Ireland: The People's History of Ireland, Volume 1 (of 2)Finerty, John F. (John Frederick)
History
Ireland: The People's History of Ireland, Volume 1 (of 2)
Finerty, John F. (John Frederick)
Ireland -- History
He was not admitted if, in his flight, his foot had broken a single
withered branch. Neither could he pass muster “unless he could jump over
a branch of a tree as high as his forehead, and could stoop under one as
low as his knee, through the agility of his body.” He was rejected,
also, if he failed “to pluck a thorn out of his heel with his hand
without stopping in his course.” Each member, before being admitted to
the Order, was obliged to swear fidelity and homage to the Righ-Feinnedh
(Ree-Feena) or king of the Fenians, which is the English translation of
the title.
There were also other military bodies—not forgetting the more ancient
“Red Branch Knights,” whom Moore has immortalized in one of his finest
lyrics, but the Fenians and their redoubtable chief hold the foremost
place of fame in Irish national annals.
It would seem that a kind of loose federal compact existed, from time to
time, between the High King and the other monarchs, but, unfortunately,
there does not appear to have been a very strong or permanent bond of
union, and this fatal defect in the Irish Constitution of pre-Norman
times led to innumerable disputes about succession to the Ard-Righship
and endless civil wars, which eventually wrecked the national strength
and made the country the comparatively easy prey of adventurous and
ambitious foreigners. The monarchical system was, in itself, faulty.
Where a monarchy exists at all, the succession should be so regulated
that the lineal heir, according to primogeniture, whether a minor or
not, must succeed to the throne, except when the succession is, for some
good and sufficient reason, set aside by the legislative body of the
nation. This was done in England in the case of Henry IV, who, with the
consent of Parliament, usurped the crown of Richard II; and also in the
case of William and Mary, who were selected by the British Parliament of
their day to supplant James II, the father-in-law and uncle of the
former and father of the latter. The act of settlement and succession,
passed in 1701, ignored the male line of the Stuarts, chiefly because it
was Catholic, and placed the succession to the throne, failing issue of
William and Mary and Anne, another daughter of the deposed King James,
in a younger, Protestant branch of the female line of Stuart—the House
of Hanover-Brunswick—which now wears the British crown. But, in general,
as far as the question of monarchy is concerned, the direct system of
succession has proven most satisfactory, and has frequently prevented
confusion of title and consequent civil war. We can recall only one
highly important occasion when it provoked that evil—the sanguinary
thirty years’ feud between the kindred royal English, or, rather,
Norman-French, Houses of York and Lancaster. Even in that case the
quarrel arose from the original bad title of Henry IV, who was far from
being the lineal heir to the throne. Our own democratic system of
choosing a chief ruler is, no doubt, best of all.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account