St Patrick: the grim truth

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 09.04.28

Some saints you can’t avoid, no matter where you are, and St Patrick is one of them. He’s said to have died on 17 March 460 AD, and pretty well ever since we’ve been celebrating, at least in Ireland. The St Patrick’s Day parade, though, that’s a relatively modern invention – it began in America, on 17 March 1762. Some Irish soldiers serving in the English military were given permission to march through New York City, the idea being that thiw would help them reconnect to their Irish roots and link up with fellow Irishmen serving in the English army.

It caught on, but it took a while for the St Patricks Day marchers to draw public attention. During much of the nineteenth century, the Irish in the US were an oppressed minority, and when they held their Paddy’s Day parades in towns and cities throughout the country, local papers liked to portray them in cartoons as drunken, violent monkeys. Contrast that with now, when American politicians vie with each other to get a place in the parade.

St Patrick himself came here from England. Some people insist he was really from Wales, just as some people get chest pains if you suggest St Patrick didn’t actually spend his six years of slavery on Slemish in Co Antrim, but did his sheep-hearding at Killala in Co Mayo.

The hymn refers to him as the ‘dear saint of our isle’ but to be honest, I’ve never found him an appealing saint. He seems to have been cranky and he had a terrible teaching style. Frustrated by the inability of the Irish to grasp the mystery of the Trinity, he plucked a shamrock and held it up. ‘One shamrock, three leaves’ he told them. One God, three Persons. Now do you understand?’ Well, the truth is, no. The parallels between a shamrock and a Godhead have always eluded me, and I’ll bet the comparison baffled more Irishmen back then than it enlightened.

The other thing about Patrick that makes me uneasy is his reluctance to actually live here. The first time he had to be brought to Ireland in chains.  The second time, when he came back to preach, you get the impression that he did so only because the voices in his head – his conscience – insisted that he must.

The truth is, we have as our national sant an Englishman whose teaching method invited heresy, and who if left to himself would never have set foot in our country. What’s amazing is, we forgave Patrick all that,  embraced Christianity despite the shamrock, and we go on celebrating Patrick’s name centuries later.

Sure there’s noboyd in the world like us, is there?

27 Responses to St Patrick: the grim truth

  1. Iolar March 16, 2016 at 10:45 am #

    How should we approach Lá Fhéile Padraig 2016? Laura Kennedy writing in ‘The Irish Times’ states:

    “There is a lot that is horribly askew in our country. This year in particular, we celebrate our independence by idolising a group of people who took up arms without a democratic mandate (or even majority support). If that happened tomorrow, we would call the rebels terrorists.”

    The writer is correct about “a lot that is horribly askew…”, however, it is not clear what she means by, “in our country.” We tend not to hear much comment about financial terrorism in the media.

    There is something askew when some highly paid media personnel challenge the right of working people to withdraw their labour in order to protect and enhance pay and working conditions. There is something askew about calls for the formation of a stable government. Previous governments with strong electoral mandates created the conditions in which economic migration, poverty, homelessness, evictions, censorship and suicide remain key indicators of life in Ireland in 2016.

    One of the myths associated with St Patrick is that he drove snakes out of Ireland. The facts are that organised crime remains a major problem in Ireland. The scourge of drug dependence and the sight of armed units of An Garda Síochána on the streets of Dublin is a reflection of the true reality of Irish life.

    It is past time for some pundits to examine the manner in which successive Irish and British governments, abused democratic mandates. The Irish people want a change of government, a government that reflects the values of Forógra na Poblachta not the paddywhackery of the political green beer brigade.

  2. Am Ghobsmacht March 16, 2016 at 12:01 pm #

    Point of pedantry Dr C if you don’t mind.

    (Your point is unaffected by this though, I see what your getting at so don’t be thinking this is another ‘wood-trees-cataracts’ scenario).

    The Angles and Saxons (and the rest) only started to arrive in Britain around the time of his death.

    People these days just interchange the words ‘British’ and ‘English’.

    As such, he was ‘British’ but he was probably a ‘Briton’ and the modern day Britons are now known as ‘Welsh’ (‘Wal’ being a Germanic word denoting (roughly) ‘non-german speaking’ or ‘Celt speaker’) hence place names like WALes, CornWALL, WALLonia, WALLachia and surnames like Wallace and Walsh.

    Like I say, it doesn’t affect your point, but you are now armed with some useless trivia should you be in the pub tomorrow (I will, and that nugget will be up my sleeve)…

    • paddykool March 16, 2016 at 2:29 pm #

      Great stuff Am Ghob…time to remind us Irish that we’re all really just wee “blow-ins “too..a right mixed bunch…a bit like Americans I suppose, eh?.

    • Ryan March 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm #

      “As such, he was British”

      Did the term British even exist then? I thought the Union between Scotland and England happened in the early 1700’s, that’s 1,200 years after St Patrick’s death…..

      St George, the Patron Saint of England, was said to have been born in what is today modern day Turkey but he couldn’t have been Turkish because obviously Turkey didn’t exist then, I’d have a more legitimate right to claim to be Turkish than St George even though I’ve never stepped foot in Turkey in my life and haven’t a drop of “Turkish blood”. Indeed, Georgia, the Eurasian country situated between the Black and Caspian Seas is said to have been named in honour of St George. Georgia is pretty far away from England…..I’m guessing more than a thousand miles separate the two….

      • Am Ghobsmacht March 16, 2016 at 8:23 pm #

        Well, if you accept that the land he was born in was called Britain/Britannia then yes, of course he was British.

        But the British of then is different to the British of now.

        The Union of Scotland and England made the UK, not Britain.

        “St George, the Patron Saint of England, was said to have been born in what is today modern day Turkey but he couldn’t have been Turkish because obviously Turkey didn’t exist then,” – exactly, hence my point about Patrick not being English.
        But being British was an accepted term back then (as much as any geographic-ethnic term was).

        • Ryan March 17, 2016 at 1:52 am #

          “But being British was an accepted term back then”

          Am Ghobsmacht, did the word “British” exist then? Or even the nationality? I’m no historian but I’ve read up on the history of early Britain/England and I’ve never came across a people calling themselves “British”, even as far back as 1,500 years ago. What is now called Britain was then part of, and hence under the control of, the Roman Empire, which certainly wasn’t “British”. I don’t know about Wales or Scotland but England was a series of warring Kingdoms, it was far from a single entity we now call England, so it wasn’t English or British.

          Maybe you know more on this topic than me and can post a link to a source which backs up what your saying.

          St Patrick was ethnically Roman, his father was a Roman and his grandfather was a Roman. Again, I’m no expert but didn’t citizens of the Roman Empire simply call themselves Roman? especially if they are ethnically Roman?

          From what I have read of St Patrick’s writings no where did he ever state that he was “British”, if such a term was even used back then which I’m 99% sure it wasn’t but you say it was.

          In my mind at present and obviously I’m open to be corrected but to say St Patrick was “British” is as ridiculous as saying he was a Protestant. I know the island was called Britannia under the Romans (and Ireland Hibernia though they never reached here) but that doesn’t mean St Patrick and even the native people considered themselves “British”, and definitely not in the way we mean by “British” today.

          • MT March 17, 2016 at 11:09 am #

            Ryan seems unable to conceptualise or understand an age before nation states, citizenship, etc. Or he’s trying to impose a modern understanding of the world on the 7th century.

          • Ryan March 17, 2016 at 6:36 pm #

            MT, St Patrick was born and died in the 5th Century, not the 7th.

            If you have any proof, any at all, that St Patrick or “St Patricius” as he called himself, called himself “British” or in fact any native Welsh/English/Scottish of that era called themselves “British” then please do share that proof.

          • MT March 17, 2016 at 11:38 pm #

            “If you have any proof, any at all, that St Patrick or “St Patricius” as he called himself, called himself “British” or in fact any native Welsh/English/Scottish of that era called themselves “British” then please do share that proof.”

            He was a Briton. Look it up.

          • Am Ghobsmacht March 19, 2016 at 5:07 pm #


            No doubt he was a Roman citizen but in that regard so was Asterix.

            Gozeny and Uderzo addressed this topic in one of their books in that they acknowledged that he was a Roman as well as a Gaul.

            As for St Patrick calling himself a Roman or a Briton who knows but the accepted history is that he was a Romanised ‘Briton’ a Briton being a person from Britannia what we would call today ‘British’.
            Obviously the word ‘British’ didn’t exist then (being a Germanic adjective) but it would be pedantry of the first degree to call me out on that instead of extrapolating my point to mean ‘the equivalent word to mean British’.

            There was no England back then and ‘Scotland’ at that time (Scotia) was another name for Ireland.

            These people back then might not have called themselves ‘British’ per se but it’s an accepted term to refer to some one from Britannia at that time as a ‘Briton’ regardless if they were Brigantine or Iceni or whatever.

            And I already stated that ‘British’ back then is very different to British now.

            If you want to go down that path then you can’t say Niall of the nine hostages was ‘Irish’ because he never called himself Irish as he would have called himself a Gael which would have been interpreted as ‘Scot’ in Latin terms.

  3. Iolar March 16, 2016 at 12:20 pm #

    How to win friends and influence people.

    Mr Kenny’s thoughts about the prospect of facing the whingers.

    “B. …..s I wish I didn’t have to go back and face what I have to face but c’est le (sic) vie.”

  4. Perkin Warbeck March 16, 2016 at 1:34 pm #

    One athletic aspect of the St. Patrick saga, Esteemed Blogmeister, which never failed to puzzle one was the fact that the shamrock dodge was not called ‘The St. Patrick Hatrick’.

    Another cause of perplexity, during one’s hedge schooldays, was the lack of emphasis placed on the crucial role played by the Irish chapter of Pirates International. Almost to the point of being airbrushed out of the entire backstory.

    Piracy, we innocents were craftily taught, was a marine market completely cornered by the voracious Vikings in their longships under their C.E.O.,Sitric Slikenbeard whose motto was: Greed ist gut.


    After all / I ndiaidh an tsaoil, If it wasn’t for over very own Irish pirates / foghlaithe mara the world wouldn’t have woken up this morning to hear a perfect storm of a reason why we Irish have the deserved name of shpakin’ the besht English on Plinit Earth, shurely.

    Say it agin, Inda:

    – Bejaysus !


    -Be (sniff) jaysus !

    For a nation of islanders it is nothing short of unfathomable how little regard we have for the real Irish water – the salty stuff which thanklessly washes our shores on a daily basis. Apart from, say, the Titanic, the Marita Anne and the Claudia, no other Irish vessels have come within a bull’s ocean of making the kinda splash on maritime history as did, for example, the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria.

    Much less kicking a global awareness up the transom as to our less than handsome way with the wet, dolphin-tormented shtuff. Even Dingle’s biggest tourist attraction is an import – Fungi. Which aquatic mammal, incidentally, is in line for a Senatorial nomination by the Healey-Rae Nua party.

    No, one is not taking the piscatorial.

    -Yerra, fot’s so odd about dat? Fen oo think of shome of de quare fish who have inded up dar in racent thimes. Shur, Fungi could shtay in Dolphin’s Barn fen he is up in Dublin.

    No wonder we got rid of Irish Shiipping a.s.a.p. and why our life-saving naval service is still officially known as the RNLI: some names are sticky enough to remain, barnacle like, in situ, long after they have outlived their, erm, Cruisefulness.

    How else could we still have the opportunity to doff our caubeens in the manner deferential whenever the R.A.F. come to our rescue -yet again ! – in times of nautical distress.

    It is a truth universally acknowledged that is only the lower case riff raff amongst us who wince at the winches of the capital R.A.F.

    Not that all is entirely doom, gloom and the lowering the boom. The theory of Irish piracy is still in practice – on the airwaves, long after it was widely believed if not generally accepted that the era of Pirate Radio in the Free Southern Stateen had long since being sent to the cockles and mussels locker room of David Jones, Esq.

    Happily, this is no longer so !

    As the publication this very morning of the TOP TEN (gulp) EARNERS in the good ship RTE which is clearly seen to sail proudly under the skull and crossbones of the ‘Jolly Roger’.

    Turns out, that the publicly funded, RTE Donnybook Dublin 4,aka, The Sloop Joan B. have been jolly well (gasp) rogering the Podges and Modges of the licence-paying public erm, listener-ship . Not least in this, the post Pat ‘The Plank’ Kenny era , ever since Patch-eye Pat walked the plank, as it were, to enlist the pretenaturally neutral Newstalk Fm. Which gives one an indo of the moola Dinny O’B can pay his crew.

    And the source of the swag of this trend-bucking buccaneer of the broadcasting world, this Gentleman of Fortune?

    -Say no more, Seymour.

    To pluck just one name – at random – from the Top Ten , erm, Earners from the skint , skinflint RTE.

    Let one see. Hmmmmm. Or, even: Hrrrrrrrrr.

    Picking up one’s pioneering pin, closing one’s nosey eyes, running one’s pin up and down, and down and up the list of Sir Francis/ Frances Drakes, Sir Henry Wrong Organs (Cockney rhyming slang for Morgan), Black, oops, Lack Beards, taking a stab, opening one’s eyes, one finds:

    -Number Three !

    And a shamefully distant third at that, who wheelbarrows home a modest enough (considering her bottomless broadcasting talent, considering her long, exhausting four-hour week, considering how often she must take a vacation In her modest hidey hole villa in Tuscany from her, gasp , exhausting schedule ) a mere 295 smackerooneys per annum .

    Small surprise that Old Cross bones, as she is affectionately known by her devoted listenernship, can be very, very cross betimes.

    Anam an diabhail, per mere annum !

    Yes you read it correctly, dear blogtrotting reader:

    -A meagre Two Hundred and Ninety Five Euros.

    – A mIserable 100 thousand smackerooneys more that El Primero Ministerio, Enda the Ennui (see above).

    -A measly 50 thousand smackerooneys more than El Presidente, Bernardo Higgins. (see below).

    -One doesn’t Bolivia?

    And quite correcto, too. That latter ought to read, of course, Micheal D.

    Utterly shameful, compelled to wheelbarrow such a celery-diet salary home every year.

    Consider, after all, one of the countless talents of the preternaturally disinterested Dame Dosh Finucane (for it is she!). No, not her mastery (fie on mistressy!) of the Queen’s E. (one of her legendary phrases has already entered the vernacular – ‘and so on and so forth’: how many of the two broadcasters, male, above her in the list can boast that on their CVS?) but rather her legendary grasp of logic. Not for nothing is she also known as Lady Logic.

    One example will suffice. Taken from as recently as (gasp) last weekend.

    -Oh, yes , traffic restrictions on Easter Sunday to do with the centenary of 1916 have been lifted so that worshipers can attend services in both the R.C. Cathedral and, of course, the Church of Ireland Cathedral(s).

    Hmmmmm. Or, rather, Hrrrrrrrrrrr.

    The ecumenical use of the Paisleyite term of respect ‘RC’ is easily explained by the yellow flags of the Papacy which decorate the RC Pro-cathedral.

    As for the red, white and blue Union Jills which festoon the Church of West Britain Cathedral of St. Patrick –

    Tune in to the Dame Dosh Finucane show for a logical, rash-free rationale next weekend !

    This is a spoiler-alert service. Terms and conditions apply.

    PS Piracy is in NO way to be confused with PIRAcy.

    • paddykool March 17, 2016 at 8:24 am #

      “El Primero Ministerio, Enda the Ennui “….case rested Mighty Perk. ho ho ho …and the hits keep coming……but let’s get it straight piscatorial peasants….Fungi ain’t no fishy !!

      • Perkin Warbeck March 17, 2016 at 10:33 am #

        Paddykool, ace corner kicker, hits a sweet inswinger which Homer Warbeck of Ragball Rovers, rises salmon-like, and nods, effortlessly the O’Neill ball, into the net.

        Not a monofilament fishing net, mind, but a football net.

        Not for nothing is Pk known as the Issac Walton of ace corner kickers: observe his Compleat mastery of those Angled kicks.

        Touche !

        PS; It is to be hoped that Mary ‘Mammy’ O’Rourke, Know-all Fianna Failure Supreme and latterday Born-again Media Queen will be on hand, from the infallible vantage point of her bubble bath, to commentate on the grand entrance of Senator Fungi into Seanad Eireann;

        -Shur, didn’t I tell youse there’d be Mammals like this !

        • paddykool March 17, 2016 at 2:33 pm #

          Or as they say in more pedagogically etymological climes Might Perk, …get ready to blow it out yer mammalian blowhole …and just where is that…. on a dolphin?

  5. michael c March 16, 2016 at 1:44 pm #

    Never reallly celebrated St Patrick.It was a “Hibs” day out as far as my family were concerned.

  6. Ryan March 16, 2016 at 4:03 pm #

    I have always thought, as I’m sure most people do, that St Patricks Day was a day of celebration of Irish culture and Ireland in general and named after our Saint because, well, he’s our most well known Patron Saint. What better day to celebrate Ireland and our Patron Saint than on the anniversary of his passing. Lets not forget Ireland has other Patron Saints too, St Brigit and St Columba. Of course St Patrick’s life and Christian message is worth celebrating along with Irish culture.

    St Patrick was born in what we now call Roman Britain. He was definitely a Roman in terms of ethnicity. In his own writings he gives himself the name “Patricius”. His fathers name was Calpurnius. His grandfather was called Potitus and was a Priest. Little else is known about St Patrick and his family.

    Jude said St Patrick was an “Englishman” and I know the context in which he said that but did England even exist then? We know “British” certainly didn’t exist. I thought at the time of St Patrick that what is today England was just a series of mini warring Kingdoms that were conquered and enslaved by the Romans. Roman rule stretched all over Britain except to Scotland. The Danes even had Kingdoms in what is today England then too. Did the word “England” even exist then? I don’t think so. Would St Patrick have called himself English or Welsh? No. St Patrick would’ve most definitely up to his point of enslavement have classed himself as a Roman because he was, after all, a Roman….

    The assertion from many Unionists like Ruth Patterson that St Patrick was “British” and a “Protestant” is, of course, ridiculous. I’m no expert in Protestantism but the main founding father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, was born around 1000 years after St Patrick died. Protestantism didn’t even exist at the time of St Patrick. Martin Luther himself was a very interesting character. Luther’s distaste and contempt wasn’t just for Roman Catholicism, it was also directed towards the Jews too. Luther was an anti-Semite and wrote the book (still available to buy on “On the Jews and their Lies”. In this book Luther encourages his followers to burn Jews out of their homes. He accuses the Jews of being extortionist moneylenders and greedy business people. 400 years after Luther’s death, unsurprisingly, Adolf Hitler, though raised a Roman Catholic by his beloved mother, was a great admirer of Martin Luther due to his teachings on the Jews. He even had Luther as one of his top 3 German Heroes, Frederick the Great getting the top spot.

    I think in Ruth Patterson’s mind, and in the mind of many Unionists, sectarianism plays its part in forming the idea that St Patrick was a Protestant. They believe, foolishly, that anyone in the broad religion of Christianity that is not a Catholic must be a Protestant. That’s so uneducated, stupid and, as usual, stems from bigotry towards Catholics. Not to mention that most historians would agree that St Patrick most likely was a follower of the Pope himself. Ruth Patterson’s car crash interview with William Crawley was very funny and will be a remembered for a long time. (I may be mistaken but wasn’t our very own esteem blog master Jude part of that interview? I cant remember exactly).

    Regardless of the facts surrounding St Patrick’s life, we should celebrate his legacy and his teachings. St Patrick’s Day is a day to celebrate St Patrick and celebrate Ireland and its rich culture that is loved and admired worldwide. I hope all on the blog have a great day tomorrow and don’t go too hard on the beer 😉

    • Am Ghobsmacht March 16, 2016 at 8:30 pm #

      “We know “British” certainly didn’t exist.”

      So what did the Romans call people from Britain/Britannia? I would have thought ‘Briton’, which is pretty much British, just not in the Winston Churchill fashion or the Ian Paisley ‘Brattish!’ fashion.

      It’s like saying that people from Germania at that time weren’t German because ‘Germany’ didn’t exist till the 19th century.

      To say that he wasn’t British is a bit weird, he obviously was. Just not as we know it today.

      • Ryan March 17, 2016 at 2:28 am #

        Am Ghobsmacht, your under this impression St Patrick was a native of Britain, he simply wasn’t. Its historical fact, he wasn’t an ethnic or native Briton, he was a Roman, his father was a Roman, his fathers name was Calpurnius and his grandfather was a Roman priest. Show me evidence and proof of the term “British” being used as a nationality by the people of the Island of Britain in the time of St Patrick, and no Britannia isn’t proof because that’s not the term “British”, it was simply a name given by the Romans to the island, not to themselves and It most likely wasn’t adopted by the native people of Britain of that era. Show me proof of this term “British” being used even 500 or 1000 years after St Patricks death. Citizens of the Roman Empire described themselves as Roman, again I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure that applied to all Romans, regardless of where they were born or lived in the Empire.

        Comparing Germany with Britain is a bad example because Germany is a single entity today with a single ethnic people with a single language and it was pretty much like that in History except for a single German state not existing, all Germans mostly shared the same language, ethnicity and culture for example.

        Britain on the other hand was one island shared out by numerous different peoples, with numerous different cultures, speaking numerous different languages, such as Welsh, English, Pictish, etc Even long after St Patricks death the Normans came with the French language and influence. Britain as a political entity has always been different people forced into a political Union, Wales being annexed by England, the English- Scottish Wars and obviously the Wars between England/Britain and Ireland, the effects of which we are feeling up to this very day thanks to the English tactic of Plantation. There wasn’t a “British” people with a “British” culture, with a “British” language, for example.

        The term “British” is pretty much the same as the term “European” or “Asian” or “Soviet”. Welsh and English are true nationalities. Britain is basically a political entity created by a group of people trying to forge a common identity and citizenship, just like what the European Union is trying to do today. In the long run they hope to replace individual nationalities like German, Spanish, Irish, etc with one common identity and citizenship, aka European. That’s exactly what the founders of the United Kingdom hoped to achieve.

        Again, you show me sources to prove how “obviously” British St Patricius, as he called himself, was because I’m always opened minded to corrections.

        As I said in another post claiming he was British, especially in the sense we mean it today, is as ridiculous as claiming he was a Protestant… may as well claim that St Patrick was donned the Orange sash and marched on the traditional route at Drumcree. I’m honestly waiting for that be to claimed one day……nothing surprises me in Norneverland….

        • Am Ghobsmacht March 19, 2016 at 5:37 pm #

          “Am Ghobsmacht, your under this impression St Patrick was a native of Britain, he simply wasn’t. Its historical fact, he wasn’t an ethnic or native Briton, he was a Roman, his father was a Roman, his fathers name was Calpurnius and his grandfather was a Roman priest”

          If being born in Britainnia doesn’t make you a Britain then you presumably don’t agree with the nationalist argument that to be born in Ireland makes one Irish?

          His grandfather was a ‘Roman’ priest in that he was a priest in Christian church that operated out of Rome, as far as people can tell he too was ‘British/Briton’.

          “Show me evidence and proof of the term “British” being used as a nationality by the people of the Island of Britain in the time of St Patrick, and no Britannia isn’t proof because that’s not the term “British”, it was simply a name given by the Romans to the island, not to themselves and It most likely wasn’t adopted by the native people of Britain of that era.”

          I don’t need to show you proof as it is currently the accepted term for St Patrick e.g. ‘Romanised Briton’. Not a Romanised Syrian, or Romanised-Illyrian or Romanised Gaul but a Romanised Briton.

          Your applying a modern nation state perspective to the wrong era.
          The Britons at that time would have used their local tribe name or perhaps some sort of derivative of ‘Combroi’ (but as the lingo back then was a dead form of high welsh who knows).

          If we follow your logic then Picts didn’t exist as no-one back then called themselves ‘Pictish’, but, the term Pict is still an historically accepted term despite the very rough definitions of it.

          In fact, you used the word ‘Pictish’ yourself.
          But your argument does not allow for their existence when you apply the same criteria to them as you do to the term ‘British’.

          “Britain on the other hand was one island shared out by numerous different peoples, with numerous different cultures, speaking numerous different languages, such as Welsh, English, Pictish, etc ”

          Incorrect, it was populated by tribes that spoke variations of P Celtic (e.g. Welsh, Cumbrian, Cornish, Breton type like languages including ‘Pictish’).
          There were no English at this point (though the Gaels might have been making in-roads into the west of Britannia at this point).

          “There wasn’t a “British” people with a “British” culture, with a “British” language, for example. ”

          Not that they called themselves, no. But to outsiders, e.g. Rome they were all ‘Britons’ what we would now call British (British being a Germanic adjective) with perhaps exceptions being made for the Britons north of the wall(s).

          “Britain is basically a political entity created by a group of people trying to forge a common identity and citizenship”

          NOW, yes. Back then, NO. It was Britannia, a land full of small tribes/kingdoms all known to the rest of the world as something different as to what they would call themselves.

          “Again, you show me sources to prove how “obviously” British St Patricius, as he called himself, was because I’m always opened minded to corrections. ”

          That’s not how it works Ryan.
          Picts (whom you have acknowledged the existence of) wouldn’t have called themselves Picts and people from all through the empire would have called themselves according to their tribe and/or Province but we know that these people existed..

          You need to see this in a more academic sense than a nationalistic one.

          You’ve done the classic political-nationalistic blogger thing of coming up with your own conclusion first and then working backwards to support it whilst putting up academically dubious criteria for others to meet as a safeguard of sorts for your own conclusion.

          In short, was he ‘Roman’? Yes. Was he a ‘Briton’? Yes.

          The two, like Irish & British today are not mutually exclusive.

    • paddykool March 17, 2016 at 8:43 am #

      Well Ryan …If the old brain is a bit rusty about re the Ruthie interview and Jude’s part in that entertainment , i have a handy reference here for you because Ikeep all my past tales of woe and jollity together on my own site for future historical record , just in case the Powers That Be (PTB) should attempt to close Jude’s back passage down(!). you can read it all again and again ..over here …

      • Jude Collins March 17, 2016 at 10:40 am #

        No one but no one interferes with my back passage…

        • paddykool March 17, 2016 at 2:35 pm #

          I’m simply a cautious lad , Jude …belt and braces and all that …steel mesh underwear?….

      • Ryan March 17, 2016 at 6:57 pm #

        Very interesting website Paddykool, thanks for the link, I added it to my favourites bar for quick reference just in case, emmm, Jude’s back passage is shut down or blocked……

        • paddykool March 18, 2016 at 8:59 am #

          We’ll wait and see what the medics say , Ryan, when our dear Blogmeister Supremo returns from his marathon charity run…His Windward Passage may need copious applications of efficacious vaseline to return his raw hindquarters to serviceable use.Those chainmail underpants tend to chafe a bit…… Hope all you fans out there have already contributed to his coming misery fund…

          • Jude Collins March 18, 2016 at 9:29 am #

            Damn right, PK (Clanks his way off-stage…)

  7. MT March 16, 2016 at 7:06 pm #

    There was no English military in the 1760s. It had been incorporated into a British military some six decades previously.