Why did Ireland cling on to Catholicism whilst England, Scotland and Wales dropped it easily?

Irish people are 50/50 between looking very fetal-alcohol syndrome and looking qt.

I have a feeling this is how you can tell the pure Celts from the rapebabies.

Because Protestantism was mostly a reaction to the Church's excesses, which wasn't really a thing in Ireland as it was far from the churches center of power in Rome. It was kind of a fringe region for a long time.

You da looks like a total bender.

You'd know Protestantism didn't spread to England so easy if you know anything about history.

>Native Englishmen today are almost entirely Anglican or atheist
I'm aware of VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth I and their burning of innocent people and bloody Mary's rampage and so forth.

What I mean by "easily" is that it succeeded whereas it was a complete failure in Ireland.

To call us "rapebabies" is incorrect and frankly insulting. Irish people are essentially a mix of Celtic/Gaelic, Viking and Anglo-Norman blood.
>not knowing about the "Old English" in Ireland and professing to know anything at all about Irish ethnicity/cultural heritage

Because the Irish were under occupation from a foreign power trying to impose its new religion on the natives. What don't you get about this?

>Protestantism was mostly a reaction to the Church's excesses
Not in England. King Henry just wanted to get his dick wet with a new wife and the Pope refused a divorce, so Henry simply split with Rome.

because Scotland had their own language and culture but they embraced Anglicanism.
Ireland simply refused to do so.

very informative la

cheers

Yeah, and as a result, Anglicanism appeals pretty much solely to Anglo-Saxons.

The Normans/Old-English who ruled a good portion of the land were all Catholics with Catholic subjects and many were starting to culturally assimilate (and even adopt the same native law system) as the 'Gall Goidel'/Norse had done before them, why would they just adopt the religion?

> Despite being on a different island surely they couldn't have had their own identity and customs?
that's where you're wrong, completely and utterly, when the Reformation was happening the differences must have been pretty big, the prevalent view among the English of the Irish was of a "barbarous people", as Elizabeth I's Marshal Henry Bagenal called them

See also Edmund Spenser's 'A View of the Present State of Ireland' from 1598 (keeping in mind Spenser was a hugely butthurt faggot because his child died in some siege), where the goal stated is a complete subjugation of Ireland and the anglicization of the Irish people. He also talks about the conversion of the Irish people to Protestantism:
"Therefore it shall be foreseen and assured, that after once entering into this reformation, there be afterwards no remorse nor drawing back from the sight of any such rueful objects as must thereupon follow, nor for compassion of their calamities; seeing by no other means it is possible to cure them, and that these are not of will, but of very urgent necessity."

On the reformation of manners and customs:
"Every parish should be forced to keep a petty schoolmaster adjoining unto the parish church, to be the more in view, which should bring up their children in the first elements of letters [...] whereby in short time they will grow up to that civil conversation that both the children will loathe the former rudeness in which they were bred, and also their parents will, even by the example of their young children, perceive the foulness of their brutish behaviour compared to theirs, for learning hath that wonderful power that it softens the temper of the most fierce and savage nature."

>because Scotland had their own language and culture but they embraced Anglicanism.

But they didn't? The reformed church is the most popular one in Scotland.

> Irish people are essentially a mix of Celtic/Gaelic, Viking and Anglo-Norman blood.
AKA rapebabies

But that applies to Germany. They were just viewed as uncultured peasants in the German states, which is part of the German angst and lax nature of the church there.

>implying English aren't rape babies of Romans, Celts and Anglo-Saxons
hehe

...

>Despite being on a different island surely they couldn't have had their own identity and customs? When I think of the difference between the Irish and English today the only thing that springs to mind is religion. If you remove that then what difference is there between them?

It's different now after intense anglicisation but until the 1680s and to a lesser extent until the 1850s the Irish were probably the most "alien" and unique culture in western Europe. They had their own culture, language, legal system, social order, dress, martial tradition and economy.

Look at pic related on the right. There's no way you'd confuse him for an Englishman from the same period

Scotland didn't really embrace Anglicanism, at least not on any kind of large scale. Their monarchs may have at first, but there's a reason the majority of Scots later became Presbyterians.
A lot of the differences between Anglo-Irish and Anglo-Scottish relations can be explained fairly simply through geography/proximity. The Scots had their wars with the English of course, but in general they were eventually assimilated into a new "British" identity rather than forcibly conquered and subverted as the Irish were. This applies more to culture than religion, but has religious implications as well. When talking about the sociological history of the British Isles, culture and religion are not often easily separated. This is most obvious today in the case of Northern Ireland, but that's another discussion entirely.
see . "rape" implies that there was no peaceful cultural assimilation, which is again simply untrue

>For most of its history Ireland was filled with savage and primitive Bill O Reillys

Of course they are, everyone on Earth is a rapebaby except maybe extremely isolated niggers in Africa.

>see . "rape" implies that there was no peaceful cultural assimilation, which is again simply untrue
No it doesn't, it just implies that there was rape. Which is totally true. Especially in the case of the vikings.

I hope you didn't link my post thinking it agrees that there was some sort of peaceful anglicization here
Spenser says that the military subjugation and occupation of the island is also necessary along with complete ruthlessness

Fair enough. But I refuse to believe you weren't using the word "rapebaby" pejoratively earlier to try and get a rise out of us Paddies.
I meant to just quote the part about the Old English but my wifi fucked up, apologies

The idea of "rapebabies" in any large society is total bollocks. The modern day Irish are largely genetically the same people as they were in the 5th century. This is the same case with the English, Greeks and Egyptians, other cases most people seem to get wrong. Culture changes long before genetics. Not to say that genetics aren't affected at all but it's on such a small scale that it's barely worth mentioning and usually around specific points of contact, England's southeast coast, Egypt's northeast coast, etc.

Vikings in Ireland in particular stayed in their own insulated communities. A few of which, like Limerick and Waterford, were basically genocided by the Irish.

>Fair enough. But I refuse to believe you weren't using the word "rapebaby" pejoratively earlier to try and get a rise out of us Paddies.
I'm Irish myself, there's just no use denying our rapist heritage.

Hence why my original post was an observation that the most "pure" looking people in Ireland are also the uglier looking ones.

That just comes off as self-deprecating in that case.

It's not really when you also acknowledge everyone on Earth is somewhat descended from foreign rapists. It's just an uncomfortable truth that people hate to acknowledge.

it's not true though

even Egypt has like 80% of the same DNA it had when the pharaohs were about and that'd seem like rape baby capital of the world if you look at history

Vikings certainly didn't get much done, any raping that did happen was probably followed by death or enslavement, which explains all the Irish DNA in Iceland
snowniggers got pretty btfo as well

>even Egypt has like 80% of the same DNA it had when the pharaohs were about
b-but w-we wuz kangs ;_;

>even Egypt has like 80% of the same DNA it had when the pharaohs were about and that'd seem like rape baby capital of the world if you look at history
Exactly, 20% difference is a pretty big one.

I'm not saying everyone is majority foreign, I'm saying local genetics borrow heavily from their neighbours and this very often is thanks to war.

>I'm not saying everyone is majority foreign,
>Hence why my original post was an observation that the most "pure" looking people in Ireland are also the uglier looking ones.