So here's how i feel about the enactments of the 1297 parliament:
The enactments of the 1297 parliament addressed the growing concerns of the English for the security of the lands they had occupied in Ireland. Those lands held by the English close to the marches were being abandoned by their land owners for their safer lands. This was leaving their lands close to the march territory open to plundering, murders and crimes all nature. They were also worried that those Irishmen who were at peace were being taken advantage of by greedy enemies through theft and attack. The final concern is that of mistaken identity. Many of the english colonists were adopting the style of the Irish especially the use of the hairstyle known as the culan. This lead to Englishmen killing Englishmen, mistaking them for Irishmen, bringing into disrepute the separate penalties for killing and English or an Irish man.
There was a certain amount of fear among the English who owned lands close to the marches. These marches lay beyond the borders of the English controlled land. This was land they were failing to conquer, perhaps mountainous or wooded lands where the Irish could take advantage of his and tun tactics. Those lands of peace that were close to the marches of the Irish were at constant risk from attacks and raids which created a huge problem for their land owners and as mentioned before, often caused them to retreat or hide in the safety of their lands of peace located at a safer distance from the marches of the Irish.
Lionel of Antwerp was appointed lieutenant of Ireland on 1361. The significance of this appointment was not just about him being the second surviving son of King Edward III but also because in his piece of legislation , in 1366, he did not just concern himself with the Irish influence creeping into the colonies, but the cultural and social ills between the English who were born in England and the English who were born in Ireland. THe legislation of Kilkenny in 1366 is essentially a re-iteration of that of Dublin in 1297. It raises many of the same concerns but is more detailed in its descriptions of what can or cannot be done. Whereas in the DUblin document we have the abandoning of lands and adopting of Irish fashion addressed here we see a banning of personal alliances between the English and Irish, the forbidding of the English to adopt the customs of the Irish, including their method of riding horses, the use of their language (by the English and the Irish living amongst the English) or adopting Irish names or laws even though they may suit their aims. Also enmity between those English born in England and those in Ireland is demanded. Slurs such as Irish dog or English hobbe had been used by those English born in England to describe and put down the English born in Ireland. Any shift in attitude between the two treaties is merely the addition of more rules and therefore perhaps a sterner attitude to enforcing these laws as it must be assumed that those outlined in 1297 were not achieving the desired results.
It seems perhaps unfair to describe these provisions as anti-Irish. They are certainly pro-English but it has to be expected that a colonial power like England would strive to keep its colonies as English as possible so that they dont loose their grip of power on them and perhaps deter defection from their colonial lords.
The enactments of the 1297 parliament addressed the growing concerns of the English for the security of the lands they had occupied in Ireland. Those lands held by the English close to the marches were being abandoned by their land owners for their safer lands. This was leaving their lands close to the march territory open to plundering, murders and crimes all nature. They were also worried that those Irishmen who were at peace were being taken advantage of by greedy enemies through theft and attack. The final concern is that of mistaken identity. Many of the english colonists were adopting the style of the Irish especially the use of the hairstyle known as the culan. This lead to Englishmen killing Englishmen, mistaking them for Irishmen, bringing into disrepute the separate penalties for killing and English or an Irish man.
There was a certain amount of fear among the English who owned lands close to the marches. These marches lay beyond the borders of the English controlled land. This was land they were failing to conquer, perhaps mountainous or wooded lands where the Irish could take advantage of his and tun tactics. Those lands of peace that were close to the marches of the Irish were at constant risk from attacks and raids which created a huge problem for their land owners and as mentioned before, often caused them to retreat or hide in the safety of their lands of peace located at a safer distance from the marches of the Irish.
Lionel of Antwerp was appointed lieutenant of Ireland on 1361. The significance of this appointment was not just about him being the second surviving son of King Edward III but also because in his piece of legislation , in 1366, he did not just concern himself with the Irish influence creeping into the colonies, but the cultural and social ills between the English who were born in England and the English who were born in Ireland. THe legislation of Kilkenny in 1366 is essentially a re-iteration of that of Dublin in 1297. It raises many of the same concerns but is more detailed in its descriptions of what can or cannot be done. Whereas in the DUblin document we have the abandoning of lands and adopting of Irish fashion addressed here we see a banning of personal alliances between the English and Irish, the forbidding of the English to adopt the customs of the Irish, including their method of riding horses, the use of their language (by the English and the Irish living amongst the English) or adopting Irish names or laws even though they may suit their aims. Also enmity between those English born in England and those in Ireland is demanded. Slurs such as Irish dog or English hobbe had been used by those English born in England to describe and put down the English born in Ireland. Any shift in attitude between the two treaties is merely the addition of more rules and therefore perhaps a sterner attitude to enforcing these laws as it must be assumed that those outlined in 1297 were not achieving the desired results.
It seems perhaps unfair to describe these provisions as anti-Irish. They are certainly pro-English but it has to be expected that a colonial power like England would strive to keep its colonies as English as possible so that they dont loose their grip of power on them and perhaps deter defection from their colonial lords.