It seems that every culture has the same terrible troubles..... ones that can be used in novels..............
Lack of role models drive young people to join gangs
The study found gangs often provided many young people with a sense of identity
Date: 14 August 2008
By Michael Howie
Home affairs correspondent
ONE in three young people in Scotland does not have a parent it regards as a role model, according to a new report.
The Culture of Youth Communities report by the Prince's Trust reveals that 30 per cent surveyed lack a parental role model, and suggests this is driving them to join gangs.
Sixty-two per cent of young people in Scotland claim that finding a sense of identity is a key reason for joining a gang, where more than one in five looks for role models in gangs.
Geraldine Gammell, the Scotland director of the trust, warned the breakdown of traditional communities was pushing the country's young people into forming their own alternative communities.
She said: "All the threads that hold a community together – a common identity, role models, a sense of safety – were given by young people as motivations to join gangs. Our research suggests that young people are creating their own 'youth communities' and gangs in search of the influences that could once have been found in traditional communities."
The report further revealed young people are more than twice as likely to turn to a peer than a parent if they have a problem. Of those questioned, 61 per cent said they would go to a peer, while only 30 per cent would approach a parent.
The report also puts into context alarm over knife crime and youth crime. Only 9 per cent of young people have spent time as part of a gang, 3 per cent "regularly" take drugs, and 2 per cent carry a knife.
Recent research has found there to be about 300 territorial gangs in Scotland.
Police are focusing attention on diverting young people from gang culture. Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, head of the Violence Reduction Unit, agreed with the report's main findings.
"Young men from deprived backgrounds who have poor parental relationships can often find the support they don't find within their families among a group of similar young men – there is a sense of understanding through their shared experience," he said.
"The gang therefore becomes almost like an extended family.
"When you do not experience success in school or home and lack the aspiration to do so, the reputation as a fighter or gang member may be all you have."
The YouGov poll surveyed 1,754 aged between 14 and 25 across the UK in July.
PROFILE
SAMANTHA Thomson had a difficult upbringing which led her into drug abuse and unemployment.
"Lacking a strong role model in my life and being involved in a bad relationship, I started smoking cannabis and was suffering from very low self-esteem," said the 19-year-old from Barrowfield, Glasgow.
"This lack of confidence and motivation I feel also prevented me from engaging with my local community and from seeking a job."
Visited a local careers office, she learnt about the Prince's Trust's 12-week programme, designed to give young people the opportunity to work in a team on a community project.
While completing the programme, she worked on a community project in Parkhead and participated in various fundraising initiatives.
She is now a part-time youth worker with the YMCA, working with 12- to 18-year-olds.
Ms Thomson says the trust provided her with a mentor, "someone who made me feel good about myself and built up my confidence".
She adds: "Through this I am now working in a job I love, and able to use the experience I have gained to mentor other young people."
'There are lots of contradictions in contemporary parenting'
Professor Lynn Jamieson
ARE fathers role models? It is not clear what a "role model" means to young people.
Even if children are happy with their parents as parents, that may not mean they want to be like them.
The majority of children have two active parents and almost three-quarters live with both parents. Divorce or separation of parents is certainly much more common than in the 1950s or 1960s, but the most likely negative impact of fathers leaving the family home is a loss of income and relative poverty.
Estimates vary concerning how many children have no real relationship with their father, but it may be no more than 10 per cent.
Nevertheless, children and young people who know of a living father, but have no contact, or only unhappy contact, with him often experience "ambiguous loss", unresolved grief and a sense that things should be otherwise.
Research also shows that even when children live with a mother and father, fathers are often rather more shadowy figures than mothers, who are more likely to know their children's friends, and with whom children are more likely to discuss problems.
There are lots of contradictions in contemporary parenting that affect the experiences of children and young people. Most parents have a sense of time pressure.
Mothers try to juggle caring for children with paid work and fathers of young children have the longest working hours despite the fact that more men than ever would like to be more involved fathers.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Fascinating Story
Even the birds are getting aggressive.............
You squawking to me? Bird terror turns tourists' stroll into emergency escape
Great skuas show little fear of humans while protecting their young, or of other birds when hungry
« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryADVERTISEMENT Published Date: 13 August 2008
By JOHN ROSS
PICKPOCKETS in Turkey, too much sun in Spain or a hurricane off the coast of Florida are all holiday hazards that can be anticipated on an exotic break.
However, one couple were astonished to find their gentle stroll on a holiday to Orkney fraught with danger when they were dived-bombed by angry seabirds and had to be airlifted to safety by the coastguard.
The pair, from London, got lost while walking on the island of Hoy on Monday and then found themselves targeted by great skuas after stumbling on their nests.
Most residents of the Northern Isles know to stay well away from the great skuas, or "bonxies" as they are known, which are renowned for their swooping assaults on humans who invade their territory during the breeding season.
A direct "hit" is extremely uncommon, but the aerial bombardment, designed as a scare tactic, can be frightening and intimidating for the victims.
Chris Booth, a naturalist who carries out counts of the birds on Hoy, has taken to wearing a crash helmet after suffering cuts to his head.
"They are just defending their nests. If you walk into their territory they will attack you but they don't attack for any other reason.
"These people were wandering around a bit aimlessly and went into a skua territory and the birds were telling them to get out of the way."
At this time of year nesting is almost over with just a few large chicks left to fledge.
Mr Booth has counted 44 great skua nests at Stourdale, near the Old Man of Hoy, and expects about 14 pairs to rear young.
His advice to those who find themselves in a nesting area is to raise a stick above their heads: "If you raise your profile the birds will come down to the highest point. If you lift a stick they will tend to touch the stick rather than you."
Other birds known to dive-bomb are Arctic skuas, Arctic terns, tawny owls, hen harriers and some species of gull.
Doug Gilbert, an ecologist with RSPB Scotland, also has experience of being hit by bonxies and Arctic skuas.
"I've been dive-bombed in Shetland and elsewhere, it's an occupational hazard. They are much more aggressive in mid-egg stage and very young chick stage. You could be 100-150 yards away and be dive-bombed.
"They swat the back of your head with their feet or use their wing tips to belt you.
"I've felt the 'sting' from a great skua's feet; it's like getting a whack on the head with a ruler. If you're not expecting it it can freak you out.
"Local people will know all about bonxies but most people in Britain will never have seen them. They are impressive birds and to suddenly find you're being attacked by them can be a bit of a surprise."
Eric Meek, an RSPB warden on Orkney, said in 28 years on the island he has been hit only twice by a great skua: "If a bonxie does hit you, you know you've been hit. But it's very rare occurrence.
"They will threaten you and come whizzing past your ears. But as soon as you walk out of their territory they will leave you alone."
FACT BOX
• Sometimes called flying thugs or the bovver boys of seabirds, great skuas are aggressive pirates that terrorise other birds to steal a free meal.
• Bonxies, as they are known in Orkney and Shetland, are about 50-58cm in length with a 125-140cm wingspan.
• They deliberately harass birds as large as gannets to give up the food they have caught so they can eat it themselves.
• They also readily kill and eat smaller birds such as puffins and it has been known for a bonxie to swoop on a flock of ducks and pick off the young one by one.
• Great skuas migrate to the northernmost isles of the UK from their wintering grounds off the coasts of Spain and Africa.
You squawking to me? Bird terror turns tourists' stroll into emergency escape
Great skuas show little fear of humans while protecting their young, or of other birds when hungry
« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryADVERTISEMENT Published Date: 13 August 2008
By JOHN ROSS
PICKPOCKETS in Turkey, too much sun in Spain or a hurricane off the coast of Florida are all holiday hazards that can be anticipated on an exotic break.
However, one couple were astonished to find their gentle stroll on a holiday to Orkney fraught with danger when they were dived-bombed by angry seabirds and had to be airlifted to safety by the coastguard.
The pair, from London, got lost while walking on the island of Hoy on Monday and then found themselves targeted by great skuas after stumbling on their nests.
Most residents of the Northern Isles know to stay well away from the great skuas, or "bonxies" as they are known, which are renowned for their swooping assaults on humans who invade their territory during the breeding season.
A direct "hit" is extremely uncommon, but the aerial bombardment, designed as a scare tactic, can be frightening and intimidating for the victims.
Chris Booth, a naturalist who carries out counts of the birds on Hoy, has taken to wearing a crash helmet after suffering cuts to his head.
"They are just defending their nests. If you walk into their territory they will attack you but they don't attack for any other reason.
"These people were wandering around a bit aimlessly and went into a skua territory and the birds were telling them to get out of the way."
At this time of year nesting is almost over with just a few large chicks left to fledge.
Mr Booth has counted 44 great skua nests at Stourdale, near the Old Man of Hoy, and expects about 14 pairs to rear young.
His advice to those who find themselves in a nesting area is to raise a stick above their heads: "If you raise your profile the birds will come down to the highest point. If you lift a stick they will tend to touch the stick rather than you."
Other birds known to dive-bomb are Arctic skuas, Arctic terns, tawny owls, hen harriers and some species of gull.
Doug Gilbert, an ecologist with RSPB Scotland, also has experience of being hit by bonxies and Arctic skuas.
"I've been dive-bombed in Shetland and elsewhere, it's an occupational hazard. They are much more aggressive in mid-egg stage and very young chick stage. You could be 100-150 yards away and be dive-bombed.
"They swat the back of your head with their feet or use their wing tips to belt you.
"I've felt the 'sting' from a great skua's feet; it's like getting a whack on the head with a ruler. If you're not expecting it it can freak you out.
"Local people will know all about bonxies but most people in Britain will never have seen them. They are impressive birds and to suddenly find you're being attacked by them can be a bit of a surprise."
Eric Meek, an RSPB warden on Orkney, said in 28 years on the island he has been hit only twice by a great skua: "If a bonxie does hit you, you know you've been hit. But it's very rare occurrence.
"They will threaten you and come whizzing past your ears. But as soon as you walk out of their territory they will leave you alone."
FACT BOX
• Sometimes called flying thugs or the bovver boys of seabirds, great skuas are aggressive pirates that terrorise other birds to steal a free meal.
• Bonxies, as they are known in Orkney and Shetland, are about 50-58cm in length with a 125-140cm wingspan.
• They deliberately harass birds as large as gannets to give up the food they have caught so they can eat it themselves.
• They also readily kill and eat smaller birds such as puffins and it has been known for a bonxie to swoop on a flock of ducks and pick off the young one by one.
• Great skuas migrate to the northernmost isles of the UK from their wintering grounds off the coasts of Spain and Africa.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Historical Snippets
This came from Scottish Snippets newsletter. Gotta' keep my historical timelines in order. Publisher wants another Clan Gunn book--it's still selling well.
Anniversaries of Scottish Historical Events
August 10 1460 - King James III crowned at Kelso Abbey.
August 11 1560 - Latin Mass prohibited in Scotland by Parliament as
Protestant faith gained the ascendancy.
August 12 1922 - Popular character actor Fulton McKay was born in Paisley.
August 13 1957 - Scotland's first nuclear power station at Dounreay went
"critical" ushering in the generation of power from atomic reactions.
August 14 1337 - King Robert III born at Scone.
August 14 1390 - King Robert III crowned at the Augustinian abbey of Scone.
August 15 1771 - Novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott born.
August 15 1840 - Foundation stone for the Monument to Sir Walter Scott laid
in Princes Street Gardens.
August 16 1766 - Birth of Carolina Oliphant (Lady Nairne), poet and author
of many Jacobite songs, including "Charlie is my Darling". Her songs are
second only in popularity to Burns.
August 17 1822 - Visit of George IV to Edinburgh began, orchestrated by Sir
Walter Scott.
August 17 1947 - First Edinburgh International Festival opened.
August 18 1966 - Tay Road Bridge opened.
August 19 1745 - Charles Edward Stuart, raises his standard at Glenfinnan,
at the start of the '45 uprising.
August 20 1897 - Ronald Ross, the first Scot to win a Nobel prize (in 1902)
dissected a mosquito and established the link with malaria.
August 21 1689 - Battle of Dunkeld when the newly formed Cameronians
defended the town against 3,000 Highlanders.
August 22 1282 - Devorgilla, Countess of Galloway founded Balliol College,
Oxford. She was mother of John Balliol (who acceded to the Scottish throne
in 1292).
August 23 1305 - William Wallace executed.
Anniversaries of Scottish Historical Events
August 10 1460 - King James III crowned at Kelso Abbey.
August 11 1560 - Latin Mass prohibited in Scotland by Parliament as
Protestant faith gained the ascendancy.
August 12 1922 - Popular character actor Fulton McKay was born in Paisley.
August 13 1957 - Scotland's first nuclear power station at Dounreay went
"critical" ushering in the generation of power from atomic reactions.
August 14 1337 - King Robert III born at Scone.
August 14 1390 - King Robert III crowned at the Augustinian abbey of Scone.
August 15 1771 - Novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott born.
August 15 1840 - Foundation stone for the Monument to Sir Walter Scott laid
in Princes Street Gardens.
August 16 1766 - Birth of Carolina Oliphant (Lady Nairne), poet and author
of many Jacobite songs, including "Charlie is my Darling". Her songs are
second only in popularity to Burns.
August 17 1822 - Visit of George IV to Edinburgh began, orchestrated by Sir
Walter Scott.
August 17 1947 - First Edinburgh International Festival opened.
August 18 1966 - Tay Road Bridge opened.
August 19 1745 - Charles Edward Stuart, raises his standard at Glenfinnan,
at the start of the '45 uprising.
August 20 1897 - Ronald Ross, the first Scot to win a Nobel prize (in 1902)
dissected a mosquito and established the link with malaria.
August 21 1689 - Battle of Dunkeld when the newly formed Cameronians
defended the town against 3,000 Highlanders.
August 22 1282 - Devorgilla, Countess of Galloway founded Balliol College,
Oxford. She was mother of John Balliol (who acceded to the Scottish throne
in 1292).
August 23 1305 - William Wallace executed.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
More Irish history
I love Ireland and its many stories. Even my novel, LOST SON OF IRELAND, takes in some of the history. The book takes place in 852 Ireland, when the Norse wanted to reclaim Dublin from the Danes. I just dragged some characters through the times, just to see how they might act. It was a fun book to write.
This comes from IrishHistory.org
Essex sent to Ireland : His Failure There
Elizabeth, however, was not a ruler likely to allow a country the possession of which she knew, in the then condition of Continental affairs, to be of almost vital importance to the very existence of England, to slip thus easily from her grasp. She resolved to send across the Channel such a force as would not only, she felt sure, speedily crush the rebels, but would extend her authority over the whole island, and make her in reality ” Queen of Ireland.”
In her selection of a leader for the expedition she allowed herself to be swayed rather by feeling than by reason. Her choice fell on Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, a handsome man of thirty-two, having many superficial advantages, but whose success in military affairs had not, so far, been remarkable. He was the son of Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, whose attempt at a Plantation in Ulster had ended so unfortunately, and since Leicester’s death in 1588 he had been the Queen’s chief favourite.
The title of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, more honourable than that of Deputy, was now conferred on him. The army placed under Essex’s command was, with the exception of that which followed Richard II in 1394, the largest that had ever crossed from England to Ireland. It numbered 16,000 infantry and 1,300 cavalry, all well armed and equipped. If the troops already in the country be added, we may estimate that the Lord Lieutenant had at his command a force of at least 21,000 or 22,000 men.
Towards the middle of April 1599, Essex landed in Dublin and at once proceeded to ignore the instructions which he had received before leaving England. Rightly judging that if the leader of the rebellion were once crushed, the whole coalition against her would fall to pieces almost of itself, Elizabeth had ordered Essex to at once attack ” the Arch-traitor Tyrone.” In Dublin, however, the Lord Lieutenant met many persons, some of them high officials, who had either themselves been dispossessed by the rebels of great estates in Munster, or were related to those who had so lost them. These men, ” aiming rather at their private interests than the public good,” persuaded Essex to turn south.
He marched through the midland counties to Limerick and Waterford, then back through Wexford and Wicklow. A series of disasters marked his way. Near Maryborough his rearguard was shattered by Owney O’More at the head of 400 men. The pass where the encounter took place was afterwards known, from the many English helmet plumes that strewed the ground, as ” the Pass of the Plumes ” (t)eo,|\riA tiA Cteitroe).
In Co. Limerick the Burkes and the O’Connors inflicted defeats on the forces of the Lord Lieutenant and his allies.Still more disastrous on the morale of the army than these reverses was the almost continual skirmishing; a species of warfare to which the English soldiers were unaccustomed, and for which their heavy armour and equipments rendered them unfit. It was with a force ” weary, sick and incredibly diminished in numbers ” that the Lord Lieutenant returned to Dublin in June.
Elizabeth was both disappointed and enraged at the poor results achieved by the splendid army from which she had hoped so much, ohe brushed aside Essex’s attempts at explanation, and reproached him for his disobedience in a tone to which the haughty favourite had been httle accustomed from his hitherto indulgent Sovereign. She so far relented, however, as to send him, at his request, a reinforcement of 2,000 men. Yet, even after the arrival of these additional troops, Essex hngered in Dublin, allowing his forces to waste away by illness and desertion. or two months there was virtually a pause in the military operations ; then, early in August (1599), Essex ordered Sir Conyers Clifford, who, since his raids in the previous year, had remained mostly in and about Ballymote, to advance across the hills, called in English the Curlews (CoipufUAo), into Sligo, and, having raised the siege of Collooney Castle, where O’Connor Sligo was being hard pressed by the Irish, to proceed into Fermanagh.
Essex sent to Ireland : His Failure There
Elizabeth, however, was not a ruler likely to allow a country the possession of which she knew, in the then condition of Continental affairs, to be of almost vital importance to the very existence of England, to slip thus easily from her grasp. She resolved to send across the Channel such a force as would not only, she felt sure, speedily crush the rebels, but would extend her authority over the whole island, and make her in reality ” Queen of Ireland.”
In her selection of a leader for the expedition she allowed herself to be swayed rather by feeling than by reason. Her choice fell on Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, a handsome man of thirty-two, having many superficial advantages, but whose success in military affairs had not, so far, been remarkable. He was the son of Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, whose attempt at a Plantation in Ulster had ended so unfortunately, and since Leicester’s death in 1588 he had been the Queen’s chief favourite.
The title of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, more honourable than that of Deputy, was now conferred on him. The army placed under Essex’s command was, with the exception of that which followed Richard II in 1394, the largest that had ever crossed from England to Ireland. It numbered 16,000 infantry and 1,300 cavalry, all well armed and equipped. If the troops already in the country be added, we may estimate that the Lord Lieutenant had at his command a force of at least 21,000 or 22,000 men.
Towards the middle of April 1599, Essex landed in Dublin and at once proceeded to ignore the instructions which he had received before leaving England. Rightly judging that if the leader of the rebellion were once crushed, the whole coalition against her would fall to pieces almost of itself, Elizabeth had ordered Essex to at once attack ” the Arch-traitor Tyrone.” In Dublin, however, the Lord Lieutenant met many persons, some of them high officials, who had either themselves been dispossessed by the rebels of great estates in Munster, or were related to those who had so lost them. These men, ” aiming rather at their private interests than the public good,” persuaded Essex to turn south.
He marched through the midland counties to Limerick and Waterford, then back through Wexford and Wicklow. A series of disasters marked his way. Near Maryborough his rearguard was shattered by Owney O’More at the head of 400 men. The pass where the encounter took place was afterwards known, from the many English helmet plumes that strewed the ground, as ” the Pass of the Plumes ” (t)eo,|\riA tiA Cteitroe).
In Co. Limerick the Burkes and the O’Connors inflicted defeats on the forces of the Lord Lieutenant and his allies.Still more disastrous on the morale of the army than these reverses was the almost continual skirmishing; a species of warfare to which the English soldiers were unaccustomed, and for which their heavy armour and equipments rendered them unfit. It was with a force ” weary, sick and incredibly diminished in numbers ” that the Lord Lieutenant returned to Dublin in June.
Elizabeth was both disappointed and enraged at the poor results achieved by the splendid army from which she had hoped so much, ohe brushed aside Essex’s attempts at explanation, and reproached him for his disobedience in a tone to which the haughty favourite had been httle accustomed from his hitherto indulgent Sovereign. She so far relented, however, as to send him, at his request, a reinforcement of 2,000 men. Yet, even after the arrival of these additional troops, Essex hngered in Dublin, allowing his forces to waste away by illness and desertion. or two months there was virtually a pause in the military operations ; then, early in August (1599), Essex ordered Sir Conyers Clifford, who, since his raids in the previous year, had remained mostly in and about Ballymote, to advance across the hills, called in English the Curlews (CoipufUAo), into Sligo, and, having raised the siege of Collooney Castle, where O’Connor Sligo was being hard pressed by the Irish, to proceed into Fermanagh.
Posted on August 5th, 2008 under Irish Success.
This comes from IrishHistory.org
Essex sent to Ireland : His Failure There
Elizabeth, however, was not a ruler likely to allow a country the possession of which she knew, in the then condition of Continental affairs, to be of almost vital importance to the very existence of England, to slip thus easily from her grasp. She resolved to send across the Channel such a force as would not only, she felt sure, speedily crush the rebels, but would extend her authority over the whole island, and make her in reality ” Queen of Ireland.”
In her selection of a leader for the expedition she allowed herself to be swayed rather by feeling than by reason. Her choice fell on Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, a handsome man of thirty-two, having many superficial advantages, but whose success in military affairs had not, so far, been remarkable. He was the son of Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, whose attempt at a Plantation in Ulster had ended so unfortunately, and since Leicester’s death in 1588 he had been the Queen’s chief favourite.
The title of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, more honourable than that of Deputy, was now conferred on him. The army placed under Essex’s command was, with the exception of that which followed Richard II in 1394, the largest that had ever crossed from England to Ireland. It numbered 16,000 infantry and 1,300 cavalry, all well armed and equipped. If the troops already in the country be added, we may estimate that the Lord Lieutenant had at his command a force of at least 21,000 or 22,000 men.
Towards the middle of April 1599, Essex landed in Dublin and at once proceeded to ignore the instructions which he had received before leaving England. Rightly judging that if the leader of the rebellion were once crushed, the whole coalition against her would fall to pieces almost of itself, Elizabeth had ordered Essex to at once attack ” the Arch-traitor Tyrone.” In Dublin, however, the Lord Lieutenant met many persons, some of them high officials, who had either themselves been dispossessed by the rebels of great estates in Munster, or were related to those who had so lost them. These men, ” aiming rather at their private interests than the public good,” persuaded Essex to turn south.
He marched through the midland counties to Limerick and Waterford, then back through Wexford and Wicklow. A series of disasters marked his way. Near Maryborough his rearguard was shattered by Owney O’More at the head of 400 men. The pass where the encounter took place was afterwards known, from the many English helmet plumes that strewed the ground, as ” the Pass of the Plumes ” (t)eo,|\riA tiA Cteitroe).
In Co. Limerick the Burkes and the O’Connors inflicted defeats on the forces of the Lord Lieutenant and his allies.Still more disastrous on the morale of the army than these reverses was the almost continual skirmishing; a species of warfare to which the English soldiers were unaccustomed, and for which their heavy armour and equipments rendered them unfit. It was with a force ” weary, sick and incredibly diminished in numbers ” that the Lord Lieutenant returned to Dublin in June.
Elizabeth was both disappointed and enraged at the poor results achieved by the splendid army from which she had hoped so much, ohe brushed aside Essex’s attempts at explanation, and reproached him for his disobedience in a tone to which the haughty favourite had been httle accustomed from his hitherto indulgent Sovereign. She so far relented, however, as to send him, at his request, a reinforcement of 2,000 men. Yet, even after the arrival of these additional troops, Essex hngered in Dublin, allowing his forces to waste away by illness and desertion. or two months there was virtually a pause in the military operations ; then, early in August (1599), Essex ordered Sir Conyers Clifford, who, since his raids in the previous year, had remained mostly in and about Ballymote, to advance across the hills, called in English the Curlews (CoipufUAo), into Sligo, and, having raised the siege of Collooney Castle, where O’Connor Sligo was being hard pressed by the Irish, to proceed into Fermanagh.
Essex sent to Ireland : His Failure There
Elizabeth, however, was not a ruler likely to allow a country the possession of which she knew, in the then condition of Continental affairs, to be of almost vital importance to the very existence of England, to slip thus easily from her grasp. She resolved to send across the Channel such a force as would not only, she felt sure, speedily crush the rebels, but would extend her authority over the whole island, and make her in reality ” Queen of Ireland.”
In her selection of a leader for the expedition she allowed herself to be swayed rather by feeling than by reason. Her choice fell on Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, a handsome man of thirty-two, having many superficial advantages, but whose success in military affairs had not, so far, been remarkable. He was the son of Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, whose attempt at a Plantation in Ulster had ended so unfortunately, and since Leicester’s death in 1588 he had been the Queen’s chief favourite.
The title of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, more honourable than that of Deputy, was now conferred on him. The army placed under Essex’s command was, with the exception of that which followed Richard II in 1394, the largest that had ever crossed from England to Ireland. It numbered 16,000 infantry and 1,300 cavalry, all well armed and equipped. If the troops already in the country be added, we may estimate that the Lord Lieutenant had at his command a force of at least 21,000 or 22,000 men.
Towards the middle of April 1599, Essex landed in Dublin and at once proceeded to ignore the instructions which he had received before leaving England. Rightly judging that if the leader of the rebellion were once crushed, the whole coalition against her would fall to pieces almost of itself, Elizabeth had ordered Essex to at once attack ” the Arch-traitor Tyrone.” In Dublin, however, the Lord Lieutenant met many persons, some of them high officials, who had either themselves been dispossessed by the rebels of great estates in Munster, or were related to those who had so lost them. These men, ” aiming rather at their private interests than the public good,” persuaded Essex to turn south.
He marched through the midland counties to Limerick and Waterford, then back through Wexford and Wicklow. A series of disasters marked his way. Near Maryborough his rearguard was shattered by Owney O’More at the head of 400 men. The pass where the encounter took place was afterwards known, from the many English helmet plumes that strewed the ground, as ” the Pass of the Plumes ” (t)eo,|\riA tiA Cteitroe).
In Co. Limerick the Burkes and the O’Connors inflicted defeats on the forces of the Lord Lieutenant and his allies.Still more disastrous on the morale of the army than these reverses was the almost continual skirmishing; a species of warfare to which the English soldiers were unaccustomed, and for which their heavy armour and equipments rendered them unfit. It was with a force ” weary, sick and incredibly diminished in numbers ” that the Lord Lieutenant returned to Dublin in June.
Elizabeth was both disappointed and enraged at the poor results achieved by the splendid army from which she had hoped so much, ohe brushed aside Essex’s attempts at explanation, and reproached him for his disobedience in a tone to which the haughty favourite had been httle accustomed from his hitherto indulgent Sovereign. She so far relented, however, as to send him, at his request, a reinforcement of 2,000 men. Yet, even after the arrival of these additional troops, Essex hngered in Dublin, allowing his forces to waste away by illness and desertion. or two months there was virtually a pause in the military operations ; then, early in August (1599), Essex ordered Sir Conyers Clifford, who, since his raids in the previous year, had remained mostly in and about Ballymote, to advance across the hills, called in English the Curlews (CoipufUAo), into Sligo, and, having raised the siege of Collooney Castle, where O’Connor Sligo was being hard pressed by the Irish, to proceed into Fermanagh.
Posted on August 5th, 2008 under Irish Success.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Scotland news-Most silly
This is one of the silliest things I've read of late. From the Scotsmen.com.
Judge bans man from the pub for killing his wife
By Brian Ferguson
A JUDGE yesterday spared a pensioner who killed his wife a prison sentence – and instead banned him from going to the pub.
Edward Flaherty strangled his wife with a tie after she refused to give him money to go to his local bar in Glasgow. But the 74-year-old was told by the judge, Lord Matthews, that his dementia made him unsuitable for prison, and that being unable to go to the pub would be a "more meaningful" punishment.
Lord Matthews imposed a year-long order that will keep him inside his home during pub opening hours. He will be tagged and banned from going out between 11am and 11pm.
The sentence was attacked last night, both for failing to protect the public and for not providing proper care for Flaherty.
Labour's justice spokesman, Paul Martin, said: "The sentence is clearly not robust enough for the crime, and the failure to provide a package of care completely inappropriate.
"The judge has to take responsibility for this."
Flaherty claimed he had no recollection of throttling his wife with a tie in April last year at their home in Drygate, Glasgow.
His lawyer told the court that his client had been diagnosed with progressive dementia and that he would ultimately need 24-hour care.
Lord Matthews told the defendant: "You were found guilty of the culpable homicide of your wife, who you were together with for many years.
"In normal circumstances this would attract a prison sentence in double figures.
"I have read and considered a number of reports from experts. It is plain to me that if I were to impose that sort of sentence you would be released in a very short time because prison would not be able to cope with your condition.
"Sentencing you would just be a token gesture. I am anxious to impose a sentence that restricts your liberty.
"You still go to the pub where you went with your wife. That must annoy her relatives.
"Not being able to go there will be a more meaningful disposal than a prison sentence which will not last long."
Mr Martin, a Glasgow MSP, said: "This is clearly a very difficult case in which there has been a mental illness involved.
"However, the real issue here is that the sentence has not been robust enough to protect the public from him doing anything similar again.
"There has been no effort to provide any kind of appropriate care package to deal with this man's mental health condition.
"A restriction of liberty order is clearly inappropriate in a case as serious as this."
Edward McLaughlan, a spokesman for the Scottish Dementia Working Group, an independent campaign group funded by Alzheimer's Scotland, said: "It's a quite shocking sentence for a crime like this.
"There are obviously a lot of people with dementia who are being treated in prison, although we don't know how serious his condition is.
"The whole issue of the provision of care for dementia sufferers needs to be looked at in the light of this case, as there would clearly be issues if he was to be treated in a care home.
"I'm not entirely sure what the best sentence for this individual would be, but it's certainly not appropriate for him to receive a restriction of liberty order."
Flaherty was convicted of killing 69-year-old Ina with a tie after she refused to give him money to go to the pub.
The High Court in Glasgow was told that, in a medical report, Flaherty claimed he had actually killed his sister, because she was cheeky.
Donald MacLeod, QC, defending, said yesterday: "The report prepared for the court paints a picture of a man in significant physical and mental decline.
"There is a clear diagnosis of dementia setting in. It is a progressive condition and ultimately he will need 24-hour care.
"I am deeply conscious there has been a death here, but this man is very unwell.
"He was always willing to plead guilty to culpable homicide, but this was flatly rejected by the Crown and that is why a trial was necessary."
Flaherty went on trial accused of murder on 2 April last year.
A jury convicted the retired scaffolder of the reduced charge of culpable homicide.
The jury was told that even slight pressure around Mrs Flaherty's neck could have caused her death because her arteries were furred.
The court had heard that Flaherty had regularly visited a pub called The Lampost, on Duke Street, after his retirement and had developed a drink problem.
After the couple returned from the pub he wanted to go back for more, but Mrs Flaherty refused to give him any money.
Giving evidence in his defence, Flaherty, of Gibson Heights, Drygate, said he had no recollection of the moment he throttled his wife.
The court heard Flaherty, who has had three heart attacks, could not remember who the Prime Minister was and called him "that curly headed bloke".
He also thought the current US president was Richard Nixon.
He recently boarded a train to Bristol, did not know where he was and had to have £100 sent to him to get home.
But when asked who killed Mrs Flaherty, he said: "It must have been me. There are no ghosts running about the house who would have done that."
Flaherty had denied a suggestion from the Solicitor-General, Frank Mulholland, QC, prosecuting, that he "blocked Ina's killing out of his memory because it was so dreadful".
Some jurors wept as he told the court how he and his wife had a "strong and firm" marriage that lasted 52 years. He had never once struck her in all these years, and she had never hit him, the jury was told.
A spokesman for Victim Support last night said: "We never comment on specific cases, but at the end of the day the only people who can provide sensible judgment on a case are those who hold all the relevant evidence."
SPS insists that it could cope as nation braces itself for an epidemic
THE Scottish Prison Service has insisted it has the right facilities in place to tackle a vast majority of medical conditions – including mental-health illnesses such as dementia.
An SPS spokesman said: "We do definitely have prisoners with dementia, although it's not possible to say exactly how many. We have people in our prisons with all manner of medical conditions. The only exceptions would be those people with terminal illness, who have a few months to live that are better suited to hospital treatment." But Bill Aitken, the Scottish Conservative justice spokesman, said that in this case normal sentencing guidelines could not be applied.
"There are a lot of dementia sufferers who are not violent, and there may be questions about how to deal with this individual if he does not adhere to his restriction of liberty order," he said.
"The key thing in this particular case is that the judge has seen all the relevant medical reports. I am satisfied that the normal sentencing considerations could not be applied."
Campaigners have warned that health and social services could be overwhelmed by the vast numbers of people with dementia. Up to 65,000 people in Scotland are thought to have dementia, but it is estimated that the number of people affected will rise by 75 per cent by 2031 as the elderly population increases.
There have also been concerns in the past year that dementia patients could be denied drugs to slow down their progression because of a move by NHS rationing watchdogs. Alzheimer Scotland, a leading campaign group, has called for an additional £150 million to tackle what it has described as the dementia epidemic.
Although dementia often begins with increasing forgetfulness, a sufferer will increasingly require assistance with everyday activities, such as dressing and going to the toilet.
By the end of their life, dementia sufferers will probably be living in a care home, nursing home or hospital.
Judge bans man from the pub for killing his wife
By Brian Ferguson
A JUDGE yesterday spared a pensioner who killed his wife a prison sentence – and instead banned him from going to the pub.
Edward Flaherty strangled his wife with a tie after she refused to give him money to go to his local bar in Glasgow. But the 74-year-old was told by the judge, Lord Matthews, that his dementia made him unsuitable for prison, and that being unable to go to the pub would be a "more meaningful" punishment.
Lord Matthews imposed a year-long order that will keep him inside his home during pub opening hours. He will be tagged and banned from going out between 11am and 11pm.
The sentence was attacked last night, both for failing to protect the public and for not providing proper care for Flaherty.
Labour's justice spokesman, Paul Martin, said: "The sentence is clearly not robust enough for the crime, and the failure to provide a package of care completely inappropriate.
"The judge has to take responsibility for this."
Flaherty claimed he had no recollection of throttling his wife with a tie in April last year at their home in Drygate, Glasgow.
His lawyer told the court that his client had been diagnosed with progressive dementia and that he would ultimately need 24-hour care.
Lord Matthews told the defendant: "You were found guilty of the culpable homicide of your wife, who you were together with for many years.
"In normal circumstances this would attract a prison sentence in double figures.
"I have read and considered a number of reports from experts. It is plain to me that if I were to impose that sort of sentence you would be released in a very short time because prison would not be able to cope with your condition.
"Sentencing you would just be a token gesture. I am anxious to impose a sentence that restricts your liberty.
"You still go to the pub where you went with your wife. That must annoy her relatives.
"Not being able to go there will be a more meaningful disposal than a prison sentence which will not last long."
Mr Martin, a Glasgow MSP, said: "This is clearly a very difficult case in which there has been a mental illness involved.
"However, the real issue here is that the sentence has not been robust enough to protect the public from him doing anything similar again.
"There has been no effort to provide any kind of appropriate care package to deal with this man's mental health condition.
"A restriction of liberty order is clearly inappropriate in a case as serious as this."
Edward McLaughlan, a spokesman for the Scottish Dementia Working Group, an independent campaign group funded by Alzheimer's Scotland, said: "It's a quite shocking sentence for a crime like this.
"There are obviously a lot of people with dementia who are being treated in prison, although we don't know how serious his condition is.
"The whole issue of the provision of care for dementia sufferers needs to be looked at in the light of this case, as there would clearly be issues if he was to be treated in a care home.
"I'm not entirely sure what the best sentence for this individual would be, but it's certainly not appropriate for him to receive a restriction of liberty order."
Flaherty was convicted of killing 69-year-old Ina with a tie after she refused to give him money to go to the pub.
The High Court in Glasgow was told that, in a medical report, Flaherty claimed he had actually killed his sister, because she was cheeky.
Donald MacLeod, QC, defending, said yesterday: "The report prepared for the court paints a picture of a man in significant physical and mental decline.
"There is a clear diagnosis of dementia setting in. It is a progressive condition and ultimately he will need 24-hour care.
"I am deeply conscious there has been a death here, but this man is very unwell.
"He was always willing to plead guilty to culpable homicide, but this was flatly rejected by the Crown and that is why a trial was necessary."
Flaherty went on trial accused of murder on 2 April last year.
A jury convicted the retired scaffolder of the reduced charge of culpable homicide.
The jury was told that even slight pressure around Mrs Flaherty's neck could have caused her death because her arteries were furred.
The court had heard that Flaherty had regularly visited a pub called The Lampost, on Duke Street, after his retirement and had developed a drink problem.
After the couple returned from the pub he wanted to go back for more, but Mrs Flaherty refused to give him any money.
Giving evidence in his defence, Flaherty, of Gibson Heights, Drygate, said he had no recollection of the moment he throttled his wife.
The court heard Flaherty, who has had three heart attacks, could not remember who the Prime Minister was and called him "that curly headed bloke".
He also thought the current US president was Richard Nixon.
He recently boarded a train to Bristol, did not know where he was and had to have £100 sent to him to get home.
But when asked who killed Mrs Flaherty, he said: "It must have been me. There are no ghosts running about the house who would have done that."
Flaherty had denied a suggestion from the Solicitor-General, Frank Mulholland, QC, prosecuting, that he "blocked Ina's killing out of his memory because it was so dreadful".
Some jurors wept as he told the court how he and his wife had a "strong and firm" marriage that lasted 52 years. He had never once struck her in all these years, and she had never hit him, the jury was told.
A spokesman for Victim Support last night said: "We never comment on specific cases, but at the end of the day the only people who can provide sensible judgment on a case are those who hold all the relevant evidence."
SPS insists that it could cope as nation braces itself for an epidemic
THE Scottish Prison Service has insisted it has the right facilities in place to tackle a vast majority of medical conditions – including mental-health illnesses such as dementia.
An SPS spokesman said: "We do definitely have prisoners with dementia, although it's not possible to say exactly how many. We have people in our prisons with all manner of medical conditions. The only exceptions would be those people with terminal illness, who have a few months to live that are better suited to hospital treatment." But Bill Aitken, the Scottish Conservative justice spokesman, said that in this case normal sentencing guidelines could not be applied.
"There are a lot of dementia sufferers who are not violent, and there may be questions about how to deal with this individual if he does not adhere to his restriction of liberty order," he said.
"The key thing in this particular case is that the judge has seen all the relevant medical reports. I am satisfied that the normal sentencing considerations could not be applied."
Campaigners have warned that health and social services could be overwhelmed by the vast numbers of people with dementia. Up to 65,000 people in Scotland are thought to have dementia, but it is estimated that the number of people affected will rise by 75 per cent by 2031 as the elderly population increases.
There have also been concerns in the past year that dementia patients could be denied drugs to slow down their progression because of a move by NHS rationing watchdogs. Alzheimer Scotland, a leading campaign group, has called for an additional £150 million to tackle what it has described as the dementia epidemic.
Although dementia often begins with increasing forgetfulness, a sufferer will increasingly require assistance with everyday activities, such as dressing and going to the toilet.
By the end of their life, dementia sufferers will probably be living in a care home, nursing home or hospital.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Fact from yesterday...
On this day in 1460 James II of Scotland was killed during the siege of Roxburgh Castle. The King was attacking the castle of his favourite enemy the Earl of Douglas when he filled a cannon with too much gun powder. The cannon exploded and killed him instantly.
This is a bit earlier than my Clan Gunn novel, but I still find this history interesting.
This is a bit earlier than my Clan Gunn novel, but I still find this history interesting.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Things that interest me
I got this from Writing the Wrongs blog and thought it was something I might want to read again. It's much easier to save it on my blog--I know how to get here.
Ireland's Jews: Past, Present, Future
Rory Miller
● Irish Jews have historically played a role in Jewish life out of all proportion to their numbers, despite the fact that they were on the margins of the Jewish world. Before 1948 the Irish Jewish community, which had come overwhelmingly from Lithuania in the period from 1880 to 1914, was one of the most pro-Zionist in Western Europe and a major per capita supporter of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), as well as other Zionist organizations and institutions.
● Irish Jews have played a significant role in all sectors of Irish society including national political life, but since the early 1950s when it peaked at 4,500 members the community has been shrinking in size and influence. According to the 2006 census there are 1,930 Jews in Ireland, with about 1,250 residing in Dublin and the remainder scattered across the country.
● Although there have always been sporadic anti-Semitic incidents, Ireland has provided a safe haven for Jews. But the current widespread support for a boycott of Israel among civil society groups is a worrying development, as is the potential of the growing Irish Muslim community to become radicalized.
● The economic boom since the 1990s provided a number of opportunities and challenges for Irish Jewry. The strong economy led to an increase in the number of Jews who have settled in Ireland for economic reasons. It also, however, turned Ireland into a multicultural and multiracial society that has challenged Irish Jewry's status as the major non-Christian minority in the country.
In May 2008, the Dublin City Council organized a walking tour of "Little Jerusalem," the section of central Dublin historically at the heart of Irish Jewish life. In line with similar events, the organizers expected forty to seventy people to attend but were astonished when over two hundred turned up in the rain to hear about the history of Dublin's Jewish community.
The popularity of this event clearly highlights that as a subject of historical interest and cultural curiosity the Jews of Ireland are thriving. This has been further evidenced recently by the success of two books on the history of Irish Jews: the scholarly Jewish Ireland in the Age of Joyce: A Socioeconomic History, by Professor Cormac Ó Gráda, and the more popular photographic coffee-table book, Jewish Dublin: Portraits of Life by the Liffey, a bestseller in Ireland on its publication in late 2007.[1]
The Historic Irish Jewish Community
The first Jews arrived in Ireland from Spain and Portugal in the early sixteenth century. The first synagogue was opened in Dublin in 1660 and the first Jewish cemetery opened in the early 1700s, by which time Dublin was the only city in the British Isles outside of London that could claim a Jewish community of any note. But this did not last long. As Ireland lost significance in the British Empire, the Jewish community shrank. The Irish census started recording religion in 1861, and in 1881 there were 353 Jews in Dublin and 61 in Belfast.
The ancestors of the current community were Lithuanian Jews who began arriving in Dublin, Belfast, and Cork in the mid-1870s. This resulted in an immediate rise in the population, with 1,500 Irish Jews in Dublin in 1891 and an estimated 3,000 a decade later.
This was still numerically insignificant. As Ó Gráda has shown in his socioeconomic history of Irish Jewry in the early twentieth century, Ireland only absorbed about 0.15 percent of the pre-1914 Jewish exodus from Eastern Europe. On the eve of World War I, there were 3,000 Jews in Dublin compared to 11,000 in Liverpool, 30,000 in Manchester, and 180,000 in London.[2]
Thus it is hardly surprising that the only encounter most people will have had with Irish Jews in this early period is through reading James Joyce's iconic novel Ulysses, which follows the fictional Leopold Bloom through Dublin city on one day in June 1904. Bloom, the baptized son of a Hungarian Jewish father and an Irish Protestant mother had little in common in terms of religious upbringing or daily life with the conservative, traditional, and hard-working Lithuanian Jews who made up the Irish community at the time.
These new immigrants were all from the same part of the northern Russian Empire and they settled near each other in urban areas. They had close ties with coreligionists in Manchester, London, and Leeds but as Ó Gráda has shown there were some noticeable differences. Dublin Jews lived in better conditions in "Little Jerusalem" than the Jews of the East End of London or many of the provisional Jewish communities of Britain. A lower percentage of Jewish women worked outside the home and the community was less strictly segregated from their neighbors than the Jews of Britain.[3]
The biggest difference was that almost immediately upon arrival this new immigrant group overwhelmed the preexisting Jewish community, swept away their influence, and marginalized what passed for an established Irish Jewish elite. This allowed the new immigrants to proceed to establish, unfettered, a highly nationalist community like the one they had left behind in Lithuania, thus arguably building the most Zionist-oriented community in Western Europe.
The Zionist Connection
Irish Jews' profound attachment to Zionism in the period before Israel's establishment can be traced back to the 1890s, when Irish Zionist Associations and branches of Chovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion) were among the most active in Europe. In 1900, the Dublin Daughters of Zion (DDZ) was founded. This was the first women's Zionist society in Western Europe. To put this in context, it was not until February 1912 that Henrietta Szold convened the first meeting of the American Daughters of Zion, the first women's Zionist group in the United States.
The Jewish National Fund (JNF), Dublin Commission, developed into a not insignificant branch of the worldwide JNF and, from the late 1930s, its per capita contributions were higher than those made by communities in Leeds, Glasgow, and London. In his autobiography, Chaim Herzog, the Irish-born two-term president of Israel, recalled how during his childhood in Dublin and Belfast "the concept of a Jewish state emerged in our collective consciousness [and] added considerably to our sense of pride. As that consciousness expanded, it strengthened our entire community."[4]
The consequences of this could be seen after the birth of Israel. According to the political scientist Michael Brecher, in terms of individuals who occupied posts of head of an operational department or higher within the Israeli Foreign Ministry or related civil or military branches, Irish Jews equaled the contribution of Iraqis and Austrians, played a larger role than Jews from Hungary, Italy, or Egypt, and were only surpassed by Jewish immigrants from eight nations including Russia, Germany, and the United Kingdom.[5]
However, the vast majority of Irish Jews chose to stay in Ireland and by the mid-1950s, the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs estimated that only fifty Irish families resided in Israel. Those who remained made a mark on almost every area of life, from literature and art to medicine and law.
Most notably, Irish Jewry has played a role in the political life of the country out of all proportion to its size. There has been a Jewish Lord Mayor of Dublin three times (Robert Briscoe in 1956 and 1961 and his son Ben Briscoe in 1988) and of Cork once (Gerald Goldberg in 1977). Robert Briscoe, a founding member of the Fianna Fáil political party, represented that party in the Dáil (the Irish parliament) for three decades. Even in the 1990s, when the community was only 1,400 strong, there were three Jewish members of parliament (compared to one Protestant parliamentarian out of a community numbering well over 100,000). The sole current Jewish member of the Dáil, Alan Shatter, holds the distinction of having had more private members' bills passed than anyone else in the history of the state.
In the pre-1948 era Irish nationalists embraced Zionism as a national movement for self-determination and greatly admired the revival of Hebrew, which they saw as Zionism's greatest achievement. As a member of a Zionist delegation from Jerusalem wrote home during a visit to Dublin in 1931, Irish leaders were "greatly inspired" by the rebirth of Hebrew and confessed that Zionists had "more idealism" than the Irish.[6]
However, since Israel's establishment there has been a lack of diplomatic and political support for the Jewish state. In 1975, Ireland became the last member of the EEC to exchange nonresidential ambassadors with Israel, and in 1993 it was the last member of the enlarged EU to allow Israel to establish a residential embassy.
This slow move toward full diplomatic relations was due to a number of factors including the role of the Catholic church in influencing Irish foreign policy, the negative impact on Irish-Israeli ties of clashes over Irish troops serving with the United Nations in Lebanon, and the fact that the Irish beef industry, a major supplier to the Arab and Muslim world, was concerned that improved relations with Israel would damage this trade.
However, current Irish government policy toward the Israel-Palestine conflict is in line with general EU policy and on a bilateral level is primarily concerned with further developing trade ties that have grown significantly since the mid-1990s.[7]
Support for Boycott
A far more worrying factor is the growing support for a boycott of Israel among Irish civil society groups. The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC), the Irish branch of the International Solidarity Movement, is one of the most sophisticated anti-Israel groups in Europe. It organizes numerous events and has a state-of-the-art website that it uses to relentlessly promote the boycott of everything from Israeli agricultural products and football matches to flights to Israel and cultural and academic exchanges.[8]
In 2004, the IPSC collected twelve thousand Irish signatures in favor of a boycott, and its efforts have gained some support from supposedly apolitical NGOs such as Christian Aid and Trócaire. The IPSC also played a role in the call by sixty-one Irish academics for an academic boycott of Israel.[9]
Since entering the mainstream of Irish political life following the peace process in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), has become an outspoken critic of Israel in Irish political circles. However, this may actually improve Israel's standing in Ireland as the vast majority of Irish voters are suspicious of Sinn Féin's position on most domestic and foreign policy issues.
A far more troubling development occurred in June 2008 when the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) issued a report calling for a boycott of Israeli goods and services and disinvestment from Israeli firms. ICTU is the largest civil society body in Ireland, representing 832,000 workers and with fifty-five unions affiliated to it including IMPACT, the largest public-sector union in the Republic of Ireland and NIPSA, the largest public-sector union in Northern Ireland, both of which have also endorsed the call for a boycott.
There is no support for a boycott of Israel in Irish government or diplomatic circles and two primarily non-Jewish groups, the Ireland-Israel Friendship League and the Irish Christian Friends of Israel have worked hard to oppose the boycott. But that is little comfort given the fact that boycotters are making good ground in their effort to further demonize Israel across Irish society.
Anti-Semitism
The relentless call for the boycott of Israel is part of an effort to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state and its supporters across the world. This creates an uncomfortable environment for an Irish Jewish community that remains openly supportive of Israel. However, traditional anti-Semitism is not widespread and community spokesmen like to say that Ireland is the only country in Europe in which no Jew has died or been killed because of their religion. This is debatable, and indeed some historians believe that in 1923 a twenty-four-year-old Dublin Jew, Emanuel Kahn, was shot dead because he was Jewish.[10]
Moreover, there have been some unpleasant nonfatal incidents. The most notorious case occurred in Limerick in 1904-1905 when a Catholic preacher, Father John Creagh, led a boycott of several Jewish traders among the 170 Jews in a city with a population of forty thousand, which only ended when a number of Jewish families were driven out of the town. An IRA campaign against moneylenders in the mid-1920s focused primarily on targeting Jews, which caused significant concern in the community despite a number of IRA denials that any anti-Semitism was involved.
For the most part Jews who have settled in Ireland have found a safe haven. Recently, overt anti-Semitism has been a lot less prevalent than the racism encountered by new immigrants from Asia and Africa. From 2001 to 2003, according to the Jewish community's own statistics, there were no incidents of "extreme violence," "assault," or "damage or desecration of property" and only sixteen recorded cases of "abusive behavior." In 2002 alone, however, members of the Asian and African communities reported one hundred racist incidents to the authorities.[11]
But anti-Semitic incidents do continue. From November 2004 to July 2005, there was on average one recorded anti-Semitic incident per week in Dublin and these included the daubing of the Jewish school, an Orthodox synagogue, and the Irish Jewish museum with anti-Semitic slogans. In response the then justice minister Michael McDowell met with a delegation from the community and there was cross-party condemnation of these incidents in the Dáil. Again in May 2008, an Italian Jewish man living in a small town outside of Dublin had "Go Home Jew" and a swastika daubed on his wall and suffered two arson attacks on his car.[12]
One of the darkest chapters in Irish-Jewish relations was the refusal of neutral Ireland to provide a haven for Jewish refugees attempting to escape Nazi extermination in the late 1930s and 1940s. This was followed by the infamous decision of Irish leader Eamon de Valera to sign the book of condolences in the German legation in Dublin following the death of Adolf Hitler.
In 1995, then-Irish premier John Bruton acknowledged Ireland's failure in responding to the Holocaust and 2005 saw the establishment of the Holocaust Educational Trust of Ireland. This body has contributed significantly to Holocaust awareness, with 450 schools involved in one of its projects. It also organizes a high-profile annual Holocaust memorial event that is attended by politicians and public figures.
Communal Size and Structure
The size of the Irish Jewish community peaked in the late 1940s at about 4,500 members. From that point on it fell in size until 2002 when the census recorded 1,790 Irish Jews. According to the 2006 census there are 1,930 Jews in Ireland, with about 1,250 residing in Dublin and the remainder scattered across the country.[13] The present community is elderly and the historic pattern of emigration to Manchester, London, and Israel continues among young people looking for partners or pursuing career opportunities and their parents who follow them.
The rise in the Jewish population by 7.8 percent from 2002 to 2006 is due to the arrival of Jewish economic migrants into Ireland as part of the "Celtic Tiger" economy. The Jewish community has attempted to capitalize on the Irish economic boom to advertise for immigrants from other Jewish communities across the world, especially those in Argentina and South Africa. Named Operation Springbok, the plan has had limited success for two reasons: those in charge of the project have only looked to attract observant Jews; and the Irish authorities will not waive standard visa requirements for what are essentially economic migrants.
As such, the largest increase of Jews in Ireland is among Israelis who have moved here to work in the hi-tech sector. Some have no interest in Jewish life, a few are outspoken critics of Israeli policies and have been co-opted into the anti-Israel movement, but a fair few have integrated into the community, attend synagogue, and enroll their children in the Jewish primary school. Whether this immigration will continue depends almost fully on the future strength of the Irish economy and, to a lesser extent, the willingness of the community to subsidize the settlement of new Jewish families and to invest in communal infrastructure.
Currently there are two Orthodox synagogues in Dublin, one Progressive synagogue, one Jewish golf club with non-Jewish members, one Jewish school, with an all-Jewish primary school and a mixed secondary school, and one Jewish retirement home where accommodation is shared with the Quaker community. The community no longer has its own kosher butcher, and kosher meat and other products are imported from the United Kingdom. Nor is there a Jewish community or sports center, as the Maccabi sports club, one of the best sports facilities in the country, was sold off a number of years ago.
The existing community institutions are overseen by the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland (JRCI), whose members are either elected or appointed. This body has run the community since the late 1940s, when Irish Jews gave up their seats on the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the representative body of Anglo-Jewry, following Ireland's withdrawal from the British Commonwealth.
Irish Jews benefited from the "Celtic Tiger." Historically Ireland was not an industrialized nation and as such there was never a tradition of Jewish industrial grandees or magnates. However, Irish Jews have always had trades and skills, with more self-employed as a percentage of the population and a lower percentage of wage earners than other communities. Thus, by the time of the boom in the early 1990s, although there were very few multimillionaires, the vast majority of Irish Jews were part of the urban middle class.
At the heart of the Irish boom was the property market, an economic sector in which Irish Jews have long been involved. Many members of the community have become wealthy as the value of commercial and residential property has skyrocketed.
Interestingly, this wealth has not been reinvested in the community to any significant extent. Dublin Jewry has always had a much greater tradition of supporting Israeli charities than the needy within their own community. Some members have been reluctant to donate funds because their children have settled abroad. Moreover, major disagreements over the closure and sale of Adelaide Road Synagogue over a decade ago split the community. Whereas the sale of this synagogue along with the Maccabi sports club meant that the community gained some significant capital, this created a disincentive for individuals to give donations from their own pockets.
The Irish Muslim Community
The rise of the "Celtic Tiger" economy meant that for the first time in 150 years, from 1991 to 1996 Ireland saw net immigration rather than net emigration. Society has rapidly become both multicultural and multiracial. This is most clearly seen in the growth of the Irish Muslim community.
Muslims are now the third largest religious group in the country after Roman Catholics, who number 3.7 million or 86.8 percent of the population and the Church of Ireland, which has 125,000 adherents.[14] According to the 2006 census, there are 32,529 Muslims in Ireland, up from 19,147 in 2002, an increase of 69.9 percent in four years. The most obvious sign of this is that the once-Jewish area of "Little Jerusalem" now borders a vibrant and growing Muslim shopping quarter.
Over the last decade many European societies have been challenged by the multiculturalism caused by growing Muslim communities. The same process is now occurring in Ireland. In 2007, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, the premier medical school in the country, announced that toilets in all new buildings will face away from Mecca "[out of] respect for the cultural diversity of the student population."[15] In May 2008, the Islamic Cultural Center, which is based at the largest Sunni mosque in Dublin, spoke of the "urgent need" for Sharia-compliant financial services in Ireland. And in June 2008, the government wrote to the heads of four thousand schools across Ireland to seek their views on the wearing of the hijab headscarf.[16]
At the time of the Danish Muhammad-cartoons controversy the reaction among Irish Muslims was relatively mild, with a few hundred marching in Dublin with placards carrying the words "Don't insult the Prophet." However, as has been the case in other European countries, much Irish Muslim funding emanates from Saudi Arabia and this can make the community vulnerable to Wahhabi extremism.
Moreover, there already are a number of groups in Dublin that have alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood. These include the Federation of Islamic Student Societies (FOSIS), the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE), and the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR). This latter group was founded by the controversial Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi in 1997 and is permanently headquartered in the Islamic Cultural Center in Dublin. In 2003, the ECFR issued a fatwa endorsing "martyrdom operations" against Israel "even if the victims include civilians."[17]
On a national level there is growing concern that Ireland could develop into a base for money laundering, document forging, and even a transit base for terrorists. The security services listed radical Islamic extremism as the number one priority for 2006 and in the same year the chief of staff of the Irish army admitted, regarding Islamic extremists, that "there's always the danger that people would use Ireland as a back door to the UK."[18]
Although this is a challenge for the whole of Irish society, the rising influence of the Muslim community raises issues particularly for Irish Jews. The first is that the Islamicization of politics has never been good for Jews. There is a strong correlation between anti-Jewish incidents across Europe and a rising focus in domestic politics on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Irish Jewish museum was smeared the day after Yasser Arafat died in November 2004. Second, Irish Jews were historically the largest and most public non-Christian minority. According to the 2006 census, Judaism is now the fifteenth largest religious group out of twenty-three in a country of 4.2 million people. Islam ranks third, Orthodox Christianity is sixth, and Irish Jews also rank behind Buddhists (ninth), Hindus (tenth), and Jehovah's Witnesses (thirteenth).[19]
The 1937 Irish Constitution gave Jews special recognition and protection as the largest non-Christian group in a society overwhelmingly dominated by Roman Catholicism. However, the present marginal position of Irish Jewry could mark the beginning of the end of its influence on a national level. This has not yet happened as evidenced by the fact that in 2007 the Jewish community was one of the religious groups invited to participate in a new framework established by the government to facilitate discussion between the state and religious leaders on various matters. Moreover, symbolically important annual events continue such as the lighting of the menorah candles at the residence of the Lord Mayor of Dublin and the Chief Rabbi's televised address to the nation on the eve of the Jewish New Year.
Nevertheless, the community is undoubtedly at a crossroads. It is financially secure in the medium term but faces the abovementioned challenges without the benefit of any real leadership. This more than any other factor places in jeopardy the future viability of a once thriving community built from scratch by what Max Nurock, the Dublin-born and educated Jew who later became Israel's ambassador to Australia, remembered fondly as an "incomparable generation of Litvak [Lithuanian] pioneers."
Ireland's Jews: Past, Present, Future
Rory Miller
● Irish Jews have historically played a role in Jewish life out of all proportion to their numbers, despite the fact that they were on the margins of the Jewish world. Before 1948 the Irish Jewish community, which had come overwhelmingly from Lithuania in the period from 1880 to 1914, was one of the most pro-Zionist in Western Europe and a major per capita supporter of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), as well as other Zionist organizations and institutions.
● Irish Jews have played a significant role in all sectors of Irish society including national political life, but since the early 1950s when it peaked at 4,500 members the community has been shrinking in size and influence. According to the 2006 census there are 1,930 Jews in Ireland, with about 1,250 residing in Dublin and the remainder scattered across the country.
● Although there have always been sporadic anti-Semitic incidents, Ireland has provided a safe haven for Jews. But the current widespread support for a boycott of Israel among civil society groups is a worrying development, as is the potential of the growing Irish Muslim community to become radicalized.
● The economic boom since the 1990s provided a number of opportunities and challenges for Irish Jewry. The strong economy led to an increase in the number of Jews who have settled in Ireland for economic reasons. It also, however, turned Ireland into a multicultural and multiracial society that has challenged Irish Jewry's status as the major non-Christian minority in the country.
In May 2008, the Dublin City Council organized a walking tour of "Little Jerusalem," the section of central Dublin historically at the heart of Irish Jewish life. In line with similar events, the organizers expected forty to seventy people to attend but were astonished when over two hundred turned up in the rain to hear about the history of Dublin's Jewish community.
The popularity of this event clearly highlights that as a subject of historical interest and cultural curiosity the Jews of Ireland are thriving. This has been further evidenced recently by the success of two books on the history of Irish Jews: the scholarly Jewish Ireland in the Age of Joyce: A Socioeconomic History, by Professor Cormac Ó Gráda, and the more popular photographic coffee-table book, Jewish Dublin: Portraits of Life by the Liffey, a bestseller in Ireland on its publication in late 2007.[1]
The Historic Irish Jewish Community
The first Jews arrived in Ireland from Spain and Portugal in the early sixteenth century. The first synagogue was opened in Dublin in 1660 and the first Jewish cemetery opened in the early 1700s, by which time Dublin was the only city in the British Isles outside of London that could claim a Jewish community of any note. But this did not last long. As Ireland lost significance in the British Empire, the Jewish community shrank. The Irish census started recording religion in 1861, and in 1881 there were 353 Jews in Dublin and 61 in Belfast.
The ancestors of the current community were Lithuanian Jews who began arriving in Dublin, Belfast, and Cork in the mid-1870s. This resulted in an immediate rise in the population, with 1,500 Irish Jews in Dublin in 1891 and an estimated 3,000 a decade later.
This was still numerically insignificant. As Ó Gráda has shown in his socioeconomic history of Irish Jewry in the early twentieth century, Ireland only absorbed about 0.15 percent of the pre-1914 Jewish exodus from Eastern Europe. On the eve of World War I, there were 3,000 Jews in Dublin compared to 11,000 in Liverpool, 30,000 in Manchester, and 180,000 in London.[2]
Thus it is hardly surprising that the only encounter most people will have had with Irish Jews in this early period is through reading James Joyce's iconic novel Ulysses, which follows the fictional Leopold Bloom through Dublin city on one day in June 1904. Bloom, the baptized son of a Hungarian Jewish father and an Irish Protestant mother had little in common in terms of religious upbringing or daily life with the conservative, traditional, and hard-working Lithuanian Jews who made up the Irish community at the time.
These new immigrants were all from the same part of the northern Russian Empire and they settled near each other in urban areas. They had close ties with coreligionists in Manchester, London, and Leeds but as Ó Gráda has shown there were some noticeable differences. Dublin Jews lived in better conditions in "Little Jerusalem" than the Jews of the East End of London or many of the provisional Jewish communities of Britain. A lower percentage of Jewish women worked outside the home and the community was less strictly segregated from their neighbors than the Jews of Britain.[3]
The biggest difference was that almost immediately upon arrival this new immigrant group overwhelmed the preexisting Jewish community, swept away their influence, and marginalized what passed for an established Irish Jewish elite. This allowed the new immigrants to proceed to establish, unfettered, a highly nationalist community like the one they had left behind in Lithuania, thus arguably building the most Zionist-oriented community in Western Europe.
The Zionist Connection
Irish Jews' profound attachment to Zionism in the period before Israel's establishment can be traced back to the 1890s, when Irish Zionist Associations and branches of Chovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion) were among the most active in Europe. In 1900, the Dublin Daughters of Zion (DDZ) was founded. This was the first women's Zionist society in Western Europe. To put this in context, it was not until February 1912 that Henrietta Szold convened the first meeting of the American Daughters of Zion, the first women's Zionist group in the United States.
The Jewish National Fund (JNF), Dublin Commission, developed into a not insignificant branch of the worldwide JNF and, from the late 1930s, its per capita contributions were higher than those made by communities in Leeds, Glasgow, and London. In his autobiography, Chaim Herzog, the Irish-born two-term president of Israel, recalled how during his childhood in Dublin and Belfast "the concept of a Jewish state emerged in our collective consciousness [and] added considerably to our sense of pride. As that consciousness expanded, it strengthened our entire community."[4]
The consequences of this could be seen after the birth of Israel. According to the political scientist Michael Brecher, in terms of individuals who occupied posts of head of an operational department or higher within the Israeli Foreign Ministry or related civil or military branches, Irish Jews equaled the contribution of Iraqis and Austrians, played a larger role than Jews from Hungary, Italy, or Egypt, and were only surpassed by Jewish immigrants from eight nations including Russia, Germany, and the United Kingdom.[5]
However, the vast majority of Irish Jews chose to stay in Ireland and by the mid-1950s, the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs estimated that only fifty Irish families resided in Israel. Those who remained made a mark on almost every area of life, from literature and art to medicine and law.
Most notably, Irish Jewry has played a role in the political life of the country out of all proportion to its size. There has been a Jewish Lord Mayor of Dublin three times (Robert Briscoe in 1956 and 1961 and his son Ben Briscoe in 1988) and of Cork once (Gerald Goldberg in 1977). Robert Briscoe, a founding member of the Fianna Fáil political party, represented that party in the Dáil (the Irish parliament) for three decades. Even in the 1990s, when the community was only 1,400 strong, there were three Jewish members of parliament (compared to one Protestant parliamentarian out of a community numbering well over 100,000). The sole current Jewish member of the Dáil, Alan Shatter, holds the distinction of having had more private members' bills passed than anyone else in the history of the state.
In the pre-1948 era Irish nationalists embraced Zionism as a national movement for self-determination and greatly admired the revival of Hebrew, which they saw as Zionism's greatest achievement. As a member of a Zionist delegation from Jerusalem wrote home during a visit to Dublin in 1931, Irish leaders were "greatly inspired" by the rebirth of Hebrew and confessed that Zionists had "more idealism" than the Irish.[6]
However, since Israel's establishment there has been a lack of diplomatic and political support for the Jewish state. In 1975, Ireland became the last member of the EEC to exchange nonresidential ambassadors with Israel, and in 1993 it was the last member of the enlarged EU to allow Israel to establish a residential embassy.
This slow move toward full diplomatic relations was due to a number of factors including the role of the Catholic church in influencing Irish foreign policy, the negative impact on Irish-Israeli ties of clashes over Irish troops serving with the United Nations in Lebanon, and the fact that the Irish beef industry, a major supplier to the Arab and Muslim world, was concerned that improved relations with Israel would damage this trade.
However, current Irish government policy toward the Israel-Palestine conflict is in line with general EU policy and on a bilateral level is primarily concerned with further developing trade ties that have grown significantly since the mid-1990s.[7]
Support for Boycott
A far more worrying factor is the growing support for a boycott of Israel among Irish civil society groups. The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC), the Irish branch of the International Solidarity Movement, is one of the most sophisticated anti-Israel groups in Europe. It organizes numerous events and has a state-of-the-art website that it uses to relentlessly promote the boycott of everything from Israeli agricultural products and football matches to flights to Israel and cultural and academic exchanges.[8]
In 2004, the IPSC collected twelve thousand Irish signatures in favor of a boycott, and its efforts have gained some support from supposedly apolitical NGOs such as Christian Aid and Trócaire. The IPSC also played a role in the call by sixty-one Irish academics for an academic boycott of Israel.[9]
Since entering the mainstream of Irish political life following the peace process in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), has become an outspoken critic of Israel in Irish political circles. However, this may actually improve Israel's standing in Ireland as the vast majority of Irish voters are suspicious of Sinn Féin's position on most domestic and foreign policy issues.
A far more troubling development occurred in June 2008 when the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) issued a report calling for a boycott of Israeli goods and services and disinvestment from Israeli firms. ICTU is the largest civil society body in Ireland, representing 832,000 workers and with fifty-five unions affiliated to it including IMPACT, the largest public-sector union in the Republic of Ireland and NIPSA, the largest public-sector union in Northern Ireland, both of which have also endorsed the call for a boycott.
There is no support for a boycott of Israel in Irish government or diplomatic circles and two primarily non-Jewish groups, the Ireland-Israel Friendship League and the Irish Christian Friends of Israel have worked hard to oppose the boycott. But that is little comfort given the fact that boycotters are making good ground in their effort to further demonize Israel across Irish society.
Anti-Semitism
The relentless call for the boycott of Israel is part of an effort to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state and its supporters across the world. This creates an uncomfortable environment for an Irish Jewish community that remains openly supportive of Israel. However, traditional anti-Semitism is not widespread and community spokesmen like to say that Ireland is the only country in Europe in which no Jew has died or been killed because of their religion. This is debatable, and indeed some historians believe that in 1923 a twenty-four-year-old Dublin Jew, Emanuel Kahn, was shot dead because he was Jewish.[10]
Moreover, there have been some unpleasant nonfatal incidents. The most notorious case occurred in Limerick in 1904-1905 when a Catholic preacher, Father John Creagh, led a boycott of several Jewish traders among the 170 Jews in a city with a population of forty thousand, which only ended when a number of Jewish families were driven out of the town. An IRA campaign against moneylenders in the mid-1920s focused primarily on targeting Jews, which caused significant concern in the community despite a number of IRA denials that any anti-Semitism was involved.
For the most part Jews who have settled in Ireland have found a safe haven. Recently, overt anti-Semitism has been a lot less prevalent than the racism encountered by new immigrants from Asia and Africa. From 2001 to 2003, according to the Jewish community's own statistics, there were no incidents of "extreme violence," "assault," or "damage or desecration of property" and only sixteen recorded cases of "abusive behavior." In 2002 alone, however, members of the Asian and African communities reported one hundred racist incidents to the authorities.[11]
But anti-Semitic incidents do continue. From November 2004 to July 2005, there was on average one recorded anti-Semitic incident per week in Dublin and these included the daubing of the Jewish school, an Orthodox synagogue, and the Irish Jewish museum with anti-Semitic slogans. In response the then justice minister Michael McDowell met with a delegation from the community and there was cross-party condemnation of these incidents in the Dáil. Again in May 2008, an Italian Jewish man living in a small town outside of Dublin had "Go Home Jew" and a swastika daubed on his wall and suffered two arson attacks on his car.[12]
One of the darkest chapters in Irish-Jewish relations was the refusal of neutral Ireland to provide a haven for Jewish refugees attempting to escape Nazi extermination in the late 1930s and 1940s. This was followed by the infamous decision of Irish leader Eamon de Valera to sign the book of condolences in the German legation in Dublin following the death of Adolf Hitler.
In 1995, then-Irish premier John Bruton acknowledged Ireland's failure in responding to the Holocaust and 2005 saw the establishment of the Holocaust Educational Trust of Ireland. This body has contributed significantly to Holocaust awareness, with 450 schools involved in one of its projects. It also organizes a high-profile annual Holocaust memorial event that is attended by politicians and public figures.
Communal Size and Structure
The size of the Irish Jewish community peaked in the late 1940s at about 4,500 members. From that point on it fell in size until 2002 when the census recorded 1,790 Irish Jews. According to the 2006 census there are 1,930 Jews in Ireland, with about 1,250 residing in Dublin and the remainder scattered across the country.[13] The present community is elderly and the historic pattern of emigration to Manchester, London, and Israel continues among young people looking for partners or pursuing career opportunities and their parents who follow them.
The rise in the Jewish population by 7.8 percent from 2002 to 2006 is due to the arrival of Jewish economic migrants into Ireland as part of the "Celtic Tiger" economy. The Jewish community has attempted to capitalize on the Irish economic boom to advertise for immigrants from other Jewish communities across the world, especially those in Argentina and South Africa. Named Operation Springbok, the plan has had limited success for two reasons: those in charge of the project have only looked to attract observant Jews; and the Irish authorities will not waive standard visa requirements for what are essentially economic migrants.
As such, the largest increase of Jews in Ireland is among Israelis who have moved here to work in the hi-tech sector. Some have no interest in Jewish life, a few are outspoken critics of Israeli policies and have been co-opted into the anti-Israel movement, but a fair few have integrated into the community, attend synagogue, and enroll their children in the Jewish primary school. Whether this immigration will continue depends almost fully on the future strength of the Irish economy and, to a lesser extent, the willingness of the community to subsidize the settlement of new Jewish families and to invest in communal infrastructure.
Currently there are two Orthodox synagogues in Dublin, one Progressive synagogue, one Jewish golf club with non-Jewish members, one Jewish school, with an all-Jewish primary school and a mixed secondary school, and one Jewish retirement home where accommodation is shared with the Quaker community. The community no longer has its own kosher butcher, and kosher meat and other products are imported from the United Kingdom. Nor is there a Jewish community or sports center, as the Maccabi sports club, one of the best sports facilities in the country, was sold off a number of years ago.
The existing community institutions are overseen by the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland (JRCI), whose members are either elected or appointed. This body has run the community since the late 1940s, when Irish Jews gave up their seats on the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the representative body of Anglo-Jewry, following Ireland's withdrawal from the British Commonwealth.
Irish Jews benefited from the "Celtic Tiger." Historically Ireland was not an industrialized nation and as such there was never a tradition of Jewish industrial grandees or magnates. However, Irish Jews have always had trades and skills, with more self-employed as a percentage of the population and a lower percentage of wage earners than other communities. Thus, by the time of the boom in the early 1990s, although there were very few multimillionaires, the vast majority of Irish Jews were part of the urban middle class.
At the heart of the Irish boom was the property market, an economic sector in which Irish Jews have long been involved. Many members of the community have become wealthy as the value of commercial and residential property has skyrocketed.
Interestingly, this wealth has not been reinvested in the community to any significant extent. Dublin Jewry has always had a much greater tradition of supporting Israeli charities than the needy within their own community. Some members have been reluctant to donate funds because their children have settled abroad. Moreover, major disagreements over the closure and sale of Adelaide Road Synagogue over a decade ago split the community. Whereas the sale of this synagogue along with the Maccabi sports club meant that the community gained some significant capital, this created a disincentive for individuals to give donations from their own pockets.
The Irish Muslim Community
The rise of the "Celtic Tiger" economy meant that for the first time in 150 years, from 1991 to 1996 Ireland saw net immigration rather than net emigration. Society has rapidly become both multicultural and multiracial. This is most clearly seen in the growth of the Irish Muslim community.
Muslims are now the third largest religious group in the country after Roman Catholics, who number 3.7 million or 86.8 percent of the population and the Church of Ireland, which has 125,000 adherents.[14] According to the 2006 census, there are 32,529 Muslims in Ireland, up from 19,147 in 2002, an increase of 69.9 percent in four years. The most obvious sign of this is that the once-Jewish area of "Little Jerusalem" now borders a vibrant and growing Muslim shopping quarter.
Over the last decade many European societies have been challenged by the multiculturalism caused by growing Muslim communities. The same process is now occurring in Ireland. In 2007, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, the premier medical school in the country, announced that toilets in all new buildings will face away from Mecca "[out of] respect for the cultural diversity of the student population."[15] In May 2008, the Islamic Cultural Center, which is based at the largest Sunni mosque in Dublin, spoke of the "urgent need" for Sharia-compliant financial services in Ireland. And in June 2008, the government wrote to the heads of four thousand schools across Ireland to seek their views on the wearing of the hijab headscarf.[16]
At the time of the Danish Muhammad-cartoons controversy the reaction among Irish Muslims was relatively mild, with a few hundred marching in Dublin with placards carrying the words "Don't insult the Prophet." However, as has been the case in other European countries, much Irish Muslim funding emanates from Saudi Arabia and this can make the community vulnerable to Wahhabi extremism.
Moreover, there already are a number of groups in Dublin that have alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood. These include the Federation of Islamic Student Societies (FOSIS), the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE), and the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR). This latter group was founded by the controversial Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi in 1997 and is permanently headquartered in the Islamic Cultural Center in Dublin. In 2003, the ECFR issued a fatwa endorsing "martyrdom operations" against Israel "even if the victims include civilians."[17]
On a national level there is growing concern that Ireland could develop into a base for money laundering, document forging, and even a transit base for terrorists. The security services listed radical Islamic extremism as the number one priority for 2006 and in the same year the chief of staff of the Irish army admitted, regarding Islamic extremists, that "there's always the danger that people would use Ireland as a back door to the UK."[18]
Although this is a challenge for the whole of Irish society, the rising influence of the Muslim community raises issues particularly for Irish Jews. The first is that the Islamicization of politics has never been good for Jews. There is a strong correlation between anti-Jewish incidents across Europe and a rising focus in domestic politics on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Irish Jewish museum was smeared the day after Yasser Arafat died in November 2004. Second, Irish Jews were historically the largest and most public non-Christian minority. According to the 2006 census, Judaism is now the fifteenth largest religious group out of twenty-three in a country of 4.2 million people. Islam ranks third, Orthodox Christianity is sixth, and Irish Jews also rank behind Buddhists (ninth), Hindus (tenth), and Jehovah's Witnesses (thirteenth).[19]
The 1937 Irish Constitution gave Jews special recognition and protection as the largest non-Christian group in a society overwhelmingly dominated by Roman Catholicism. However, the present marginal position of Irish Jewry could mark the beginning of the end of its influence on a national level. This has not yet happened as evidenced by the fact that in 2007 the Jewish community was one of the religious groups invited to participate in a new framework established by the government to facilitate discussion between the state and religious leaders on various matters. Moreover, symbolically important annual events continue such as the lighting of the menorah candles at the residence of the Lord Mayor of Dublin and the Chief Rabbi's televised address to the nation on the eve of the Jewish New Year.
Nevertheless, the community is undoubtedly at a crossroads. It is financially secure in the medium term but faces the abovementioned challenges without the benefit of any real leadership. This more than any other factor places in jeopardy the future viability of a once thriving community built from scratch by what Max Nurock, the Dublin-born and educated Jew who later became Israel's ambassador to Australia, remembered fondly as an "incomparable generation of Litvak [Lithuanian] pioneers."
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Just a Fact, Ma'am
scotsman.com News - Headlines
Fact of the Day
On this date in 1565, Mary Queen of Scots married her cousin, Lord Darnley, in the Old Abbey Chapel at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh. You can read a range of story on the Scots Queen at
heritage.scotsman.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact of the Day
On this date in 1565, Mary Queen of Scots married her cousin, Lord Darnley, in the Old Abbey Chapel at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh. You can read a range of story on the Scots Queen at
heritage.scotsman.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Just a Fact, Ma'am
Fact of the Day
Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Inverkeithing (AKA Battle of Pitreavie) in 1651. Part of the third "English" civil war, the battle pitched Oliver Cromwell's parliamentary New Model Army against a force of Scots loyal to King Charles. Among the 2,000 Scots dead were some 760 Macleans.
Today is the anniversary of the Battle of Inverkeithing (AKA Battle of Pitreavie) in 1651. Part of the third "English" civil war, the battle pitched Oliver Cromwell's parliamentary New Model Army against a force of Scots loyal to King Charles. Among the 2,000 Scots dead were some 760 Macleans.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Some Scottish Facts
I love these lists of facts. They're fodder for my next book about Scotland.
Anniversaries of Scottish Historical Events
July 13 1249 - King Alexander III crowned at Scone
July 14 1927 - Scottish National War Memorial opened.
July 15 1889 - National Portrait Gallery for Scotland opened in Edinburgh.
July 16 1328 - David II, son of Robert I (the Bruce) married Joan, sister
of Edward III (he was 4, she was 7).
July 16 1970 - 13th Commonwealth Games opened in Edinburgh.
July 17 1695 - Bank of Scotland, first bank to be established by an Act of
the Scottish Parliament, opened.
July 18 1792 - John Paul Jones, naval hero of the American Revolution,
died; he was born in Kircudbrightshire in 1747.
July 19 1333 - Battle of Halidon Hill in which Sir Archibald Douglas
(guardian of David II) routed by Edward Balliol and Edward III. Scots
losses were nearly 600, English losses 14.
July 20 1651 - Battle of Inverkeithing. Royalist force supporting Charles
II failed to halt advance of army of Oliver Cromwell heading for Perth.
July 21 1796 - Robert Burns dies in Dumfries, aged 37.
July 22 1298 - The army of the English King Edward I, using longbows for
the first time, defeated the Scots led by Sir William Wallace at Battle of
Falkirk.
July 23 1745 - Charles Edward Stuart landed on Eriskay at the start of the
1745 campaign.
July 24 1567 - Mary Queen of Scots abdicated and the young James VI acceded
to Scottish throne. The Earl of Mar was appointed regent.
July 24 2002 - The Princess Royal formally opened the Loch Lomond and The
Trossachs National Park, Scotland's first national park.
July 25 1394 - King James I born.
Anniversaries of Scottish Historical Events
July 13 1249 - King Alexander III crowned at Scone
July 14 1927 - Scottish National War Memorial opened.
July 15 1889 - National Portrait Gallery for Scotland opened in Edinburgh.
July 16 1328 - David II, son of Robert I (the Bruce) married Joan, sister
of Edward III (he was 4, she was 7).
July 16 1970 - 13th Commonwealth Games opened in Edinburgh.
July 17 1695 - Bank of Scotland, first bank to be established by an Act of
the Scottish Parliament, opened.
July 18 1792 - John Paul Jones, naval hero of the American Revolution,
died; he was born in Kircudbrightshire in 1747.
July 19 1333 - Battle of Halidon Hill in which Sir Archibald Douglas
(guardian of David II) routed by Edward Balliol and Edward III. Scots
losses were nearly 600, English losses 14.
July 20 1651 - Battle of Inverkeithing. Royalist force supporting Charles
II failed to halt advance of army of Oliver Cromwell heading for Perth.
July 21 1796 - Robert Burns dies in Dumfries, aged 37.
July 22 1298 - The army of the English King Edward I, using longbows for
the first time, defeated the Scots led by Sir William Wallace at Battle of
Falkirk.
July 23 1745 - Charles Edward Stuart landed on Eriskay at the start of the
1745 campaign.
July 24 1567 - Mary Queen of Scots abdicated and the young James VI acceded
to Scottish throne. The Earl of Mar was appointed regent.
July 24 2002 - The Princess Royal formally opened the Loch Lomond and The
Trossachs National Park, Scotland's first national park.
July 25 1394 - King James I born.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Love Myths
scotsman.com News -----------------------------------------------
Fact of the Day
On this day in 1881 the ghost-ship of doom, the Flying Dutchman, was sighted at 4am 50 miles off the Cape of Good Hope, by the crew of HMS Inconstant. Many sightings had previously been claimed, but this occasion was unique, for the phantom was seen by 13 people, including a 16-year-old naval cadet who became George V. To read about Scottish myths and mysteries go to
heritage.scotsman.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact of the Day
On this day in 1881 the ghost-ship of doom, the Flying Dutchman, was sighted at 4am 50 miles off the Cape of Good Hope, by the crew of HMS Inconstant. Many sightings had previously been claimed, but this occasion was unique, for the phantom was seen by 13 people, including a 16-year-old naval cadet who became George V. To read about Scottish myths and mysteries go to
heritage.scotsman.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, July 10, 2008
How others perceive the US
This is from NEWS:Scotsman.comUS uses Iranian missile tests to justify European defence shield
Footage of the missiles trailing vapour plumes across the desert was broadcast on Iranian television
« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryADVERTISEMENTPublished Date: 10 July 2008
By MICHAEL THEODOULOU
THE United States led vociferous condemnation of long-range missile tests by Iran yesterday, but also used them to justify its controversial plans to install a missile defence shield in eastern Europe that have met with fierce Russian opposition.
The Iranian muscle-flexing also highlighted sharp differences in foreign policy between the US presidential rivals. Barack Obama, the Democratic hopeful, called for "aggressive diplomacy" with Iran, while John McCain, the Republican candidate, warned against making any concessions.
Tehran said a "new version" of its Shahab-3 missile, with a range of 1,250 miles and carrying a one-tonne conventional warhead, was among nine medium and long-range missiles test-fired by its elite Revolutionary Guards.
Tehran said the exercise demonstrated the Islamic Republic's readiness to retaliate against any attack over its nuclear programme. Referring to the US and Israel, General Hossein Salami, the air force commander of the Revolutionary Guards, declared: "We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch."
The tests came less than a day after the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, dismissed fears that Israel and the US could be preparing to attack.
Despite the sabre-rattling, neither side has ruled out a settlement.
"We view force as an option that is on the table, but a last resort," said William Burns, the US under-secretary of state for political affairs. "We do not believe we have exhausted all diplomatic options."
Footage of the missiles, fired from a desert location, was broadcast on television.
In London, the Foreign Office said the "tests were unwelcome and only serve to reinforce our concerns about Iranian intentions". The White House expressed concern that Iran's ballistic missiles could be used as a "delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon".
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said the test justified plans to install a missile shield in eastern Europe. "Those who say there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a defence missile system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims," she said on a visit to Bulgaria.
That argument was echoed by Mr McCain. He also implicitly criticised Mr Obama's strategy of engaging with Iran. "Working with our European partners and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy," Mr McCain said.
Mr Obama said Iran must "suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy opening up channels of communication so we avoid provocation, but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behaviour".
BACKGROUND
IRAN'S medium to long-range missile programme is primarily based on North Korean-supplied technology, shipped to the country in the late 1990s and based on Soviet designs.
There is also evidence of some later Russian and Chinese input and it is to be assumed the Iranians have made several advances themselves.
Defence analyst Paul Beaver said Iran's missile programme was fairly advanced, but it still needed to get accuracy and guidance systems right for long distances. "They are some way away yet from threatening Israel or US bases," he said.
Pieter Wezeman, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said he did not believe that Iran had many Shahab 3 missiles in stock or that they could cause major destruction.
US uses Iranian missile tests to justify European defence shieldFootage of the missiles trailing vapour plumes across the desert was broadcast on Iranian television
Date: 10 July 2008
By MICHAEL THEODOULOU
THE United States led vociferous condemnation of long-range missile tests by Iran yesterday, but also used them to justify its controversial plans to install a missile defence shield in eastern Europe that have met with fierce Russian opposition.
The Iranian muscle-flexing also highlighted sharp differences in foreign policy between the US presidential rivals. Barack Obama, the Democratic hopeful, called for "aggressive diplomacy" with Iran, while John McCain, the Republican candidate, warned against making any concessions.
Tehran said a "new version" of its Shahab-3 missile, with a range of 1,250 miles and carrying a one-tonne conventional warhead, was among nine medium and long-range missiles test-fired by its elite Revolutionary Guards.
Tehran said the exercise demonstrated the Islamic Republic's readiness to retaliate against any attack over its nuclear programme. Referring to the US and Israel, General Hossein Salami, the air force commander of the Revolutionary Guards, declared: "We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch."
The tests came less than a day after the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, dismissed fears that Israel and the US could be preparing to attack.
Despite the sabre-rattling, neither side has ruled out a settlement.
"We view force as an option that is on the table, but a last resort," said William Burns, the US under-secretary of state for political affairs. "We do not believe we have exhausted all diplomatic options."
Footage of the missiles, fired from a desert location, was broadcast on television.
In London, the Foreign Office said the "tests were unwelcome and only serve to reinforce our concerns about Iranian intentions". The White House expressed concern that Iran's ballistic missiles could be used as a "delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon".
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said the test justified plans to install a missile shield in eastern Europe. "Those who say there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a defence missile system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims," she said on a visit to Bulgaria.
That argument was echoed by Mr McCain. He also implicitly criticised Mr Obama's strategy of engaging with Iran. "Working with our European partners and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy," Mr McCain said.
Mr Obama said Iran must "suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy opening up channels of communication so we avoid provocation, but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behaviour".
BACKGROUND
IRAN'S medium to long-range missile programme is primarily based on North Korean-supplied technology, shipped to the country in the late 1990s and based on Soviet designs.
There is also evidence of some later Russian and Chinese input and it is to be assumed the Iranians have made several advances themselves.
Defence analyst Paul Beaver said Iran's missile programme was fairly advanced, but it still needed to get accuracy and guidance systems right for long distances. "They are some way away yet from threatening Israel or US bases," he said.
Pieter Wezeman, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said he did not believe that Iran had many Shahab 3 missiles in stock or that they could cause major destruction.
Footage of the missiles trailing vapour plumes across the desert was broadcast on Iranian television
« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryADVERTISEMENTPublished Date: 10 July 2008
By MICHAEL THEODOULOU
THE United States led vociferous condemnation of long-range missile tests by Iran yesterday, but also used them to justify its controversial plans to install a missile defence shield in eastern Europe that have met with fierce Russian opposition.
The Iranian muscle-flexing also highlighted sharp differences in foreign policy between the US presidential rivals. Barack Obama, the Democratic hopeful, called for "aggressive diplomacy" with Iran, while John McCain, the Republican candidate, warned against making any concessions.
Tehran said a "new version" of its Shahab-3 missile, with a range of 1,250 miles and carrying a one-tonne conventional warhead, was among nine medium and long-range missiles test-fired by its elite Revolutionary Guards.
Tehran said the exercise demonstrated the Islamic Republic's readiness to retaliate against any attack over its nuclear programme. Referring to the US and Israel, General Hossein Salami, the air force commander of the Revolutionary Guards, declared: "We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch."
The tests came less than a day after the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, dismissed fears that Israel and the US could be preparing to attack.
Despite the sabre-rattling, neither side has ruled out a settlement.
"We view force as an option that is on the table, but a last resort," said William Burns, the US under-secretary of state for political affairs. "We do not believe we have exhausted all diplomatic options."
Footage of the missiles, fired from a desert location, was broadcast on television.
In London, the Foreign Office said the "tests were unwelcome and only serve to reinforce our concerns about Iranian intentions". The White House expressed concern that Iran's ballistic missiles could be used as a "delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon".
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said the test justified plans to install a missile shield in eastern Europe. "Those who say there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a defence missile system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims," she said on a visit to Bulgaria.
That argument was echoed by Mr McCain. He also implicitly criticised Mr Obama's strategy of engaging with Iran. "Working with our European partners and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy," Mr McCain said.
Mr Obama said Iran must "suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy opening up channels of communication so we avoid provocation, but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behaviour".
BACKGROUND
IRAN'S medium to long-range missile programme is primarily based on North Korean-supplied technology, shipped to the country in the late 1990s and based on Soviet designs.
There is also evidence of some later Russian and Chinese input and it is to be assumed the Iranians have made several advances themselves.
Defence analyst Paul Beaver said Iran's missile programme was fairly advanced, but it still needed to get accuracy and guidance systems right for long distances. "They are some way away yet from threatening Israel or US bases," he said.
Pieter Wezeman, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said he did not believe that Iran had many Shahab 3 missiles in stock or that they could cause major destruction.
US uses Iranian missile tests to justify European defence shieldFootage of the missiles trailing vapour plumes across the desert was broadcast on Iranian television
Date: 10 July 2008
By MICHAEL THEODOULOU
THE United States led vociferous condemnation of long-range missile tests by Iran yesterday, but also used them to justify its controversial plans to install a missile defence shield in eastern Europe that have met with fierce Russian opposition.
The Iranian muscle-flexing also highlighted sharp differences in foreign policy between the US presidential rivals. Barack Obama, the Democratic hopeful, called for "aggressive diplomacy" with Iran, while John McCain, the Republican candidate, warned against making any concessions.
Tehran said a "new version" of its Shahab-3 missile, with a range of 1,250 miles and carrying a one-tonne conventional warhead, was among nine medium and long-range missiles test-fired by its elite Revolutionary Guards.
Tehran said the exercise demonstrated the Islamic Republic's readiness to retaliate against any attack over its nuclear programme. Referring to the US and Israel, General Hossein Salami, the air force commander of the Revolutionary Guards, declared: "We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch."
The tests came less than a day after the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, dismissed fears that Israel and the US could be preparing to attack.
Despite the sabre-rattling, neither side has ruled out a settlement.
"We view force as an option that is on the table, but a last resort," said William Burns, the US under-secretary of state for political affairs. "We do not believe we have exhausted all diplomatic options."
Footage of the missiles, fired from a desert location, was broadcast on television.
In London, the Foreign Office said the "tests were unwelcome and only serve to reinforce our concerns about Iranian intentions". The White House expressed concern that Iran's ballistic missiles could be used as a "delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon".
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said the test justified plans to install a missile shield in eastern Europe. "Those who say there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a defence missile system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims," she said on a visit to Bulgaria.
That argument was echoed by Mr McCain. He also implicitly criticised Mr Obama's strategy of engaging with Iran. "Working with our European partners and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy," Mr McCain said.
Mr Obama said Iran must "suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy opening up channels of communication so we avoid provocation, but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behaviour".
BACKGROUND
IRAN'S medium to long-range missile programme is primarily based on North Korean-supplied technology, shipped to the country in the late 1990s and based on Soviet designs.
There is also evidence of some later Russian and Chinese input and it is to be assumed the Iranians have made several advances themselves.
Defence analyst Paul Beaver said Iran's missile programme was fairly advanced, but it still needed to get accuracy and guidance systems right for long distances. "They are some way away yet from threatening Israel or US bases," he said.
Pieter Wezeman, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said he did not believe that Iran had many Shahab 3 missiles in stock or that they could cause major destruction.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Irish Travelers
I'm looking for information on the Irish Travelers, who settled in Kentucky. I would like to know something about their way of life, what they eat and drink, churches, and family structures.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Just a fact for today
Fact of the Day--from the Scotsman.com
On this date in 1307, Edward I, having conquered the Welsh, died on his way to Scotland to fight Robert the Bruce. Seven years later Robert the Bruce defeated the English at Bannockburn, but now historians are divided over the meaning of the battle.
Historians have been divided over the meaning of this battle for a long time. I have read several accounts...........isn't history interesting?
On this date in 1307, Edward I, having conquered the Welsh, died on his way to Scotland to fight Robert the Bruce. Seven years later Robert the Bruce defeated the English at Bannockburn, but now historians are divided over the meaning of the battle.
Historians have been divided over the meaning of this battle for a long time. I have read several accounts...........isn't history interesting?
Sunday, July 06, 2008
A Bit about the Irish
I'm anxious for some news about the O'Hara's, the O'Malley's, the Mahoneys and the Sullivans.
The Northern Clans’ Battle of Knockavoe and Knochdow
July 4th, 2008 | by theoracle |
Most of the fighting, however, that took place in the north was not against the foreign element. O’Neills and O’Donnells fought amongst themselves, against each other, and against their neighbours. Wars of succession frequently rent both great families, eventually resulting in the family of Eoghan retaining the headship of the Cineal Eoghain in Conn Mdr and his son, Conn Bacach, and in Aodh Ruadh O’Donnell, and his son, Aodh Dubh O’Donnel, being successively chiefs of the Cineal Chonaill. Both families still maintained their claims to supremacy over all the north.
Those of the O’Neills were opposed in Ulaidh not only by Mac Guinness, but by the O’Neills of the Clann Aodha Buidhe, who fought their kinsmen as fiercely as ever did any of the clans of Ulaidh.
The O’Donnells were at the same time engaged in asserting their traditional rights in Cairbre and ” Lower Connacht”140) against O’Connor Sligo.
In one of the battles in this contest they lost for a time the famous ” Cathach “ : in the capture of Sliao Castle they employed cannon sent to them by a French knight who had visited St. Patrick’s Purgatory in Lough Derg (1516).
But the fiercest rivalry was that between the O’Donnells and the O’Neills themselves. However anxious either might be to enforce its supremacy over its other neighbours, it had always to reckon with its great rival.
The old struggle between the two branches of the northern Ui Neill became intensified as each one tried to make itself supreme in the north. Occasionally during this period the enmity was put aside, and the two great clans combined. But the union was never lasting. In 1514 a peace was made by which the O’Neills formally recognised the supremacy of the Cineal Chonaill over Inishowen and Fermanagh.
But two years after they were again at war. Conn ” Bacach” O’Neill had gathered a host of allies—the chiefs of Oirghialla and Ulaidh, and clans from Connacht and Thomond—while Aodh Dubh O’Donnell depended upon his kins¬men of the Cineal Chonaill alone. At Knockavoe, near Stabane, O’Neill and his allies were utterly defeated in the bloodiest battle that had ever taken place between the Cineal Chonaill and the Cineal Eoghain (1522). O’Neill’s Connacht allies, who had laid siege to Sligo Castle, then in the possession of O’Donnell, fled in panic when they heard the news.
For at least ten years after this O’Donnell exacted tribute from the chiefs of all North or “Lower ” Connacht.
In the south the most important event of the period was the attempt of Tadhg O’Brien to revive the claims of his family over Leath Mhogha {page 73). With the largest army led by an O’Brien since Clontarf he crossed the Shannon, and levied tribute from Limerick. The Lord Deputy, the Earl of Desmond, was forced to acknowledge his rights over most of the old territory of Thomond which lay south of the Shannon. The chief of Osraidhe and some of the Leinster chiefs accepted his ” tuarasdail.”
But his career was suddenly ended by fever (1466).
Battle of Knoekdow.—Forty years later another O’Brien found him-selfin opposition to another Lord Deputy. The affair originated in Connacht, which, since the partition of the O’Connors (page 178), was without an overlord. In a quarrel between O’Kelly of Ui Maine ^d Burke of Uanrickarde (Mac William Uachtar), O’Kelly was supported by the lords of the Pale- Turlough O’Brien, ldnh:the; Chiefs supported Burke, so that the contest was to a great extent the old one between Leath Chuinn and Leath Mhogha.
In a battle at Knochdow (near Gal way)—the most destructive battle since the invasion with the exception of that at Athenry—the southerns were utterly defeated after an obstinate fight (1504).
Six years later, however, O’Brien and Clanrickarde defeated Kildare at Monabraher, near Limerick, the Deputy’s allies on that occasion being the Irish and Normans of Desmond.
The Northern Clans’ Battle of Knockavoe and Knochdow
July 4th, 2008 | by theoracle |
Most of the fighting, however, that took place in the north was not against the foreign element. O’Neills and O’Donnells fought amongst themselves, against each other, and against their neighbours. Wars of succession frequently rent both great families, eventually resulting in the family of Eoghan retaining the headship of the Cineal Eoghain in Conn Mdr and his son, Conn Bacach, and in Aodh Ruadh O’Donnell, and his son, Aodh Dubh O’Donnel, being successively chiefs of the Cineal Chonaill. Both families still maintained their claims to supremacy over all the north.
Those of the O’Neills were opposed in Ulaidh not only by Mac Guinness, but by the O’Neills of the Clann Aodha Buidhe, who fought their kinsmen as fiercely as ever did any of the clans of Ulaidh.
The O’Donnells were at the same time engaged in asserting their traditional rights in Cairbre and ” Lower Connacht”140) against O’Connor Sligo.
In one of the battles in this contest they lost for a time the famous ” Cathach “ : in the capture of Sliao Castle they employed cannon sent to them by a French knight who had visited St. Patrick’s Purgatory in Lough Derg (1516).
But the fiercest rivalry was that between the O’Donnells and the O’Neills themselves. However anxious either might be to enforce its supremacy over its other neighbours, it had always to reckon with its great rival.
The old struggle between the two branches of the northern Ui Neill became intensified as each one tried to make itself supreme in the north. Occasionally during this period the enmity was put aside, and the two great clans combined. But the union was never lasting. In 1514 a peace was made by which the O’Neills formally recognised the supremacy of the Cineal Chonaill over Inishowen and Fermanagh.
But two years after they were again at war. Conn ” Bacach” O’Neill had gathered a host of allies—the chiefs of Oirghialla and Ulaidh, and clans from Connacht and Thomond—while Aodh Dubh O’Donnell depended upon his kins¬men of the Cineal Chonaill alone. At Knockavoe, near Stabane, O’Neill and his allies were utterly defeated in the bloodiest battle that had ever taken place between the Cineal Chonaill and the Cineal Eoghain (1522). O’Neill’s Connacht allies, who had laid siege to Sligo Castle, then in the possession of O’Donnell, fled in panic when they heard the news.
For at least ten years after this O’Donnell exacted tribute from the chiefs of all North or “Lower ” Connacht.
In the south the most important event of the period was the attempt of Tadhg O’Brien to revive the claims of his family over Leath Mhogha {page 73). With the largest army led by an O’Brien since Clontarf he crossed the Shannon, and levied tribute from Limerick. The Lord Deputy, the Earl of Desmond, was forced to acknowledge his rights over most of the old territory of Thomond which lay south of the Shannon. The chief of Osraidhe and some of the Leinster chiefs accepted his ” tuarasdail.”
But his career was suddenly ended by fever (1466).
Battle of Knoekdow.—Forty years later another O’Brien found him-selfin opposition to another Lord Deputy. The affair originated in Connacht, which, since the partition of the O’Connors (page 178), was without an overlord. In a quarrel between O’Kelly of Ui Maine ^d Burke of Uanrickarde (Mac William Uachtar), O’Kelly was supported by the lords of the Pale- Turlough O’Brien, ldnh:the; Chiefs supported Burke, so that the contest was to a great extent the old one between Leath Chuinn and Leath Mhogha.
In a battle at Knochdow (near Gal way)—the most destructive battle since the invasion with the exception of that at Athenry—the southerns were utterly defeated after an obstinate fight (1504).
Six years later, however, O’Brien and Clanrickarde defeated Kildare at Monabraher, near Limerick, the Deputy’s allies on that occasion being the Irish and Normans of Desmond.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Kings and Queens
I just found this and it added to my font of knowledge. I needed this for my next Clan Gunn book. I got this from a blog on Britain.
Sovereigns selected and deselected
Some think that a British Sovereign inherits the throne and sits on it until he or she dies, but British history shows that the selection and indeed deselection of the Sovereign was often made by the people to ensure that they had a ruler they could trust and who was up to the job. When the British people believed that a Sovereign had violated his Coronation Oath - to protect the laws and give them justice - they often sent him packing.
Cat has prepared a partial list of sovereigns, some of them selected, many of them deselected. I think you'll notice some modern echoes -
SELECTED Alfred (871-899) is the great pre-Norman example of a king selected by the Witan, which passed over his elder brother's son.
SELECTED Alfred's grandson AEthelstan (924-940) was first chosen king by the Mercians, and later named king of Britain by an assembly of less powerful rulers. He held his kingdom together with ‘national assemblies, in which every local interest was represented' (DNB).
SELECTED Edward the Confessor was invited by English magnates to return from exile and become king. On his death the magnates elected Harold.
DESELECTED William II (1087-1100), the son of William the Conqueror, was "deselected" by an arrow in the heart. Supposedly a hunting accident, the archer was never identified. There is some evidence the arrow was shot because William had enclosed common lands to enlarge the New Forest.
SELECTED Henry I (1100-1135) was crowned king when his brother died, in preference to his elder brother Robert. He agreed to affirm the Charter of Liberties and the essential principle that no one, not even the king, is above the law.
SELECTED Henry II (1154-1189) was selected to rule after Stephen.
DESELECTED John (1199-1216) broke his Coronation Oath by not giving justice. He was forced to affirm Magna Carta. When he resisted, the "Holy Army of God" marched against him, with the citizens of all the major towns in support, and John died on the campaign trail.
TEMPORARILY DESELECTED Henry III (1216-1272) was made a prisoner when he refused to uphold Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster. The struggle that ensued saw the birth of Parliament.
DESELECTED Edward II (1284-1327) was deposed due to extravagant favouritism and his refusal to carry through on promises of reform, including "ejecting evil counsellors". His government 'could not be mended, only ended' (DNB). Edward resigned his throne in favour of his son.
DESELECTED Richard II (1377-1399) troubled the House of Commons with his heavy taxation and his inner circle of favourites and ministers. Richard's claims of prerogative were backed by the courts, but not by the people or the lords, who executed his inner circle. Richard regained power, used the treason law as a means of political and personal oppression and violated Magna Carta. Parliament charged Richard with breaking his Coronation Oath, and thereby breaking the legal bond between himself and his people (DNB). He was deposed "by authority of the clergy and people" with the help of Henry Bolingbroke.
DESELECTED Henry VI (1421-1471) inherited the throne when he was a baby. He was more interested in promoting education - he established Eton and King's College, Cambridge - than in ruling. He could not control greedy courtiers, remedy his court's inefficiency and lack of accountability, provide fair and effective justice or arrange an honourable peace with France. War resumed, trade collapsed, Henry had a breakdown and was deposed.
TEMPORARILY DESELECTED Edward IV (1461-1470, 1471-1483) Rebellions to his rule arose due to high taxes, a greedy court circle and lax justice, and the thorny Wars of the Roses. Edward was forced to flee to the Netherlands, mounted a successful invasion and reestablished his authority in Britain. Unfortunately he was indifferent to the concept of parliament, elevated persons rather than the law and created the new and unlawful tax inventions of 'benevolences', an early example of double-speak.
DESELECTED Charles I (1625-1649) engaged in a great battle with Parliament over taxes, the right to petition government for redress of grievances and his belief in an absolute kingship superior to constitutional law. He lost the subsequent Civil War and the battle of ideas and was beheaded.
SELECTED Charles II (1660-1685), the son of Charles I, was invited back to England to serve as King.
DESELECTED James II (1685-1688) succeeded to the throne on the death of his brother Charles, but was forced to flee when English cities rose in rebellion. The people believed that he was trying to disarm those who opposed him and reinstate Catholicism.
SELECTED William and Mary (1689-1694) were invited to rule England by "A People's Convention". Mary and William were accepted when they affirmed the liberties described in the Declaration of Right as part of their covenant with the people.
DESELECTED George III (1760-1820) retained his crown to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but Brits in America rejected his rule over the issues of taxes, the right to be armed and the right to self-government.
The modern echoes include high taxes, lack of justice, accountability and fairness, inefficiency and greed, a refusal to abide by Magna Carta, dishonourable peace, and, in the case of John and James, the fear that the kingdom would be ruled by foreign powers. Behind all these concerns lay the breaking of the Coronation Oath.
History provides food for thought as we ask HRH Queen Elizabeth II why she gave her Royal Assent to the Lisbon Treaty, which subverts Britain's sovereignty and common law. Does she believe she lacks the constitutional authority to refuse her assent to Parliament?
It is the people, not Parliament, who give her constitutional authority. She had a constitutional obligation to refuse the Treaty, which is an EU constitution.
To date three presidents of European countries have refused to sign the Treaty.
This government is extremely unpopular. The Queen has the power to dissolve Parliament.
Sovereigns selected and deselected
Some think that a British Sovereign inherits the throne and sits on it until he or she dies, but British history shows that the selection and indeed deselection of the Sovereign was often made by the people to ensure that they had a ruler they could trust and who was up to the job. When the British people believed that a Sovereign had violated his Coronation Oath - to protect the laws and give them justice - they often sent him packing.
Cat has prepared a partial list of sovereigns, some of them selected, many of them deselected. I think you'll notice some modern echoes -
SELECTED Alfred (871-899) is the great pre-Norman example of a king selected by the Witan, which passed over his elder brother's son.
SELECTED Alfred's grandson AEthelstan (924-940) was first chosen king by the Mercians, and later named king of Britain by an assembly of less powerful rulers. He held his kingdom together with ‘national assemblies, in which every local interest was represented' (DNB).
SELECTED Edward the Confessor was invited by English magnates to return from exile and become king. On his death the magnates elected Harold.
DESELECTED William II (1087-1100), the son of William the Conqueror, was "deselected" by an arrow in the heart. Supposedly a hunting accident, the archer was never identified. There is some evidence the arrow was shot because William had enclosed common lands to enlarge the New Forest.
SELECTED Henry I (1100-1135) was crowned king when his brother died, in preference to his elder brother Robert. He agreed to affirm the Charter of Liberties and the essential principle that no one, not even the king, is above the law.
SELECTED Henry II (1154-1189) was selected to rule after Stephen.
DESELECTED John (1199-1216) broke his Coronation Oath by not giving justice. He was forced to affirm Magna Carta. When he resisted, the "Holy Army of God" marched against him, with the citizens of all the major towns in support, and John died on the campaign trail.
TEMPORARILY DESELECTED Henry III (1216-1272) was made a prisoner when he refused to uphold Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster. The struggle that ensued saw the birth of Parliament.
DESELECTED Edward II (1284-1327) was deposed due to extravagant favouritism and his refusal to carry through on promises of reform, including "ejecting evil counsellors". His government 'could not be mended, only ended' (DNB). Edward resigned his throne in favour of his son.
DESELECTED Richard II (1377-1399) troubled the House of Commons with his heavy taxation and his inner circle of favourites and ministers. Richard's claims of prerogative were backed by the courts, but not by the people or the lords, who executed his inner circle. Richard regained power, used the treason law as a means of political and personal oppression and violated Magna Carta. Parliament charged Richard with breaking his Coronation Oath, and thereby breaking the legal bond between himself and his people (DNB). He was deposed "by authority of the clergy and people" with the help of Henry Bolingbroke.
DESELECTED Henry VI (1421-1471) inherited the throne when he was a baby. He was more interested in promoting education - he established Eton and King's College, Cambridge - than in ruling. He could not control greedy courtiers, remedy his court's inefficiency and lack of accountability, provide fair and effective justice or arrange an honourable peace with France. War resumed, trade collapsed, Henry had a breakdown and was deposed.
TEMPORARILY DESELECTED Edward IV (1461-1470, 1471-1483) Rebellions to his rule arose due to high taxes, a greedy court circle and lax justice, and the thorny Wars of the Roses. Edward was forced to flee to the Netherlands, mounted a successful invasion and reestablished his authority in Britain. Unfortunately he was indifferent to the concept of parliament, elevated persons rather than the law and created the new and unlawful tax inventions of 'benevolences', an early example of double-speak.
DESELECTED Charles I (1625-1649) engaged in a great battle with Parliament over taxes, the right to petition government for redress of grievances and his belief in an absolute kingship superior to constitutional law. He lost the subsequent Civil War and the battle of ideas and was beheaded.
SELECTED Charles II (1660-1685), the son of Charles I, was invited back to England to serve as King.
DESELECTED James II (1685-1688) succeeded to the throne on the death of his brother Charles, but was forced to flee when English cities rose in rebellion. The people believed that he was trying to disarm those who opposed him and reinstate Catholicism.
SELECTED William and Mary (1689-1694) were invited to rule England by "A People's Convention". Mary and William were accepted when they affirmed the liberties described in the Declaration of Right as part of their covenant with the people.
DESELECTED George III (1760-1820) retained his crown to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but Brits in America rejected his rule over the issues of taxes, the right to be armed and the right to self-government.
The modern echoes include high taxes, lack of justice, accountability and fairness, inefficiency and greed, a refusal to abide by Magna Carta, dishonourable peace, and, in the case of John and James, the fear that the kingdom would be ruled by foreign powers. Behind all these concerns lay the breaking of the Coronation Oath.
History provides food for thought as we ask HRH Queen Elizabeth II why she gave her Royal Assent to the Lisbon Treaty, which subverts Britain's sovereignty and common law. Does she believe she lacks the constitutional authority to refuse her assent to Parliament?
It is the people, not Parliament, who give her constitutional authority. She had a constitutional obligation to refuse the Treaty, which is an EU constitution.
To date three presidents of European countries have refused to sign the Treaty.
This government is extremely unpopular. The Queen has the power to dissolve Parliament.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Possible Clan Gunn Book-the 3rd in the series
June 22nd marks the anniversary of the Battle of Bothwell Bridge in 1679. Royalist forces led by Graham of Claverhouse, the Duke of Monmouth and the Earl of Linlithgow defeated a force of Covenanters near the town of Hamilton. The Covenanters had gathered to debate their next move following their own victory at the Battle of Drumclog.
This is one of those historical facts that spurs me on to continuing my Scottish Heritage books. I need to write the sequel to CLAN GUNN: GEREK, but I don't want to skip 29 years for the next book. I'll have to figure out a way so that Baen's son, Drummond, can be a warrior in this skirmish. I love to use history as a starting point or reference in my novels.
I'll need to figure out how Baen, one of the villains in the above book, gets out of the hole he's gotten himself into. I want to redeem him............
This is one of those historical facts that spurs me on to continuing my Scottish Heritage books. I need to write the sequel to CLAN GUNN: GEREK, but I don't want to skip 29 years for the next book. I'll have to figure out a way so that Baen's son, Drummond, can be a warrior in this skirmish. I love to use history as a starting point or reference in my novels.
I'll need to figure out how Baen, one of the villains in the above book, gets out of the hole he's gotten himself into. I want to redeem him............
Friday, June 27, 2008
Suffering
I'm having a bit of pain on the left side, waist down. Have been to the docs twice, had an MRI and will be seeing a neurosurgeon on Tuesday. Can't sit for long, can't lay down for long, can't walk for long---so you see that's why I haven't blogged.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Horse Racing
I'm so into thoroughbreds and dogs and their careers that I might start another blog. Today, I'm going to post the racing schedule for ESPN--all these races are important stakes races--and I bet they count for the Breeder's Cup at the end of the year.
Date--Network--Time (ET)--Race/Event--Track
June 28--ESPN2--7:00-8:00 p.m.--Hollywood Gold Cup--Hollywood Park
July 5--ESPN2--6:00-7:00 p.m.--United Nations, Salvator Mile Stakes--Monmouth Park
July 13--ESPN2--5:00-6:00 p.m.--Delaware Handicap, Barbaro Stakes--Delaware Park
July 19--ESPN2--7:00-8:00 p.m.--San Diego Handicap--Del Mar
August 2 ESPN--5:00-6:00 p.m.--Darley Test Stakes--Saratoga; West Virginia Derby--Mountaineer Pk.
August 9 ESPN--5:00-6:00 p.m.--Arlington Million, Beverly D. Stakes--Arlington Park
August 23 ESPN--4:30-6:00 p.m.--Travers Stakes, NetJets King’s Bishop Stakes, Bernard Baruch Handicap--Saratoga
Date--Network--Time (ET)--Race/Event--Track
June 28--ESPN2--7:00-8:00 p.m.--Hollywood Gold Cup--Hollywood Park
July 5--ESPN2--6:00-7:00 p.m.--United Nations, Salvator Mile Stakes--Monmouth Park
July 13--ESPN2--5:00-6:00 p.m.--Delaware Handicap, Barbaro Stakes--Delaware Park
July 19--ESPN2--7:00-8:00 p.m.--San Diego Handicap--Del Mar
August 2 ESPN--5:00-6:00 p.m.--Darley Test Stakes--Saratoga; West Virginia Derby--Mountaineer Pk.
August 9 ESPN--5:00-6:00 p.m.--Arlington Million, Beverly D. Stakes--Arlington Park
August 23 ESPN--4:30-6:00 p.m.--Travers Stakes, NetJets King’s Bishop Stakes, Bernard Baruch Handicap--Saratoga
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Important to me
I love horses. I hate what is being done with them after they've served mankind. I hate the slaughter of such animals.
Unwanted Horses: How Serious a Problem?
By Tom LaMarra
Posted: Wednesday June 18, 8:49 PM at BloodHorse.com
It tends to get lost in the shuffle because it’s not as sexy as anabolic steroids, race-fixing, or catastrophic breakdowns from a media perspective. But talk to people who work in the horse industry every day, and they’ll tell you the issue of unwanted horses is serious and so broad it impacts the entire United States, not just the horseracing industry.
Perhaps it’s time for a wake-up call.
“We need to focus our efforts on the front end of the problem rather than the rear end of the problem,” said Dr. Tom Lenz, a past president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners who is active with the Unwanted Horse Coalition formed after an AAEP-sponsored summit in 2005. “Honestly, the average horse owner hasn’t thought about this issue, but they need to give serious thought to changing the way they operate.”
Lenz offered his thoughts June 18 during the day-long “Unwanted Horse Forum” sponsored by the American Horse Council and the United States Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. The forum was fairly subdued even though the lightning-rod issues of horse slaughter, euthanasia, and consumption of horsemeat colored much of the proceedings.
The USDA titled the forum “The Unwanted Horse Issue: What Now?” It was timely by accident; the United States Supreme Court two days earlier denied an appeal from an Illinois slaughter plan that challenged an Illinois law prohibiting the killing of horses for human consumption.
The meat at the Illinois plant and two in Texas that closed in 2007 was mostly shipped overseas for consumption.
According to USDA data through 2006, about 70,000 horses per year were slaughtered in the U.S., 25,000 a year were shipped to Canada, and 7,500 a year were sent to Mexico (that number jumped to 40,000 last year). There are about 20,000 un-adopted feral horses and another 6,000-8,000 waiting to be adopted. It all adds up to about 100,000 unwanted horses in the U.S. each year.
“I have no doubt there is an unwanted horse problem in this country,” Lenz said. “We cannot completely eliminate it, but we can certainly minimize the problem.”
Can't escape slaughter issue
The Unwanted Horse Coalition, which falls under the AHC umbrella and has about 25 member organizations from various breeds and disciplines, has focused on education given the fact it can’t issue mandates. The coalition published an “Own Responsibly” guide, while the AHC issued in booklet form care and handling guidelines for horse owners.
The Humane Society of the United States, which has been quite active on the slaughter issue, has an equine division and prints horse-care guides. But the HSUS position often is at odds with horse industry groups given its campaign to end slaughter.
“We are definitely anti-slaughter,” said Holly Hazard, chief innovations officer for the HSUS. “Our position is slaughter is inhumane. I think the issue really is whether slaughter is adding to our ability to create a more humane world for horses. I don’t see that’s true.”
And that’s the major split: Does the shutdown of U.S. slaughter plants help address the unwanted horse issue or make it worse?
“Is there a chance things could become worse than the scenario right now?” said Camie Heleski, coordinator of the Michigan State University Horse Management Program. “The public doesn’t always have all the facts when it comes to making decisions, and that has complicated the issue even more.”
Former Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas took it even further. Stenholm, current a senior policy adviser at Olsson Frank and Weeda, a Washington, D.C., law firm that specializes in regulatory affairs, served as a member of the House Committee on Agriculture for 26 years and spent a lot of time on the slaughter issue.
“Everyone is entitled to their opinion,” Stenholm said, “but everyone is not entitled to their facts.”
Stenholm, who has been a lobbyist for the three U.S. slaughter plants, said the issue of the unwanted horse as it relates to horse slaughter is in need of hard facts rather than emotion, which he said has led to anti-slaughter legislation in Congress. Stenholm said those in the animal industry “all agree today that all animals should be treated humanely from birth to death,” but there are various opinions on what qualifies as humane.
The former lawmaker said the HSUS “did a beautiful job politically” in lobbying for anti-slaughter measures. But those who disagree, he said, see a problem that could only worsen.
How about private property rights?
“At some point, you are going to have horses that have no place to go,” Stenholm said. “When you begin to address the real world, I do see a little problem. This has become a 50-state issue...Horses are livestock, folks. Be careful of arguing that horses are pets, because you might get what you wish for. Pets are not tax deductible.”
Stenholm said he is disappointed the Supreme Court, in its Illinois slaughter ruling, didn’t address private property rights in terms of horse ownership. “We’re getting on very thin constitutional ice that has serious ramifications,” he said.
States are now studying the unwanted horse and slaughter issues, and a committee was to be formed perhaps June 18 to look at the issue from a national standpoint. There are hints that the U.S. hasn’t seen the end of slaughter plants despite the developments of the past two years.
“A lot of people are beginning to take a look at this with a realistic eye,” Stenholm said. “(Slaughter) has been an acceptable practice in the U.S. since we became a country. Only recently has this become un-American. If we lose this one, it’s over.”
U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky was scheduled to speak along with Stenholm, but moderator Richard Reynnells of the USDA announced Whitfield had a conflict that prevented him from attending his scheduled 45-minute session. Whitfield’s wife, Connie, is director of development for the HSUS.
Working on solutions
Tom Persechino, senior director of marketing for the American Quarter Horse Association, outlined potential solutions and options, such as rescue and retirement facilities, asking friends with acreage to take horses, contacting colleges and universities that have equine programs, and using horses for the North American Riding for the Handicapped Association.
Persechino said it’s not practical to force breeders to limit the number of horses they breed, but it is feasible to educate them. He said the Unwanted Horse Coalition “believes teaching people to own responsibly will help lower the number of unwanted horses.”
“The proposition that there are large numbers of unwanted horses in this country in need of slaughter can be answered with a resounding no,” said Hazard of the HSUS. “There are many horses in need of the commitment of the people with a stake in the horse industry to take responsibility for reducing the numbers that are bred, educating novice horse owners about proper care and training, creating new equestrian opportunities that allow more people to become a part of the equine community, and calling for an end to the unnecessary brutality of slaughter.”
Karin Bump, a professor at Cazenovia College in upstate New York, recommended a signal organization be in charge of collecting and maintaining data so there is no confusion. That, she said, would go a long way toward unifying the disparate groups.
It’s generally believed all the groups in play on the unwanted horse issue agree 90% of the time. It’s the other 10% that puts the unwanted horse at the mercy of politics.
“I think five to 10 years from now we’ll have a pretty good grip on things, but it’s going to take some time,” Lenz said.
Unwanted Horses: How Serious a Problem?
By Tom LaMarra
Posted: Wednesday June 18, 8:49 PM at BloodHorse.com
It tends to get lost in the shuffle because it’s not as sexy as anabolic steroids, race-fixing, or catastrophic breakdowns from a media perspective. But talk to people who work in the horse industry every day, and they’ll tell you the issue of unwanted horses is serious and so broad it impacts the entire United States, not just the horseracing industry.
Perhaps it’s time for a wake-up call.
“We need to focus our efforts on the front end of the problem rather than the rear end of the problem,” said Dr. Tom Lenz, a past president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners who is active with the Unwanted Horse Coalition formed after an AAEP-sponsored summit in 2005. “Honestly, the average horse owner hasn’t thought about this issue, but they need to give serious thought to changing the way they operate.”
Lenz offered his thoughts June 18 during the day-long “Unwanted Horse Forum” sponsored by the American Horse Council and the United States Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. The forum was fairly subdued even though the lightning-rod issues of horse slaughter, euthanasia, and consumption of horsemeat colored much of the proceedings.
The USDA titled the forum “The Unwanted Horse Issue: What Now?” It was timely by accident; the United States Supreme Court two days earlier denied an appeal from an Illinois slaughter plan that challenged an Illinois law prohibiting the killing of horses for human consumption.
The meat at the Illinois plant and two in Texas that closed in 2007 was mostly shipped overseas for consumption.
According to USDA data through 2006, about 70,000 horses per year were slaughtered in the U.S., 25,000 a year were shipped to Canada, and 7,500 a year were sent to Mexico (that number jumped to 40,000 last year). There are about 20,000 un-adopted feral horses and another 6,000-8,000 waiting to be adopted. It all adds up to about 100,000 unwanted horses in the U.S. each year.
“I have no doubt there is an unwanted horse problem in this country,” Lenz said. “We cannot completely eliminate it, but we can certainly minimize the problem.”
Can't escape slaughter issue
The Unwanted Horse Coalition, which falls under the AHC umbrella and has about 25 member organizations from various breeds and disciplines, has focused on education given the fact it can’t issue mandates. The coalition published an “Own Responsibly” guide, while the AHC issued in booklet form care and handling guidelines for horse owners.
The Humane Society of the United States, which has been quite active on the slaughter issue, has an equine division and prints horse-care guides. But the HSUS position often is at odds with horse industry groups given its campaign to end slaughter.
“We are definitely anti-slaughter,” said Holly Hazard, chief innovations officer for the HSUS. “Our position is slaughter is inhumane. I think the issue really is whether slaughter is adding to our ability to create a more humane world for horses. I don’t see that’s true.”
And that’s the major split: Does the shutdown of U.S. slaughter plants help address the unwanted horse issue or make it worse?
“Is there a chance things could become worse than the scenario right now?” said Camie Heleski, coordinator of the Michigan State University Horse Management Program. “The public doesn’t always have all the facts when it comes to making decisions, and that has complicated the issue even more.”
Former Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas took it even further. Stenholm, current a senior policy adviser at Olsson Frank and Weeda, a Washington, D.C., law firm that specializes in regulatory affairs, served as a member of the House Committee on Agriculture for 26 years and spent a lot of time on the slaughter issue.
“Everyone is entitled to their opinion,” Stenholm said, “but everyone is not entitled to their facts.”
Stenholm, who has been a lobbyist for the three U.S. slaughter plants, said the issue of the unwanted horse as it relates to horse slaughter is in need of hard facts rather than emotion, which he said has led to anti-slaughter legislation in Congress. Stenholm said those in the animal industry “all agree today that all animals should be treated humanely from birth to death,” but there are various opinions on what qualifies as humane.
The former lawmaker said the HSUS “did a beautiful job politically” in lobbying for anti-slaughter measures. But those who disagree, he said, see a problem that could only worsen.
How about private property rights?
“At some point, you are going to have horses that have no place to go,” Stenholm said. “When you begin to address the real world, I do see a little problem. This has become a 50-state issue...Horses are livestock, folks. Be careful of arguing that horses are pets, because you might get what you wish for. Pets are not tax deductible.”
Stenholm said he is disappointed the Supreme Court, in its Illinois slaughter ruling, didn’t address private property rights in terms of horse ownership. “We’re getting on very thin constitutional ice that has serious ramifications,” he said.
States are now studying the unwanted horse and slaughter issues, and a committee was to be formed perhaps June 18 to look at the issue from a national standpoint. There are hints that the U.S. hasn’t seen the end of slaughter plants despite the developments of the past two years.
“A lot of people are beginning to take a look at this with a realistic eye,” Stenholm said. “(Slaughter) has been an acceptable practice in the U.S. since we became a country. Only recently has this become un-American. If we lose this one, it’s over.”
U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky was scheduled to speak along with Stenholm, but moderator Richard Reynnells of the USDA announced Whitfield had a conflict that prevented him from attending his scheduled 45-minute session. Whitfield’s wife, Connie, is director of development for the HSUS.
Working on solutions
Tom Persechino, senior director of marketing for the American Quarter Horse Association, outlined potential solutions and options, such as rescue and retirement facilities, asking friends with acreage to take horses, contacting colleges and universities that have equine programs, and using horses for the North American Riding for the Handicapped Association.
Persechino said it’s not practical to force breeders to limit the number of horses they breed, but it is feasible to educate them. He said the Unwanted Horse Coalition “believes teaching people to own responsibly will help lower the number of unwanted horses.”
“The proposition that there are large numbers of unwanted horses in this country in need of slaughter can be answered with a resounding no,” said Hazard of the HSUS. “There are many horses in need of the commitment of the people with a stake in the horse industry to take responsibility for reducing the numbers that are bred, educating novice horse owners about proper care and training, creating new equestrian opportunities that allow more people to become a part of the equine community, and calling for an end to the unnecessary brutality of slaughter.”
Karin Bump, a professor at Cazenovia College in upstate New York, recommended a signal organization be in charge of collecting and maintaining data so there is no confusion. That, she said, would go a long way toward unifying the disparate groups.
It’s generally believed all the groups in play on the unwanted horse issue agree 90% of the time. It’s the other 10% that puts the unwanted horse at the mercy of politics.
“I think five to 10 years from now we’ll have a pretty good grip on things, but it’s going to take some time,” Lenz said.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Kings and Queens
I found this bit of info on a stamp-collecting blog and have given the name of the person who posted it first at the bottom of this. I thought this a clever way to do the kings of England, which also were the kings of Scotland and Ireland at one time. By putting it on my blog, I can keep the information to use when I write my next historical novel, Saratoga Winter: 1865. This was a good resource for me.........all in one place.
Prince William2 (1982– )
The first child of the Prince and Princess of Wales. He is sometimes called Wills in the press.
William I (also William the Conqueror) (c. 1027–87)
The king of England from 1066 to 1087. He was the Duke of Normandy, in northern France, when the English king Edward the Confessor died, and claimed that Edward had promised him the right to be the next king of England. He invaded England and defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Later that year he became king. He gave power and land in England to other Normans, and built many castles to control the English people.
William II (also William Rufus) (c. 1056–1100)
The king of England from 1087 to 1100. He became king when his father William I died. He was a skilful leader but his attempts to take money from his barons and the Church made him unpopular. He died in an accident while hunting, but many people think he was murdered so that his brother Henry I could be king. He was called Rufus, meaning red, because of the colour of his hair.
William III (also William of Orange) (1650–1702)
The king of Great Britain and Ireland from 1688 to 1702. He was a Dutch prince, married to Mary, the daughter of James II. They were invited by British Protestants to be the king and queen of Britain in order to prevent the Roman Catholic James II from being king. William became king in the Bloodless Revolution and defeated the forces of James II in Ireland at the Battle of the Boyne. He is remembered by a group of Protestants in Northern Ireland who are opposed to Ireland becoming one republic, and call themselves Orangemen. See also William and Mary.
William IV (1765–1837)
The king of Great Britain and Ireland from 1830 to 1837. He was the son of George III and spent many years in the Royal Navy. He is also remembered for having had ten illegitimate children (= ones born outside marriage) with a female actor. His most important action was to create 50 new Whig (1) peers to vote for the Reform Act against the Tories in Parliament who were opposed to it.
Edward the Confessor (c. 1003–66)
The king of England from 1042 to 1066, a son of Ethelred the Unready. He was considered a very holy man, and in 1161 the Pope made him a saint and gave him the title of ‘Confessor’. However, he does not seem to have been very interested in government, and there was great confusion when he died over who had been promised the throne of England. His brother-in-law Harold Godwin became king, but was soon removed by William of Normandy in the Norman Conquest of 1066.
Prince Henry5 (1984– )
The second child of the Prince and Princess of Wales. He is usually called Prince Harry by the British press and public.
Henry I (1068–1135) king of England (1100–35).
The youngest of three sons of William I, he became king when his eldest brother William II died, because his other brother Robert was away on a Crusade. Henry improved the administrative system of the country and established a system by which judges travelled around the country giving justice.
Henry II (1133–89) king of England (1154–89).
He was the grandson of Henry I, succeeded King Stephen, and was the first Plantagenet king. He reduced the power of the barons and increased the power of the state. He wanted to reduce the power of the Church, which led to his dispute with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, which ended in Becket’s murder. During his rule England established control over Ireland. Henry also introduced various systems of justice which can be seen as the beginning of common law.
Henry III (1207–72) king of England (1216–72)
and the son of King John. He was not popular with the barons, who disliked his use of foreign people to advise him and criticized him for poor judgement in financial matters. In 1264, Simon de Mont fort led a rebellion of the barons and Henry was defeated and put in prison. He took back power in 1265 after a battle in which the rebels were defeated by an army led by Henry’s son (later Edward I).
Henry IV (1366–1413) king of England (1399–1413)
after his cousin Richard II. He was born Henry Bolingbrook, the son of John of Gaunt, and was a leading opponent of Richard’s. In 1398 Richard sent him into exile, but in 1399 he returned to England, defeated Richard and was accepted as king by Parliament. While he was king there were rebellions against him in Wales and the north of England. He was forced to accept the principle that the king should govern through Parliament, and in 1407 Parliament took control of the country’s financial affairs.
Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2 two plays (c. 1597–8) by Shakespeare based on the period when Henry IV was king of England. The play’s main characters are Prince Hal (Henry IV’s son and later Henry V) and his friend Falstaff. In Part 1 Hal drinks and jokes with Falstaff and others in the Boar’s Head, a London tavern (= old pub), and his father worries that he is not serious enough to become a king. However, at the end he accepts his responsibilities and fights in a battle to defeat a rebellion against his father. In Part 2, Hal is still friendly with Falstaff, but when Henry IV dies and Hal becomes king, he rejects him with the famous line: ‘I know thee not, old man’.
Henry V (1387–1422) king of England (1413–22) and son of Henry IV. He is regarded as a symbol of English patriotism (= love of one’s own country), especially because of Shakespeare’s play Henry V. He took an English army to France during the Hundred Years War and defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt (1415), putting an area of France under English control.
Henry V a play (1599) by Shakespeare which celebrates the military victories in France of King Henry V. It contains several famous patriotic speeches, including the famous speech before the battle. There have been two film versions, the first in 1944, directed by Laurence Olivier with himself as Henry, and the second in 1989, directed by Kenneth Branagh who also played the title role.
Henry VI (1421–71) king of England (1422–61 and 1470–1) and son of Henry V. He was not popular, mainly because England finally lost the Hundred Years War while he was king. Opposition to him led to the Wars of the Roses, in which the House of Lancaster was defeated by the House of York and Henry was put in prison. As a result of this, Edward became king, but in 1470, with the help of the powerful Earl of Warwick, known as Warwick the Kingmaker, Henry became king again, but he was defeated once more in 1471. He was put in the Tower of London, where he was murdered, and Edward became king again. Henry established Eton College and King’s College, Cambridge.
Henry VI, Parts 1, 2 and 3 three plays (c. 1590–92) by Shakespeare, set during the period of the Wars of the Roses. They are among Shakespeare’s earliest plays and some people believe that he may only have written parts of them.
Henry VII (1457–1509) king of England (1485–1509),
the first Tudor (1) king. Born Henry Tudor, he was brought up in France. In 1485 he led a rebellion against Richard III, defeated him at the Battle of Bosworth Field and became king. In 1486 he married the daughter of Edward, uniting the House of Lancaster (to which he belonged) and the House of York and so bringing the Wars of the Roses to an end. Although there were rebellions during his rule, including those led by Lambert Simnel and Perkin War beck, Henry established greater order in the country, introduced a more modern system of government and greatly improved the country’s financial position.
Henry VIII (1491–1547) king of England (1509–47)
and son of Henry VII. He is one of the most famous of all English kings, partly because he had six wives. For political reasons, he married Catherine of Aragon, the wife of his dead brother Arthur, just after he became king. They had a daughter, later Mary I, but because they did not have a son who could be the future king, Henry decided to divorce her. The Pope refused to give the necessary permission for this, so Henry removed England from the Catholic Church led by the Pope and made himself head of the Church in England. This act, together with others such as the Dissolution of the Monasteries, was the beginning of the establishment of Protestantism in England. Henry divorced Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn in 1533. They had a daughter, later Elizabeth I, but Henry had Anne executed for adultery. His third wife was Jane Seymour, who died giving birth to a son (later Edward VI). Henry married his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, for political reasons, but soon divorced her and in 1540 he married Catherine Howard. She too was executed for adultery. Henry’s sixth and last wife was Catherine Parr. As a young man Henry was known for his love of hunting, sport and music, but he did not rule well and the country was in a weak and uncertain state when he died. See also Cromwell. See also Green sleeves. See also More, Wolsey.
Henry VIII a play (1613) by Shakespeare, possibly the last he wrote. Some people believe he wrote it with somebody else, perhaps John Fletcher. It is about events surrounding King Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon.
George I (1660–1727) king of Great Britain and Ireland (1714–27). He was the first of the Hanoverian kings and came to Britain from Germany on the death of Queen Anne. He was not popular in Britain, mainly because he did not learn to speak English, and because he arrived with two German lovers who were not liked by the British people. He did not get involved in British politics, leaving most decisions to the Cabinet, which became much more important during his time as king.
George II (1683–1760) king of Great Britain and Ireland (1727–60).
He was the only son of George I and, like his father, was not very interested in the government of Britain, allowing the development of the constitutional monarchy. He was, however, interested in the army, and fought against the French in the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–8). He was the last British king to lead his army into a battle.
George III (1738–1820) king of Great Britain and Ireland (1760–1820).
He was the grandson of King George II. He was very interested in the government of Britain, and worked closely with prime ministers such as Lord North and William Pitt. He was strongly opposed to American independence, and was blamed by the public for losing the war of the American Revolution. He suffered from illness for some periods of his life and in 1811 he became so ill that his son was made Prince Regent.
George IV (1762–1830) king of Great Britain and Ireland (1820–30). Before becoming king, he ruled as Prince Regent because his father George III was ill. He had many lovers and shocked many people by the way he lived, spending a lot of time eating, drinking and gambling.
George V (1865–1936) king of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1910–36). He was the son of Edward VII. He became popular with the British people for supporting the British armed forces in World War I. In 1917 he dropped all his German titles and changed the family name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor1 (2).
George VI (1895–1952) king of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1936–52).
He was the second son of George V and became king after the abdication of his brother Edward VIII. He was greatly admired by the British people during World War II for staying in London when it was being bombed. He was the last British king to be called ‘emperor’ and the first head of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Prince Edward (1964– )
Earl of Wessex, the fourth child of Queen Elizabeth II. He was educated at Gordonstoun in Scotland and at Cambridge University, where he studied history. He joined the Royal Marines in 1986, but left the next year to begin a career producing plays for the theatre and films for television. In 1999 he married Sophie Rhys-Jones. Their daughter, Lady Louise Windsor, was born in 2003.
Edward I (1239–1307)The king of England from 1272 to 1307, the oldest son of Henry III. He spent a lot of time trying to control Wales and Scotland, fighting, among others, William Wallace and Robert the Bruce. As a result he was called the ‘Hammer of the Scots’. In 1296 he brought the Stone of Scone to England.
Edward II (1284–1327)
The king of England from 1307 to 1327, the son of Edward I and the first Prince of Wales. He took his armies to Scotland, but was defeated at the Battle of Bannock burn (1314) by Robert the Bruce. He was a weak king who upset the English barons, and in 1327 his son Edward III replaced him. Later that year he was murdered.
Edward III (1312–77)The king of England from 1327 to 1377, the son of Edward II. He had continuing problems with the Scots, but he had some success in his attempts to become the king of France, for example at the battles of Crécy (1346) and Poitiers (1355). After his death his grandson became the king of England as Richard II, because his son Edward, the Black Prince, had died the year before. See also Hundred Years War.
Edward IV (1442–83)The king of England from 1461 to 1470 and from 1471 to 1483. He was the son of Richard, Duke of York3 (3). In 1461 his army defeated the soldiers of Henry VI of the House of Lancaster. Edward had the support of the powerful Earl of Warwick, known as Warwick the Kingmaker, to whom he was related, but in 1470 he lost this support and also for a short time his throne (to Henry VI). After the defeat of Warwick and Henry in 1471, England had a period of great stability under Edward, who encouraged the development of art, music, etc. as well as the new science of printing. See also Wars of the Roses.
Edward V (1470–83)
The king of England for three months in 1483, a son of Edward IV. It is generally believed that his uncle, who took the throne by force to become King Richard III, murdered Edward V and his younger brother. See also Princes in the Tower.
Edward VI (1537–53)
The king of England from 1547 to 1553. He was the son of King Henry VIII and his third wife Jane Seymour, and the half-brother (= brother by a different mother) of Mary I and Elizabeth I. He became king at the age of ten, so other people, called regents governed on his behalf. One of them persuaded him to change his will, giving the throne to Lady Jane Grey, but the plan failed and Mary became queen when Edward died. During this period, with Edward’s support, England became much more strongly Protestant, so that Mary was unable to change it back to Catholicism.
Edward VII (1841–1910)The king of Great Britain and Ireland from 1901 to 1910, the son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. He was the Prince of Wales for most of his life, while his mother ruled. Victoria did not let him play much part in state affairs, so he spent most of his time at social events, such as parties, horse racing, etc. When she died in 1901, he became a popular king. His reign was a period of peace and economic success before World War I.
Edward VIII (1894–1972)The eldest son of King George V. He became the king of Great Britain and Ireland when his father died in January 1936, but never had the crown officially placed on his head. He had fallen in love with Mrs. Simpson, an American who was divorced, and it was not acceptable at that time that he should marry her and remain king. So in December 1936, he abdicated (= gave up his position as king) and his brother became King George VI, giving Edward the title of Duke of Windsor. Edward married Mrs. Simpson in June 1937, and they lived in France for many years. See also abdication crisis.
George I (1660–1727)
King of Great Britain and Ireland (1714–27). He was the first of the Hanoverian kings and came to Britain from Germany on the death of Queen Anne. He was not popular in Britain, mainly because he did not learn to speak English, and because he arrived with two German lovers who were not liked by the British people. He did not get involved in British politics, leaving most decisions to the Cabinet, which became much more important during his time as king.
George II (1683–1760)
King of Great Britain and Ireland (1727–60). He was the only son of George I and, like his father, was not very interested in the government of Britain, allowing the development of the constitutional monarchy. He was, however, interested in the army, and fought against the French in the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–8). He was the last British king to lead his army into a battle.
George III (1738–1820)
King of Great Britain and Ireland (1760–1820). He was the grandson of King George II. He was very interested in the government of Britain, and worked closely with prime ministers such as Lord North and William Pitt. He was strongly opposed to American independence, and was blamed by the public for losing the war of the American Revolution. He suffered from illness for some periods of his life and in 1811 he became so ill that his son was made Prince Regent.
George IV (1762–1830)
King of Great Britain and Ireland (1820–30). Before becoming king, he ruled as Prince Regent because his father George III was ill. He had many lovers and shocked many people by the way he lived, spending a lot of time eating, drinking and gambling.
George V (1865–1936)
King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1910–36). He was the son of Edward VII. He became popular with the British people for supporting the British armed forces in World War I. In 1917 he dropped all his German titles and changed the family name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor1 (2).
George VI (1895–1952)
King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1936–52). He was the second son of George V and became king after the abdication of his brother Edward VIII. He was greatly admired by the British people during World War II for staying in London when it was being bombed. He was the last British king to be called ‘emperor’ and the first head of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Queen Victoria2 (1819–1901)A British queen who ruled from 1837 to 1901. She was the granddaughter of King George III and became queen after the death of King William IV. Her rule was the longest of any British king or queen, and happened at the same time as Britain’s greatest period of world power and industrial development. In 1840 she married her cousin Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. They had nine children. After Albert’s death Victoria took no further part in public affairs, but was persuaded to return by her Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, who gained for her the title Empress of India. She is often remembered as a bad-tempered old woman who once said, ‘We are not amused.’ However in her early life she was a happy and enthusiastic queen who was very popular with ordinary people.
Prince Albert (1819–61)
The husband (and also cousin) of Queen Victoria. The son of a German duke, Albert married Victoria in 1840, and in 1857 he was given the title of Prince Consort. He took great interest in the arts, as well as business, science and technology, and was a strong influence behind the Great Exhibition of 1851. Albert died suddenly when he was only 42, and the Queen wore black clothes for the next 40 years as a sign of her great sadness.
Elizabeth I (1533–1603)The queen of England and Ireland from 1558, after the death of her sister Mary I. She is regarded as one of England’s greatest rulers. The daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth was an extremely strong and clever woman who controlled the difficult political and religious situation of the time with great skill. She once said to her soldiers before a battle, ‘I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a King, and of a King of England, too.’ During her reign the country’s economy grew very strong, the arts were very active, and England became firmly Protestant and confident in world affairs. However, Elizabeth is often seen as a very lonely figure and is known as the ‘Virgin Queen’ because she never married, although she is known to have had a relationship with the Earl of Leicester and, late in life, the Earl of Essex. See also Armada, Mary Queen of Scots.
Elizabeth II (1926– )
The queen of the United Kingdom since 1952. She is the daughter of King George VI and his wife Queen Elizabeth. She had one sister, Princess Margaret. In 1947 she married Prince Philip of Greece, who had just been made the Duke of Edinburgh, in Westminster Abbey. Her father died in 1952 and Elizabeth was crowned on 2 June 1953. She is a highly respected and much loved monarch with a great interest in the Commonwealth. The Queen and Prince Philip have four children, Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward.
ò note at Royal Family Of the period of the British kings George I, II and III, most of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century. British architecture, furniture and silver of this period are considered particularly attractive. Many British towns and cities have areas of simple but elegant Georgian houses. Some people also refer to the time of George IV as Georgian, while others call it Regency: a four-storey Georgian house.
Diana, Princess of Wales (also Princess Diana) (1961–1997)
The former wife of Prince Charles and the mother of Prince William and Prince Henry (Harry). Her name before she married was Lady Diana Spencer. The Spencer families are descended from the English kings Charles II and James II, and Diana’s father was the 8th Earl Spencer. She was married to Prince Charles in 1981 and soon became the most popular member of the royal family, often referred to informally as Di. However, the marriage failed and in 1992 the prince and princess separated. Although Princess Diana gave up her public duties and was divorced in 1996, she continued some of her work with charities and she remained an object of intense interest to the press and the public. She died in a car accident in Paris while trying to escape from photographers, and her funeral, like her wedding, was watched by almost a fifth of the world’s population.
Alfred the Great (849–99)King of Wessex (871–99). He is remembered for defending England against Danish attacks, for establishing the English navy, and for encouraging education and the use of the English language. There is a popular story of King Alfred and the cakes. After a battle he was hiding in a woman’s house. Not knowing who he was, she told him to look after her cakes which were cooking by the fire, and then became very angry when he let them burn.
Posted by SADANAND R. MEHARWADE at 7:13:00 PM
Prince William2 (1982– )
The first child of the Prince and Princess of Wales. He is sometimes called Wills in the press.
William I (also William the Conqueror) (c. 1027–87)
The king of England from 1066 to 1087. He was the Duke of Normandy, in northern France, when the English king Edward the Confessor died, and claimed that Edward had promised him the right to be the next king of England. He invaded England and defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Later that year he became king. He gave power and land in England to other Normans, and built many castles to control the English people.
William II (also William Rufus) (c. 1056–1100)
The king of England from 1087 to 1100. He became king when his father William I died. He was a skilful leader but his attempts to take money from his barons and the Church made him unpopular. He died in an accident while hunting, but many people think he was murdered so that his brother Henry I could be king. He was called Rufus, meaning red, because of the colour of his hair.
William III (also William of Orange) (1650–1702)
The king of Great Britain and Ireland from 1688 to 1702. He was a Dutch prince, married to Mary, the daughter of James II. They were invited by British Protestants to be the king and queen of Britain in order to prevent the Roman Catholic James II from being king. William became king in the Bloodless Revolution and defeated the forces of James II in Ireland at the Battle of the Boyne. He is remembered by a group of Protestants in Northern Ireland who are opposed to Ireland becoming one republic, and call themselves Orangemen. See also William and Mary.
William IV (1765–1837)
The king of Great Britain and Ireland from 1830 to 1837. He was the son of George III and spent many years in the Royal Navy. He is also remembered for having had ten illegitimate children (= ones born outside marriage) with a female actor. His most important action was to create 50 new Whig (1) peers to vote for the Reform Act against the Tories in Parliament who were opposed to it.
Edward the Confessor (c. 1003–66)
The king of England from 1042 to 1066, a son of Ethelred the Unready. He was considered a very holy man, and in 1161 the Pope made him a saint and gave him the title of ‘Confessor’. However, he does not seem to have been very interested in government, and there was great confusion when he died over who had been promised the throne of England. His brother-in-law Harold Godwin became king, but was soon removed by William of Normandy in the Norman Conquest of 1066.
Prince Henry5 (1984– )
The second child of the Prince and Princess of Wales. He is usually called Prince Harry by the British press and public.
Henry I (1068–1135) king of England (1100–35).
The youngest of three sons of William I, he became king when his eldest brother William II died, because his other brother Robert was away on a Crusade. Henry improved the administrative system of the country and established a system by which judges travelled around the country giving justice.
Henry II (1133–89) king of England (1154–89).
He was the grandson of Henry I, succeeded King Stephen, and was the first Plantagenet king. He reduced the power of the barons and increased the power of the state. He wanted to reduce the power of the Church, which led to his dispute with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, which ended in Becket’s murder. During his rule England established control over Ireland. Henry also introduced various systems of justice which can be seen as the beginning of common law.
Henry III (1207–72) king of England (1216–72)
and the son of King John. He was not popular with the barons, who disliked his use of foreign people to advise him and criticized him for poor judgement in financial matters. In 1264, Simon de Mont fort led a rebellion of the barons and Henry was defeated and put in prison. He took back power in 1265 after a battle in which the rebels were defeated by an army led by Henry’s son (later Edward I).
Henry IV (1366–1413) king of England (1399–1413)
after his cousin Richard II. He was born Henry Bolingbrook, the son of John of Gaunt, and was a leading opponent of Richard’s. In 1398 Richard sent him into exile, but in 1399 he returned to England, defeated Richard and was accepted as king by Parliament. While he was king there were rebellions against him in Wales and the north of England. He was forced to accept the principle that the king should govern through Parliament, and in 1407 Parliament took control of the country’s financial affairs.
Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2 two plays (c. 1597–8) by Shakespeare based on the period when Henry IV was king of England. The play’s main characters are Prince Hal (Henry IV’s son and later Henry V) and his friend Falstaff. In Part 1 Hal drinks and jokes with Falstaff and others in the Boar’s Head, a London tavern (= old pub), and his father worries that he is not serious enough to become a king. However, at the end he accepts his responsibilities and fights in a battle to defeat a rebellion against his father. In Part 2, Hal is still friendly with Falstaff, but when Henry IV dies and Hal becomes king, he rejects him with the famous line: ‘I know thee not, old man’.
Henry V (1387–1422) king of England (1413–22) and son of Henry IV. He is regarded as a symbol of English patriotism (= love of one’s own country), especially because of Shakespeare’s play Henry V. He took an English army to France during the Hundred Years War and defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt (1415), putting an area of France under English control.
Henry V a play (1599) by Shakespeare which celebrates the military victories in France of King Henry V. It contains several famous patriotic speeches, including the famous speech before the battle. There have been two film versions, the first in 1944, directed by Laurence Olivier with himself as Henry, and the second in 1989, directed by Kenneth Branagh who also played the title role.
Henry VI (1421–71) king of England (1422–61 and 1470–1) and son of Henry V. He was not popular, mainly because England finally lost the Hundred Years War while he was king. Opposition to him led to the Wars of the Roses, in which the House of Lancaster was defeated by the House of York and Henry was put in prison. As a result of this, Edward became king, but in 1470, with the help of the powerful Earl of Warwick, known as Warwick the Kingmaker, Henry became king again, but he was defeated once more in 1471. He was put in the Tower of London, where he was murdered, and Edward became king again. Henry established Eton College and King’s College, Cambridge.
Henry VI, Parts 1, 2 and 3 three plays (c. 1590–92) by Shakespeare, set during the period of the Wars of the Roses. They are among Shakespeare’s earliest plays and some people believe that he may only have written parts of them.
Henry VII (1457–1509) king of England (1485–1509),
the first Tudor (1) king. Born Henry Tudor, he was brought up in France. In 1485 he led a rebellion against Richard III, defeated him at the Battle of Bosworth Field and became king. In 1486 he married the daughter of Edward, uniting the House of Lancaster (to which he belonged) and the House of York and so bringing the Wars of the Roses to an end. Although there were rebellions during his rule, including those led by Lambert Simnel and Perkin War beck, Henry established greater order in the country, introduced a more modern system of government and greatly improved the country’s financial position.
Henry VIII (1491–1547) king of England (1509–47)
and son of Henry VII. He is one of the most famous of all English kings, partly because he had six wives. For political reasons, he married Catherine of Aragon, the wife of his dead brother Arthur, just after he became king. They had a daughter, later Mary I, but because they did not have a son who could be the future king, Henry decided to divorce her. The Pope refused to give the necessary permission for this, so Henry removed England from the Catholic Church led by the Pope and made himself head of the Church in England. This act, together with others such as the Dissolution of the Monasteries, was the beginning of the establishment of Protestantism in England. Henry divorced Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn in 1533. They had a daughter, later Elizabeth I, but Henry had Anne executed for adultery. His third wife was Jane Seymour, who died giving birth to a son (later Edward VI). Henry married his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, for political reasons, but soon divorced her and in 1540 he married Catherine Howard. She too was executed for adultery. Henry’s sixth and last wife was Catherine Parr. As a young man Henry was known for his love of hunting, sport and music, but he did not rule well and the country was in a weak and uncertain state when he died. See also Cromwell. See also Green sleeves. See also More, Wolsey.
Henry VIII a play (1613) by Shakespeare, possibly the last he wrote. Some people believe he wrote it with somebody else, perhaps John Fletcher. It is about events surrounding King Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon.
George I (1660–1727) king of Great Britain and Ireland (1714–27). He was the first of the Hanoverian kings and came to Britain from Germany on the death of Queen Anne. He was not popular in Britain, mainly because he did not learn to speak English, and because he arrived with two German lovers who were not liked by the British people. He did not get involved in British politics, leaving most decisions to the Cabinet, which became much more important during his time as king.
George II (1683–1760) king of Great Britain and Ireland (1727–60).
He was the only son of George I and, like his father, was not very interested in the government of Britain, allowing the development of the constitutional monarchy. He was, however, interested in the army, and fought against the French in the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–8). He was the last British king to lead his army into a battle.
George III (1738–1820) king of Great Britain and Ireland (1760–1820).
He was the grandson of King George II. He was very interested in the government of Britain, and worked closely with prime ministers such as Lord North and William Pitt. He was strongly opposed to American independence, and was blamed by the public for losing the war of the American Revolution. He suffered from illness for some periods of his life and in 1811 he became so ill that his son was made Prince Regent.
George IV (1762–1830) king of Great Britain and Ireland (1820–30). Before becoming king, he ruled as Prince Regent because his father George III was ill. He had many lovers and shocked many people by the way he lived, spending a lot of time eating, drinking and gambling.
George V (1865–1936) king of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1910–36). He was the son of Edward VII. He became popular with the British people for supporting the British armed forces in World War I. In 1917 he dropped all his German titles and changed the family name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor1 (2).
George VI (1895–1952) king of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1936–52).
He was the second son of George V and became king after the abdication of his brother Edward VIII. He was greatly admired by the British people during World War II for staying in London when it was being bombed. He was the last British king to be called ‘emperor’ and the first head of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Prince Edward (1964– )
Earl of Wessex, the fourth child of Queen Elizabeth II. He was educated at Gordonstoun in Scotland and at Cambridge University, where he studied history. He joined the Royal Marines in 1986, but left the next year to begin a career producing plays for the theatre and films for television. In 1999 he married Sophie Rhys-Jones. Their daughter, Lady Louise Windsor, was born in 2003.
Edward I (1239–1307)The king of England from 1272 to 1307, the oldest son of Henry III. He spent a lot of time trying to control Wales and Scotland, fighting, among others, William Wallace and Robert the Bruce. As a result he was called the ‘Hammer of the Scots’. In 1296 he brought the Stone of Scone to England.
Edward II (1284–1327)
The king of England from 1307 to 1327, the son of Edward I and the first Prince of Wales. He took his armies to Scotland, but was defeated at the Battle of Bannock burn (1314) by Robert the Bruce. He was a weak king who upset the English barons, and in 1327 his son Edward III replaced him. Later that year he was murdered.
Edward III (1312–77)The king of England from 1327 to 1377, the son of Edward II. He had continuing problems with the Scots, but he had some success in his attempts to become the king of France, for example at the battles of Crécy (1346) and Poitiers (1355). After his death his grandson became the king of England as Richard II, because his son Edward, the Black Prince, had died the year before. See also Hundred Years War.
Edward IV (1442–83)The king of England from 1461 to 1470 and from 1471 to 1483. He was the son of Richard, Duke of York3 (3). In 1461 his army defeated the soldiers of Henry VI of the House of Lancaster. Edward had the support of the powerful Earl of Warwick, known as Warwick the Kingmaker, to whom he was related, but in 1470 he lost this support and also for a short time his throne (to Henry VI). After the defeat of Warwick and Henry in 1471, England had a period of great stability under Edward, who encouraged the development of art, music, etc. as well as the new science of printing. See also Wars of the Roses.
Edward V (1470–83)
The king of England for three months in 1483, a son of Edward IV. It is generally believed that his uncle, who took the throne by force to become King Richard III, murdered Edward V and his younger brother. See also Princes in the Tower.
Edward VI (1537–53)
The king of England from 1547 to 1553. He was the son of King Henry VIII and his third wife Jane Seymour, and the half-brother (= brother by a different mother) of Mary I and Elizabeth I. He became king at the age of ten, so other people, called regents governed on his behalf. One of them persuaded him to change his will, giving the throne to Lady Jane Grey, but the plan failed and Mary became queen when Edward died. During this period, with Edward’s support, England became much more strongly Protestant, so that Mary was unable to change it back to Catholicism.
Edward VII (1841–1910)The king of Great Britain and Ireland from 1901 to 1910, the son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. He was the Prince of Wales for most of his life, while his mother ruled. Victoria did not let him play much part in state affairs, so he spent most of his time at social events, such as parties, horse racing, etc. When she died in 1901, he became a popular king. His reign was a period of peace and economic success before World War I.
Edward VIII (1894–1972)The eldest son of King George V. He became the king of Great Britain and Ireland when his father died in January 1936, but never had the crown officially placed on his head. He had fallen in love with Mrs. Simpson, an American who was divorced, and it was not acceptable at that time that he should marry her and remain king. So in December 1936, he abdicated (= gave up his position as king) and his brother became King George VI, giving Edward the title of Duke of Windsor. Edward married Mrs. Simpson in June 1937, and they lived in France for many years. See also abdication crisis.
George I (1660–1727)
King of Great Britain and Ireland (1714–27). He was the first of the Hanoverian kings and came to Britain from Germany on the death of Queen Anne. He was not popular in Britain, mainly because he did not learn to speak English, and because he arrived with two German lovers who were not liked by the British people. He did not get involved in British politics, leaving most decisions to the Cabinet, which became much more important during his time as king.
George II (1683–1760)
King of Great Britain and Ireland (1727–60). He was the only son of George I and, like his father, was not very interested in the government of Britain, allowing the development of the constitutional monarchy. He was, however, interested in the army, and fought against the French in the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–8). He was the last British king to lead his army into a battle.
George III (1738–1820)
King of Great Britain and Ireland (1760–1820). He was the grandson of King George II. He was very interested in the government of Britain, and worked closely with prime ministers such as Lord North and William Pitt. He was strongly opposed to American independence, and was blamed by the public for losing the war of the American Revolution. He suffered from illness for some periods of his life and in 1811 he became so ill that his son was made Prince Regent.
George IV (1762–1830)
King of Great Britain and Ireland (1820–30). Before becoming king, he ruled as Prince Regent because his father George III was ill. He had many lovers and shocked many people by the way he lived, spending a lot of time eating, drinking and gambling.
George V (1865–1936)
King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1910–36). He was the son of Edward VII. He became popular with the British people for supporting the British armed forces in World War I. In 1917 he dropped all his German titles and changed the family name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor1 (2).
George VI (1895–1952)
King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1936–52). He was the second son of George V and became king after the abdication of his brother Edward VIII. He was greatly admired by the British people during World War II for staying in London when it was being bombed. He was the last British king to be called ‘emperor’ and the first head of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Queen Victoria2 (1819–1901)A British queen who ruled from 1837 to 1901. She was the granddaughter of King George III and became queen after the death of King William IV. Her rule was the longest of any British king or queen, and happened at the same time as Britain’s greatest period of world power and industrial development. In 1840 she married her cousin Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. They had nine children. After Albert’s death Victoria took no further part in public affairs, but was persuaded to return by her Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, who gained for her the title Empress of India. She is often remembered as a bad-tempered old woman who once said, ‘We are not amused.’ However in her early life she was a happy and enthusiastic queen who was very popular with ordinary people.
Prince Albert (1819–61)
The husband (and also cousin) of Queen Victoria. The son of a German duke, Albert married Victoria in 1840, and in 1857 he was given the title of Prince Consort. He took great interest in the arts, as well as business, science and technology, and was a strong influence behind the Great Exhibition of 1851. Albert died suddenly when he was only 42, and the Queen wore black clothes for the next 40 years as a sign of her great sadness.
Elizabeth I (1533–1603)The queen of England and Ireland from 1558, after the death of her sister Mary I. She is regarded as one of England’s greatest rulers. The daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth was an extremely strong and clever woman who controlled the difficult political and religious situation of the time with great skill. She once said to her soldiers before a battle, ‘I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a King, and of a King of England, too.’ During her reign the country’s economy grew very strong, the arts were very active, and England became firmly Protestant and confident in world affairs. However, Elizabeth is often seen as a very lonely figure and is known as the ‘Virgin Queen’ because she never married, although she is known to have had a relationship with the Earl of Leicester and, late in life, the Earl of Essex. See also Armada, Mary Queen of Scots.
Elizabeth II (1926– )
The queen of the United Kingdom since 1952. She is the daughter of King George VI and his wife Queen Elizabeth. She had one sister, Princess Margaret. In 1947 she married Prince Philip of Greece, who had just been made the Duke of Edinburgh, in Westminster Abbey. Her father died in 1952 and Elizabeth was crowned on 2 June 1953. She is a highly respected and much loved monarch with a great interest in the Commonwealth. The Queen and Prince Philip have four children, Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward.
ò note at Royal Family Of the period of the British kings George I, II and III, most of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century. British architecture, furniture and silver of this period are considered particularly attractive. Many British towns and cities have areas of simple but elegant Georgian houses. Some people also refer to the time of George IV as Georgian, while others call it Regency: a four-storey Georgian house.
Diana, Princess of Wales (also Princess Diana) (1961–1997)
The former wife of Prince Charles and the mother of Prince William and Prince Henry (Harry). Her name before she married was Lady Diana Spencer. The Spencer families are descended from the English kings Charles II and James II, and Diana’s father was the 8th Earl Spencer. She was married to Prince Charles in 1981 and soon became the most popular member of the royal family, often referred to informally as Di. However, the marriage failed and in 1992 the prince and princess separated. Although Princess Diana gave up her public duties and was divorced in 1996, she continued some of her work with charities and she remained an object of intense interest to the press and the public. She died in a car accident in Paris while trying to escape from photographers, and her funeral, like her wedding, was watched by almost a fifth of the world’s population.
Alfred the Great (849–99)King of Wessex (871–99). He is remembered for defending England against Danish attacks, for establishing the English navy, and for encouraging education and the use of the English language. There is a popular story of King Alfred and the cakes. After a battle he was hiding in a woman’s house. Not knowing who he was, she told him to look after her cakes which were cooking by the fire, and then became very angry when he let them burn.
Posted by SADANAND R. MEHARWADE at 7:13:00 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)