This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wizardman (talk | contribs) at 14:57, 30 June 2009 (updated wikiproject WPBiography «List»). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:57, 30 June 2009 by Wizardman (talk | contribs) (updated wikiproject WPBiography «List»)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography List‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Ireland List‑class High‑importance   | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
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.
- 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)
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)
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)