Talk:Anglo-Irish people

Definition of "Anglo-Irish"

About the Duke of Wellington being "Anglo-Irish"... Didn't he say, "being born in a stable doesn't make one a horse"?

He did - but given that his father was created an Irish Peer, and he himself was a member of the Irish House of Commons, as well as being born in Dublin, the evidence seems to be there. --Henrygb 12:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He had O'Donnell, O'Neill and O'Brien ancestors BTW

Chimera. Since when was "Anglo-Irish" defined by blood? By this thinking the most English and British of nationalists today would be, among other descriptions, "Irish-British" or "French-British" or, in the case of Churchill, American-English. But they are not so defined because it is their political and cultural allegiance which matters and therefore they are just "British", etc. Likewise with the Anglo-Irish. They were a privileged colonial class-and that was the interest which they defended at every turn- not a blood group. If anybody has evidence for an Anglo-Irish (evidently master-race) blood group, please produce the evidence. 193.1.172.104 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erin's Royal Blood

This is not a very good book to use as a source for a number of reasons. First, it concentrates on Irish people of aristocratic and royal Gaelic background. Second, some of the claims made in the book are unsound. Third, Berresford was a long-time supporter of the fake 'MacCarthy Mor', and as some of his publications and beliefs were based on 'MacCarthy's influence, they need to be treated with at least some caution. Fergananim

What about Kitchener

I think he was born near Listowel alright, his father was working there, but I don't know that he ever considered himself Irish or Anglo-Irish.

Do you have references that he did?

I believe he happened to habve been born in Ireland but his family had English estates that they spent much time at. I may be wrong but the term 'happened to be born in Ireland' would apply much more to him than to Arthur son of Garret Earl of Morningside (with his ancestory from 'old English' and Irish, as well as Elizabethan immigrants)

After looking into the matter I've concluded that Kitchener was in every sense English, except that he happened to have been born in Ireland in his parents's home there. He had no ties to Ireland or to Irish culture, which should be a defining characteristic of the Anglo-Irish class. I'm therefore going to remove him. -- Eb.hoop 04:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of people born in Ireland

I thought I more or less knew what Anglo-Irish meant. However a recent discussion at Talk:George Gabriel Stokes has prompted me look at bit further. The dictionaries I have at hand suggest the defining of the word may be recent more recent than I previously suspected:

The Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (1901) does not have the word

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1955) does not have the word.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1995) has:

of English descent but born or resident in Ireland
of mixed English and Irish parentage
of or belonging to Britain and the Republic of Ireland

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (2000) says:

A native of England living in Ireland.
A native of Ireland living in England.
A person of mixed Irish and English ancestry.

Note that the COD and the American Heritage each have one defintion not in the other. A wider sample of the opinions of modern dictionary writers would be useful.

Now of course WP records individual editors' opinions over such matters. I was amused to find in the edits of Cecil Day-Lewis that he spent several years in WP as a British poet, then rapidly moved in the space of a few edits as follows:

6 July 2005 - Anglo-Irish
4 Sept 2005 - Irish
30 Sept 2005 - English

And English he has remained since! To confuse matters still further, his son, Daniel Day-Lewis, WP now classifies as English/Irish.

My interest in this is in writing biographical articles. The problem mainly arises in the opening paragraph where the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) calls for the person's nationality to be given saying, In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.

The difficulties over the concept of citizenship when writing biography for people born in Ireland and who moved around, and incidentally also for natives of Scotland and Wales, suggest to me that some further guideline is needed. My preferred solution, so far, is to avoid the possible confusion of the term Anglo-Irish, and to state in a few more words both where they were born or native and where they were notable.

I thought this would be a useful place for a debate, since the term Anglo-Irish is at the core of the matter. ( Addition: I have just found is a more general debate in progress at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)- please either join that or else comment here for the Anglo-Irish question -- Op. Deo)

-- Op. Deo 20:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the nationality in the first sentence. A great place for chauvinistic POV. However, my understanding of Anglo-Irish means Irish with Anglo characteristics, in other words as Brendan Behan would have it a Protestant upper middle or upper class Irishman who sounds more English than the English. It is a term that has gone out of use in modern Ireland but it is useful historically. Incidentally how would you describe someone whose family were Protestant Irish professionals from Dublin but who was born in the (British) Indian Empire, educated in Ireland and England and served in the (British) Indian Army up to a general, before retiring to England? Is he Indian because of his birth, or Indian because that was where he became notable? He called himself Irish or Anglo-Irish. Dabbler 21:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will rise to the challenge. How about: came from an Irish family and served with the British Army in India. or shorter if you can draft it so. At least he is not Anglo-Indian : ) -- Op. Deo 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Edward Quinan for my solution. I should have added that he had some English and Scottish ancestry too. Dabbler 21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a technical term, but as journalist's short-hand. Ascendancy is a useful term with deep historical roots - as in protestant ascendancy - but doesn't cover the same ground. The Wikipedia entry for Ascendancy sounds familiar: a computer game with the theme of an "alien species in a galactic struggle to become the dominant life force".--shtove 17:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the term is that we are trying to shoehorn a modern notion of nationhood into a largely historical context where it didn't exist. That is to say we now broadly accept birth = nationhood except where it is resigned for citizenship of another country. However that wouldn't have been understood as such even as late at C19. To take the example atop this article - Wellington - he was born in Ireland of a family than had left England 300 years previously. Yet not one name on their pedigree is Irish they are all either British or fellow 'expats'. They lived parallel lives to the Irish, in the same country but never the same culture. They usually considered themselves British or English, though they were often treated in England as second class subjects not Irish but not quite English either. For example Wellington's brother was furious when he was offered an Irish - not British - marquisate...calling it a 'gilt edged potato' (iirc) and stating that there had been nothing Irish in his conduct. The above comparison with India is apposite, you have the same situation of soldiers/administrators serving sometimes settling yet generations on not really changing their sense of who they were. I'm not saying the term can't be used but I'm wary that in using it we give a sense of a simple explantion for a very complex notionAlci12 17:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Irish Relation

I don't think Anglo-Irish Relations should redirect here, it's a completely different issue --Falcon9x5 18:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have removed the redirect link. -- Op. Deo 18:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== How are Gaelic Irish Guiness' Anglo Irish and similar O'Briens not? What about Earl O'Neill? His brother was leader of the orange lodges. As said in the article Anglo Irish was A Culture!

Is somebody missing here?

The Anglo-Irish were also represented among the senior officers of the British Army by men such as Field Marshal Lord Roberts, first honorary Colonel of the Irish Guards regiment, who spent most of his career in India, and Field Marshal Lord Gough who served under Wellington in the Peninsular War before rising to prominence by commanding the British army fighting the first Opium War in China.

Er...so we have Roberts and Gough. But, um...there's somebody else...possibly mentioned in this paragraph...can't quite place it....

I'd like to add Wellington, but the current way it's written makes it difficult. I thought I'd at least ask if there's some reason not to include him as Anglo-Irish. john k 01:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it said that the horse and stable quote was said of Wellington, not by him. But we need to remember two things. First, it was not as fashionable to be Irish then as it is now. And second, Wellington was a Protestant upper class Old Etonian who became the Briish Prime Minister - hardly the sort of person that the average Irish person might wish to identify as Irish.

That's a fair point. But I suspect that "the average Irish person" might be a bit selective in identiying quite a few Anglo-Irish as Irish. I heard one of them state quite categorically that, "Oscar Wilde was NOT Irish". I wonder why? Bill Tegner 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point about the Anglo-Irish was that they were Irish, but they were also Protestant, upper class or upper middle class and sometimes educated at Eton or other English schools and universities. As such they tended to blend in with the equivalent English class and may have been seen as the same by others. On the other hand, many of them, unlike Wellington, were also fervent Irish patriots who sided with the Irish independence movements of their day. Dabbler 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literary References

I agree with Dabbler and this comes through in various books, eg Somerville and Ross's "The Real Charlotte", Elizabeth Bowen's "The Last September" and Dermot Bolger's "The Family on Paradise Pier". And yes, of course the Anglo-Irish included many fervent Irish patriots, Countess Markievicz (Constance Gore-Booth) for a start, not to mention "The Uncrowned King of Ireland", Charles Stewart Parnell Bill Tegner 09:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiberno-British equivelent.

How come English people of Irish heritage,Neol and Liam Gallacher, John Lennon ect are not described as Hiberno-British on wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.101.222.28 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, citizens of the Republic aren't modified to Anglo-Irish simply because their surname is Brown or Smith. Anglo-Irish clearly means/has meant many things - today I take it to mean people equally at home in London or Dublin during their lifetimes. Hakluyt bean 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Irish were Irish

The so-called Anglo-Irish mostly considered themselves to be Irish and were considered by the English to be Irish. The term smacks of retrospective Celtic nationalism. Why are not the present day mostly English speaking Irish also not considered Anglo-Irish? Colin4C 20:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Irish people were more of a social class than a linguistic division. The term has gone out of use partly because the class differential has mostly gone and also it isn't fashionable in Ireland to be linked closely to the British. Dabbler 21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no they were not; and that was in their own definition. Every single thing about their position in Ireland depended upon keeping themselves separate from the rest of us, the mere Irish, the peasantry, the dispossessed. Everything. They were above all else a colonial elite. They did not want to be Irish, and when by the end of the eighteenth century they started to embrace that definition, they did not mean: 'Hey, let's all share this wealth'. No. Every single thing they had depended upon keeping themselves separate from us. If anybody here is engaging in revisionism, it is of the British "wasn't everybody just so happy and equal under British colonial rule' variety. We were not, and those in power, your Anglo-Irish wanted to keep it that way. I, for one, cannot blame them. But I certainly will not allow you to portray them as just being like the rest of us. They would have laughed at you; and if you pushed it, they would have hated you for challenging the very basis of their dominance in Ireland: the British connection. More honesty, please. 86.42.82.239 (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]