Oscar Wilde: British or Irish?

" "Is a man born in France in 1943 to be considered German? "

No, but then France wasn't a part of Germany, was it? But what is now the Republic of Ireland used to be a part of the UK, just as Scotland and England are now. "


Ireland was coerced into joining only after the 1801 act of union was passed after the second attempt and under dubious circumstances i.e. British and United Kingdom peerages and other bribes being given to members of the undemocratic and unrepresentative puppet Irish parliament of the time. Don’t forget that the Penal laws were still in operation and the vast majority of the people couldn’t even vote.
Three years prior to that act, the 1798 rebellion broke out which saw almost universal support even with Presbyterians in the north of the country being involved. That was the will of the people which wasn't just ignored but brutally subdued.
Since the act of union was unrepresentative, it isn’t recognised as being legitimate and any decision it made is irrelevant. It is about as legitimate as the Irish government stating a claim over France and calling all French people Irish. It’s meaningless.

>>He was both Irish and British in the Same way that I'm both English and British and Damien is both Scottish and British. The whole of Ireland was part of the UK until 1922.<<

correct. But then again; we all reason from our own tribal loyalties.

"Irish Guy":

Your cackhanded attempts to rewrite history are to no avail.

It's not a question of whether you like it or not, it's a fact. During the life of Oscar Wilde, the island of Ireland was entirely part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Thus Wilde (and every other Irishman) was British as well by default.

In the same way that every Scot and Welshman still is today.

Sure!!!


I hereby lay claim to Britain and all of her natural resources and subjects of the crown. If you're a brit, then you are now Irish.

>>Your cackhanded attempts to rewrite history are to no avail.<<

LOL. Sorry, but who's rewriting history here? Ireland in no fashion was an equal partner in the UK, and the only difference really between then and when it was a *theoretically* independent state sharing a single crown was that it did not have its own parliament (which one must note was primarily formed up of English and Anglo-Irish landowners and in which Catholics, that is, most Irish individuals could not vote, could not vote except early on and towards the end of its existance, could not discuss bills without Great Britain's parliament's approval, and had no executive control, which was exercised by the British gov't in London via the Lord Lieutenant). Furthermore, a lot of what was involved in the Union was indeed rather, well, underhanded, and while many Catholics did initially support it (as the Irish government had been very anti-Catholic in nature), the failure of the British gov't to institute Catholic Emancipation (which only occurred later in 1829) due to its being blocked by George III reduced much of the support that had existed for it amongst Catholics.

For more information go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Ireland

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

"I hereby lay claim to Britain and all of her natural resources and subjects of the crown. If you're a brit, then you are now Irish. "

No. You're either Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh or English.

Britain isn't a part of Ireland.

"LOL. Sorry, but who's rewriting history here? Ireland in no fashion was an equal partner in the UK"

Why are you saying that it wasn't an equal partner in the UK? What has that got to do with anyone? The whole of the island of Ireland was part of the UK from 1801-1922.

England isn't an equal partner today with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish getting all the benefits, but we are still a part of the UK.

Travis:

"Sorry, but who's rewriting history here? Ireland in no fashion was an equal partner in the UK"

Excuse me? Where did I ever make such a statement?

The difference between my point and yours (and that of "Irish guy") is that, instead of going off on an anti-British rant, I merely pointed out the obvious:

During the lifetime of Wilde, Irishmen were British subjects since Ireland was wholly part of the UK.

A comparison would be the Czech president being summoned to Berlin to meet Hitler and then being threatened with the destruction of Bohemia, Moravia and Prague unless he agreed to make Germany a “protectorate” of Czechoslovakia.
The difference between that and Ireland is that there was already a puppet ‘government’ installed in Dublin prior to the 1801 act of union. Also, Ireland had already suffered terribly up to that point and bribes of ministers was all that was required.
The point that I was trying to make is that Ireland was in the UK by force. Joining was not option and therefore has never been regarded as a legitimate act. If something isn’t legitimate then its rules are meaningless. That’s why I made prosperous claim to own Britain. You can search for all the legal documents you want, but it won’t make a difference. More than likely you’ll continue to make the same statements, which is absolutely fine.

Ireland was part of the uk, not britain? So therefore how could he be british? A british person is someone, who either lives on the island of britain, has ancestors who lived on the island of britain, or engages in a culture which is british, but most importantly a person who identifies themselves as such. So whether Oscar Wilde was Irish or British was really up to himself, and given he was born to an Irish nationalist and fluent Irish speaker, I would imagine it would be the former as opposed to the latter.

Sorry about the very late response, but:

>>Travis:

"Sorry, but who's rewriting history here? Ireland in no fashion was an equal partner in the UK"

Excuse me? Where did I ever make such a statement?<<

That's implied by the way you put things, which implied that Ireland was part of the UK in the way that, say, Wisconsin is part of the US today (as much as I happen to dislike the US gov't), that is, truly an equal part (musings about wanting Canada to annex Wisconsin aside) of such rather than a practically subordinate entity despite being legally an integral part of such.

>>The difference between my point and yours (and that of "Irish guy") is that, instead of going off on an anti-British rant, I merely pointed out the obvious:<<

Speaking of such as "an anti-British rant" belies how Ireland actually came to be part of the UK and the practical state of Ireland for while it was part of the UK (such as it taking a good few decades for Catholics to be emancipated simply due to the whims of George III and Ireland being practically economically subjugated by England (can we say Potato Famine?)). To speak of such in such a way is to imply that what I'd said was misleading or dishonest in some way to push some kind of extreme viewpoint rather than seeking to be historically accurate rather than providing a sanitized view of England and subsequently Great Britain's involvement in Ireland.

>>During the lifetime of Wilde, Irishmen were British subjects since Ireland was wholly part of the UK.<<

Legally, yes, after Catholic emancipation; however, economically, and before Catholic emancipation, legally the vast majority of the population of Ireland was not in a truly equal position with, say, England.

Regrettably, you've simply continued with an anti-British rant.

English/British involvement in Ireland. Check.

Potato Famine. Check.

Catholic Emancipation. Check.*

This is history. It does not alter this fact:

"During the lifetime of Wilde, Irishmen were British subjects since Ireland was wholly part of the UK."

For the purposes of determining whether Oscar Wilde was Irish or British or both, the conditions under which Irishmen lived as British subjects are entirely irrelevant.

* Incidentally, all British Catholics - English, Welsh and Scottish ones too - were at a disadvantage up to the enactment of the relief acts of 1778 to 1829.

<<<<* Incidentally, all British Catholics - English, Welsh and Scottish ones too - were at a disadvantage up to the enactment of the relief acts of 1778 to 1829. >>>

Indeed as were jewish people, who O'Connell also campaigned for. However, how many of these groups were majorities in their respective nationalities?

"Indeed as were jewish people, who O'Connell also campaigned for. However, how many of these groups were majorities in their respective nationalities?"

What does it matter?

>>"During the lifetime of Wilde, Irishmen were British subjects since Ireland was wholly part of the UK." <<

Well, yes, this is something that I agree with, as a simple statement of fact.

>>* Incidentally, all British Catholics - English, Welsh and Scottish ones too - were at a disadvantage up to the enactment of the relief acts of 1778 to 1829.<<

An important detail here, though, is that Catholic Emancipation had been promised as part of the Act of Union of Ireland and Great Britain, and the reason that many Irish Catholics actually supported the Act of Union (which they otherwise would have not been likely to support), but had been vetoed by George III, delaying it by several decades.