Hello, Brian, it's a long time since you photocopied several pages of Hill's MacDonnells for me, mostly on the Stewarts of Ballintoy. I would like to lay my hands on a copy, and believe that there is a reprint somewhere, though that is scarce also. A quote from Ohlmeyer, first because I was impressed by the list of unfavourable quotes about Antrim, but secondly, Brian, her evaluation of Hill's MacDonnells of Antrim, and the note that he has otherwise been much neglected Charlie ANTRIM AND THE HISTORIANS Arrogant, condescending, crafty, calculating, childish, fickle, greedy, head-strong, haughty, indiscreet, impatient, importuning, interfering, loud-mouthed, manipulative, myopic, perfidious, pretentious, self-centred, uncooperative and whining: these are merely a selection of the adjectives used t)y his contemporaries and by later historians to describe the personality of Randal MacDonnell, second earl and first marquis of Antrim. And the criticisms started at the top. Lords lieutenant Thomas Wentworth, cad of Strafford, and James Butler, duke of Ormond, were his most vocal and malevolent critics. The former, who disliked his character and religion and questioned his competence and loyalty, denigrated and ridiculed Antrim at .very opportunity. In a letter to the king on the eve of the first Bishops' War, he noted 'I neither hope much of his Parts, of his Powers, or of his Affections." Wentworth later added 'That lord hath much of the Irish in him. Whatsoever they desire must be done; and in their own time forsooth, or else they presently fall out with you ... [He is] all for ostentation, no moderate thing will suffice, as if land and sea and all were to minister to [his] glory.'? As Strafford's protégé, Ormond imbibed the lord deputy's antipathy towards Antrim. The language Ormond later used to describe him -'so shallow an engine as my Lord Antrim' - was typical of Wentworth's caustic scorn.3 Many members of the Old English, the New English, the Presbyterian and even the native Irish communities clearly shared this contempt for Antrim. - for instance, his disloyalty to the Stuart cause during the 1640s particularly rankled with the powerful grandee, Ulick Burke, earl of Clanricard, who alleged spitefully that Antrim had 'gained the reputation of pulling down the he is on'.4 His 'differing tempers' (read: temper tantrums) infuriated everyone.5 Ormond suggested that one particular outburst in 1644 'pro-ceeded rather from some present passion or resentment, than from any settled solution';6 while his Catholic colleagues in the confederation of Kilkenny attributed his unpredictable behaviour 'to his own inclination, his youth and want of experience’.7 But it was Antrim's 'vanity' and 'boastfulness' which attracted most adverse comment. According to one observer, he might 'prom-ise very largely; but 1 presume your excellency [Ormondl guesses whereabout the balance of the account will be';' while another waspishly suggested that 'a good piece of battery is much more powerful to take in a castle than is his lordship's oratory'.9 Contemporary historians shared - and thereby perpetuated - this un-flattering image. Sir Richard Bellings, a much respected politician and author of Fragmentum historicum: or, the second and third books of the war in Ireland, portrayed him as bombastic, pompous, two-faced, conniving and untrustworthy. 10 In another near-contemporary history of the Irish Civil War, Antrim's stupidity, vanity and self-interest were vigorously condemned - for, according to the author, he only deluded'his maggot paled brains with a dream of being great'." The English statesman and historian Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, openly admitted that he was never 'fond' of the marquis and found him vain, presumptuous, undiscerning and of limited intelligence.12 To quote further condemnations of Antrim, which are extremely numer-ous, would be both boring and pointless. Suffice it to say that the opinions and writings of these men - the majority of whom were either political opponents or jealous rivals - have left a permanent blemish on the marquis's historical reputation which has influenced the writings of later historians in his eighteenth-century life of the duke of Ormond, Thomas Carte followed the bias of his hero: Antrim, he wrote, 'fancied himself equal to the most difficult and important charges, though really unfit to be employed in any'. 13 The nineteenth-century historian, Sir John Gilbert, dismissed -him as 'well meaning but unstable'; 14 as did S. R. Gardiner who, in his influential History of England, dubbed Antrim 'a weak and inefficient cath-olic peer'.15 Richard Bagwell, author of the only comprehensive narrative account of Stuart Ireland to date, described Antrim as 'a man of much ambition and some cunning, but his practical abilities were small, and neither Strafford, Ormonde nor Clarendon rated him highly'. 16 Hardly surprisingly, then, such recent scholarly attention as the marquis has attracted is largely unfavourable: C. V. Wedgwood thought he was 'ridiculous'; 17 Jerrold Cas-way in his biography of General Owen Roe O'Neill described Antrim as 'vain and impulsive'; 18 while a biographer of Montrose dismissed him as 'a stage Irishman ... with no money, no brains, and a limitless supply of charm and vain promises ... [who] had married the blowsy, aging widow of the duke of Buckingham'. 19 More recently he was damned as a 'flamboyant adventurer' and as 'selfish, vain and ambitious'.20 This study will attempt to establish the degree to which Antrim deserved his dismal reputation. Did he, for instance, like his contemporary Sir Piers Crosby, suffer 'the dual misfortune of crossing Wentworth's path and being remembered only by what Wentworth wrote of him'?21 Certainly this was also true of Richard Boyle, first earl of Cork, for as Nicholas Canny has noted: 'Despite the several acknowledgements of his importance, historians have viewed Boyle from a distance, and would appear to have been repelled by the aura of suspicion which surrounded him in his own lifetime. Conse-quently, what is known of Boyle comes from official records, or the fre-quently hostile correspondence of his contemporaries.'22 A further objective is simply to provide a more balanced account of the life of an important Irish statesman who (as the MacDonnell family historian quite rightly observed) was 'destined to take a prominent place in the affairs of Ulster, and indeed of Ireland, during the greater part of the seventeenth century'.23 For as yet there is no critical biography - witness a recent call by Strafford's biographer, Hugh Kearney, for a fresh analysis of the role played by the MacDonnells of Antrim in the events of the later 1630s and 1640s.24 The only serious account of his career was written over a century ago by George Hill who, in his history of the MacDonnells of Antrim, devoted a long chapter to the marquis and published many of the seminal documents relating to his life.25 But, for all its merits, his narrative is chaotically arranged and often inaccurate; moreover, though he used every source available to him in the nineteenth century, he did not gain access to many important collections of papers (such as the Hamilton manuscripts) which were then in private hands, or to documents in European and North American archives. Apart from Hill, Antrim's career seems to have been noted by recent historians only when it impinged upon Scottish history: his role in the first Bishops' War of 1638-9 and his contribution to the Scottish war effort in 1644-5.26 Brian Orr wrote: > Hi Charles, Edward > > If you are into the Earl of Antrim the `standard work` I suggest is The MacDonnells of Antrim" by Rev George Hill (1873). An antiquarian volume nowadays but very well worth the read if you can lay hands on`t. > > Edward mentions Jane Ohlmeyer. She with John Kenyon edited "The Civil Wars - a Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland 1633-1660 " Oxford Univ. Press 1998. ISBN 0-19-866222-x. An excellent work albeit detailed. > > The Scottish end of the unending wars is well covered by "A Regimental History of the Covenanting Armies 1639-1651 " by Edward M Furgol, Edinburgh, John Donald Publishers, 1990. ISBN 0-85976-194-0. Goes into great detail but quite fascinating when tied in with the Marquis of Montrose and his brilliant campaigns obo Charles I. > > Happy reading > > Brian Orr > brian@orrnamestudy.com > Author of "As God is my Witness - The Presbyterain Kirk, the Covenanters and the Ulster Scots2 > and "A Laymans Guide to theScottish Reformation". > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Charles.Clark > To: Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:42 AM > Subject: Re: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > > If we struggle to understand these events in retrospect, just think what it must > have been like to live through it all, with the intention of surviving its many > twists and turns. One person who was at the middle of a lot of it, and survived, > was Randal McDonnell, Marquis of Antrim. > A book that I have got, but have not yet got my teeth properly into, is > "Civil War and Restoration in the Three Stuart Kingdoms: TheCareer of Randal > MacDonnell, Marquis of Antrim", by Jane Ohlmeyer. One of these days I will get > to grips with it, I swear, but I've had it a few years now and it's still too > hard! > > Note the description of those events as being civil war in the "Three Stuart > Kingdoms", rather than being the "English civil war" > Much like the internecine strife that tore Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia etc apart a > few years ago, all fighting each other and looking for advantage for themselves > Charlie > > Edward Andrews wrote: > > > I couldn't give you a reading list, for quite honestly I haven't kept up to > > speed on the English Civil War. I'd send you to C V Wedgewood and > > Christopher Hill, but they are ages old - kind of 40 years > > As far as the Scottish bit, I find Patterson A Land Afflicted Scotland and > > the Covenanter Ward 1638 - 1690: John Donald 1998 ISBN 0-85976-486-9 is as > > good as you need unless you are going into very local stuff. In any case > > there is a good Bibliography. > > On Ireland, Haven't a clue. There has been so much new writing about Irish > > History in the past 30 years that there is good stuff out there. > > For 1641 there is Ulster 1641 Aspects of the Rising: Ed MacCuarta Belfast > > 1993. ISBN 0-85389-591-0. This too has got a good Bibliography. No Idea > > about the Cromwellian conquest. Mind you from a Genealogical point of view > > that can be very important, but I haven't looked at it since about 1967. > > I wasn't really wanting to get into a session. I merely wanted to suggest > > that to understand the period you begin with a riot in Edinburgh rather than > > the philosophy of the relationships between King and the emerging middle > > class. No matter how you do it, things are difficult but you are beginning > > with real actions. 1641 means that you have to look at Stafford / Wentworth, > > but again his ties back to Scotland and the Irish Presbyterians who are so > > different from Scottish Presbyterians, and so it goes on. > > Edward Andrews > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: fredastewart [mailto:fritzzi@shaw.ca] > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 6:51 PM > > To: Edward Andrews > > Subject: Re: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > > > > Hello Edward - In attempting to understand the basis of many of these wars, > > I also find much of the available information confusing. You are correct in > > saying it has an anglo slant to it, but being Scot-Ulster Scot I suppose I > > would naturally have that opinion. Would you consider citing some of your > > sources as I would appreciate being able to get a more evenly balanced > > viewpoint. > > Freda Stewart > > Calgary, Alberta > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Edward Andrews" <edward.andrews@btinternet.com> > > To: <Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 7:54 AM > > Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > > > > > Hi Linda. > > > I would suggest that to understand the events between 1637 and 1660 you > > > don't call it the British Civil war. > > > Give it the generic named of the War of the Three Kingdoms. > > > It then breaks down into the Bishops War (Scotland vs. England.) The war > > > of > > > the Confederacy - (AKA the 1641 massacre), The English Civil War > > > (Cavaliers > > > vs. Roundheads with the Scots supporting the Roundheads and having their > > > own > > > wee internal war with Montrose). The War over the killing of the King > > > (Cromwell vs. Scots). The re-conquest of Ireland. (Cromwell vs. Irish). > > > While it is still complicated (and not wholly accurate for the question of > > > who the Irish were is important), at least you are able to put it into > > > sequence. > > > Having studies this period 3 times at University as Irish History, as > > > British (English) History and as Scottish History I am convinced that the > > > easiest is to begin in Scotland where the trouble really started. > > > The problem is that there is this Anglo-centric view of British History, > > > and while things have improved the books which most people will have > > > access > > > to tend to see things from an English point of view. > > > Edward Andrews > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Linda Merle [mailto:merle@mail.fea.net] > > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:50 PM > > > To: Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com > > > Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > I've never > > > read a history of the British Civil War that could REALLY make > > > sense of it though I've read lots who tried and most of them > > > admit at the start that they can't really understand it. > > > It was very, very, very complicated -- so I'll stop here before > > > I say something someone disagrees with. The experts > > > disagree on its causes so none of us here will agree <grin>. > > > > > > I got interested in it due to family involvement in England. > > > I also got a book on Cromwell in Ireland that's very interesting. And > > > there's the usual stuff you read on Cromwell > > > in Ireland. Recently an Irishman wrote a book debunking the > > > idea that he massacred civilians at Drogheda and other places. > > > There's apparently no contemporary evidence that he did. > > > (As I'm not a scholar and didn't do this research, I can't > > > argue about it -- I can just point people interested to the > > > book). > > > > > > > > > > > >

Hi folks new records have been added to the Lurgan Ancestry Website today July 13th www.lurganancestry.net all records are free to research and copy regards Martin

Helen - I kicked off this string with a question about Beatty's which Linda answered, but then it went off in a different direction, a useful one I think, about the armies in Ireland in 17th century. I attach the original question and Linda's answer. Linda has Beatty roots and can help answer your questions, which is why I asked her in the first place. John Polk ===================================================================== Hi John, Beattys didn't emanate from a single place. There are Beattys in Scotland and Beattys in Ireland. As a check of "Scotch-Irish" by Hanna -- the records of the undertakers of the Ulster plantation makes clear, there were Beatties in the Cavan Plantation who were Irish Catholics. Some writers of Irish surname books believe the surname originated in County Meath. Donnoooo. My own ancestor presumedly was Scottish but I do know he served in the Irish army in the mid 1600s as an officer. Then he was an officer in King William's army and for that he was awarded a landgrant, supposedly in County Antrim. His brother who does not appear in the lists of Irish officers in the mid 1600s (later the Protestants were purged) but who is said to have gotten a land grant, got it in County Down. His lines are very traceable but mine left, aparently with all family members in 1729. So like where are these Beatties from ????? One brother Co Antrim, one Co Down, both Scotland??? These folk got around. So all I'd hazard a guess about yours is "Con's Half" of Ireland . It's possible there are other family members around him including relatives of the wife, so be sure to research his entire circle in the hopes of finding clues. Best of luck! Linda Merle ----------------------------------------------------------------- Linda - I know you have researched Beatty's. Is there a particular place in Ulster that they emanated from. I have a Walter Beatty whose roots I am interested in. He first appears in Cecil County in 1736 when he purchased a piece of land from one of my ancestors. The deed says he was from Ireland, but nothing more specific. Any likely candidates? He sold the land in 1744 and appears in taxlist for Peters township of Cumberland County in 1753. Thanks - JP ===================================================================== > [Original Message] > From: Helen W Hamilton <hwhamilton2@msn.com> > To: <Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 7/12/2005 4:46:11 PM > Subject: [Sc-Ir] What's Beatty got to do with it? > > I've been reading the messages under the subject Beatty but all I see are > discussions of books without a mention of Beatty. I must have missed the > original message. This surname is a colateral ancestor of mine so I would > like to know what was the original Subject matter. > Helen > > --- John Polk --- Havre de Grace MD --- jfpolk@earthlink.net

I've been reading the messages under the subject Beatty but all I see are discussions of books without a mention of Beatty. I must have missed the original message. This surname is a colateral ancestor of mine so I would like to know what was the original Subject matter. Helen

Hello All, Thinking about the short history of the UK I would add the following: 1069 William was merciless in crushing opposition. For example, in his campaign in the north he ordered that anything living between York and Durham (about 60 miles) should be killed and everything else should be burned. 1400-1410 The Welsh led by Owain Glyndwr (Shakespeare spells him Owen Glendower) rise in revolt and are very successful at first. As the English regain control Owain slips away but one day he will return to lead Wales. 1800s The Highland Clearances Landlords clear their land of people to replace them with sheep. Some of the people are taken straight to local ports for forced emigration. The area is still one of the least populated in Europe. Some Scots say the clearances are the equal of the famine in Ireland. 1847-1851 The Great Famine. Perhaps a million Catholics and Protestants died and perhaps more than a million emigrated. The province of Leinster (in the east, around Dublin) is least affected; then Ulster in the north, which loses 1 in 7 of its population. Munster in the south and Connacht in the west are more rural areas and suffer most. Rob Doragh Liverpool UK

If we struggle to understand these events in retrospect, just think what it must have been like to live through it all, with the intention of surviving its many twists and turns. One person who was at the middle of a lot of it, and survived, was Randal McDonnell, Marquis of Antrim. A book that I have got, but have not yet got my teeth properly into, is "Civil War and Restoration in the Three Stuart Kingdoms: TheCareer of Randal MacDonnell, Marquis of Antrim", by Jane Ohlmeyer. One of these days I will get to grips with it, I swear, but I've had it a few years now and it's still too hard! Note the description of those events as being civil war in the "Three Stuart Kingdoms", rather than being the "English civil war" Much like the internecine strife that tore Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia etc apart a few years ago, all fighting each other and looking for advantage for themselves Charlie Edward Andrews wrote: > I couldn't give you a reading list, for quite honestly I haven't kept up to > speed on the English Civil War. I'd send you to C V Wedgewood and > Christopher Hill, but they are ages old - kind of 40 years > As far as the Scottish bit, I find Patterson A Land Afflicted Scotland and > the Covenanter Ward 1638 - 1690: John Donald 1998 ISBN 0-85976-486-9 is as > good as you need unless you are going into very local stuff. In any case > there is a good Bibliography. > On Ireland, Haven't a clue. There has been so much new writing about Irish > History in the past 30 years that there is good stuff out there. > For 1641 there is Ulster 1641 Aspects of the Rising: Ed MacCuarta Belfast > 1993. ISBN 0-85389-591-0. This too has got a good Bibliography. No Idea > about the Cromwellian conquest. Mind you from a Genealogical point of view > that can be very important, but I haven't looked at it since about 1967. > I wasn't really wanting to get into a session. I merely wanted to suggest > that to understand the period you begin with a riot in Edinburgh rather than > the philosophy of the relationships between King and the emerging middle > class. No matter how you do it, things are difficult but you are beginning > with real actions. 1641 means that you have to look at Stafford / Wentworth, > but again his ties back to Scotland and the Irish Presbyterians who are so > different from Scottish Presbyterians, and so it goes on. > Edward Andrews > > -----Original Message----- > From: fredastewart [mailto:fritzzi@shaw.ca] > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 6:51 PM > To: Edward Andrews > Subject: Re: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > > Hello Edward - In attempting to understand the basis of many of these wars, > I also find much of the available information confusing. You are correct in > saying it has an anglo slant to it, but being Scot-Ulster Scot I suppose I > would naturally have that opinion. Would you consider citing some of your > sources as I would appreciate being able to get a more evenly balanced > viewpoint. > Freda Stewart > Calgary, Alberta > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Edward Andrews" <edward.andrews@btinternet.com> > To: <Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 7:54 AM > Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > > > Hi Linda. > > I would suggest that to understand the events between 1637 and 1660 you > > don't call it the British Civil war. > > Give it the generic named of the War of the Three Kingdoms. > > It then breaks down into the Bishops War (Scotland vs. England.) The war > > of > > the Confederacy - (AKA the 1641 massacre), The English Civil War > > (Cavaliers > > vs. Roundheads with the Scots supporting the Roundheads and having their > > own > > wee internal war with Montrose). The War over the killing of the King > > (Cromwell vs. Scots). The re-conquest of Ireland. (Cromwell vs. Irish). > > While it is still complicated (and not wholly accurate for the question of > > who the Irish were is important), at least you are able to put it into > > sequence. > > Having studies this period 3 times at University as Irish History, as > > British (English) History and as Scottish History I am convinced that the > > easiest is to begin in Scotland where the trouble really started. > > The problem is that there is this Anglo-centric view of British History, > > and while things have improved the books which most people will have > > access > > to tend to see things from an English point of view. > > Edward Andrews > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Linda Merle [mailto:merle@mail.fea.net] > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:50 PM > > To: Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > > > > Hi John, > > > > I've never > > read a history of the British Civil War that could REALLY make > > sense of it though I've read lots who tried and most of them > > admit at the start that they can't really understand it. > > It was very, very, very complicated -- so I'll stop here before > > I say something someone disagrees with. The experts > > disagree on its causes so none of us here will agree <grin>. > > > > I got interested in it due to family involvement in England. > > I also got a book on Cromwell in Ireland that's very interesting. And > > there's the usual stuff you read on Cromwell > > in Ireland. Recently an Irishman wrote a book debunking the > > idea that he massacred civilians at Drogheda and other places. > > There's apparently no contemporary evidence that he did. > > (As I'm not a scholar and didn't do this research, I can't > > argue about it -- I can just point people interested to the > > book). > > > > > > > >

Thanks. I've discovered (TCD web page, it amazing what you can do with Google) that Jane Ohlmeyer is the Erasmus Smith Prof of Modern History at Trinity. She is a St Andrew's graduate, and seems to have very strong connections with Scotland. Strange when I was there it was Theo Moody. That is a book which should be republished. His Plantation of Londonderry. The printers was destroyed in the Blitz, and only a relatively few copies of the book exist. The result is that it is not well known. Haven't handled one for almost 40 years and I can't remember a lot about it. Didn't know about the Furgol book Sounds interesting. Edward Andrews -----Original Message----- From: Brian Orr [mailto:brian@orrnamestudy.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:55 AM To: Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Sc-Ir] Beatty Hi Charles, Edward If you are into the Earl of Antrim the `standard work` I suggest is The MacDonnells of Antrim" by Rev George Hill (1873). An antiquarian volume nowadays but very well worth the read if you can lay hands on`t. Edward mentions Jane Ohlmeyer. She with John Kenyon edited "The Civil Wars - a Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland 1633-1660 " Oxford Univ. Press 1998. ISBN 0-19-866222-x. An excellent work albeit detailed. The Scottish end of the unending wars is well covered by "A Regimental History of the Covenanting Armies 1639-1651 " by Edward M Furgol, Edinburgh, John Donald Publishers, 1990. ISBN 0-85976-194-0. Goes into great detail but quite fascinating when tied in with the Marquis of Montrose and his brilliant campaigns obo Charles I. Happy reading Brian Orr brian@orrnamestudy.com Author of "As God is my Witness - The Presbyterain Kirk, the Covenanters and the Ulster Scots2 and "A Laymans Guide to theScottish Reformation". ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles.Clark To: Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:42 AM Subject: Re: [Sc-Ir] Beatty

Hi Charles, Edward If you are into the Earl of Antrim the `standard work` I suggest is The MacDonnells of Antrim" by Rev George Hill (1873). An antiquarian volume nowadays but very well worth the read if you can lay hands on`t. Edward mentions Jane Ohlmeyer. She with John Kenyon edited "The Civil Wars - a Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland 1633-1660 " Oxford Univ. Press 1998. ISBN 0-19-866222-x. An excellent work albeit detailed. The Scottish end of the unending wars is well covered by "A Regimental History of the Covenanting Armies 1639-1651 " by Edward M Furgol, Edinburgh, John Donald Publishers, 1990. ISBN 0-85976-194-0. Goes into great detail but quite fascinating when tied in with the Marquis of Montrose and his brilliant campaigns obo Charles I. Happy reading Brian Orr brian@orrnamestudy.com Author of "As God is my Witness - The Presbyterain Kirk, the Covenanters and the Ulster Scots2 and "A Laymans Guide to theScottish Reformation". ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles.Clark To: Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:42 AM Subject: Re: [Sc-Ir] Beatty If we struggle to understand these events in retrospect, just think what it must have been like to live through it all, with the intention of surviving its many twists and turns. One person who was at the middle of a lot of it, and survived, was Randal McDonnell, Marquis of Antrim. A book that I have got, but have not yet got my teeth properly into, is "Civil War and Restoration in the Three Stuart Kingdoms: TheCareer of Randal MacDonnell, Marquis of Antrim", by Jane Ohlmeyer. One of these days I will get to grips with it, I swear, but I've had it a few years now and it's still too hard! Note the description of those events as being civil war in the "Three Stuart Kingdoms", rather than being the "English civil war" Much like the internecine strife that tore Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia etc apart a few years ago, all fighting each other and looking for advantage for themselves Charlie Edward Andrews wrote: > I couldn't give you a reading list, for quite honestly I haven't kept up to > speed on the English Civil War. I'd send you to C V Wedgewood and > Christopher Hill, but they are ages old - kind of 40 years > As far as the Scottish bit, I find Patterson A Land Afflicted Scotland and > the Covenanter Ward 1638 - 1690: John Donald 1998 ISBN 0-85976-486-9 is as > good as you need unless you are going into very local stuff. In any case > there is a good Bibliography. > On Ireland, Haven't a clue. There has been so much new writing about Irish > History in the past 30 years that there is good stuff out there. > For 1641 there is Ulster 1641 Aspects of the Rising: Ed MacCuarta Belfast > 1993. ISBN 0-85389-591-0. This too has got a good Bibliography. No Idea > about the Cromwellian conquest. Mind you from a Genealogical point of view > that can be very important, but I haven't looked at it since about 1967. > I wasn't really wanting to get into a session. I merely wanted to suggest > that to understand the period you begin with a riot in Edinburgh rather than > the philosophy of the relationships between King and the emerging middle > class. No matter how you do it, things are difficult but you are beginning > with real actions. 1641 means that you have to look at Stafford / Wentworth, > but again his ties back to Scotland and the Irish Presbyterians who are so > different from Scottish Presbyterians, and so it goes on. > Edward Andrews > > -----Original Message----- > From: fredastewart [mailto:fritzzi@shaw.ca] > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 6:51 PM > To: Edward Andrews > Subject: Re: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > > Hello Edward - In attempting to understand the basis of many of these wars, > I also find much of the available information confusing. You are correct in > saying it has an anglo slant to it, but being Scot-Ulster Scot I suppose I > would naturally have that opinion. Would you consider citing some of your > sources as I would appreciate being able to get a more evenly balanced > viewpoint. > Freda Stewart > Calgary, Alberta > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Edward Andrews" <edward.andrews@btinternet.com> > To: <Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 7:54 AM > Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > > > Hi Linda. > > I would suggest that to understand the events between 1637 and 1660 you > > don't call it the British Civil war. > > Give it the generic named of the War of the Three Kingdoms. > > It then breaks down into the Bishops War (Scotland vs. England.) The war > > of > > the Confederacy - (AKA the 1641 massacre), The English Civil War > > (Cavaliers > > vs. Roundheads with the Scots supporting the Roundheads and having their > > own > > wee internal war with Montrose). The War over the killing of the King > > (Cromwell vs. Scots). The re-conquest of Ireland. (Cromwell vs. Irish). > > While it is still complicated (and not wholly accurate for the question of > > who the Irish were is important), at least you are able to put it into > > sequence. > > Having studies this period 3 times at University as Irish History, as > > British (English) History and as Scottish History I am convinced that the > > easiest is to begin in Scotland where the trouble really started. > > The problem is that there is this Anglo-centric view of British History, > > and while things have improved the books which most people will have > > access > > to tend to see things from an English point of view. > > Edward Andrews > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Linda Merle [mailto:merle@mail.fea.net] > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:50 PM > > To: Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > > > > Hi John, > > > > I've never > > read a history of the British Civil War that could REALLY make > > sense of it though I've read lots who tried and most of them > > admit at the start that they can't really understand it. > > It was very, very, very complicated -- so I'll stop here before > > I say something someone disagrees with. The experts > > disagree on its causes so none of us here will agree <grin>. > > > > I got interested in it due to family involvement in England. > > I also got a book on Cromwell in Ireland that's very interesting. And > > there's the usual stuff you read on Cromwell > > in Ireland. Recently an Irishman wrote a book debunking the > > idea that he massacred civilians at Drogheda and other places. > > There's apparently no contemporary evidence that he did. > > (As I'm not a scholar and didn't do this research, I can't > > argue about it -- I can just point people interested to the > > book). > > > > > > > >

Looked up the writings of Jane Ohlmeyer in the Library of Congress Catalogue. She certainly is involved in a lot of very recent writing. I think I'll see what Edinburgh University has by her. I doubt if the local one will. Thanks Charles. Looks as if we have a resource. Edward -----Original Message----- From: Charles.Clark [mailto:Charles.Clark@xtra.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:42 AM To: Edward Andrews Cc: Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [Sc-Ir] Beatty If we struggle to understand these events in retrospect, just think what it must have been like to live through it all, with the intention of surviving its many twists and turns. One person who was at the middle of a lot of it, and survived, was Randal McDonnell, Marquis of Antrim. A book that I have got, but have not yet got my teeth properly into, is "Civil War and Restoration in the Three Stuart Kingdoms: TheCareer of Randal MacDonnell, Marquis of Antrim", by Jane Ohlmeyer. One of these days I will get to grips with it, I swear, but I've had it a few years now and it's still too hard! Note the description of those events as being civil war in the "Three Stuart Kingdoms", rather than being the "English civil war" Much like the internecine strife that tore Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia etc apart a few years ago, all fighting each other and looking for advantage for themselves Charlie Edward Andrews wrote: > I couldn't give you a reading list, for quite honestly I haven't kept up to > speed on the English Civil War. I'd send you to C V Wedgewood and > Christopher Hill, but they are ages old - kind of 40 years > As far as the Scottish bit, I find Patterson A Land Afflicted Scotland and > the Covenanter Ward 1638 - 1690: John Donald 1998 ISBN 0-85976-486-9 is as > good as you need unless you are going into very local stuff. In any case > there is a good Bibliography. > On Ireland, Haven't a clue. There has been so much new writing about

Hello Linda and All, This is my ideas only so if you think I've got anything wrong please let me know. Somebody has already nabbed the title 'A Brief History of Time' but here goes: BC Celts arrive in the British Isles, replacing people already here. Arguments over how many waves of Celts there are; 2, 3, ? AD43 Roman troops sent by Emperor Claudius from Gaul (modern-day France; Gaul=Gael) mount a successful invasion of England. Julius Caesar had led 2 unsuccessful ones a hundred years earlier. At this time the main island was split into areas controlled by tribes like the Iceni and Brigante. AD410 Roman Empire falling apart. Tribes from modern North Germany, South Denmark and Holland arrive. They are known as the Anglo-Saxons but there were at least 4 groups, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians. Arguments over whether they came as peaceful settlers, invaders or traders who settled here. These tribes began to dominate what is now England (Angleland) while the Celts dominated the fringes of the main island, what is now Cornwall in England and what are now Wales and Scotland. The Anglo-Saxons did not attempt to take any part of the isle of Ireland although Irish pirates had raided the west coast of the main island for many years; abducting Patrick in one raid, so it is said. AD793 1st Viking raid on the main island. At one point the Vikings from Denmark, Norway and Sweden will control nearly half of England (the Danelaw) and will also control parts of Ireland, setting up places like Dublin. AD901 the Irish ask the Angle Queen of Mercia to give a home to the Vikings they want to kick out. She agrees and the Vikings are given the Wirral peninsula on the west bank of the River Mersey. AD1016-42 The Vikings are so powerful that there are 3 Danish Kings of England in succession. The borders of England, Wales and Scotland are fluid at this time. AD1042 The Anglo-Saxon Edward the Confessor regains the English throne from the Danes. AD1066 The year of 3 Kings. Edward dies and is replaced by Harold Godwinson, Harold II, the last Anglo-Saxon king. In September he rushes north to York as a Norwegian invasion threatens England. He wins but then has to race south to fight William of Normandy at Senlac Hill, just outside Hastings, in October. William wins and becomes the first Norman king of England. The Normans are descended from the Norsemen or Vikings. No English king will speak English for the next 250 years. They will speak Norman French. 1169 Dermot of Leinster comes over to England seeking help from the Norman barons to get his kingdom back. With the Pope's blessing, Richard (nickname Strongbow), Earl of Pembroke in South Wales, forms an army to help Dermot. When the Norman lords arrive they think Ireland is so good they decide to stay. Within a few generations many will be more Irish than the Irish. King Henry II of England is worried by what these Norman Lords could get up to and doesn't trust their loyalty to him so he invades in 1171 and makes sure he becomes 'King of Ireland'. The Norman kings and their henchmen will rule over part of Ireland, known as The Pale, for the next few hundred years but will not make any serious attempt at total conquest. Hence the phrase 'beyond the pale' for anything or anyone outside civilisation. 1282/3 Edward I defeats Llywelyn the Last, the one and only true Prince of Wales. Wales had been a country of groups owing allegiance to overlords who sometimes fought each other but could never agree to form one group to fight the Norman invaders. From the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 England and Wales are run very much as one country. 1536 Act of Union between England and Wales. Also, about this time Henry VIII proclaims himself head of the Church of England, the beginning of Anglicanism and the break from Rome.. 1603 Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII, dies childless. The end of the Tudor dynasty. The throne is offered to her nearest blood relative, King James VI of Scotland. So begins the Stuart dynasty. In England he will be known as James I. Scotland keeps many of its own laws, education system and so on (and does so today) but over time the three countries will grow closer together. King James is responsible for the King James Bible and for the Plantation of Ulster. 1641 The massacre of English and Scottish Protestants in Ireland. Some sources suggest up to three quarters of the Protestants were killed. 1650s Cromwell in Ireland. Great argument over how brutal he was. 1690 Battle of the Boyne, July 1st under the old calendar but celebrated today on July 12th under the new calendar. Defeat of the forces of James II, the ousted Catholic King, by William III, a Protestant who replaced him. 1700s the beginning of mass Scotch-Irish migration to British North America because of big rent rises, famine and religious persecution of those who weren't Anglicans. 1707 The official union of England, Scotland and Wales as Great Britain. 1798 Rebellion in Ireland against British rule, led by Wolfe Tone, a Protestant. 1801 The official setting up of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 1922 The Irish Free State is formed. 1922-24 The Irish Civil war between the 'Free-Staters' and 'Die Hards' branches of the IRA. 1927 The name is altered to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A very quick way to get through 2000 years of British history - I hope it helps. One odd thing is that many British people prefer to be known by the name of their country within the UK, as English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh. If you want to start an argument just say "You English"... Those who aren't will get annoyed. Those who are English, like me, will point out that in the famine years our ancestors were in Ireland and suffering along with everybody else. As my mother used to say, "The English are a Heinz race, made up of 57 varieties". Please, please, do not follow President Bush who asked Charlotte Church, the famous and proudly Welsh singer, which part of England was Wales in. The nearest equivalent I can think of would be asking a Bostonian what part of Texas Massachusetts was in. Rob Doragh Liverpool UK Born in England of Ulster stock, before that, Scotland, before that Pictish and nobody knows where they came from. <merle@mail.fea.net> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 I'm talking to largely Americans and I'm trying to get across a point about Ireland. The audience again is Americans who never studied any history of Britain or Ireland, so if we can get the big picture across here, and thereby help people understand Ireland a little better, I'm happy.

I couldn't give you a reading list, for quite honestly I haven't kept up to speed on the English Civil War. I'd send you to C V Wedgewood and Christopher Hill, but they are ages old - kind of 40 years As far as the Scottish bit, I find Patterson A Land Afflicted Scotland and the Covenanter Ward 1638 - 1690: John Donald 1998 ISBN 0-85976-486-9 is as good as you need unless you are going into very local stuff. In any case there is a good Bibliography. On Ireland, Haven't a clue. There has been so much new writing about Irish History in the past 30 years that there is good stuff out there. For 1641 there is Ulster 1641 Aspects of the Rising: Ed MacCuarta Belfast 1993. ISBN 0-85389-591-0. This too has got a good Bibliography. No Idea about the Cromwellian conquest. Mind you from a Genealogical point of view that can be very important, but I haven't looked at it since about 1967. I wasn't really wanting to get into a session. I merely wanted to suggest that to understand the period you begin with a riot in Edinburgh rather than the philosophy of the relationships between King and the emerging middle class. No matter how you do it, things are difficult but you are beginning with real actions. 1641 means that you have to look at Stafford / Wentworth, but again his ties back to Scotland and the Irish Presbyterians who are so different from Scottish Presbyterians, and so it goes on. Edward Andrews -----Original Message----- From: fredastewart [mailto:fritzzi@shaw.ca] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 6:51 PM To: Edward Andrews Subject: Re: [Sc-Ir] Beatty Hello Edward - In attempting to understand the basis of many of these wars, I also find much of the available information confusing. You are correct in saying it has an anglo slant to it, but being Scot-Ulster Scot I suppose I would naturally have that opinion. Would you consider citing some of your sources as I would appreciate being able to get a more evenly balanced viewpoint. Freda Stewart Calgary, Alberta ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward Andrews" <edward.andrews@btinternet.com> To: <Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 7:54 AM Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > Hi Linda. > I would suggest that to understand the events between 1637 and 1660 you > don't call it the British Civil war. > Give it the generic named of the War of the Three Kingdoms. > It then breaks down into the Bishops War (Scotland vs. England.) The war > of > the Confederacy - (AKA the 1641 massacre), The English Civil War > (Cavaliers > vs. Roundheads with the Scots supporting the Roundheads and having their > own > wee internal war with Montrose). The War over the killing of the King > (Cromwell vs. Scots). The re-conquest of Ireland. (Cromwell vs. Irish). > While it is still complicated (and not wholly accurate for the question of > who the Irish were is important), at least you are able to put it into > sequence. > Having studies this period 3 times at University as Irish History, as > British (English) History and as Scottish History I am convinced that the > easiest is to begin in Scotland where the trouble really started. > The problem is that there is this Anglo-centric view of British History, > and while things have improved the books which most people will have > access > to tend to see things from an English point of view. > Edward Andrews > > -----Original Message----- > From: Linda Merle [mailto:merle@mail.fea.net] > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:50 PM > To: Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty > > Hi John, > > I've never > read a history of the British Civil War that could REALLY make > sense of it though I've read lots who tried and most of them > admit at the start that they can't really understand it. > It was very, very, very complicated -- so I'll stop here before > I say something someone disagrees with. The experts > disagree on its causes so none of us here will agree <grin>. > > I got interested in it due to family involvement in England. > I also got a book on Cromwell in Ireland that's very interesting. And > there's the usual stuff you read on Cromwell > in Ireland. Recently an Irishman wrote a book debunking the > idea that he massacred civilians at Drogheda and other places. > There's apparently no contemporary evidence that he did. > (As I'm not a scholar and didn't do this research, I can't > argue about it -- I can just point people interested to the > book). > > > >

Thanks to Charles and Dr. Andrew for giving us some summer reading assignments. I will attempt to find the book "Civil War and Restoration in the Three Stuart Kingdoms: TheC areer of Randal >MacDonnell, Marquis of Antrim", by Jane Ohlmeyer as he is truly one of the most amazing characters of the period. >"Three Stuart >Kingdoms", rather than being the "English civil war" I've also seen it called the "British Civil War". The author of that book said he could find no reason for it to happen in England. You had to get Scotland and Ireland involved to see its causes. >> Christopher Hill, but they are ages old - kind of 40 years Hmm...about time for us genealogists to discover them then!! Thanks for the book suggestions too and may I second Christopher Hill's books?? At amazon: The World Turned Upside Down : Radical Ideas During the English Revolution (Penguin History) by Christopher Hill (Paperback) Century of Revolution, 1603-1714 (Norton Library History of England) by Christopher Hill (Paperback) He also wrote a history of the English Bible which is amazing. I just lent my copy to my mother so I don't have it here. And mucho thanks for the Scottish book! If I ever get done moving I'll have some GOOD reading to do. > In any case there is a good Bibliography. This is a great thing, esp. for genealogists, because it can lead us to stuff. Tom Reilly who wrote the 'new' history of Cromwell in Ireland (which I packed and can't find) used contempary sources for his book -- so it is packed with all kinds of goodies he used to debunk the 'received history' of Cromwell in Ireland. >> On Ireland, Haven't a clue. There has been so much new writing about Irish >> History in the past 30 years that there is good stuff out there. >> For 1641 there is Ulster 1641 Aspects of the Rising: Ed MacCuarta Belfast >> 1993. ISBN 0-85389-591-0. This too has got a good Bibliography. It does and it's a favorite of mine. Another good one on Ireland is Elliott's book "The Catholics of Ulster". Check out your local Borders or amazon. It really covers the history of all the people in Ulster as we're all really one people, as she shows. The book is in the tradition of Christopher Hill -- providing us with a look at the lives of the people, not the kings. It transforms your picture of Ulster and helps you to understand howcum we're one people. This was the conclusion that I came to but Elliott's a 'real scholar' with FAR better documentation than I got. AND a huge bibliography to check to find out what exists that you can also utilize in your genealogical quest. I'm related to Blue Dick Culmer, of Kent, whom Laude called the most extreme person in the country. NOt sure if he meant Kent or England. He broke the stained glass at Canterbury, on order of Parliament, sparking a riot. In this case the rioters were in the right. Though dead, he's got webpages: http://www.digiserve.com/peter/bdick1.htm http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/war/cost3.html Interesting local character!! Linda Merle ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at mail.fea.net

Hi folks Looks like Ive come back to the list at the right time having just completed "A Laymans Guide to the Scottish Reformation" ( at www.HeritageBooks.com ) which will explain in simple language the very complicated politics and who fought who in 17C England, Ireland and Scotland. By way of penance, I have "The Irish Army Lists of King Charles II 1661-1685 " if anyone wants look ups. :)) Brian Orr brian@orrnamestudy.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Merle To: Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:49 PM Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty Hi John, >Thanks. Out of curiosity what do you mean by "the Irish Army" in mid >1600's. The army stationed in Ireland in the 1600s, just after Cromwell. It was British, just like the army in Ireland in the 1600s before Cromwell and during Cromwell. The Confederates had an army in Ireland in the 1640s and 1650s till Cromwell defeated it - a Catholic/Royalist army. Leading up to the struggle between King William and James, the Catholics purged the British army of Protestants in the late 1680s. Actually in closing the gates of Derry, our ancestors were rebelling against the British army, which at that time was largely Catholic. However this war was a European one and is understood more clearly when studied from a European context. The Pope was rooting for King William, after all!! As my ancestor was an officer he wasn't mustered in locally. One purchased commissions most of the time. It really pays to spend a lot of time reading history not only of Ireland but of the kingdom that she was a part of: Great Britain, because so many of her laws and customs were British. Of course Irsih people living in a Gaeltacht who could not speak English could avoid much of it, but this list is about Protestant ancestors who were part of British Irish at some level so you must study it if you want to research in it -- or you will not get very far at all. It's best to study the British army at length as generally a third of the people in it were Irish (of all ethnic groups in more modern times). Detailed accounting records of the officers in the Irish army in the Irish army after Cromwell and before the purge are filmed and in LDS. You can get their names, what they were paid and where they were stationed in Ireland. >it is said he was in Cromwell's >Army. I do know he was Presbyterian. Eh??? Not too likely. Do you know the history of Cromwell??? He had a very bad time with Presbyterians in Scotland. In fact after he defeated them he shipped lots off as forced laborers to the colonies including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and VA. When he went to Ireland to take it back after its ten years with the Confederates (mixed British Royalists/ Catholics), he planned on transporting all the Presbyterians to Tipperary, I think it was. However he quickly learned that the Presbyterians of Ireland were a different breed from the Scots (due to their different history and experience which had created a new ethnic group distinct in values and tradition from Scots: the Ulster Scot!). They were happy to support any Protestant who might help protect them from the Catholics (Irish ones and Royalist British Catholics). Cromwell's commonwealth failed after his death and his enemies wrote history, as always, but in truth, he was a moderate. He crafted a shaky government that lasted during his life and kept the Catholics and Royalists from continuing a civil war with the 'right wing' English Presbyterians, Puritans, Baptists and such. He was the good guy. In Scotland he fought with Scottish nationalists who were Presbyterian too. I've never read a history of the British Civil War that could REALLY make sense of it though I've read lots who tried and most of them admit at the start that they can't really understand it. It was very, very, very complicated -- so I'll stop here before I say something someone disagrees with. The experts disagree on its causes so none of us here will agree <grin>. I got interested in it due to family involvement in England. I also got a book on Cromwell in Ireland that's very interesting. And there's the usual stuff you read on Cromwell in Ireland. Recently an Irishman wrote a book debunking the idea that he massacred civilians at Drogheda and other places. There's apparently no contemporary evidence that he did. (As I'm not a scholar and didn't do this research, I can't argue about it -- I can just point people interested to the book). However largely Cromwell brought his army with him. They were English lads who were paid off in Irish lands. They settled down, married Irish gals, and their grandchildren often didn't speak any English at all and were Catholic. As most of the Ulster land was already held by Protestants, there were few settlements of English there -- most of the escheated lands were in the rest of Ireland. Ditto for the Williamite settlement in the late 1600s. This solved another problem for Cromwell (not for King William though <grin>): his New Model army was the first standing British army. But it was full of radical 'right wing' English Presbyterians, Baptists, independents (Congregationalists), etc. He didn't want them back in England as he had no money to pay them and he was afraid he'd lose control of the unpaid army and they'd stage a coupe and replace him with someone more of their liking. So he settled them in Ireland -- paying them off in land. Many sold to their officers and moved to the colonies, esp. the West Indies. A couple generations later they manifest in the mainland colonies. It's possible your ancestor served in a locally mustered group in the 1640s and 50s. Those musterings are in LDS. They are on film 5 miles from me, but they are not indexed, so it's a page by page search. The more you understand about Ulster the more you get from them, as people mustered in under their local landlords. So if you get the name of the landlord you know about where they were living. Many Presbyterians did fight in King WIlliam's army in the late 1660s, and many defended their homeland at Derry and Enniskillen. So how old was your ancestor?? We're talking 50 year gap here. However don't be misled by modern day armies. My ancestor was presumely born in the late 1730 in Ayre and so was an adult about 1750. He manifests as a young man in the Irish army and did fight with William in the late 1790s when he was quite old. He died coming to America in 1729. In those days defending your country was a life time job <grin>. From his having the cash to purchase a commission I can deduce that he may have been from a gentle background but not the eldest son as he didn't inherit the estate in Scotland. It's possible he was from a merchant family but often they went into the family business. As he was quartermaster, this is a possiblity. The only way to squeeze clues out of family history is to know the history. If a merchant family it was a larger, more established one as it could afford to pay for the commission for a younger son. As part of the British army, my ancestor was posted to Ireland where he apparently finally settled, marrying the sister of a fellow officer. Later the Beatties and the Clintons came to America. His second wife was the granddaughter of one of Cromwell's soldiers. Her family lost the earldom (I think it was an earldom) of Lincolnshire during the British civil war. As they were dissenters (granddad was trusted enough by Cromwell to be an officer) they could not get their title back after 1670 with the Restoration so they were marooned in Ireland. They brought the ring to America in 1729 and the grandson Dewitt Clinton apparently used it to 'seal' early NY laws when he was governor. And apparently that was how the two British generals Clinton discovered their long lost cousins in America. (O'Brien mistakenly IDs these folks as Gaelic Irish in one of his books). The more Irish history I read the more clues I can squeeze from my family history. You can't learn too much about it. It's fascinating. Many primary documents are reproduced in Hanna "The Scotch Irish" that many know about but few have read. We forget here on the list that the standard statement in Irish genealogy classes about pre 1820's Irish genealogy (before ch urch records) is that it can't be done. It can but it takes a lot of work learning about a time and place that were radically different from our world today and its records. What exists, who's in them, and how to get them. It's fascinating stuff at least. NO one's ever said Irish history was dull!! Linda ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at mail.fea.net

The July issue of "The Ulster-Scot" is available on the Ulster-Scots Agency website. There is a good article on the family history of *Margaret 'Peggy' Brown.* http://ulsterscotsagency.com/ulsterscotjuly2005.asp regards, Alan Ulster-Scots Online http://www.ulster-scots.co.uk -- Faugh A Ballagh Lámh Dhearg Abú *Tha Hamely Tongue:-* Houl yer whist - keep quiet / don`t butt in Ye hallion - you tearaway Skreigh o day - crack of dawn / day Scundered - fed up <http://fta.firetrust.com/index.cgi?id=7520&page=1>

Linda, "It was British, just like the army in Ireland in the 1600s before Cromwell and during Cromwell". Being a pedant - I think you will find it was an English army - the Union of Scotland and England being 1707 Alan

Hello All, So far I have 17 possible spellings for my surname with my spelling as one of the rarest. One site that has helped me is the surname navigator, a meta search engine devoted to genealogy. It now has 3 sections for Ireland, 2 for England and 1 for Scotland and Wales as well as sites for Canada and the US. The site has recently changed its URL and can now be found at www.surnamenavigator.org/ Rob Doragh Liverpool UK

Hello Alice, MacLYSAGHT "The Surnames of Ireland" HOPKINS In Connacht [the western counties between Ulster and Munster-Rob] and Co. Longford, where it is fairly numerous, this English name is used as the modern form of the gaelicized Norman Mac Oibicin. In other parts of Ireland it is usually of English origin. ALSO: HABBAGAN, HOBBIKIN MacOibicin (of Anglo-Norman, not of Gaelic-Irish origin). These names have been widely changed to the cognate Hopkins. As Hobagan it is listed in the 'census' of 1659 as a principal Irish name in Co. Longford. A map of the counties and provinces of Ireland before partition can be found at http://philnorf.tripod.com/ireland.htm Rob Doragh Liverpool UK P.S. Please get in touch if you would like me to look for your name in MacLysaght's book. I can't promise how long I'll take to reply. alice6731@comcast.net Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 researching "Hopkins" surname, they were Catholic and I believe they came from the northern Ireland area. Alice Gillihan

Hi Linda. I would suggest that to understand the events between 1637 and 1660 you don't call it the British Civil war. Give it the generic named of the War of the Three Kingdoms. It then breaks down into the Bishops War (Scotland vs. England.) The war of the Confederacy - (AKA the 1641 massacre), The English Civil War (Cavaliers vs. Roundheads with the Scots supporting the Roundheads and having their own wee internal war with Montrose). The War over the killing of the King (Cromwell vs. Scots). The re-conquest of Ireland. (Cromwell vs. Irish). While it is still complicated (and not wholly accurate for the question of who the Irish were is important), at least you are able to put it into sequence. Having studies this period 3 times at University as Irish History, as British (English) History and as Scottish History I am convinced that the easiest is to begin in Scotland where the trouble really started. The problem is that there is this Anglo-centric view of British History, and while things have improved the books which most people will have access to tend to see things from an English point of view. Edward Andrews -----Original Message----- From: Linda Merle [mailto:merle@mail.fea.net] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:50 PM To: Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [Sc-Ir] Beatty Hi John, I've never read a history of the British Civil War that could REALLY make sense of it though I've read lots who tried and most of them admit at the start that they can't really understand it. It was very, very, very complicated -- so I'll stop here before I say something someone disagrees with. The experts disagree on its causes so none of us here will agree <grin>. I got interested in it due to family involvement in England. I also got a book on Cromwell in Ireland that's very interesting. And there's the usual stuff you read on Cromwell in Ireland. Recently an Irishman wrote a book debunking the idea that he massacred civilians at Drogheda and other places. There's apparently no contemporary evidence that he did. (As I'm not a scholar and didn't do this research, I can't argue about it -- I can just point people interested to the book).

Linda, what is "Scoth-Irish" by Hanna, and is it possible to have access to it? I am researching the "Hopkins" surname, they were Catholic and I believe they came from the northern Ireland area. Alice Gillihan As a check of "Scotch-Irish" by Hanna -- the records of the undertakers of the Ulster plantation makes clear, there were Beatties in the Cavan Plantation who were Irish Catholics. > > .

Thanks for the pedantry, Alan. I'm talking to largely Americans and I'm trying to get across a point about Ireland. The audience again is Americans who never studied any history of Britain or Ireland, so if we can get the big picture across here, and thereby help people understand Ireland a little better, I'm happy. People who really want the story will have to read a number of books. First we get the big picture, then we fill in the blanks, zoom in, make refinements. I'm an educator -- and that's how people learn. That's my excuse at any rate <grin>. And not a very good one, especially when I'm dashing out to mow the lawn before it goes up to 95 degrees and they come to photograph my house..... If I flunk Irish history in the 17th century I won't even have time to cry until next week! We could use some history buffs on this list so if you are one, please educate us constantly any time you see the need (which, us being Yanks, could be about every post <grin>). Linda Merle ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "A.W.Davidson" <A.W.Davidson@open.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:11:22 +0100 >Linda, > >"It was British, just like the army in Ireland in the 1600s before >Cromwell and during Cromwell". > >Being a pedant - I think you will find it was an English army - the >Union of Scotland and England being 1707 > >Alan > ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at mail.fea.net