Was he in the right in supporting Home Rule for Ireland? Why did he do it? Did he really believe it would have been better for Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, was it in accordance with his principles, or was he blackmailed into it or decided to do it just to return to/keep power with the help of the IPP? Would have it been better to absorb Irish Catholics into British government?Keep in mind he was insane. It is not me who says so, it was his bosses (Peel and Palmerstone)
>>18403415All British Isles peoples are fundamentally Celtic, even the English are on average a third Celtic genetically. They share FAR more in common than they do different.
I am on quite the roll, today. Zoo-Wee-Mama!!!
Anything regarding Ireland was too little too late by Gladstones time. British politicians were so retarded about Ireland in the 1800s, and it’s all based solely from 1700s cartoons and propaganda showing them as inferior. Ireland should have been absorbed into the Crown after the Congress of Vienna on the level as England, Scotland, and wales
>>18403415>Was he in the right in supporting Home Rule for Ireland?Yeah. It was astoundingly obviously by the late 19th Century that Irish self-governance was whe vast majority of the population wanted, and the Irish Parliamentary Party were an extremely well oiled political machine. It was a matter of whether it happened on their terms or Britain's terms; Gladstone chose Britain.>Did he really believe it would have been better for Ireland and the rest of the United KingdomEventually, yes. The Union was an experiment in control which failed abysmally.>Would have it been better to absorb Irish Catholics into British government?The opportunity to this passed multiple times; by Gladstone's time they had all backed Home Rule. No sooner had the Union come into place was there mass movements to get rid of it.Remember that the anti-Catholic "fears" about Home Rule were a modern invention; the Catholic Committee backed the mostly protestant Patriot Party in the Irish Parliament prior to its closure.
bump
>>18403474>after the congress of viennaIreland was already "absorbed" by then, via the extremely unpopular Act of Union. What remained of Government in Ireland after this was the Lord Lieutenant (represents King), Chief Sectrary (appointed by PM), and the Under Secretary (leads Civil Service out of Dublin Castle). All the Irish MPs now had to go to Westminster despite having been doing politics for Ireland in Dublin since the 15th Century.The only people who did support the Union did so because of the promised abolition of the remaining anti-Catholic (or anti-dissenter) legislation. This famously didn't pan out. Of course, a path to resolving this issues existed and was well underway in the Irish Parliament before Britain shut it down.
>>18403917>>18405709who was the better portrayal of michael collins, irishanon - brendan gleeson or liam neeson
>>18406117My mind says Gleeson but my heart says Neeson. It is mad that to this day picrel is still the best even somewhat accurate portrayal of the period. Always have to warn people that the Collins film with Liam Nesson goes beyond inaccuracy and goes right into alternate history.That there wasn't a massive uptick in revolutionary television and film around the centenary years is an indication of just how badly any sense of national heritage or pride has been battered out of the Republic of Ireland.
