The Battle of Multyfarnham

[scolairebocht]

These are some images of Multyfarnham Abbey in Co. Westmeath. Notice the reference to the burning of the Abbey in 1601 and at the end you can see that referenced in the stained glass window. In general terms Multyfarnham was burned down and ransacked repeatedly throughout the Reformation and Penal Laws, because it was a Catholic institution in a Protestant state, but the Irish friars and the local community always built it back up again. As such it is arguably unique in Ireland, with the possible exception of Ballintubber Abbey in Co. Mayo, as a continuously occupied Catholic Church since the 13th century, albeit sometimes the friars were nearby only, in Knightswood sometimes for example.


Westmeath in the Nine Years War

Hopefully readers are reasonably acquainted with the Nine Years War, which was the last desperate effort of particularly the Ulster Irish to stem off the Tudor conquest of Ireland. Under the leadership of Hugh O'Neill in Tyrone, and the great hero Red Hugh O'Donnell in Donegal/Tyrconnel, they were in fact quite successful against the English until a Spanish army landed in Kinsale in the extreme South of Ireland in 1601. Leaving their impregnable Ulster fastness to assist that army against the English there, and in which they were unsuccessful, was really the step that destroyed the momentum of that rebellion.

In general terms, the deployment of the English army in Ireland in Co. Westmeath during the height of the 9 years war, roughly 1597-1602, consisted of Sir Francis Shane being deployed with about 100 infantry in the West of the County, with his fortress at Ballymore near Athlone and keeping an eye on Roscommon and East Galway, and the Baron of Delvin with 150 infantry and whatever cavalry he could levy among his wider family, at his fortress at Delvin and keeping an eye on Longford and South Cavan. (Sometimes you find other captains as well of course, like Theophilius Dillon who described himself as a friend of the Baron of Delvin, and in practice followed his direction, until the Baron was imprisoned in Dublin Castle at any rate.)

To say these two captains did not get along would be the understatement of the century. Shane, a Gaelic Irishman, was a very committed Protestant, an early supporter of Trinity College for example, and it seems because of this hated the Baron of Delvin, who was a very sincere and committed Catholic. For example he is writing here to Cecil on the 8th of April 1600:

"...Lord of Delvin thinketh Westmeath too little for himself, to the no small grief of many good subjects hitherto depending upon Her Majesty but now curbed and yoked by him:"
(1600, 8 Apr, Sir Francis Shane to Sir Robert Cecil, SP 63 207 2 f 238.)

To say 'curbed and yoked' is a bit ridiculous, what he actually means is that he had great influence on the local gentry all across Westmeath and going into the Pale as well. It seems, for example, that he converted the traveller and local squire Henry Piers to Catholicism, Piers saying in reference to him:

"...at that time lived a lord Baron of great honour and complete virtue who for zeal in religion, learning in divinity philosophic, music, and other sciences, true valour, civil conversation, plain dealing, hospitality, and constancy towards his friends, was a pattern for all noble minds, to imitate, and as his life was exemplary good, so was his death an edification to all such good Christians as have had notice of the manner thereof."
(Brian Mac Cuarta, Camden 5th Series vol 54, Henry Piers's Continental Travels 1595-1598 (Cambridge, 2018), p.73.)

Multyfarnham as an embarrassment for the English

But specifically Shane hated Delvin's support for Multyfarnham Abbey, where the Franciscans were openly practicing their religion just on the outskirts of the Pale, as he states in the same letter:

Duty to God inciteth me to disclose unto Her Highness[?] another thing which in my knowledge hath always not only hatched these Rebellions, from time to time, but also withdrawn the hearts of the subjects from obedience. I mean the friars of Moltifernan in Westmeath, the nursery of all mischievous practises, the subversion wherof hath been often moved to the sate here, but the fear of offending the Lord of Delvin hath been always the let, having a mean[?] interest in some then ought: which doth draw upon us the wrath of God whereby their endeavours take so small effect in that they prefer the fear of man before the service of God:"
(1600, 8 Apr, Sir Francis Shane to Sir Robert Cecil, SP 63 207 2 f 238.)

Not long afterwards Shane met personally the Queen in England and it seems it was under this influence that the Queen wrote back in June 1600 in strong terms to the Irish government demanding that they compel Thomas Jones, the Anglican Bishop of Meath, to crush Multyfarnham:

"Likewise, in the diocese of Meath, which is the heart of the English Pale, there is suffered to stand untouched a house of friars, called Multifarnham, the only place of assembly and conventicle of all the traitorous Jesuits of the realm, and where was the first conspiracy and plotting of this great rebellion.
This of all the rest is most lamentable and worthy of reprehension in the Bishop, for that the friars, and all other popish adversaries to Her Majesty's government, have their recourse and passage to and fro thither, in as open and public manner as if their idolatrous profession were justified by the authority of the clergy."
(Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland, 1600 (London, 1903), p.274.)

The Attack on Multyfarnham

So it seems for about two reasons, Shane moved to destroy Multyfarnham Abbey on the 1st of October 1601. Firstly because these people really did hate the Catholic faith, it was genuinely a really big aim of the colonial power in Ireland over these centuries, to destroy the Catholic faith in Ireland. But secondly I believe it was done to deliberately goad the Baron of Delvin. If they can provoke him into open rebellion because of this matter, then they can destroy him as well as the Abbey, which would remove such a well known Catholic champion in Ireland and of course could lead to the confiscation of his estates, some of which might not accidentally end up in the hands of Shane!

This then is the first reference we have to the attack on the Abbey: on the 20th of October 1601 the Anglican Bishop of Meath, Thomas Jones, reports back to London that he had instructed Shane to do just that and that it had now been carried out, as the Calendar of State Papers record:

"By my procurement, the Lord Deputy's warrant was sent to Sir Francis Shane to apprehend the freers [friars] of Multifernam [Multyfarnam] and burn their friary...
P.S. - I write this to fulfil my duty. Pray keep it secret."
(Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland, 1601-1603 (London, 1912), p.136-7, the calendar entry of SP 63 209 2 f 87.)

The interesting thing is that a later reference in the State papers confirms that when Shane, or his soldiers, were bringing his captured friars to Dublin, they were attacked by a troop of 'Delvin's people' who attempted to rescue the friars. So the trap was sprung to destroy Delvin and in way he walked into it. This is from a petition of Theophilius Dillon who complained that Francis Shane had written in a letter to England that he, Dillon, was a member of Delvin's troops when that attack occurred, Dillon here quotes Shane's letter:

“I must impart to you as to my dear friend that I am generally behated here not only of the meaner sort but also of the State, which is for my service at Multyfernam [Multifarnam], where I had some of my men slain, on my return by my Lord of Delvin's people and Sir Theobald Dillon, both my great enemies, who with their false sheowes they both slew and wounded my men.”"
(Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland, 1601-1603 (London, 1912), p.493.)

Also in a list of treason charges drawn up against the Baron of Delvin, we find:

"Delvin's ensign and 30 men set upon the Queen's forces who were bringing to Dublin the treacherous friars taken at Multifarnam. They slew and hurt some of the Queen's forces, and tried to rescue the friars, and presently thereupon went into rebellion."
(Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland, 1601-1603 (London, 1912), p.465.)

Fr John Lynch in his book in the 1660s describes this:

"Walter Nugent, whom Christopher [Baron of Delvin] appointed to the Lieutenancy of his permanent band [of soldiers], snatched the Franciscans of the Monastery of Multyfarnham out of the clutches of the soldiers who hauled rather than led them to Dublin that they might be plagued with those torments which were usually inflicted on ecclesiastics at the time when persecution raged; on which occasion several of his band were severely wounded amongst whom Walter Nugent lord of Dromcree who was so lamed by a wound in the thigh that he could only walk with his legs bowed out and could not take a single step without a contortion of his whole body. He ultimately restored the convent to the monks. Christopher as he spent the greater portion of his life in prison so he ended his days in captivity."
(John Lynch, Supplementum Alithinologiae (St. Malo, 1667), p.185, translated at, Brian Nugent, Shakespeare was Irish! (Co. Meath, 2006-2020), p.241-2.)

What follows below is a fascinating, lively and detailed account by Fr Donagh Mooney OFM of this attack and the resulting battle, and some further notices of the Baron of Delvin including the letter he received from the Pope urging him to join with O'Neill at that time.

by Brian Nugent

 

[scolairebocht]

A few years later, an eye witness to these events, Fr Donagh Mooney OFM, who later became the head of the Irish Franciscans, recorded what happened:

"In the year 1601, 1st day of October, Lord Francis Shane, a heretic soldier, invaded the convent. He apprehended in the country [list of names]...and me Brother Donagh Mooney, then within two days of making profession. Meanwhile all the rest evaded capture, of course it was night, and then after the recollection of vespers, even if delayed, on the signal given we reverted back from the church to the cells.

That perverse man sent the bishop, with the rest of his company of soldiers, to his castle called Ballymore and detained us in the monastery as captives for two days. He himself with his soldiers remained in the monastery, with the intention of spoil, which was not very great, except for enough provision and victual to satisfy the honest. In any case the majority of this was for the imminent festival of St Francis, which, as was then usual, was to be celebrated with a great concourse of the nobility, for which they sent in some of their provisions into the monastery because there was not suitably diverse commodities there in which they would be able to feast on that day.1 While we remained thus incarcerated in the monastery, I effected it that the Guardian and all the other friars, I alone and one weak layman excepted, fled the unaware guards. And with his [the lay brother] counsel I myself stayed in captivity, partly because I was being observed diligently by the guards (without doubt I had been nominated as more than usually strenuous, because I was young and active, aged then twenty four years, and formerly in action in war and in some battles) and partly out of scruples, because I thought it might not be valid, my profession, which was two days off, if it was not made by the hands of the Minister, who was captive in another location and I did not doubt but that I would be led shortly into his presence. Thus therefore it was chiefly an imprudent scruple that deterred me, I did not wish to work to evade although the Guardian preferred me to escape like themselves.

Finally, after two days, that inhuman tyrant, Francis Shane, then led out the aforementioned lay brother and I, with a detachment of horse, to the aforementioned castle and the whole monastery was consumed by fire that had been thrown into it. With great sadness all who heard and saw the sacred house thus consumed might have seen, in a way, his [Shane’s] memorial, fit to be utterly obliterated.

Don’t infer from this that daring is a bad quality in my personality because actually Shane feared my family and others conjoined to me by blood, or friendship, or connection, who were of that neighbourhood. Rather, frequently speaking to me he said what happened to me pained himself. However he did not dare to dismiss me, unless I should wish to dismiss the habit and return to the secular dress. Adding boldly to me that I should consider that (and as yet I would not have to negate the Catholic faith, which that scoffer called Papistry) after all, on account of unavailing prayers, I was not yet professed. He added that he himself was a great friend of my father, and without his assent that counsel I had been following, which was about to be very pleasant for me, is rescinded. Which he might do, as knowing about the raging war, and possessing many goods which without defence (he was naming me as that kind of defence) might be liable to become booty and rapine. Finally he said if I might escape and cease, not in fact from the papist religion, he said, but away from injuring people, away from hypocrisy and vanity, to return to being a soldier, and to be injuring people with the old war inclination in which I was best, as he was saying, and which I had already given a specimen of. Then I would be safe in conscience and under his protection, not forgetting also the increase in the Queen’s stipend and his own generosity to a great man [meaning Fr Mooney]. So thus this perverter was desiring my ruin. But who called me his, from the shadows of my misery into an admirable light and the society of his beloved son, certainly the spirit then added, that not even for the kingdom to obtain peace should I make a different profession.
...
Often I had considered, with the support of the above mentioned Lord Bernard, seizing the castle in which we were being held in jail, by shutting out the guards and then holding it until liberated by the Irish Catholics fighting for the faith who would hurry to help us. But we repressed doing this partly because there was no powder for the artillery, or victuals sufficient for four or five days, and partly because it could not be done without effusion of blood. Again and again we were always contriving different ways, but none succeeded. Each night I and the aforementioned Lord Bernard were tied up with a great iron chain, for they greatly feared us two, but during the day we were not thus tied up with the fetter. Finally with the possibility of torture looming, and nothing succeeding, I having obtained a cord out of the tow which the musketeer soldiers use to light their cannons, with that cord, and with no one encouraging me only God alone, led myself down from the top of the tower. Thus I escaped: not without noting with great wonder all that can be seen from the altitude of the tower, from which, with difficulty, I descended to the middle of the tower when the cord broke. I dropped onto the old wall, extraordinarily shaken but nevertheless free, although injured a little. However there at night only ten miles I travelled, and ignorant of the direction of these miles, until I came to a friendly place. Sentinels were on top of the tower but they didn’t notice me; I however observed them well enough. A cohort of military circled the tower with their cabins and tents and sentries. Now it was about the seventh hour of the evening, and nobody noticed. Indeed once I had passed over the moat of the fort, in which the water was above my belly button, I saw that throughout the whole place around the tower soldiers were running about, with candles, lanterns, and torches searching for me. I escaped therefore by virtue of the plan which I communicated to my before mentioned colleague, Lord Bernard, in the friendship of being tied together. I told him everything at first, all my counsels from the religious beginning, and who dutifully and prudently encouraged and animated me into it. With this encouragement, I repeat, I escaped. This also he, my colleague, communicated to me: that as he was a mature victim he wished to remain in incarceration in order that he might obtain the palm of martyrdom and that I, who as yet ought to deflect sins, might be saved only to enter into greater punishments to be produced; when, if thus it pleases the divine goodness for this to happen, I may be able to share the crown of martyrdom with him.

After this he decided, this Francis Shane, to send to Dublin the priest and brothers, and the Bishop, who was old, he handed over in custody to a certain nobleman (as a Catholic of the vicinity), taking the precaution of not transferring him to Dublin in winter; which was done, and where he remained until he was ransomed by money in the following year 1602.
The Minister, with Brother James Hayes, and the before mentioned Lord Bernard, were sent to Dublin. When in that journey they met Lord Walter Nugent, the ensign of the Lord Baron of Delvin, with thirty Catholic soldiers, who were serving on the Queen’s stipend, as were the terrified soldiers who were leading the brothers. Nugent’s company threw the latter into flight and brought back the brothers and the priest into their possession, who they came expressly to liberate. But by a casual accident two cohorts of the heretic soldiers then appeared nearby. These rushed forward to intimidate the former, and the soldiers and brothers and the priest were immediately pursued. There they undertook to assemble to fight, thirty against two cohorts [battalions]. The battle raged fiercely for the space of three or four miles, the heretics attacking and trying to win back their prisoners, and the Catholics proceeding unperturbed towards a safe location. However, the brothers not having the strength to sustain the labour, because they were old, gave themselves up voluntarily.
Six out of thirty Catholic soldiers were killed; Lord Bernard on account of heretic musketeers broke his femur on both sides and was thus led into captivity, the rest escaped. There Lord Bernard, because of the wound and because he was not having appropriate treatment, indeed not even a couch on which to lie, died on earth in order to live eternally in heaven. The Father Minister and Father James were detained there until I obtained two captives, prisoners of war, from Prince O’Neill and Lord MacMahon and traded them for the freedom of the two brothers.

But, however, before the feast of the Nativity of the Lord, we, those that returned after the flight, made in the place of the monastery a cottage, which was first begun by me, and dwelt in the same on our return. Nor from that day are the brothers absent from there, even if now it is only in a very inconvenient hut in the garden and the buildings of the monastery. There they prefer even with maximum inconvenience than elsewhere more pleasant to live. After this the same Neemiah Gray, the Guardian, decided to build and to repair the convent. In the native land of Delvin mc Lochlain [Coughlan ?] much wood was cut for this business, and when the capstone of the church, and some of the interior and roof of the building, should hold soldiers of one Lord Francis Rush, heretic, approached, and again burnt the monastery, and led some of the brothers captive to Dublin."
(Brian Nugent, An Creideamh, A Chronological Anthology of Traditional Catholic Writing (Oldcastle, 2009), p.224-229.)

 

[scolairebocht]

Baron of Delvin

5/6/1601

"To the beloved son, the noble man Christopher Nugent, Baron of Delvin
Pope Clement VIII
O beloved son, noble man, salutations and apostolic blessing.

Of course to the great delight of our souls, we accept Your Noble valuable and distinguished heredity, from your grandparents and your ancestors you received a descent of splendour, that is, the catholic faith, and with the help of God you have protected and even, in secret, conserved and restored it, and have openly professed it yourself, scorning with contempt all the machinations of satan and undertook to declare so with liberty to your subjects and peers. We praise and commend to the Lord your zeal and the robustness of your christian heart in all that is pertinent to the conservation of the catholic religion in that Kingdom of yours, in this we promise you our merit, which are consistent with your virtues and piety. You see, son, how with such vehemence they oppose the catholic faith, and to fight it without ceasing these deserters from the same faith by a diabolical fraud and deception they invented another faith and another church for themselves, which their fathers would not recognise, nor your fathers who remained most constantly with us in one catholic and apostolic church, out of which there is no salvation. You see, son, by what necessity our beloved son Prince O'Neill and other Chiefs and noble men of the Kingdom, entered into a federation among themselves in order that they might protect their hereditary possessions, and certainly the catholic faith, and to that extent for the glory of God, they devoted themselves to the liberation of their country and their own salvation, none are in danger of being reformed, none are reformed, the endeavour of these pious men thus aided by the right hand of the church into many illustrious victories, as you know, even by the reports of the enemies of the faith. For this optimum cause, for this is of God, should be supported by you strenuously, and you such a catholic, noble and zealous for the society of catholics, to equally join the federation, and be associated with their councils and fighting strength and to fight with piety and strength for the Lord. We are convinced that you already have made, or on the acceptance of this our letter immediately will make, a settlement with them, and it is entirely in order that you may do this, and also we greatly exhort you to it, indeed for God and fatherland, and your ancestors, and for yourselves that you owe by the highest law.

Concerning these, but also other things which we wish you to know at length, will be delivered to you thus: beloved son Ludovicus Mansonius, a priest of the Society of Jesus with distinguished learning and experience in these affairs, and with integrity and zeal for the glory of God, for which only we inquire and we observe and for this reason we send him into Ireland, as our Nuncio of this Holy Apostolic See, over which, by the authority of the Holy Spirit, we, although unworthily and undeservedly, preside. For that most noble Kingdom in all its amplitude and especially in its catholic religion, where formerly it most flourished with praise, and where still many thousands of men of fortitude abandoned themselves for God, who did not bow the knee before Baal, with paternal love they embraced the body of Christ, and for whom it pleases for our pastoral solicitude to send this Nuncio, as necessary for this time, as if we ourselves are present in some manner with you, and to other good men who strive with eagerness towards the cause of God, in as much as we are able to help the same God. So therefore this our Nuncio with the same honour and love you will receive as if the Most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of your Roman Church and all that is owed to the mother of all the faith, similarly in all things you will have faith in him as much you will hold in the same way for we ourselves, in so much that we love you with sincere affection, and we bestow our Apostolic blessing to you out of the soul.

Having been given at St Peter in Rome under the ring of the fisherman on the 5th day of June 1601, in the tenth year of our Pontificate."
(Archivium Hibernicum, vol 17, Papal Briefs to Father Mansoni, Papal Nuncio to Ireland (pp. 51-68) (Maynooth, 1953), p.67-8.)

19/11/1601

"Tyrone did not go into Delvin but sent Peter Nangle, the friar, and Mulmore McHugh Connell to the Baron of Delvin, who brought word from him "that he would do as Tyrone would have him"; and whereas he had appointed 45 men to attend Tyrone into Munster now he would send him 100 under the leading of his late ensign, who attempted to rescue the friars that were lately taken at Multifarnham."
(Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland, 1601-1603 (London, 1912), p.172.)

25/11/1601, the Bishop of Meath, the same man who instructed Shane to attack Multyfarnham, writing to Secretary Cecil:

"From Plunkett's country Tyrone marched through Delvin, the richest part of Westmeath, sending his messengers and priests in front to prepare his way, and especially using "that pernicious freere, the fryer Nangle (a traitor indicted for the practising of the taking of her Majesty's Castle of Dublin)" to Lord Delvin himself. Lord Delvin entertained him in his house and the other gentlemen of Westmeath resorted to him as to a market. He found better entertainment there than he had found in Plunkett's country, for, I know not how, some of the Lords that have large entertainments from her Majesty do not scruple to send wine to Tyrone, when he came purposely to spoil the country. They forget their duty, or lay it aside, though they but lately left the Court...Tyrone issued a proclamation that his forces would do no harm in those parts, but merely take what was needed for their relief while in the country; and where some men of his who were straggling abroad for spoil came near some castles in Delvin and were killed by the inhabitants Tyrone "took it very patiently because they went abroad without his direction."
...
[Tyrone sent back some of his retinue to Ulster:]
All these as I hear, accompanied only with 60 horse and 100 foot, returned quietly the way they had come, into the Brenie [Co. Cavan], without any let, although Lord Delvin had 150 foot in her Majesty's pay, Lord Dunsany 150 foot and 50 horse, and 110 foot of the country, and although these two lords were in command of these two counties, "being the best counties of this kingdom," so unwilling are these people to obstruct the rebels in their courses."
(Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland, 1601-1603 (London, 1912), p.188-9.)

5/6/1602 Note how close Delvin was to events in London, being close to the Earl of Southampton, Shakespeare's patron of course:

"Memorandum by Sir Geoffrey Fenton on Lord Delvin's case.
On the 3rd of June Lord Delvin was committed to the Castle; and is now a prisoner ill in body and unsound in heart. This is the second or third time of his restraint from which he has been set at liberty rather by the Queen's clemency than by his own innocence. Considering how far the dangers of Ireland have been increased by his remissness and that of others, it would be well to have him "touched thoroughly" as a punishment for himself and as a deterrent to others. For this purpose we should look back to the Earl of Essex's conspiracy; with whom he was consenting if not actually confederate. Udall and the Earl of Southampton can throw light on their conspiracy. Udall observed it, and the Earl was very inward with Delvin at the time of Essex's discontentment with the state of England, "and by consequence sought to practise combinations with the Irish." These will give evidence to touch Delvin thoroughly, and discover others against whom there is suspicion, but no actual evidence. Delvin will try to excuse himself by saying that he was a commander on the borders and had leave to play with traitors and send spies among them under colour of service. He used this authority rather to practise combination with the rebels than to serve the Queen. This is shown by the fact that he allowed Tyrone, in his passages to Munster, to pass through Delvin four different times without trying to stop him. This was evidence of complicity in Tyrone's designs, seeing that Lord Delvin was placed where he was to guard the "straytes" and passages of those borders. When Tyrone was at Kinsale his brother Cormack, the second chief rebel, wrote very intimately to Delvin for news. This letter was brought to the Council, and we delivered it to Mr. Treasurer; and we think that the messenger who brought it brought also other private messages to Delvin. Moreover, Terleogh McShane O'Reylly, a principal man with Tyrone, confessed to me that when Tyrone was on the frontiers of the Pale and about to break foray into Delvin's country, Delvin sent a messenger who had conference with Tyrone, and that, after that conference, Tyrone withdrew his order for the foray; and, when some of his men had taken from some of Delvin's men cows and other goods, he had them promptly restored to the messenger, which is further evidence of conspiracy between Delvin and Tyrone. I send McShane's confession, which he made before he was arraigned or condemned.

Delvin is now sick and may die; so if the Queen desires to benefit by his lands or discover his treason a commission should issue at once to have him thoroughly examined and "convinced" [convicted, presumably] here if he cannot be sent for trial in England. We have no directions on this point yet, and I think they should be sent. Meantime evidence should be collected against him."
(Calendar of the State Papers relating to Ireland, 1601-1603 (London, 1912), p.405-6.)

The Baron died in prison just before they could try and execute him.

 

[scolairebocht]

Shakespeare and the Baron of Delvin

Just like in the companion article to this on the Anchorite of Fore, I thought I would throw in a little Shakespeare reference. In the assessment of Delvin's case, meaning his upcoming trial for High Treason, Geoffrey Fenton notes, as reported above under 5/6/1602:

"For this purpose we should look back to the Earl of Essex's conspiracy; with whom he was consenting if not actually confederate. Udall and the Earl of Southampton can throw light on their conspiracy. Udall observed it, and the Earl was very inward with Delvin at the time of Essex's discontentment with the state of England, "and by consequences ought to practise combinations with the Irish." These will give evidence to touch Delvin thoroughly..."

So he seems to be a close friend then of the Earl of Southampton? Shakespeare dedicated two books of poetry to the Earl of Southampton, firstly Venus and Adonis and secondly The Rape of Lucrece, in the latter he says:

“The love I dedicate to your lordship is without end ... What I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in all I have, devoted yours.”
( https://www.theguardian.com/culture...e-between-shakespeare-and-earl-of-southampton .)

But also Shakespeare seems particularly sympathetic to the Earl of Essex. That means that the Baron of Delvin seems to float around the exact same milieu as the writer of the plays and poems. The Essex connection is stated here by James Shapiro in the Irish Times:

"In the late 1980s, when I began research on what turned into my book 1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare, I had never heard of the Irish leader Hugh O'Neill. I had no idea that England had been caught up in a bitter nine-year war to crush an Irish revolt, knew nothing of the difference between the "New" and "Old" English then living in Ireland, and didn't know that Queen Elizabeth's popular courtier the earl of Essex had marched out of London leading an army 16,000 strong to resolve England's Irish problem once and for all. I didn't even know that Edmund Spenser, so admired for his Elizabethan epic The Faerie Queene, had also written a tract arguing for the brutal suppression of the Irish, if necessary by starvation.

I think it fair to claim that in all this I was representative of most Shakespeare scholars, raised in the era of New Criticism, which tried to create a firewall between literary works and their historical contexts. Looking back on 1599, I can now say that the best writing in it, and what animated the entire narrative, was this long and undervalued, if not suppressed, Irish story.
...
Henry V, first staged in 1599 as English call-ups had intensified and an army had recently been dispatched to defeat O'Neill, tackles Irish questions in a more sustained and direct way than any other Shakespeare play. Ireland seeps into it at the most unexpected and even unintended moments, such as when the queen of France, who has never met her future son-in-law Henry V, greets him with the words, "So happy be the issue, brother Ireland, / Of this good day and of this gracious meeting."

The mistake is not the nervous queen’s but Shakespeare’s, who slipped when intending to write “brother England” (and whose error his editors, beginning with those responsible for the 1632 Second Folio, have silently corrected). That this confusion of identity occurs in the context of the union of an English king and a French princess makes the error all the more revealing, for anxiety about pure and hybrid national identity runs through the play even as it preoccupied those who wrote about England’s Irish problem.

For much of Henry V allusions to the current crisis in Ireland are fleeting, such as the offhand remarks about Irish kerns and bogs. When Capt Gower, an Englishman, speaks of a soldier who wears "a beard of the General's cut", his reference to the earl of Essex's distinctive square-cut beard, which collapses the distance between Henry V's world and their own, would not have been lost on London playgoers.

There are also glancing allusions to the kind of bitter conditions their conscripted fellow countrymen faced at that moment in Ireland, with “winter coming on and sickness growing / Upon our soldiers”. And the stage direction in act III, scene vi – “Enter the king and his poor soldiers” – would have conjured onstage with surprising realism Elizabethan England’s poorly outfitted forces in Ireland.

Only in the play’s final act does Essex’s Irish campaign, long submerged, fully break the surface of the play. It’s an extraordinary moment and one of the very few times in any of his plays – and of these the most explicit – that Shakespeare redirects playgoers’ attention away from the make-believe world of his play to the troubling world outside of the theatre.

Shakespeare unexpectedly invites his fellow Londoners to think not about Henry V but about the near future, the day when they will pour into the streets to welcome home the earl of Essex, the military hero they had so recently seen ride out of London in late March, 1599, at the head of thousands of troops, “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!”

The passage speaks to the playgoers’ understandable desire to leap over time, for the imminent and seemingly interminable Irish campaign to be over. Scratch the surface and the analogy to Essex’s forecast return with “rebellion broached on his sword” becomes troubling."
( https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...ion-shakespeare-s-irish-connections-1.2619173 .)