Fair Tribunals at Guantanamo? (Was: YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ???)

"vince" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
...


.....

| Try reading your reference again, a military occupation occurred in
the
| 12th Century, your reference goes into a lot of details on what
occurred
| from that time until the Tudors.
|
| If you read the Statutes of Kilkenny you will see what the overlords
| were trying to do. it is a statute for a military occupation by and
| for the benefit of anglo normans, not a statute designed to provide
| political control by "England" For one thing, it was written in
| FRENCH, the Norman legal language.
|
| It is perfectly correct to say that "England" had little influence.
| It is nonsense to say the "English" did not.

Your reference was the source of that exact quote, so while some Irish
wanna-be might not agree with his own reference it doesn't make the
Irish wanna-be correct.
http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0900.html

"Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had LITTLE
INFLUENCE over Ireland."

"vincent Brannigan" wrote:
| Brett wrote:
|
| "vince" wrote:
| | "Brett" wrote in message
| ...
|
| ....
|
| | Try reading your reference again, a military occupation occurred
in
| the
| | 12th Century, your reference goes into a lot of details on what
| occurred
| | from that time until the Tudors.
| |
| | If you read the Statutes of Kilkenny you will see what the
overlords
| | were trying to do. it is a statute for a military occupation by
and
| | for the benefit of anglo normans, not a statute designed to
provide
| | political control by "England" For one thing, it was written in
| | FRENCH, the Norman legal language.
| |
| | It is perfectly correct to say that "England" had little
influence.
| | It is nonsense to say the "English" did not.
|
| Your reference was the source of that exact quote, so while some
Irish
| wanna-be might not agree with his own reference it doesn't make the
| Irish wanna-be correct.
| http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0900.html
|
| "Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had LITTLE
| INFLUENCE over Ireland."
|
| Itimply does not mean what you claim

It means eactly what I said it means.

| the next line is
|
| "Henry feared that foreign or domestic enemies would use Ireland as a
base
| for
| . attacking him. In the past, Yorkist pretenders, such as Lambert
Simnel
| and
| .Perkin Warbeck, spent time in Ireland and got support from the Irish
| lords. Politically,
| . Henry needed to have the country under his control. "
|
| This is completely consistent with a lack of royal control over the
english
| miliatry occupation.
|
| the reference also says in the prior section
|
| "It was vital for the English settlers to have an efficient law code
and
| government if
| . they were to maintain control over the newly conquered country."
|
| To recapitulate . there was a military occupatiion of Ireland by
Anglo
| Norman free booters, who could justify their military conquests by a
| nominal allegiance to the King of England as a personal feudal lord.
This
| put the English invadeers in control of large sections of the country
as
| local miliatry warlords.

Try again by the time Henry VIII came to power those large sections were
small.

| For what its worth I ma descended form one of the key warlords , the
Butler
| family, dukes of Ormonde

So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish wanna-be.

Brett wrote:

"vince" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
...

....

| Try reading your reference again, a military occupation occurred in
the
| 12th Century, your reference goes into a lot of details on what
occurred
| from that time until the Tudors.
|
| If you read the Statutes of Kilkenny you will see what the overlords
| were trying to do. it is a statute for a military occupation by and
| for the benefit of anglo normans, not a statute designed to provide
| political control by "England" For one thing, it was written in
| FRENCH, the Norman legal language.
|
| It is perfectly correct to say that "England" had little influence.
| It is nonsense to say the "English" did not.

Your reference was the source of that exact quote, so while some Irish
wanna-be might not agree with his own reference it doesn't make the
Irish wanna-be correct.
http://www.rte.ie/culture/millennia/history/0900.html

"Before Henry VIII came to power in 1509 the English had LITTLE
INFLUENCE over Ireland."

Itimply does not mean what you claim

the next line is

"Henry feared that foreign or domestic enemies would use Ireland as a base
for
.. attacking him. In the past, Yorkist pretenders, such as Lambert Simnel
and
..Perkin Warbeck, spent time in Ireland and got support from the Irish
lords. Politically,
.. Henry needed to have the country under his control. "

This is completely consistent with a lack of royal control over the english
miliatry occupation.

the reference also says in the prior section

"It was vital for the English settlers to have an efficient law code and
government if
.. they were to maintain control over the newly conquered country."

To recapitulate . there was a military occupatiion of Ireland by Anglo
Norman free booters, who could justify their military conquests by a
nominal allegiance to the King of England as a personal feudal lord. This
put the English invadeers in control of large sections of the country as
local miliatry warlords.

For what its worth I ma descended form one of the key warlords , the Butler
family, dukes of Ormonde

The Fitzgeralds as in John Fitzgerald Kennedy, are another of these norman
freebooters.

Vince

"vince" wrote in message
m...

. The feudal lord (the king)
granted land in return for support. The king had very little
influence over the private activities of these feudal lords.

The Feudal system persisted throughout the Plantagenet era.

Well on another news group I'd ask you to define feudal. )

However here I merely ask you to tell me in what way any English king was
burdened by 'overmighty subjects' for any long period of time after about
1300. A couple of them were, but they tended to get murdered and replaced
by someone who wasn't in reasonably short order.

The only obvious exception I can think of is Henry VI and he isn't a really
good example as the kingdom was far too riven by chaos and war to give over
too much time to repress Ireland.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

Brett wrote:

"

So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish wanna-be.

no, I am an Irish citizen

Vince Brannigan

Brett wrote:

"vincent Brannigan" wrote:
|
|
| Brett wrote:
|
| "
|
| So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish
wanna-be.
|
| no, I am an Irish citizen

No you are an Irish wanna-be.

The Brannigans are listed in records back to the first English
occupation. We are a branch of the O'niall
My mothers family are Butlers from Wexford

I know what I am. 15/16ths Irish

Vince

William Black wrote:

"vince" wrote in message
m...

. The feudal lord (the king)
granted land in return for support. The king had very little
influence over the private activities of these feudal lords.

The Feudal system persisted throughout the Plantagenet era.

Well on another news group I'd ask you to define feudal. )

Fair enough, but whatever definion you prefer, the anglo norman system was
feudal.


However here I merely ask you to tell me in what way any English king was
burdened by 'overmighty subjects' for any long period of time after about
1300. A couple of them were, but they tended to get murdered and replaced
by someone who wasn't in reasonably short order.

The only obvious exception I can think of is Henry VI and he isn't a really
good example as the kingdom was far too riven by chaos and war to give over
too much time to repress Ireland.

Ireland was a special case. There was little Royal control , and certainly the
island was rife with disloyalty to various kings.
however the anglo Normans had most, though not all of the country well in hand.

Vince



Vince

"vincent Brannigan" wrote:
| Brett wrote:
|
| "vincent Brannigan" wrote:
| |
| |
| | Brett wrote:
| |
| | "
| |
| | So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish
| wanna-be.
| |
| | no, I am an Irish citizen
|
| No you are an Irish wanna-be.
|
| The Brannigans are listed in records back to the first English
| occupation.

So what, there are probably a good number of them mentioned in the
records for Newgate Prison as well.

| We are a branch of the O'niall
| My mothers family are Butlers from Wexford

Butler has Norman heritage - I thought your claim was that you were
Irish.

| I know what I am. 15/16ths Irish

Where were your parents born?
Where were you born?
If the answer to either question includes someplace other than Ireland,
you are Irish wanna-be.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:35:00 GMT, "Brett"
wrote:

"vincent Brannigan" wrote:
|
|
| Brett wrote:
|
| "
|
| So what - it just confirms my comment - you are just an Irish
wanna-be.
|
| no, I am an Irish citizen

No you are an Irish wanna-be.

I think you have to concede if Vince holds Irish citizenship
then he can reasonably claim to be Irish

My claim is somewhat more tenuous:

"Fifty years before William the Conqueror landed in England an Irish
mercenary named Anselan O'Kyan landed in Argyll. For his services in
fighting against the vikings King Malcolm of Scotland awarded him
lands on the eastern shore of Loch Lomond in 1016.

Anselan was the son of the King of Ulster and had in his retinue his
seneschal (steward or major-domo) who was named McWattie. Thus the
first known Watt was the son of an Irish Wattie from Ulster. "

But I can content myself by being English, British and Gibraltarian
and thats QUITE enough.


--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com

Brett wrote:


Where were your parents born?
Where were you born?
If the answer to either question includes someplace other than Ireland,
you are Irish wanna-be.

The heir to the British throne is a British wanna be? since his daddy is
ole phil the Greek?

Or De Valera was irish wanna be?

the Irish know who they are

Vince