England under the Angevin Kings, Volume IINorgate, Kate
History
England under the Angevin Kings, Volume II
Norgate, Kate
Anjou, House of; England -- Civilization -- 1066-1485; Great Britain -- History -- Angevin period, 1154-1216
[549] Gerald (as above, c. 33, p. 278) enumerates the princes
who submitted at Dublin as follows: “Machelanus Ophelan
[O’Phelan], Machtalewi, Otuetheli [O’Toole], Gillemoholmoch
[Gillamocholmog of Fingal by Dublin--see above, p. 106],
Ocathesi [O’Casey], Ocaruel Urielensis [O’Carroll of Oiriel],
et Ororicius Medensis [O’Ruark]”. He then relates the
half-submission of Roderic of Connaught (of which more later),
and adds: “sic itaque, præter solos Ultonienses, subditi per
se singuli.” (_Ib._ p. 279.) He need not however have excepted
the Ulstermen; for the Ann. Loch Cé, a. 1171 (Hennessy, vol.
i. p. 145)--copying, it seems, the old Annals of Ulster (see
Four Masters, O’Donovan, vol. ii. p. 1187, note _c_, and
O’Kelly’s note to Lynch’s _Cambr. Evers._, vol. ii. p. 472,
note _d_)--say that Henry while at Dublin received hostages
from “Leinster, Meath, Breffny, Oiriel and Uladh.” This leaves
only Connaught and Aileach unsubdued. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs, vol.
i. p. 235) and the _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs, vol. i. p. 25) lump
all these submissions together, and the latter seems to place
them all, as well as the submission of the bishops, during
Henry’s stay in Waterford. Rog. Howden (Stubbs, vol. ii. p.
30) not only does the same still more distinctly, but he does
worse; he places the submission of the bishops first, and then
says that the lay princes submitted “exemplo clericorum.” It
is he, not Gerald or any one else, who is responsible for this
misrepresentation, which the champions of the Irish Church have
been justly denouncing ever since Dr. Lynch’s time.
[550] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 28, 29. Rog. Howden
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 32. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 236.
Gir. Cambr. _Expugn. Hibern._, l. i. c. 33 (Dimock, vol. v. p.
279).
Early in November two royal chaplains had been despatched to summon the
Irish bishops to a council and claim their submission.[551] We hear
not a word of Pope Adrian’s bull; but we can hardly doubt that its
existence and its contents were in some way or other certified to the
Irish prelates before, in response to the royal mandate, they met in
council at Cashel in the first weeks of 1172.[552] The archbishop of
Armagh absented himself on the plea of extreme age and infirmity;[553]
all his episcopal brethren, however, made full submission to Henry,
pledged themselves to conform in all things to the pattern of the
English Church,[554] gave written promises to support the English king
and his heirs as lawful sovereigns of Ireland,[555] and joined with
him in sending to Rome a report of his proceedings and their own.[556]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account