Talk:History of Ireland (1536–1691)

Kildare uprising was...?

1534, lads, 1534, 1534, 1534. Change title. Were yez all asleep in low infants? 86.44.1.115 (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of dates?

Why is Early Modern Ireland 1536-1691 anyway? Who decided it began in 1536 and ended in 1691? Can anyone provide a good argument as to why Early Modern Ireland occurred between these very specific dates?

Quoting the Early modern Europe page

"The early modern period is often stated to have begun with either the invention of moveable type printing in the 1450s or the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus in 1492. Its end point is often linked with the outset of the French Revolution in 1789, or with the more nebulous origins of Industrialism in 1760s and 1770s Britain. As with most periodizations of history, however, the precise dates chosen vary."

Unless someone can say with authority (or possibly a reference) that Early Modern Ireland occurred between 1536 and 1691 - which is probably impossible - I suggest this page should be called something like 'Ireland: 1536-1691'.Sebrofs (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, use consistent definition of 'early modern'. I support such a move. --Red King (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the introduction in fairness.

Jdorney (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant ascendancy

This section should be deleted as it is too detailed for this article since it describes events after it closed. At most we should have a brief summary of the 1691 - 1801 article. --Red King (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Its already a brief summary. Jdorney (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Printing Press

I have added a sentence pointing out that the printing press came to Ireland much later than in other parts of Europe. I suspect this is a major reason as to why the Reformation did not enjoy a great deal of success in Ireland. Inchiquin (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Irish history series

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

Ireland was upgraded

pu-leeease. As the Lordship of Ireland was based on Pope Adrian's alleged Bull, then only a Catholic in communion with Rome could be a legitimate Lord of Ireland. But Henry VIII was excommunicated in 1533. This extinguished his right to the Lordship. The Kingship of Ireland was a wheese to paper over this legal gap. Ireland was a kingdom long before Henry made this claim over it. Upgrade - no. Subjugation by force of arms - yes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII didn't "reconquer" Ireland

This article repeatedly uses the words "reconquer" and "reconquest" to describe the English conquest under the Tudors. Can anybody provide evidence that the English had previously conquered Ireland? They didn't. They claimed Ireland in 1172, but they never conquered Ireland. Norman adventurers established colonies in parts of Ulster, Connacht, Munster and Leinster, but they never conquered Ireland. It was only in 1603 that the English first conquered Ireland. 86.42.27.176 (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Cromwell re-conquered Ireland in 1649–1653 on behalf of the English Commonwealth

Dreadfully inaccurate, Cromwell under orders of Parliament landed in Dublin 15 August 1649 with reinforcements for the English forces there and left on 26 May 1650 under orders from Parliament when Scotland began hostilities against England. The war had been raging before he arrived and continued after his brief stay. He certainly wasn't in Ireland in 1651-53 as the article states and their was no Cromwellian Conquest as the myth goes, he was just a very short term leader in a long war.

Source http://historyplanet.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/cromwells-conquest-of-ireland/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.231.224 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]