Talk:Parliament of Ireland
|WikiProject Ireland||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Middle Ages||(Rated C-class)|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 18, 2009.|
It can be argued at British Constitutional Law that since the provisions of the Treaty of Limerick [by which the Soverignity of Ireland was offered to the English Army and Parliament] and agreed for The Orange Prince by General Ginkel and others, were not implemented by the Orange Prince, it can be argued that Ireland in Law remained a seperate Stuart Kingdom. King Henry IX of the Three Kingdoms was alive in 1801 [dod 1807] and did not sign the Act of Union above. therefore it was null and void and ultra vires King George of England and Scotland. This arguement is based upon Stuart Crown Service to the British Kingdoms being of equal [I would say higher] validity to Guelph/Georgian. When King Henry IX died in 1807 the Stuart successors relinquished any claim to a British Crown. But the Act of Union [so called] being void and the Treaty of Limerick not implemented in favour of Land theft in Ireland, Ireland remained a seperate Kingdom. The Good Friday referendum of all Ireland is the first constitutionally sound legislation in Ireland since the Papal Theft of Ireland was nullified by King Henry VIII Corpus Christi Legislation 1541. It shall give Queen Elizabeth II's dynasty a lawful presence in Ireland for the first time. Michael Patrick Cusack.
Meaning of a sentence
I am unfamiliar with the history of Ireland, but this sentence seems illogical : Because, most of the Gaelic Irish refused allegiance to the crown, respected the authority of the Lordship of Ireland, or recognized common law, they were officially considered outlaws and were not eligible to either vote or stand for office. (2nd line in Early history)
Shouldn't it be : Because, most of the Gaelic Irish refused to swear allegiance to the crown, to respect the authority of the Lordship of Ireland, or to recognize common law, they were officially considered outlaws and were not eligible to either vote or stand for office. ?
Can someone correct either the sentence .... or me ?
Elagatis 15:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not Irish, but my impression of this page is that it is Anglo-centric, and assumes that English conquest and domination of the previously independant celtic nation of Ireland is an inevitable, and RIGHT THING. That unwillingness by celtic peoples to be conquered and dominated by a foreign power is somehow NOT GOOD. Highbury731 (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Highbury731
- Obviously the parliament was an "Anglo" or Norman creation. Gaelic people like the first earls of Tyrone were encouraged to take part, but naturally had to observe the rules.18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
House of Proctors
This edit of 19 December 2009 added a spurious reference to a third house, with a long, rambling footnote. The cited source says only (on p. 297) that the spiritual proctors had arrogated to themselves the right to vote in parliament and (on p 298) that in 1537 an act was passed to stop them doing so. I am reverting the edit in its entirety. If anybody thinks some of the other content ("the lords temporal and the lords spiritual sat in the Lords") should be added back then it can be, but I don't think it is needed. Scolaire (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- On reflection, I've added the bishops back in, but that is all. Scolaire (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The first Irish Parliament on 18th June 1264 invited nobles and bishops, whereas the first English Parliament on 20th January 1265 also invited elected representatives of the major towns. The direct comparison in the lead between the two needs clarification to reflect this. The Irish Parliament began to invite representatives of the Irish people in the 1400s (and the English parliament had met since 1236 with nobles and bishops attending). Whizz40 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)