a way to retain your contributions without losing my work. I will paste in your edits tomorrow (eyeballs need a rest tonight), if you haven't already done it yourselves. Thanks.--shtove 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: :Is this article supposed to be serious? The English invade Connacht and claim the natives are in "rebellion" against their authority when the natives resist them - and Wikipedia unquestioningly takes the English interpretation of this entire development. The English state's servants such as Bingham were the rebels in Connacht, rebelling against the established Gaelic- and Norman-Irish authorities. This is a lazy, partisan article (as it currently stands). 86.42.16.189 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strictly speaking the Gaelic clan cheifs & Norman Lords held their lands from the English King/Queen as "Lord of Ireland" -- having been granted the lands by an English King (in the case the Normans like the Burkes) or made submission (in the case of the Gaelic chiefs) to Henry II of England (as Lord of Ireland). As Elizabeth I had inherited the English throne, she was also the iheritor of the "Lordship of Ireland" which by then had become the Kingdom of Ireland. So from a legel viewpoint in resisting the Queen's servents - made them "Rebels". However, an interesting argument is: did the Kings of England, as Lords of Ireland, have the legel authority to change the manner in which Ireland was governed -- i.e. by dividing Ireland in counties, appointing sherrifs and Presidents (Bingham's title was President of Connacht, not "Govorner")etc?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Strictly speaking" - you mean under English law, of course. That's a rather germane fact which undermines everything else. The Gaelic chiefs who lived under their own legal system and who submitted to an English king under surrender and regrant did not do so with the intention of surrendering everything forever. That sort of thinking did not belong in that mentality. To imply it does is imposing an English nation-state worldview upon the fissiparous Gaelic world where alliances were short-term, with short-term, local aims. It is a blatant nonsense of English colonial propaganda to claim because one person surrendered in 1540 then the English crown owned that land, and had a right to the loyalty of all descendants, forever. Only in an English mentality is that most arrant and obvious of sillinesses unquestioned and indeed propagated. This article should not be accepting it, never mind propagating it. The English were the rebels in Ireland, overthrowing the long-established Irish civilisation, order, legal system and authorities. 46.7.57.65 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "rebellion" in Connacht?

message: Feel free to discuss why you think the unsourced content I removed should remain on the page. If you want to re-add the information with sources, I'll withdraw my opposition. Regards, Tubesleveret15 (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the content I reverted is covered (and sourced) further below in the article, in case you might have simply missed it.Tubesleveret15 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I did miss it. I've added in the link to the battle article. Cheers. Shtove (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced content