On Feb 17, 10:36am, Janet Wallwork wrote:
> Subject: Re: Romans - Bias against Celts lasts today.
> John Cahill wrote:
> > Was the granting of Ireland to the King of England in the 11th
> >Century by Pope Gregory another Roman attempt to bring the unruly
> >Irish Celts in line???
My original point here is based on the many disputes and frustration that took
place about this time between Pope Gregory and the Archbishop and bishops of
Ireland. Even the scheme of determining what date was Easter etc. The Irish
bishops were using the Lunar calendar as developed by the Celts but the church
in Rome wanted to make the date less movable. Many other disagreements existed
which also include differences over rules on marriage,
> I'm not sure Ireland ever was "granted" to King Henry. The only
> evidence for this is the reference to a papal bull "Laudabiliter" in
> the writings on Ireland by Giraldus Cambrensis.
I believe it was just a "convenient arrangement" that gave the church in
England at Canterbury authority over the church in Ireland with the assistance
of the King. Pope Gregory wanted the Irish to "toe the Line".
My premise here is that the residual Roman/Celt differences still existed in
the 11th Century. The church in England was already Romanized and was poised
for continued expansionism through a ready and willing landgrabbing King in the
best traditions of Caesar.
This was another attempt at subjugating the threatening behaviour of the Celts
over the church in Rome as the Irish bishops and cardinals were having
increasing influence over the setting of rules and policies of the emerging and
expansionist Church of Rome.
Bear in mind that the church during this era was involved in such noble Roman
efforts as the Crusades. Was this the peaceloving evangelizing way to speread
the gospel or more Roman Empire revisited.???
> He was toadying to
> the King in the hope of advancement and was commissioned to write some
> fairly vitriolic attacks on all things Irish. All subsequent refernces
> to this Papal Bull derive from Giraldus. I understand that in the
> 19th century - when Irish history was being re-evaluated - historians
> looked for a copy of this Bull, and failed to find one - in Ireland,
> England or Rome. The Papal Archives had neither trace of, nor
> reference to, such a document. So maybe it never existed?
Henry's concern in Ireland was that the Irish Kings had had about 100 years of
relative peace after the Danes had been vanquished and were a growing threat in
their own right. I suspect his motive was to "strike first" exactly as Julius
Casar had used the same logic against the Helvetians 1200 years before.
> Henry wanted Ireland because he had ambitions in France, and he
> wanted to guard his back - he didn't like the idea of France, Spain
> or anyone else setting up alliances with the Irish Kings to attack
> England from the rear whilst he was defending/expanding his French
>-- End of excerpt from Janet Wallwork