Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:04, 4 September 2015

Biography List‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of List of High Kings of Ireland be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Ireland List‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Fiction?

T F O'Rahilly (Early Irish History and Mythology) believes that everything in these lists prior to the time of Niall of the Nine Hostages is fiction. A few of the people named (eg Tuathal Techtmar and Mug Nuadat) may have been historical characters, but even they have been misplaced and provided with bowdlerized reigns.

- - - - - -

Don't place too much faith in O'Rahilly. I still think he's a wonderful writer, but much of his theorys can be challenged. Our job here is simply to transmit the material in the most even-handed manner possible.

For my own part, I am more than willing to believe that many of those listed are fiction, but I would also argue that there are a great many grains of truth within them.

Plus, you have to admit it's pretty cool to have regenal lists going back so far for such a small little island out in the Atlantic! AND they are more extensive than those in Britain! Ha!

If I might suggest a few other sources ... the Annals of the Four Masters, MacFhirbhisigh's wonderful book of genealogies, Francis J. Byrne's "Irish Kings and High Kings", and Bart Janski's book on Irish Kingship.

Fergananim

Rather than dismiss all the pre 5th century kings as fictious, I added in legendary, as it there is a strain of thought that argues that some of these individuals (as mentioned above) had some form of historical proveance.--John Carroll 13:42, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

What source do those dates come from? adamsan 20:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think they're from the Annals of the Four Masters. Different sources give different reign-lengths, so they'll be approximate.--Nicknack009 01:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh sure, I'm not taking them seriously. Fascinating stuff though. I'm going to slightly rewrite the first sentence as I think it's missing a noun. adamsan 20:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going through creating pages for all the High Kings, and noting the different versions of their reign-lengths. When they're all done we should be able to figure out a margin for error. --Nicknack009 22:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everybody: Would anyone agree with placing the dates of the reigns in their original manner, that is A.M. rather than B.C.? We could place the necessary tranitional dates at opportune points. Please let me know what you think. Fergananim

I'd rather not, at least for now. The Four Masters chronology differs from Ceitinn's chronology, and probably the Lebor Gabala Chronology as well. I'm trying to put together a composite chronology based on all sources which would give a margin for error for the dates. --Nicknack009 07:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Was it yourself that filled in all those previously inactive names? Brilliant stuff! Fergananim

Aye, 'twas. It's given me an excuse to read Keating all the way through. I've read to the end of Book 1 and got to Laegaire , so pretty soon I'll be in the realms of real history. I dunno, I find legend and semi-history much more fun. --Nicknack009 10:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Me too. That's why I spend so much time trying to figure out who was who and when in my own little corner of Ireland. Check out a list of my stuff and see what you think; comments, critisism and advice always welcome. Fergananim

Can't really comment on anything, as its mostly stuff I know nothing about. I got into this through local interest myself, with the Ulster Cycle. Marvellous to think that one of the world's finest bodies of heroic legend comes from my wee bit of this wee island. --Nicknack009 20:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to thank whoever made this list, I have been searching for a list of my ancestors to help me with my heraldic research. P.S. anyone know where to find that book. An American O'Neill

Feidlimid mac Cremthanin

I added in Feidlimid mac Cremthanin into the list based on a claim in the Annals of Inisfallen.--John Carroll 13:42, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nice one, but it could do with some expansion, and the red links detract from it. Fergananim

List to table?

Would anybody object if I made this list into a table? Only it's a little hard to read with two sets of dates – one for AFM and one for FFE – and we could have different background colours for the various dynasties (sort of like they have over at List of monarchs in the British Isles, only much less complicated). What say? QuartierLatin1968 21:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that'd be a very good idea. Go for it. --Nicknack009 10:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Like the table, very nice. But could we break it into separate sections with appropriate headings? It seems a tad unwieldy all in one chunk... Bookgrrl 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Another source

There's some good material at thePeerage.com, and he gives sources for all his material, like a scholar and a gentleman. Bookgrrl 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely an important omission has been made in that the High Kings were brought back, in Ulster anyway. Is there not some bloke, an accountant, who got made a king? I am not sure of the exact date, I think around 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.102.4 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Edward the Bruce

See Edubard a Briuis, or Edward Bruce, being listed as the last High-King of Ireland. He was titular head, and only there as a plot to trounce the the English. Surely he should be listed with a strong caveat? If he should be listed at all?--Manopingo 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he may not have been much of a king, but he did have the advantage of being a real person whose existence is certain. That's more than can be said for many of the people on the list. There's not that much to separate Edward from the other ríg Érenn co fressabra kings. If you were meaning to tidy up the list, it would need an awful lot of work. It needs splitting into sections for one thing, and distinguishing between 17th century fairy stories and earlier lists. The earlier ones in turn need split between out-and-out myth (anything before Niall Noigíallach, but whether it should start with Conaire Mór, or Conn Cétchathach, is the question; Conaire Mór was the common ancestor of Irish and Scots kings, allegedly, Conn and the Connachta are probably of more Irish relevance; I'd go with Conn myself), semi-mythical (anything before Diarmait mac Cerbaill), and historical. The historical bit could do with splitting up as well, for ease of editing, maybe into three: Diarmait-Donnchad Midi (arrival of the Vikings), Áed Oirdnide to Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill, and then the kings with opposition. Angus McLellan (Talk)

Yep, I tend to agree with you. Mythology and history are a precarious mix. Half of history is mythology in any case, and we need look no further than the present century. --Manopingo 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. We can take advantage of written history in his case and record that his High Kingship was largely in his onw mind. --Red King 15:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The opening sentences (aside from not quite following wikipedia style and form) come across as fairly dismissive of the High Kingship, likening it to a form of propaganda. To me, admittedly not at all informed on the subject, this is quite a negative slant. The article could benefit from input by someone with solid knowledge who can give it a more neutral stance. Alcarillo 02:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that I also feel that the opening lines are very poor. Firstly, what modern scholars consider the High Kingship pseudo-history? I've certainly read a few who hold the opposite opinion. Secondly, we have as many (or more) sources for many of their reigns as parts of 3rd Century Roman History, or the detail of Caesar's Gallic wars. Granted, prior to Niall of the Nine Hostages we can be cynical, but (recalling offhand) St. Patrick's confession makes references to Niall's raid, and the British historian Gildas makes references to it as well. All that's in addition to Irish sources. Laeghaire is recorded to have presided of the codification of Brehon Law. That's not a document that survived unfortunately, but references were made to it on numerous occasions. Thirdly, the line states "construct of the eighth century" and then follows up with "did not become a reality till the Normans". Presumably, the author of this piece is referring to the Norman arrival in Ireland, and is four centuries out of place. Or even the Norman takeover of England, in which case they are three centuries out. In my opinion, the following line should be removed :

The corpus of early Irish law does not support the existence of such an institution, and scholars now believe it is a pseudohistorical construct of the eighth century AD, a projection into the distant past of a political entity which did not become a reality till the Normans.

I propose that a more suitable line replace it, taking into account the source material which is available to us, and augmenting proper scepticism for the earlier period with a more supportive attitude for the source material Niall of the Nine Hostages onwards. It could also be added that the authority of the High King often depended on the strength of his character, with civil discord being rampant for the nominal High Kings, and stronger personalities like Brian Boru or Malichy the Great commanding a stronger National authority. That however, is a modern interpretation of why civil disunity was rampant under the Ancient Irish governmental structure, and does not reflect an unchallenged view, much as it is my opinion. General Michael Collins (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Failing instruction to the contrary, I will change that piece sometime in the next week. General Michael Collins (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to ask about the idea that the early Irish Law does not refer to the High Kings. The Senchus Mór seems to refer to them on the opening page, if I'm not mistaken. Take the line - Ocuſ it munda aimſeɼ doib, aimſeɼ Laegaiɼe mic Néil, ɼíg Éirenn; ocuſ Teṫoſiuſ ɼob aiɼd ɼíg in domain. which is translated as And they were composed at the same time in the time of Laeghaire, son of Niall, king of Erin; and Theodosius was monarch of the world . I'm not sure enough of my ground here to edit without some confirmation, but I'll post further references to the High Kings if I find them, and edit if correction is not forthcoming. General Michael Collins (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Split?

At the moment, this list is rather confusing. It combines real, historically attested people like Brian Bóruma, Ruaídri Ua Conchobair, or Domnall Mac Lochlainn, with outright mythical rulers. Historians usually start their lists with Niall (for example Frank Byrne, Charles-Edwards). The category is just as bad. Inevitably, any historical list is bound to include Niall, Ailill Molt, et al. However, including the late medieval and early modern imaginings is surely a bad thing. I would propose the following:

• Split this article in two: List of High Kings of Ireland for the historical ones (the Oxford DNB uses this form of words), List of Legendary High Kings of Ireland for the ones before Niall. Optionally, one might follow the Swedish example and have a List of Semi-legendary High Kings of Ireland, but how would this be verifiable?

• Split the category into two: Category:Legendary High Kings of Ireland, Category:High Kings of Ireland.

• Split Category:Irish kings into two: Category:Legendary Irish kings, part of the mythology tree, and Category:Irish kings under Monarchy in Ireland/History.

Any thoughts? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The first solution that pops into my head is roughly inspired by this chart...a comprehensive, chronological chart/table of kings that is divided (with colored lines similar to the Irish states chart) by both kingdom and historicity. Easy for me to say, I know. I may also be misunderstanding your ultimate intent. Dppowell 22:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support a split here, this list mixes historical kings and years with names and year that are clearly constructs of mediaval historians based entirely on legends and traditions. I think Legendary High Kings/ Kings is to the point, and the division should probably be with Niall of the nine hostages. With "semilegendary" kings I would understand historical persons that we don't know much about except legends connected to their names, I don't think such a distiction is really helpful to use here. When making an article in Norwegian no:Overkonge (Irland) I started the list of historical kings with Ailill Molt, but I see the rationale for including Niall. Finn Rindahl 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Angus has asked me to contribute to this discussion. I've no strong feelings on it one way or the other, I just wonder where the cut-off point would be. The legendary kings shade into the historical ones. I'm mainly interested in legend, and if the page was split most of my attention would be on the legendary page, but I wouldn't like to "lose" a king like Niall, who has a rich legendary existence (and I think is much more legendary than historical). Perhaps if the page is split those deemed "semi-historical" or "semi-legendary" (or those who are historical but are the subject of legendary narratives and traditions) could be included in both pages? --Nicknack009 08:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A degree of overlap surely makes sense. I think the last king to meet a legendary end is Diarmait mac Cerbaill, and certainly everyone before him has plenty of legendary material attached to them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to throw my two cents in, but it will probably only make the issue more complex, rather than make for an easy division. So far the discussion assumes that there are two distinct groups, but there are really more. We start out with divine kings, have a line of Milesian who, most of whom after the start, are just names, and then you start to get legendary kings (i.e. there are legends about them), which shades into the first identifiable real individuals. But, the first of the real individuals weren't high kings of Ireland, they were Kings of Tara who were later associated with the High Kingship. The idea of a high kingship was created and some of the kings began to pretend to that idea until one actually achieved actual dominion and the High Kingship became something yet again different - and even though the successors couldn't actually fully succeed and were in effect High Kings. Most of reigns listed on the page are fictions of some sort or another, just because some of the individuals existed and were kings of part of Ireland doesn't make them any more deserving to be on this list than some of the Gods who appear near its start. I would think that a division of the list that doesn't take into account the various factors would tend to send the message that the kings on the historical list really were High Kings. Personally, I would probably keep it with a stern warning, but I don't really care so long as were careful to say what the non legendary kings really are and possibly to divide them as well. --Buirechain 03:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've created a sub-category for Legendary High Kings of Ireland and moved everybody prior to Niall in there. I think the early Milesian kings, although many aren't much more than names, belong there as they are part of a genealogical (rather than narrative) legend. As to where the rest belong, that's another argument. --Nicknack009 13:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Succession order and claimants

The section List of High Kings of Ireland#Succession order and claimants was commented out with no explanation. Is it original research? or it just doesn't belong in a list article? Either way, something active ought to happen to it. --Red King 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not having read it properly, I'd say it, like the introduction, probably would be better at High King of Ireland. --Nicknack009 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

With opposition

It's all well and good to add "with opposition" to the ones that have already been added, since they were. But doing so suggests that the rest were without opposition, which, with few exception(s) was not the case, much less those cases were the person is imaginary and the title is real. In short, I'm not sure that listing "with opposition" next to some or even almost all is the way to make sure that message gets across. Buirechain 17:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but one of the reasons I suggested splitting the list is so that it becomes short enough that each group of kings can get an introductory paragraph, and individual notes as appropriate, rather than just a bald list as we have here. Being "king of Ireland" after the death of Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill, with or without opposition, is not really the same as before, any more than the sort of kingship shared by Flann Sinna or Domnall ua Néill had anything much in common with Áed mac Ainmuirech or the like. The reason to have a list, rather than only a category, is to allow notes and comments to be attached to the entries. Admittedly, few of Misplaced Pages's insular medieval king-lists do this. I started on List of Kings of the Picts and List of Kings of Dál Riata, but I got bored. We may as well start somewhere. Misplaced Pages:Featured list criteria sets out the sort of thing we should be aiming at. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Centralised discussion at Talk:Irish people#Coat of arms. O Fenian (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of "high kings"

The style guidelines for titles call for capitalizing a title only when a person's name follows it. As I understand it, a title by itself identifies a role and should be in lower case. Is there a reason for an exception in the case of high kings (other than editors here being used to capitalizing it)? Jojalozzo 19:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The political union of Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid!!

I have to point out the following sentence;

“a projection into the distant past of a political entity that did not become reality until Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid in the ninth century.”

The article is worded as though Máel left a political dynasty or hereditary monarchy and political union in place by the claim that he was a high king. Nothing could be further from the truth and was opposed by other kings in Munster, Norse-Gaels and his Uí Néill kinsmen. Even then it’s some claim to have a political union when he left no dynasty, except for his son Flann Sinna would later be King of Mide, and self-styled King of Ireland but then attacked Munster as they didn’t support his claims like his father, not much of a political union.AuIx81 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Brian Ua Néill (sic) and Edward Bruce

I'm cutting these two out because (1) Brian (his surname should be Ó Néill, not Ua Néill) had trouble dominating his own region, and had virtually no influence outside it. A High King dominated the entire island. Even his allies presided over greatly reduced areas. (2) Bruce for much the same reasons. And Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair died in 1198, not 1186. Fergananim (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Vote to remove anglicised names of Kings - 30 Aug 2015

Just recently a user called Mhmrodrigues(Talk), made a series of edits and anglicised the names of the High Kings of Ireland on this page. I am very strongly against this practice of anglicising the Irish spelling of the names of the people in the Irish annals. The names should remain, where ever its possible, with a spelling as close to the original spelling as possible.

This discussion is a vote to revert the edits made by user Mhmrodrigues, back to the original Irish spellings that were on this page before hand. If you want you say, please vote and say Keep to vote to keep the new anglicised spellings. Or vote Revert to revert the changes made by Mhmrodrigues back to the Irish spellings. However, I do think its ok to have an anglicised spelling in brackets after the Irish name!

I vote to Revert the anglicised spellings. I want the Irish spellings! John37309 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the edits by user Mhmrodrigues because the spellings of the names used by Mhmrodrigues are anglicised spellings, not listed in any of the primary sources, Lebor Gabála Érenn, Foras Feasa ar Éirinn, Annals of the Four Masters, The Annals of Ulster, Laud 610 or Rawlinson B 502.John37309 (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Haven't seen this until now. I agree with your decision to revert the changes. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NickNack. John37309 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remove the king's names in their Irish form. They appear in italic next to the anglicized name. But I'll revert the names. Please at least leave the information table about the monarchs and their numbering, for a better comprehension of them. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to revert the names. However, medieval Irish kingship is complicated and the scholarly literature on the subject does not identify kings with numbers, but by patronymic and/or epithet. As per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RELIABLE, we should do the same. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The patronimic that you're refering is in italic below the name. The numbering is just one way to distinguish them because of their long names. Anyway, the name of the page where the link is redirected shows their patronimics. --Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm making is the format you're using is not supported by reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is supposed to follow what reliable sources say. The numbering is no help in identifying Irish kings, because none of the sources use them, whether primary sources like the Annals or the Lebor Gabála, or reliable secondary sources like modern historians. You will not find a reference anywhere to "Diarmait I" - he is always "Diarmait mac Cerbaill" and is well known under that name, so using the form "Diarmait I" is not informative or helpful. It is a convention that is not used. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd also point out that whatever sources you're using (and you're not citing them), they're not entirely reliable on the translations of some of the kings' epithets. Ailill Molt is not "Ailill the Ram". A molt is a wether, i.e. a castrated ram, the ovine equivalent of a bullock or gelding. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with John37309 and Nicknack009. Mhmrodrigues, could you please undo your similar edits concerning ordinal numbers and Anglicisations in other Irish king lists? List of kings of Connacht, List of Kings of Mide, and List of kings of Munster for example.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

References

1. The Ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland. Alexander Thom, 87 & 88, Abbey Street. 1865. pp. 62 & 63.

• List-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people of Ireland
• List-Class Ireland articles
• High-importance Ireland articles
• List-Class Ireland articles of High-importance
• Ireland articles needing infoboxes
• All WikiProject Ireland pages