Hello!

I am puzzled by an old English sentence that belongs to the indictment of the Earl of Essex in times of the second Desmond War:

Quote :

In the five-point indictment that had started the Earl of Essex toward the executioner’s block, it was charged that he had dishonored the English Queen by conferring “in equal sort” with O’Neill, “a bush Kerne, and base [bastard] sonne of a Blacksmith”

I have just no clue at all about the possible meaning of being "a bush Kerne". Could it mean "being as stolid as a piece of timber"? —I'll have a good translation for that…

Anyway, should you give me an idea of what is the intended meaning I think I'll manage to get that transposed to the Spanish imaginary…

Thanks again for your help.

All the best.

CM

"Kerne" is mentioned in Act I sc ii of Macbeth, when a captain, reporting on the recent battle says:

The merciless Macdonwald...
...from the westen isles
Of Kernes and Gallowglasses is supplied...


The kern, or Kerne, according to Kenneth Muir was a light-armed foot-soldier, "one of the poorer class among the wild Irish, from whom such soldiers were drawn." Richard Stanihurst, in his introduction to Holinshed's Irish Historie, says that "Kerne signifieth...a shower of hell, because they are taken for no better than for rakehels, or the diuels black gard, by reason of the stinking sturre they keep, wheresoeuer they be."

No mention of bush - unless it refers to the wild regions of the "western isles", where such men originated. Another reference is to "a puissant and mighty power of gallowglasses" (horsemen) and stout kerns." These men were reputed to be "burlie of body, well and stronglie timbered, cheeflie feeding on beefe, porke and butter." (!)

"Timbered" is interesting word. These men were obviously terrifyingly fierce warriors, built like the proverbial brick (or maybe timbered) you-know-what! Definitely not a suitable chum for a refined English aristocrat!

Essex had had the effrontery to negotiate "man to man" with the most noble of the Gaelic Irish royalty-class aristocracy, O'Neill (whose royal pedigree dated back 700 years as opposed to the Tudor pedigree which dated back as far as Lizzie's granddad and even that had been dubiously assumed). It was the English custom at the time not only to disregard the Irish nobility but to publicly depict them as "savages", so Essex had broken several rules at the same time, not least of which was having potentially exposed the propaganda - an unforgivable crime in any despotic regime.

Temp's explanation of a kerne is correct - they couldn't deny that O'Neill was a military man (he had a standing army of about 150,000 soldiers at his height and had even won a few victories as an ally of England on European soil), so they dismissed him instead as a mere foot-soldier himself. The blacksmith reference (ironic given Thomas Cromwell's own pedigree in living memory at the time) completely eludes me. I know it is meant to denote he was from common stock but I simply cannot see how they hoped the accusation would survive any scrutiny at all. O'Neill's father was "The" O'Neill, also a high king, as was his father before him and so on back to Niall of the Nine Hostages in the late Iron Age. Such was the prestige of the name that members of other clans, if and when they became top dogs in Ulster, adopted the name and were adopted by that clan, just to keep the pedigree unbroken. It was a bit like the title Caesar, in other words.

Adding that even as foot-soldier he operated mostly out in the wilds (bush) and that even his supposed blacksmith father had sired him out of wedlock seem to have just been typical English flourishes of the day. When it comes to mud-slinging, in for a penny and all that.

Still, it is said the English have improved their opinion of the Irish since then. Slightly.

Hello,
I am learning a lot, or at least some, English history with your explanations and this book. I see now the meaning of the deprecating expression, so thanks a lot.
It is really interesting to see how it illuminates certain areas of the present and how it connects with literature, cinema and other topics.
I wish I could thank you in person. 
Take care.

I found the reason for the blacksmith reference - the guys at the treason trial conveniently skipped a generation. Rather than Hugh O'Neill - the one with whom Essex negotiated - it was his father Matthew O'Neill who had been adopted into the clan. Matthew wasn't illegitimate - he was indeed the son of a Dundalk blacksmith called Kelly. After Kelly's death his wife Alison became a mistress of Conn O'Neill and her son was officially adopted by Conn as his heir to the earldom in Tyrone (the western branch of the O'Neill dynasty). The slurs against his parentage actually originated when he and his cousin Shane, who originally had English backing, vied to become Earl of Tyrone later. Though things didn't work too well for Shane. He ended up overplaying his hand with Henry VIII and "detained at his majesty's pleasure", which left Matt the only contender and his son Hugh on trajectory to become "The" O'Neill in turn.

If it's any consolation, though Essex may have ended up disgraced and reviled in England, in Ireland they had that opinion of him from the moment he set foot in the place. Not a very good military leader, but absolutely brilliant at poisoning relationships between various Irish potentates who, thanks to a deal they had done with Elizabeth's dad called "Surrender and Regrant", now had a new route to the top position by being cozy with her agents in Ireland while hoping to leapfrog over their superiors and become earls with Essex's backing. Essex, being English, saw an even better opportunity to turn this power into a protection racket by which he blackmailed sitting earls and dukes. He amassed a fortune in Ireland through these and other underhand means, which probably also explains a lot about why the rest of the syndicate decided to "rub him out" later.

Just consulted good old Wiki and I am mortified that my Macbeth quote is given! I did actually know that, but must admit the quotation from Henry IV escaped me. I wonder if the reference to "wood kerns" is relevant to "bush"? Nord probably knows if it is accurate - apparently taken from The Montgomery Manuscripts (1603- 1706), whatever they were/are.



Native Irish displaced by the Anglo-Norman invasion, operated as bandits in the forests of Ireland where they were known as "wood kerns" or Cethern Coille.They were such a threat to the new settlers that a law was passed in 1297 requiring lords of the woods to keep the roads clear of fallen and growing trees, to make it harder for wood kerns to launch their attacks.


Here is a picture of Thomas Lee "as a Captain of Kern" 1594 by Marcus Gheeraerts. Not at all how I pictured a kern, which is not surprising, as he was actually an Englishman who, to use that shameful expression so often employed by us terrible imperialists, "went native". The bare feet amaze me. He looks like he's going to a fancy dress party in Dublin. Sorry, nordmann. He took to the Irish in a big way, apparently - found this obscure, but utterly fascinating, stuff about the man.


http://homepage.eircom.net/~leeea/CaptTomLee.htm

Crossed posts.

EDIT: Excellent stuff, as ever, from the Boss - much more relevant than my Wiki-Whitterings!

By Shakespeare's time "kern", like "tory" had no real functional meaning in Ireland anymore. Soldiery in Ireland under the later Gaelic earls had fallen fully into line with European conventions. It had become instead, in Ireland, a romantic notion from times past (which, as you found, appealed to the English more than the Irish). In England however it had retained its derogatory meaning. Kerns, like tories, had been England's first real military opposition in Ireland and infuriatingly efficient at that. They were unpursuable in retreat so engaged in guerilla tactics long before the term was coined. Kerns had a boss - they were closely associated with a chieftain or clan leader. Tories were mercenary (what ever changes?) and had to fund themselves, hence their reputation as "highwaymen" once the term became archaic and romantic in English parlance. Think Richie Sunak in tights (even the "savage" Irish weren't so stupid as to go around bare-legged in Irish weather - though the kern's summer wardrobe may well have included miniskirts if the wind allowed).

Nevertheless kerns were used as mercenaries by several 16th century European monarchs. Henry VIII took several companies of them with him to France for the seige of Boulogne in 1544, and the ones Durer painted in 1521 were likely also mercenaries in someone's pay (and suitably wrapped up against the rain, whether in Ireland or in the low countries).



Writing in about 1600, John Dymmok (who had served in Ireland under the Earl of Essex) in his 'Treatise of Ireland', said "The kerne is a kinde of footeman, sleightly armed with a sworde, a targett of woode, or a bow and sheafe of arrows with barbed heades, or els 3 dartes, which they cast with a wonderfull facillity and nearnes, a weapon more noysom to the enemy, especially horsemen, then yt is deadly; within theise few yeares they have practized the muskett and callyver, and are growne good and ready shott".

You have to be careful with the English terminologies and descriptions, though. Irish earls who had availed of "Surrender and Regrant" often displayed their commitment to the new deal by making soldiers available to Henry. When used however, even though they came with their own commanders, and even titled commanders at that, they were never classed as "allies" within England (they were by their adversaries and back home in Ireland of course). Even though Henry basically got their services for nothing as part of the deal he referred to them as mercenaries and never acknowledged their Irish commanders' contributions to any of his campaigns. He did the same with his Normandy soldiers too. The lad liked taking credit, I suppose.

Dymmok also had fallen for a bit of lazy terminology too. By 1600 the "kern" had no military meaning whatsoever in Ireland and had come to mean any Irish soldiery in English service. These, prior to Kinsale and the Flight of the Earls, still covered a wide variety of skills, attire, professionalism and fealty status. Durer's earlier depiction also seems to have focused on the part-time ill equipped soldiery typical of certain areas in southern and western Ireland (though no less effective opposition to better armed English troops for that) who figured large in English perceptions at the time as these territories were proving very difficult to conquer. But even in 1521 the Ulster earls would have been putting much better trained and equipped soldiers into battle.

It's one of those propaganda things that one has to careful to see beyond, or through. Essex wrote of his own military experiences in Ireland and, for all his faults, actually came up with a more realistic picture of Ireland's military preparedness when the earl in question knew what he was doing and had the funds to put it into effect. He even described O'Neill's army as "fitting of the French" (a reason he didn't want to take them on) and strongly advised his superiors not to antagonise their boss further - he had more devious ways of undermining the O'Neill dynasty, he reckoned.

This is how the BBC, way back in the 1971 production Elizabeth R, showed the famous meeting of Hugh O'Neill and the Earl of Essex.  This is from Episode 6 of the series, the episode entitled Sweet England's Dream. The Irish "Great Earl" and his English opponent really did parley in the middle of a river - at a ford on the Logan. They shook hands (?) there on September 7th, 1599.

The BBC were very fair with the dialogue, I thought: the scene starts around 40 minutes in - hope the clip works for anyone interested.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5jej7u

Posh English Chap 1: He looks like a Prince.


Posh English Chap 2: He is a Prince.


Posh English Chap 1: She calls him the Great Rebel.

Posh English Chap 2: Which one?


Nice touch also to have O'Neill say that if he, O'Neill, can have Ireland, Essex is welcome to "the other place". 

Then again, this might be - historically - nonsense, but the BBC are usually reasonably accurate in their historical stuff. They do make the Great Earl look "burlie" and "stronglie timbered", unlike the chap pictured above who so unfortunately forgot his woolly tights.

nordmann wrote:

Think Richie (sic) Sunak in tights...

I'd really rather not.  But then Micheal Cove in tights is the real stuff of nightmares.

Great find. Just the thing when one has used up all of Netflix!

The "meeting" is a little "backward engineered" from the trial details, I imagine (though not as much as the author imagined, I reckon). Hugh's Kerry accent is a giggle (a French accent is more likely given where he was raised). What would he have thought had he found out that was how the English would eventually portray him - a Kerryman? And the rather sympathetic ones too! And who parks horses in water??

The official account within the O'Neill court records is that they met in Hugh's cousin's place near Dungannon, a modern stately home in full Tudor style, each with considerable entourage and over a stay of about a week or so. During the week both received emissaries - including a guy sent by the pope who was summoned as a neutral to settle a title dispute concerning another bloke who was calling himself the "Earl of Donegal" and causing all sorts of problems as a result. O'Neill, who regarded Donegal as his back yard, couldn't be sure if this was one of Essex's little "schemes" or not but didn't want to bump the guy off if it might spark a row with the English (he was biding his time on that one). Once Essex assured everyone that he hadn't "promoted" the bugger either the papal legate helpfully suggested that the guy should be summoned, "encouraged" to drop the earl bit, settle for being called a "count" (something the pope could decide) and to seal the deal head off on a "pilgrimage" to Rome with the legate accompanying him. He was never heard of or from again.

After the summit O'Neill provided an armed escort for Essex and his crew out of his territory. With a nice touch of pointed diplomacy the English contingent were "escorted" all the way to Drogheda, just at the south-eastern extent of O'Neill's domain - a point of departure for vessels sailing to England.

Oh.

I now humbly retreat to the University of Netflix where I obviously belong... 

Temperance wrote:

Just consulted good old Wiki and I am mortified that my Macbeth quote is given! I did actually know that, but must admit the quotation from Henry IV escaped me. I wonder if the reference to "wood kerns" is relevant to "bush"?

A key event in the aftermath of the Tyrone-Essex truce was not a performance of The Scottish Play but rather one of Richard II. The inflammatory play about the overthrow of an anointed monarch purportedly brought matters to a head in February 1601 (15 months after the truce) and when Essex was still in high dudgeon with Elizabeth. A planned performance at The Globe had been paid for by members of Essex’ party and the next day Essex launched his abortive coup which collapsed within 12 hours. His execution for treason followed a fortnite later.  

Six months after Essex' demise the Queen was in conversation with the keeper of her records Kentishman William Lambard. Their exchange itself reads like a snippet from a play by the Warwickshire William:-

'Her Majestie fell upon the reigne of Richard II saying: “I am Richard II know you not that?”

William Lambard: “Such a wicked imagination was determined and attempted by a most unkinde gentleman, the most adorned creature that ever your Majestie made.”

Her Majestie: “He that will forget God will also forget his benefactors. This tragedy was forty times played in open streets and houses.”'

Note how Lambard doesn’t feign ignorance but meets the Queen’s question head on and gives an instant and damning indictment of Essex without naming him. Note further how the Queen then goes on to say that the play was performed ‘forty times’. The Essex party, however, had only commissioned one performance of the play and one wonders, rather, if it was William of Stratford who should have been feeling nervous at this point.

Pertinent also is the line from the play where the eponymous King Richard says in Act II, Scene i:

‘Now for our Irish wars.
We must supplant those rough rug-headed kerns,
Which live like venom where no venom else
But only they have privilege to live.’

It seems that whether it was the late 14th century or the late 16th century, the story of Ireland and its kerns was closely linked to the fortunes of the English crown.

Vizzer wrote:

 A key event in the aftermath of the Tyrone-Essex truce was not a performance of The Scottish Play but rather one of Richard II.

Of course - I mentioned Macbeth because of the reference to "kern", not because I thought that play had anything to do with Essex.

Interestingly, there is a very unusual, direct reference to Essex (Shakespeare was usually- with good reason - careful not to make direct, unambiguous reference to contemporary events) in Henry V. The return of that glorious English warrior was compared to the anticipated return of the hugely popular Essex:

'As by a lower but high-loving likelihood,
Were now the General of our gracious Empress
As in good time he may - from Ireland coming,
Bringing rebellion broached on his sword
How many would the peaceful city quit
To welcome him!'
(Act V Scene 1)

But our WobbleWeapon was a canny soul - he knew the London mob would love this - Essex was their darling - huge cheer from the groundings would have greeted these lines. They weren't cheering a few months later, of course, after Essex's return from the Irish fiasco. But in Richard II there is a hint of how Shakespeare had Essex's measure. WW understood perfectly well how Essex - like all celebrity, wannabe golden boys (and girls) - cleverly court the mob for their own ends. Richard, having banished Bolingbroke, says to the Duke of Aumerle:

Ourself and Bushy, Bagot here and Green
Observed his courtship to the common people;
How he did seem to dive into their hearts
With humble and familiar courtesy,
What reverence he did throw away on slaves,
Wooing poor craftsmen with the craft of smiles
And patient underbearing of his fortune,
As 'twere to banish their affects with him.
Off goes his bonnet to an oyster-wench;
A brace of draymen bid God speed him well
And had the tribute of his supple knee,
With 'Thanks, my countrymen, my loving friends;'
As were our England in reversion his,
And he our subjects' next degree in hope.

But I'm still mulling over nordman's dismissal of my post above re the meeting of Essex with Tyrone in the river. Is this then another good example of Tudor fake news still going strong after four hundred or so years? Reports of this aquatic summit are everywhere on the internet - indeed the two apparently met again the next day - "in the water up to the horses' bellies".

But we wander away from Comic Monster's original question (sorry, CM) - an innocent query about kerns has, as ever on Res His, led me down an interesting historical rabbit-hole and I end up fuming at poor old nordmann for revealing my ignorance. Ah, hurt pride, you see . But is he right about this - or is it an example of Irish fake news? I don my tin hat.

I didn't "dismiss" your account at all, Temp! I merely pointed out how the English official record of the event and the O'Neill court version were slightly at odds with each other. As to which one was most accurate or spun for propaganda purposes I really couldn't say. But I can guess.

One thing is sure - Essex certainly didn't spot any "chearnnaigh" on his venture into Ulster, I can assure you. Though he certainly needed that armed escort, whoever paid for it, to protect him from the "tóraidhaighe" in South Armagh. Some things never change.

PS: As promised, I plunged into Glenda last night (that didn't sound like I meant it). Excellent drama which could be re-run now by the Beeb just to show the current lot (and themselves) how it can be done. Couldn't help think though that she made a far better despotic royal than she did a Labour MP.

Agreed.

Glenda was the best Lizzy ever. Keith Michell as her dad, in the BBC Henry VIII series (made around the same time) was the best ever 'enery, too.

Re propaganda. "Recollections may vary" - to use Her Britannic Majesty's recent words - would make a good thread. One is reminded of Bacon's essay, "Of Truth" of which some professor has commented:

Bacon addresses the question of whether it is worse to lie to others or to oneself - to possess truth (and lie, when necessary, to others) or to think one possesses the truth but be mistaken and hence unintentionally convey falsehoods to both oneself and to others.

Orwell's Ministry of Truth comes to mind too. That particular Department of State goes back a long, long way - and not just the British one.

Temperance wrote:

Keith Michell as her dad, in the BBC Henry VIII series (made around the same time) was the best ever 'enery, too.

Until he ended up on Top Of The Pops waxing lyrical about Captain Beaky and Hissing Sid. It ruined the whole Tudor narrative - and made one wonder if three of the wives hadn't actually simply topped themselves

And while Glenda was Queen Elizabeth personified in 'Elizabeth R', as well as in 'Mary Queen of Scots' ... let's not forget her unforgettable performance as Queen Cleopatra ... in the play what he wrote?

Meles meles wrote:

I wish nordmann's video had been blocked. There are some things it is better not to have seen.

I remember all the "Hissing Sid is Innocent" car stickers from around 1980. A friend of my husband had a sticker which read: "Hang Hissing Sid". You couldn't get away with that these days - the lynch mob would get you.

Some things are best forgotten...

Hello JR - do we know you from a previous incarnation?