Irish Heritage Discussion, Part 3 of 4
[shamrock]

This is part 3 of a collection of 65 messages (a thread) saved from the now defunct FidoNet National Genealogical Echo between Jim Curran and myself, as well as a number of others discussing Irish/Celtic heritage and history, posted to the echo between July, 1992 and July, 1993, in four parts.

Last updated November 25, 2005.

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  5960
Date:   09-03-1992 16:25
From:  Jim Curran
To:       Elsie Savell
Subj:   IRISH REBELS - PART 3/3

The immediate result of Sarsfield’s defeat was the escape of virtually all Irish fighting men who hadn’t been killed from the country. They were the “Wild Geese.” They went to every court in Europe from Spain to Russia and provided anyone fighting the English some of the most proficient soldiers ever. An example: The Irish Brigade which fought under the French flag with incredible distinction for over a century. These men, in general, adopted their new lands and became powers within the country. How about that good French name Hennessey Cognac?

But the exiles didn’t limit themselves to Europe nor did the outflow stop in one generation. It continued for well more than a century and each succeeding generation of Irish lent their fighting skills to their host countries, not the least being the countries of South America in their own rebellions. For instance, an Irishman was admiral (can’t remember his name right now) of the Argentinian navy (see below). You will find some of the damnedest names in S. Am., Pablo Miguel Murphy or some such. All from the same source: Irish exiles.

So, once again, we come full circle, in two different ways.

First, The Young Irelanders, who started this whole exchange, were nothing new; they simply continued a long tradition in Ireland. Those who didn’t escape were transported to Van Dieman’s Land (Tasmania) as was my g-g-uncle or banished as was my g-grandfather. They came to this country and manned our Civil War. Even those transported often found their way here. Try to find the incredible story of the “Catalpa,” a ship that was the means for the only successful mass outbreak from the Australian convict settlements. Among other, Thomas Francis Meagher, “Meagher of the Sword,” who later became Governor of Montana, came to this country and was commander of the Union Irish Brigade. I am not sure of this next statement, but I seem to remember having heard that the Irish Brigade suffered the highest casualities over the period of its existence and was the most-decorated unit of any Civil War unit.

I have seen truly incredible estimates of the numbers of Irish-born and men of Irish extraction who served both North and South. While I question the accuracy of these numbers, let me quote them to give you an idea of how pervading the Irish influence was: 33% for the Confederate Army and in excess of 50% for the Union. Veterans of the North and South fueled the invasion of Canada in 1867 and some returned to Ireland to become the cadre for the Fenian Rebellion of 1867.

Second, in 1982, this whole history raised its ugly head during the Falklands War. The Republic of Ireland, with great sanctimoni­ousness, and from the high ground of neutralism, condemned the English for the War and refused to vote for the United Nations bill of support. Moreover, Irish the world over, at least those who have **ALWAYS** considered England’s enemy to be their friend, took up the cudgels in support of Argentina, and, in general, made asses of themselves supporting a dictatorship and tyranny as bad or worse than the one they were railing against.

So was there a Chile-Ireland connection? Haven’t the foggiest, but I would put almost any amount of money on the fact there was. It wouldn’t have been a formal connection, but rather an informal, one of the nature described above.

Slainte! And safe home!

--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Nat’l Genealogical Society, Arlington, VA 703-528-2612 (1:109/302)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  8285
Date:   10-18-1992 01:53
From:  Jim Curran
To:       Roger L. Cousins
Subj:   IRISH REBELLIONS - PT 1/2

How can I possibly resist such a challenge?!? ‘Passionate’ is an excellent term, but ‘blood-thirsty’ gives me a bit of a problem. Not because it’s necessarily inaccurate, but because it is misleading and obscures the issues. It suggests that the only, or at least the main, reason is a love of fighting for fighting’s (and blood’s) sake.

And ‘subdued’ is truly an inaccuracy. Suppressed, yes; subdued, no. There have been 15 major rebellions over the last 450 years, one every 30 years. As I usually say about the current Troubles since 1968, they better get them over in a hurry; it’s almost time for the next one to start.

Ireland, like her Celtic neighbors, Scotland and Wales, had a long tradition of armed opposition to the English. However, unlike them, she never suffered the final defeat that was visited on Scotland at Culloden (although Cromwell and his Roundheads came close to it), nor the total investment of their land suffered by the Welsh. This tradition, in all three cases, was fueled by the uniquely fierce Celtic sense of personal independence which is both the curse and the blessing of the Celtic character. In all three cases, it kept the spirit of freedom alive long after any of them had any right to expect it. OTOH, it also led to the typically Celtic inability to organize any kind of rational, effective way to deal with a common enemy. Probably the best story to illustrate this: “What do you get when you put two Irishmen together? Three opinions and a fight.” Gaelic Ireland believed totally in a decentralized society. As I have mentioned before, no Irishman ever built an Irish city; they were all built by invaders. And living arrangements, and even their scholastic institutions, were built around small communities devoted to single purposes.

So the Irish were relatively easy to beat in battle by a large, cohesive and dedicated force; but they were impossible to defeat in detail. There was no head to knock off the beast. Each man became his own individual rebel army.

Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s an exact description of today’s Troubles. The English are used to fighting wars in which if they kill or capture the leaders and disperse an army, they win the war. And if not immediately, then a period of occupation and a taste of the cat quickly whips the natives into order. Doesn’t work that way in Ireland, just as it didn’t work in India. The English didn’t under­stand what was happening in India and they don’t understand what is happening in Ireland. The English periodically issue their own “light at the end of the tunnel” statements that would be laughable if they weren’t so tragically wrong-headed. And BTW Northern Ireland today is often described as “England’s Vietnam” to highlight the English misunderstanding and mishandling of the situation.

--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Nat’l Genealogical Society, Arlington, VA 703-528-2612 (1:109/302)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  8286
Date:   10-18-1992 01:55
From:  Jim Curran
To:       Roger L. Cousins
Subj:   IRISH REBELLIONS - PT 2/2

Back to the main point: if these conditions were true for all 3 Celtic nations, why have only the Irish not become English housepets? I’m getting onto uncertain ground here, because I don’t feel anyone has ever adequately explained it, at least to my satisfaction. While I don’t believe this is the whole answer, I believe that two key factors are Ireland’s physical and population size and its island character. What many don’t realize is that until relatively recently, at least in terms of the length of the battle between England and Ireland, the populations of England and Ireland were roughly comparable. It is only in the last 150 years that England has become significantly larger. Ireland as an island is relatively easy to invade, at least from the east and northeast coasts, but is large enough, unlike, say Cyprus, Crete or the Falklands, that total investment of the country by an English invading force is virtually impossible. The Vikings learned that after nearly 400 years of trying, but the English apparently still haven’t learned that after 823 years of trying. You’ve got to give them an ‘A’ for effort and persistence though.

One other extremely odd factor that I cannot properly evaluate: every one of the later rebellions since 1700, except one, was organized and run by Protestants. And every one organized and run by Protestants was lost. The only winning one, the War of Independence 1916-21, was organized and run by Catholics. I don’t know what to make of it; do you? Even on the non-violent side, the only truly successful campaign was that of Daniel O’Connell, the Great Liberator, who achieved passage of Catholic Emancipation in 1829, ending the 130 years of the Penal Century. Those led by Protestants, such as Charles Stewart Parnell, and the Land League, or Redmond and the Home Rule campaign, failed.

--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Nat’l Genealogical Society, Arlington, VA 703-528-2612 (1:109/302)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  8286
Date:   11-01-1992 07:52
From:  Jim Curran
To:       Bonnie Bunce
Subj:   NORTHERN IRELAND MIROCOSM sic

After replying to your note, I suddenly realized we were dealing with most of the problems of Northern Ireland in a microcosm. Two of the ****MAJOR**** problems are:

Scots-Irish is, of course an American term; it wouldn’t be heard in NI. It developed here after the flood of Famine emigrés when the earlier settlers from Ireland, primarily Protestant, wished to distance themselves from the new breed of Catholic immigrant who they considered, in most cases rightly, as exceptionally poor, uneducated, superstitious and generally no-account. Their mistake, as in many similar situations, was to assume that these conditions were a result of heredity and would never change. What they didn’t count on were people like my g-gf Patrick Curran, who emigrated first to Clinton, MA c. 1850 and then to Holyoke, MA. Patrick may have been illiterate, although that is [n]ot certain at this point. Some of his siblings definitely were. He was a common laborer. In the eyes of the earlier immigrants and to most of the society of the day, he was scum of the earth. Yet everyone of them by 1870 was literate and everyone we have identified so far became citizens.

But the truly astounding part of Patrick’s story, is his son Michael F. Here is a son of an Irish, poor, poss. illiterate, common laborer, Famine immigrant who attended a full four years of school at Holy Cross, graduating in the class of 1876. We complain today of what it takes to send a kid to college. Can you imagine what that entailed back then?

Those of Scots heritage in NI do not consider themselves Irish even though their Catholic neighbors do (although, I admit, they don’t think they’re very good Irishmen.) They also don’t think in terms of being Scottish to any great degree. They believe themselves to be British (even though they aren’t; they are part of the UK, not Great Britain.) OTOH the British don’t consider them British either; as far as they’re concerned the Protestants of NI are just so many more Paddies.

So, just what IS the nationality of a racial grouping that originally, way back in the dim dark recesses of history, came out of Ireland, went to Scotland, settled there, and then returned to Ireland as part of the plantations and remained there for almost 400 years? The Scots-Irish develop elaborate subterfuges even to the extent of claiming descent only from one minute tribe of Irish, which, of course, was highly superior to any of the other Irish tribes. If it weren’t so tragic it would be hilarious.

The question of language is also incredible. Unlike the black-white situation in this country where it is easy to identify those you hate and want to get rid of, it can’t be done in NI. So they must depend on use of language to distinguish their enemies. The easiest way to identify a Northern Catholic is to hear the way he pronounces the letter ‘H’ which comes out something like ‘haitch.’ The warring sides can also be identified by their use of words such as Derry/Londonderry or even Northern Ireland / 6 counties.

Just got my warning to get off, so must go.

---TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Nat’l Genealogical Society, Arlington VA 703-528-2612 (1:109/302)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  7729
Date:   11-04-1992 11:14
From:  Bonnie Bunce
To:      Jim Curran
Subj:   Re: NORTHERN IRELAND MICROCOSM

-=> Quoting Jim Curran to Bonnie <=-

JC> After replying to your note, I suddenly realized we
JC> were dealing with most of the problems of Northern
JC> Ireland in a microcosm. Two of the ****MAJOR****
JC> problems are: 1) What constitutes Irishness?
JC> 2) How language separates the factions.

You’ve got it in a nutshell, Jim, and people get so worked up over these differences. For instance, on my mother’s side of the family, one of her grandmothers was Ida Kennedy (I have my grandparents’ marriage certificate showing this). Is Kennedy Irish or Scottish? While reading a book about Ireland, I read that Kennedy is an Irish surname, meaning “helmet-head,” but when in a biography of Kennedys in a county history of Lancaster Co., PA, it says they were descended from the ancient Earls of Carrick in Ayrshire, Scotland; the name being changed from Carrick to Kennedy in the 14th century. Maybe both stories are true. I guess that’s part of the fun of genealogy, trying to unravel all these intermingled threads.

BTW, the fact that your Michael F. Curran graduated from college shows how strongly we are influenced by our surroundings and the opportunities available to people in society. It can truly be said that no one is an island and you are part of the society into which you are born. If Michael F. Curran had been born in Ireland, he might have not graduated from college because of lack of opportunity in the society into which he was born. Intelligence and personal drive can not always overcome difficult social conditions, much as you stated about how the English treat the Irish. Perhaps the common bond between the Scots and the Irish was a hatred of the way the English treated them.

After re-reading your message and reading Leyburn’s book about the Scotch-Irish, I am led to believe that the Irish Catholics for the most part immigrated to the U.S. at a much later date (mid- to late 1800's) than did the Scotch-Irish, so maybe knowing the time period, one's ancestors came to America can help determine whether the “Ireland,” on a birth certificate for instance, can mean a geographical area or is an indication of nationality.

Your messages about how the Irish had a decentralized form of government makes me think that the Irish and the Scots were not too different. In Leyburn’s book p. 266-69, chapter on “Frontier Society,” he says:

Stable social classes flourish only when resi­dence is continuous in a community, so that men agree upon what brings prestige and posi­tion; when upper classes are fairly exclusive in their marriages; when sons are indoctrinated with the idea that they have not only rights but also obligations and responsibility; and when tradition guides institutions into conservative channels. The mobility of the Scotch-Irish simply swept away all of these foundation stones of the class system of thousands of the people. How­ever much the first settlers expected to repro­duce the standards of the Old World, there was always the drift of the restless and a pull of the young and ambitious to a new settlement, and beyond that to a still newer one. Every fresh move meant that life had, at least momentarily, to be primitive again—chopping trees, making first crops, living in camp. Maturing youths married their available neighbors and could not wait for persons of good family to appear. . . . The experience of the Scotch-Irish in this matter of classes was doubly interesting. It was true that, with them, the old order faded away; but it was also with them that a new order appeared and one that came to be fairly representative of American life. People always make social distinc­tions. They are always conscious of prestige, even though the attainments that bring prestige change over the years and change radically. What disappeared among the Scotch-Irish and among most Americans thereafter was the idea of “permanence” of social distinctions, the belief that families must be given deference simply be­cause they have always had it. What was re­tained among the Scotch-Irish and later Ameri­cans was acceptance of social distinction, even social class, based upon whether an individual family, in this generation, and for this generation alone, achieved the qualities that were admired, respected and honored at the time and place. A shift had been subtly and imperceptibly made from the criterion of family heritage to that of individual achievement. One’s own strength of will, self-control, inward determination, were now the primary factors determining status in a community.

--- Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
* Origin: (1:104/330.0)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  7306
Date:   11-06-1992 09:32:58
From:  Bonnie Bunce
To:      Jim Curran
Subj:   Re: NORTHERN IRELAND MICROCOSM

-=> Quoting Jim Curran to Bonnie <=-

> Those of Scots heritage in NI do not consider
> themselves Irish even though their Catholic neighbors
> do (although, I admit, they don’t think they’re very
> good Irishmen.) They also don’t think in terms of being
> Scottish to any great degree. They believe themselves
> to be British (even though they aren’t; they are part of
> the UK, not Great Britain.) OTOH British don't consider
> them British either; as far as they’re concerned the
> Protestants of NI are just so many more Paddies. So,
> just what IS the nationality of a racial grouping that
> originally, way back in the dim dark recesses of history,
> came out of Ireland, went to Scotland, settled there,
> and then returned to Ireland as part of the plantations
> and remained there for almost 400 years? The
> Scots-Irish develop elaborate subterfuges even to the
> extent of claiming descent only from one minute tribe
> of Irish, which, of course, was highly superior to any of
> the other Irish tribes. If it weren’t so tragic it would be
> hilarious.

Jim, your comments above show that our roots go even deeper than just this country. Many of the attitudes, prejudices and behavior in the US have their beginnings in the old country. BTW, Leyburn stated in the Introduc­tion to his book on the Scotch-lrish that the immigrants who became known as the Scotch-Irish in America were not high-born, since those who first immigrated to N. Ireland from Scotland, were of the peasant class and had immigrated “to look for a better life or to escape miser­able conditions or for sheer excitement — and such motives indicate their ambition and initiative.” He also stated:

Few ancestors of the Scotch-Irish had anything to do with clans, tartans, bagpipes, and the other charming extravagances that beguile the modern tourist in Scotland. To many Americans the word ‘clan’ refers to a trait of the Scottish social order; if, then, one has Scottish ancestors, they must have been members of a clan. . . . Kilts, sporrans and their accouterments derive almost entirely from the Highlands of Scotland [which represents 3/5ths of the land area of Scotland], not from the Lowlands, whence came the Scots who went over to Ireland. The clan was the Celtic equivalent of a primitive tribe, and a good part of Scotland had at one time been Celtic. Around the 12th century the Lowlands, however, began a slow progress toward civilization; and in the process, clan organization in this area gave way to feudalism. By 1600 few clans remained in the Lowlands, although loyalty to one’s feudal overlord re­mained characteristic, showing itself in violent feuds, raids and other acts of lawlessness. It is in northwestern Scotland, the Highlands, that is the home of the clan and its kilts and tartans. This portion of Scotland was regarded, even (and sometimes especially) by Lowlanders, as late as 1745, as the home of wild tribesmen who kept the country in turmoil. Here Gaelic was still almost the only language. . . . A few Highlanders drifted over to Northern Ireland, for the Western Isles and portions of Argyll are very near to Ulster. Their Gaelic language and sometimes their Catholicism made them more welcome than Lowland Scots to the native Irish. King James, however, had specifically excluded Highlanders from his design for the Plantation of Ulster:  he wanted to civilize Ireland by settlers with British ways, not to confirm Irishmen in their intransigence. Highlanders, therefore, have no real place in the ancestry of the Scotch-Irish.

In a chapter, “Mind and Character of the Lowlander,” Leyburn says Lowlanders who left Scotland to settle in N. Ireland between 1610-1690 were biologically com­pounded of many ancestral strains, at least 9:  Stone Age aborigines; the Gaels, a Celtic people who overran Britain in 500 B.C.; Britons, another Celtic people, who pushed the Gaels north into Scotland & west into Wales; the Roman occupation of Britain added that strain to the mix; the Teutonic Angles & Saxons, especially the former who dominated the Lowlands for centuries; the Scots, another Celtic tribe which invaded from Ireland, the country that was to eventually bear their name; Norse adventurers and pirates; and 2 smaller components were the Normans who had pushed north after dealing with England, as well as a small group of Flemish traders who mostly remained in the Lowlands. He said "One can hardly contest the pre­dominance of the Celtic stock in the Lowlander’s heritage with the Teutonic Angles … the next element in order.”

--- Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
* Origin: (1:104/330.0)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  7830
Date:   12-18-1992 11:14
From:  Jim Curran
To:       Elsie Savell
Subj:   Celtic Names - Pt 1/3

There definitely is a connection between the Scots, Welsh and Irish (and Bretons, Cornish & Mannites (? Mannians? whatever! those who live on the Isle of Man). They are the six traditional Celtic nations that still trace some significant portion of their heritage to the Celts.

The Celts were the overlords of Europe for many centuries both in the pre-Christian era and after. They held sway from Spain to Russia, from Northern Italy to the North Sea. They even challenged the might of Rome and entered it on at least two separate occasions.

Julius Caesar’s (“Omnia Gallis in tres partes …”) made his reputation fighting the Celts. The Celts, to the best of current knowledge, originated in Austria at the “Blue Mountain.” Don’t know that that location has been pin­pointed using current geography; the name comes from legend. The significance of the mountain is that it was the source of iron ore which the Celts learned to work and produce weapons that surpassed any of the bronze weapons that were the usual in those days. There was iron and steel working in the Middle East, particularly in the Syria area, but it was in use in the West only through imports until the Celts developed it.

As successive waves of Celts prospered and spread out, they displaced the earlier peoples. Eventually they felt the population pressure themselves and branches moved off the Continent and settled in both England and Ireland. Ireland was subject to several different Celtic invasions, the last of which was the Gaelic. The Gaels were simply a different branch of the Celts. In an earlier note, I covered the peoples that were displaced by the Celtic invasions in Ireland.

In England, the Celts dominated the entire southern por­tion of the island, probably up to a line that cor­res­ponds with the later Roman Hadrian’s Wall. They displaced the Picts who were driven northward into the area of Scotland.

--- Opus-CBCS 1.73a
* Origin: W3NU Online (1:2601/100.0)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  7831
Date:   12-18-1992 11:16
From:  Jim Curran
To:       Elsie Savell
Subj:   Celtic Names - Pt 2/3

Scotland at a later time underwent still another pressure from invaders from Ireland who became the wild Gaels of the Highlands. In this case, the Picts found themselves between a rock and a hard place, driven north by the Celts from England and south by the Celts from the Highlands. Thrown into this equation were the Romans who conquered much of the Celtic area of England, but who did not really displace the Celts. Hadrian’s Wall was built by them to protect against Pict attacks. The Wall was pierced and destroyed many times, at least twice when Roman legions were destroyed to deal with their own civil wars. Eventually, the Romans left as the Empire re­gressed. That regression was due primarily to new peoples from the East invading previously safe areas of the Continent, notably the Vandals and Huns. Ireland and Scotland were unaffected in any direct way by this; they had never been invaded by the Romans, so the loss didn’t change their status quo. England, however, was brought under heavy Pict pressure. King Arthur, third from the last Celtic King of England, is believed to have been the nephew of King Aurelius Ambrosius, one of the last monarchs to have any Roman support. Aurelius’ brother Uther Pendragon became King after Aurelius’ death and eventually Arthur, who supposedly was originally named Artorius, the Bear, became King.

--- Opus-CBCS 1.73a
* Origin: W3NU Online (1:2601/100.0)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  7832
Date:   12-18-1992 11:17
From:  Jim Curran
To:       Elsie Savell
Subj:   Celtic Names - Pt 3/3

During this period English Celtic fortunes were declining because of pressure from the Picts, and the Celts invited Saxons to come fight the Picts beside them. Unfortu­nately, the Saxons knew a good thing when they saw it and saw no reason why they shouldn’t fight both Celt and Pict! The Celts were slowly pushed out of the east and south of England by the Saxons and the north by the Picts. They ended up in the western reaches of England: Wales, Cornwall, Man. In the far north, the Celtic Highlanders maintained their hold on their country.

So that leaves only the Bretons to account for. The con­tinued pullback by the Romans, and continued waves of invasion by Vandal, Hun, Goth, Visigoth, etc. had the same effect on the Celts of the Continent. They were pushed back into the far northwest corner, that area now known as Brittany.

So, in some sense, and with somewhat the same language, the peoples of the six Celtic nations were/are cousins. There are massive differences in dialects of the language, and in fact, these differences are one of the primary ways the migration patterns of these peoples have been tracked.

This whole discussion raises a fascinating question in light of Bonnie Bunce’s earlier contribution about Highland vs. Lowland Scot. The Highlanders definitely represent the Gaelic influence and heritage. Do the Lowlanders repre­sent a Pict and/or Saxon influence and heritage? I suspect they do. I'm going to ask her to comment on that. Bonnie, if you’re listening in, what do you have to say?

On to what started this all: Gaelic names. Owen, in its many, many forms, can be found in any of the Celtic nations. I can’t say that is was ever particularly popular in Ireland, altho’ it was common enough that at least 3 of my ancestors had the name among the Mannings and Currans. Certainly its popularity never competed with that of Padraig, Sean, Seamus or even Liam. Wales, on the other hand, took the name to its heart. So, on balance, you are correct; the name Owen is much more likely to represent a Welsh influence than an Irish one, but it can be any one of the six.

--- Opus-CBCS 1.73a
* Origin: W3NU Online (1:2601/100.0)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  6842
Date:   12-21-1992 09:22
From:  Jim Curran
To:       Elsie Savell
Subj:   Gaelic Spelling Conventions

Got a delightful letter from Bob Ennis over the weekend that took me to task for some of my comments to you on the note where I gave the 5 reasons for the variances in Gaelic spelling. So let me pass the gist of his objections. His primary argument was that my statement that Gaelic, because it was oral, never developed the firm spelling rules of written languages. He claims that, quite to the contrary, Gaelic developed such rules very early and were codified by early Irish monks; that they existed long before there was an English language as such, and that they have remained relatively unchanged for more than a millenium until relatively recently with the spelling simplifications which are designed to ease speaking of Gaelic.

He believes that the prior spellings were far more explan­atory since the linguistic roots of any word could be seen quite clearly because of the spelling. He further points out that the spelling variants (e.g., Eoghan/Eoghain) are *NOT* different spellings of the same words, but rather different, consistent spellings of declensions of the same word. Sounds almost Teutonic.

i never thought the Irish were capable of being that organized (or that they even cared to be)! ! !! !

--Opus-CBCS 1.73a
* Origin: W3NU Online 1:2601/100.0)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  6954
Date:   12-26-1992 20:47
From:  David Martin
To:       Jim Curran
Subj:   Celtic Names @ History

Jim thanks for the offer to join in. Being a late comer, I don’t know if there has been any posting about basic history during and about the life of King Arthur.

So that is what I will start with, and later on I’ll post the members of his court and a lot of sources that can be had on micro-film. Believe it or not there are many names that can be found and used in genealogy research. Some dates can be found too, as well as blood lines of many different families of the time.

Arthur and Arthurian legend

Arthur, the focus of an extensive medieval cycle of legends and romances, was probably a Celtic British king or chieftain of the 6th century AD who fought against the Saxon invaders of England. The name may also be that of a Celtic god whose mythology was early confused with the exploits of the historical figure. Arthur is first mentioned in the Welsh poem “Gododdin” (c.600), is referred to by the Welsh chronicler Nennius (c.800) in his Latin Historia Britonum, and appears also in the compilation Annales Cambriae (10th century). His popularity was equally great in Cornwall and Brittany, and it was through the Bretons that the legends spread orally to the rest of Europe.

By the 12th century, Arthur, now indistinguishable from folk and literary accretion, had become a national hero to the English. Given full-bodied shape by GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH, he appears in the Historia regum Britanniae (1137) as the master of a European empire. The French poet Wace fleshed out the details of Arthur’s fame in Le Roman de Brut (1155), to which the English poet LAYAMON added in his epic narrative Brut at the end of the century. The French poet CHRETIEN DE TROYES (fl. late 12th century) used the court of King Arthur as the setting for his intense, tragic romances of individual knights associated with Arthur, such as LANCELOT and Percival. Those in turn influenced the German renderings of the PARSIFAL legend produced by WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH and the Tristan legend (see TRISTAN AND ISOLDE) produced by GOTTFRIED VON STRASSBURG (both 13th century); Chretien de Troyes’s romances also contributed substantially to the mystique of COURTLY LOVE and the ideas of CHIVALRY then in vogue among the French aristocracy.

In the 13th century, the Arthurian legends, especially those concerning the Holy GRAIL, increasingly took on Christian overtones; pagan and religious elements survived in interpretative re-creations through the 19th century, most notably in Alfred Lord TENNYSON’s “Idylls of the King” (1859-85) and Richard WAGNER’s opera Parsifal (1882). SIR GAWAIN AND THE GREEN KNIGHT was an important 14th century English addition to Arthurian literature.

Arthur and his knights assumed quasi-definitive form in the heroic prose epic MORTE D’ARTHUR of Sir Thomas MALORY. Here could be found all the ingredients that have continued as a source of inspiration for the poets Edmund Spenser and Algernon Charles Swinburne as well as for takeoffs as various as Mark Twain’s Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1899), T. H. WHITE’s Once and Furture King (1958), and the Alan Jay Lerner-Frederick Lowe musical Camelot (1960); (see LERNER, ALAN JAY, and LOWE, FREDERICK.) These elements include Arthur’s natural birth to Igraine and King Uther Pendragon; his tutelage by the magician MERLIN; his assumption of the English throne after extracting the sword Excalibur from a rock; the institution of a round table for the knights at his court in Caerleon, or CAMELOT; the adulterous love affair between his queen GUINEVERE, and the noble Lancelot; the treachery of his nephew Mordred (or Modred); the mortal combat between Arthur and Mordred at the battle of Camlan; his mysteri­ous translation to the island of Avalon, where he was taken to be buried (or healed); the quest of Sir GALAHAD for the Holy Grail; and the adventures of GAWAIN, Gareth, Kay, Bediver, Tristram, and others.

There are many people today who do not believe that King Arthur ever existed, but to the thanks of old Roman records that contain writings about Arthur will confirm that the man did in fact exist.

---
~ OLX 2.1 TD ~ Gyda da dumuniad
--- DCI/Chauncy 0.7
* Origin: Bird Lake - (813) 265-3256 (1:377/14.0)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  7682
Date:   12-28-1992 07:13
From:  Jim Curran
To:       Lyle Craver
Subj:   Irish Attitudes

Your statement — “my view that a lot of Roman Catholic Irish take the position that Irish Protes­tants aren’t true Irish as they’re all Scots anyhow” — is quite accurate for Irish-American attitudes, but the emphasis is wrong for the Catholic Irish of Northern Ireland. The statement would be more accurate for them if it read “a lot of Roman Catholic Irish take the position that Irish Protestants won’t accept that they are really true Irish but want to believe they’re all Scots and, therefore, we won’t accept them as Irish until they do.”

The distinction might be a little clearer if you look at what each of the groups in Northern Ireland call the Protes­tants. Even though, as Bonnie Bunce, pointed out to me, the term “Scots-Irish” probably originated with Elizabeth I, it is not a term that you will ever hear in Northern Ireland; it has currency only in this country as far as I know. (Do people in Canada use it?) Its widespread use dates back to the 1850-1870 era when it was used by earlier Irish Protestant immigrants to distance themselves from the new breed of Irish immigrants who were primar­ily Catholic, poor, superstitious, uneducated Famine emigrés.

The Protestants of Northern Ireland — at least those with a Scottish background — refer to themselves as “Ulster Scots,” thus implicitly denying any Irish dimension. It is also interesting to note that the flag of the Republic is orange, white and green. The orange is said to explicitly include the Protestant Orange of the North as part of the definition of the Irish state.

In Northern Ireland, the Catholics refer to the Protestants as “Irish Protestants.” Catholics refuse to use “Ulster Scots” for two entirely distinct and separate reasons. They resent the appropriation of the name Ulster to describe the state of Northern Ireland; Catholics reserve that name for the 9 county region with that name that existed for millenia, but was bastardized to describe the new 6 county area created by partition of Ireland in 1922. Secondly, the term “Scots” has no meaning to the Catholics. As much as they dislike or even hate the Protestants and the way they were introduced to and took over Ireland, there is total recognition, except in the most irrational minds, that the Protestants are Irish.

--- Opus-CBCS 1.73a
* Origin: W3NU Online (1:2601/100.0)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  7812
Date:   01-02-1993 13:10
From:  Bob Ennis
To:      Jim Curran
Subj:   Irish Nationalism

I saw your revised message on Gaelige. You did good. This is for you and also for Bonnie Bunce. Please read Partition and the Limits of Irish Nationalism, by Clare O’Halloran. It’s a book that grew out of a doctoral dis­serta­tion. It summarizes attitudes of Six-county people and Republic people towards each other.

--- WM v2.04/92-0681
* Origin: GENEALOGY HQS! Lubbock, TX 806-796-7070 v32Bis (1:3804/8)

[BAR]

Area:   National Genealogical Echo
Msg#:  7817
Date:   01-02-1993 15:36
From:  Jim Curran
To:       Bonnie Bunce
Subj:    Protestant Role in ire.

Bonnie—
(You’re going to have to imagine my best Prof. ’enry ’iggins accent). “I think you’ve got it!” With the exception of the always present caveat that Catholics of Northern Ireland aren’t quite sure they really want the Protestants because the Protestants refuse to acknowledge their Irishness, you’ve nailed it down.

If the 40% surprises you, would knowing that 16% of Scotland is Catholic also surprise you?

I suspect that one of the sources of your previous lack of knowledge arises from the definition of “democracy” as practiced in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, in much of Great Britain. In NI, particularly, democracy is strictly “majority rule.” Unlike this country, the definition does *NOT* include protection of the rights of minorities, no matter how large. One of the results of this is that any­thing official coming out of NI treats NI as a Protestant state.

You asked about attitudes in the Republic. They are even stronger there about their Protestants. The Protestants represent about 5% of the population but exert an influ­ence on affairs far out of proportion to their numbers. Protestants are treated with great deference and widely admired. I should point out the Protestants of the Republic are almost exclusively Church of Ireland while those of NI are split, roughly half Presbyterian, half Church of Ireland (or Church of England) with a few odd percent scattered among other faiths. I have been told many times (and experienced it somewhat on my trips to Ireland) that as a Protestant and with my interest in and knowledge of Ireland, I would exceptionally welcomed and well-treated in the Republic. In NI, they don’t know quite what to make of someone like me.

I particularly like the distinction you make about the discussions being about “racial/cultural inheritance” rather than the politics of today. Oh, so true!

I did get your previous note and I hope you have gotten my previous reply by now about having contacted Chemung Co., NY. What on earth are you doing with a Yates Co. history out in Denver? This is the first I realized where you were located. You may be aware I am currently tracking down cousins in Denver. Keep an eye open for messages between me and Connie Anderson.

In closing may I say how thrilled I am by your reaction to that msg. I have worked very hard for many years trying to get people to understand the realities of Northern Ireland and it's rare I get such positive feedback on my work. Most people are so locked in to stereotypes and don’t like their “knowledge” threatened that it is ex­tremely difficult for them to acknowledge these realities.

--- Opus-CBCS 1.73a
* Origin: W3NU Online (1:2601/100.0)

[BAR]

[TOP]
[BULLET] Part 1 of Irishness
[BULLET] Part 2 of Irishness
[BULLET] Part 4 of Irishness (some recommended books & epilogue)
[BULLET] List of 850+ Irish Surnames from Irish Tourist Board brochure
[BULLET] List of Recommended Genealogical Publications on Irish Ancestry
HOME