I heard a great show on BBC Radio 4 last night as part of their series entitled "Document". It's well worth sharing because not only are the modern day parallels blinding in the extreme, but it also constitutes a serious refutation of England's legal justification for (bloodlessly back then) conquering Ireland.

It was all about Henry II and The Laudabiliter. That's the Papal Bull issued by (English!) Pope Adrian IV in 1155, which seemed to grant Henry Papal authority to consume Ireland into his lands. It is the document that convinced the faithful Irish to lay down arms and accept his authority peacefully. It's what allowed other Christians in Europe to excuse Henry for conquering fellow Christians (like they didn't have a habit of doing it anyway!) And it's also what allowed the first of England's many colonies to be established. Yup, the beginnings of the British Empire.

But what this programme was specifically concerned with was the authenticity of that Papal Bull. Some of you may have heard of this before, but never has the case been put so well, as to quite how dodgy this dossier was. The show was a veritable detective hunt that took the presenter, Mike Thomson, all over the British Isles in search of the truth (we're such suckers for this format).

Anyway, the bald and bold conclusion after such intrepid detective work was - Henry II and his Bishops "sexed up" the document - bringing into question the whole legal basis of England's claim as hegemon over Ireland.

Here's the introductory write up to the programme. The link at foot of quote is where you can download it to listen to (they even interviewed The Revd, Dr Ian Paisley on the matter! :mischief: ), as well as have a look at pictures of the documents themselves:

A Laudable Invasion ~ Monday 17 July 2006

In 1171 King Henry 11 invaded Ireland waving a letter from Pope Adrian 1V. History has it that this papal parchment, known as the Laudabiliter, gave the Vatican 's blessing for the invasion which has led to eight centuries of English domination of Ireland . But Document has new evidence which suggests that King Henry 'sexed up' this piece of paper to make it say what he wanted it to. In other words, the people of Ireland were conned.

It all started when one of his own knights, Richard De Clare, better known as Strongbow, invaded Ireland . Word reached Henry that Stongbow was about to declare himself King of Ireland, a move which potentially threatened his kingdom from the west. So, Henry pulled out of his back pocket a Papal letter he had received several years before. This is our laudabiliter.

The original Papal bull was lost centuries ago and so historians have long relied on the word of King Henry's scribe, one Gerald of Wales, to know what it said. The story, according to Gerald, is that the Pope fully sanctioned a take over by Henry in the belief that he would restore order to the Irish church as well as the country at large. King Henry is then alleged to have shown this document to church leaders in Ireland soon after landing and they all agreed to accept his authority.

Professor Anne Duggan, is having none of it. She has concluded after years of research that Gerald of Wales was up to no good. The version of the laudabiliter that he later printed as proof that the Pope approved of Henry's invasion, fails to follow the format of almost every other document of it's kind during this period. She concludes that Henry spin doctor in chief, who then seeking promotion to a top church post, doctored the document. Passages that expressed the Pope's reservations, or urged Henry to restrain were left out and only those that appeared to give his backing were left in.

Professor's Duggan's conclusions cast fresh doubt over the legitimacy of Britain 's long rule over Ireland , which continues in the north today. However, Desmond Fitzgerald, the last Knight of Glin, whose family have owned land in Ireland since Henry's invasion, is not accepting defeat. On being asked what he will do if his family's holdings are now questioned in court he told Document: " I'm not going anywhere. I'll resort to squatter's rights if necessary . "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document.shtml
Some other links I found whilst looking for the programme page:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/bullad.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/ashorthistory/archive/topic29.shtml

For discussion:

Does England's claim still stand?
Have the sands of time passed over the issue?
Why didn't Adrian repeal the Bull when he found out it was used erroneously?
Why didn't his succcessor?
What lessons does it teach us about today's "dodgy dossiers"?

Kindly discuss.

So, it's not a papal bull then, it's just bull? :D
Does England's claim still stand?
Have the sands of time passed over the issue?
IMO no one can claim any part of the world just because of a letter sent by a religious leader a thousand years ago. So yes, the sands of time and all that. Or else, be prepared for me claiming half of England, as part of the Danelaw. ;)

Or else, be prepared for me claiming half of England, as part of the Danelaw. ;)
Your a Swede... It's not called the Swedelaw is it?

Does England's claim still stand?

What do you mean by this? Do you want to know if the UK (not England) still has a right to claim Northern Ireland or whether the English had a right to invade it in the first place?

If the former modern Britain's current control of Northern Ireland is definately not based on the bull so the legitimacy or otherwise of the document has no relevance to the situation in Northern Ireland. If you mean the latter then probably not but hey what political leader wasn't misusing religion to gain support and favour for his campaigns? Henry probably didn't do any more than say William the Conqueror did before invading England.

Have the sands of time passed over the issue?

Definately. The Northern Ireland issue and British - Irish relations are a multi layered problem with many different aspects but I very much doubt that what the Pope said or didn't say over 800 years ago is one of those. Perhaps some of the more radical Irish historians and politicians will try to use it to claim we have no right to Northern Ireland but most will just ignore them and quite rightly so. Determining current political policy and making decisions about people's lives based on a 800 year old document is pointless.

Why didn't Adrian repeal the Bull when he found out it was used erroneously?
Why didn't his succcessor?


That is assuming it was, Professor Duggan's argument is probably not the final word on the issue. Not that I'd be suprised if it was Henry abusing his power but the Pope may not have felt able to prevent the events or may not have been exactly angry with them.

As for his sucessor, well Popes tend to show a marked reluctance to appologise for or correct the Popes that came before him. It took until John Paul II to appologise for the Conquistadores and the Crusades after all ;)

What lessons does it teach us about today's "dodgy dossiers"?

That its sad that to make history appealing to the modern public they have to relate it in some vague way to current events ;)

Seriously though if true it merely shows that we are not so different from our ancestors.

Your a Swede... It's not called the Swedelaw is it?
My paternal grandparents were/are Danish. If that's not enough for you I guess I'll have to settle for invading Kiev.:rolleyes:

Well that might prove fun, Sweden hasn't had a war for a while after all, it will be interesting to see how you manage :D

As for his sucessor, well Popes tend to show a marked reluctance to appologise for or correct the Popes that came before him.

That certainly wasn't true in the Middle Ages, when popes routinely (and happily) denounced their predecessors as heretics, political lackeys, or whatever. It's only since Vatican I that this is a problem.

Seems to me that the British don't really "claim" Northern Ireland today. They're stuck with the damn place because it's full of Unionists. And the Unionists, of course, are unlikely to base their views upon papal bulls...

That certainly wasn't true in the Middle Ages, when popes routinely (and happily) denounced their predecessors as heretics, political lackeys, or whatever. It's only since Vatican I that this is a problem.

Intruiging, so did one of Adrian's sucessors denounce the act? If not perhaps no-one saw it as especially important or alternatively perhaps Adrian and those that came after him felt Henry didn't especially violate the bull. One would have thought that Adrian permitting a king to abuse his word without complaint would have been good ammunition for Adrian's sucessors after all.

Seems to me that the British don't really "claim" Northern Ireland today. They're stuck with the damn place because it's full of Unionists. And the Unionists, of course, are unlikely to base their views upon papal bulls

Exactly, I doubt the British have based their claim or otherwise on the bull for centuries.

I suspect that no one saw it as especially important; dealing with the
infidels in Spain and the Holy Land were probably much higher up on the
priority list...

I've always heard that the Bull was suspect, anyway, because of the man who reportedly issued it: Adrian IV, AKA Nicolas Breakspear, the only Englishman to ever occupy the Papacy. If he truly issued it, then I hope he remains in hell for eternity, where he belongs.