IRA to lay down arms

[C0ckney]

our man, thanks for that

what i was getting at was did they have a ruler who ruled and was recognised as the legitimate (by the pope and other rulers in the international system, such as it was) ruler of all of ireland? like the kings of england and scotland at time.

[our_man]

what i was getting at was did they have a ruler who ruled and was recognised as the legitimate (by the pope and other rulers in the international system, such as it was) ruler of all of ireland? like the kings of england and scotland at time.

In the time of Boru, I'm not too sure. Due to geographic isolation Ireland didn't concern itself with outsiders too much, nor with the exception of the viking raids did they meddle in Irish affairs. The only reference I know of is when Maelsechlainn requested help from the Frankish emperor to defeat the Vikings. Ireland probably had insufficient contact with the outside world for any Irish noble to be recognized as head of state by a foreign power. After the expulsion of the Vikings by Boru, there was no major contact with the outside world AFAIK until the Norman invasion of 1167.

The first ruler of Ireland that was recognized internationally (or by the Pope at least) was actually Henry II. Adrian IV, the only English Pope, gave Ireland (or Hibernia) to Henry II in what one must feel was a spot of nepotism. This took place in 1155, before the Norman invasion, when there was no English presence in the country, so the claim was ludicrous; the Popes upheld it for four more centuries.

In 1570 the Archbishop of Cashel offered Philip II dominion over Ireland, but again, this is something I don't know a lot about.

During the rebellion of Hugh O'Neill and Hugh O'Donnell, there was frequent consultation with Spain, although I do not know if the Spanish king had agreed to recognize either of them as ruler of Ireland if the Battle of Kinsale had had a more positive outcome.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi Theben,

Yep, that might be a problem on the Republican side, but at the moment I'm waiting for the Unionist side to match the IRA, but with Ian Paisley in charge, who knows how long it will take?
As a fire-brand Preacher he might be fine, but in Irish politics I think his time is over.

I wish he'd step down and allow the people to get on with the reality, he seems to have really lost it a bit now, before, us lot in the UK merely thought him a bit nutty.

Toby

[lord of the mark]

so whatever happened to David Trimble - he seemed like a pretty sane guy?

[C0ckney]

he quit after the ulster unionists becamse the smaller unionist party (behind the DUP).

edit: typing fs.

[Toby Rowe]

Yep,

A real shame about David Trimble, a sensible voice who offered and gave a lot to end this problem, which (MOST) of us in the UK want no part off, as we simply don't connect with the idea that a little bit of Ireland is somehow British- It isn't to us.

I began to read the posts since my last-but-one post and quickly saw that there are a few severe Unionists on the board: How do I know without reading them all?

Because severe Unionists only ever talk of the past, never the future, like Paisley, Unlike Trimble.

Toby

[Dr Strangelove]

No one ever answered my question. We've heard how many people died due to IRA violence. How many civilians were killed by British troops and unionist paramilitary organizations throughout "the Troubles"?

[Seeker]

Go back to the first pages mein Doktor, you will see estimates from several media groups, all of which are problematic due to the unclearness of what counts as the beginning of 'the troubles'. CBC has said 2000.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
No one ever answered my question. We've heard how many people died due to IRA violence. How many civilians were killed by British troops and unionist paramilitary organizations throughout "the Troubles"?

Check the Cain Project website address I posted.

[Toby Rowe]

Dr Strangelove,

Putting the two together is an insult to the British- The UDA etc are not the army, just terrorists, and the Army were only there as they were ordered to be so- to protect Catholics at the begining.

Toby

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Dr Strangelove,

Putting the two together is an insult to the British- The UDA etc are not the army, just terrorists, and the Army were only there as they were ordered to be so- to protect Catholics at the begining.

Toby

There were numerous incidents where the British Army was about as protective of Irish civilians as the Uzbeck Army was of Uzbeck civilians recently. I remember those days quite vividly, they were as well broadcast as was the concurrent war in Vietnam.

[Toby Rowe]

The Army went to Northern Ireland to protect Catholics from Protestants, by order of the Government, end of story.

Saying "Irish" only shows your ignorance of it as it was in Northern Ireland only, where Unionists nutters decided they suddenly had a problem with the people, whatever the 300-400-500 year problem- ok, since the Dutch bloke took the British Crown in 16...whatever.

The Soldiers didn't care, we didn't care, the Conservative government seemed to. Can we all go home now please sir?

Uzbeck- Ireland, **** off and don't take the piss like that ever again. "Irish Civilians" , from where and what religion do these people have Dr Strangelove?

In Northern Ireland you belong to one of two religions, one of them wants to remain British, we simply want them to unify. Is two religions , both Christian, too hard to deal with? now in the real UK we have 7 of 8 bombers in London being "British"

The American people have now stopped funding London bombs by the IRA and Ireland might be really united, can we ALL now concentrate on the real threat the entire Western world faces? I really hate those nutters.

Toby