Talk:High King of Ireland

Wikify

I don't know enough about the subject to know if the recent changes are correct, but I do know that you should wikify them. john 21:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that to wikify would lead to articles that require rewriting because they define terms at an inappropriate place or time eg: fiefdoms article assumes English-style feudalism.

I have restored this page as it is not a copyright violation. Would someone please check these things out before wiping a page. The copyright holder is the owner of www.maclochlainn.org 195.92.168.168

Reasons for reversion

I have reverted again.

• (i) the article is not written in house style;

• (ii) If there is a holder of copyright on this text, as 195.92.168.168 states, then by definition it is a copyright violation even if it was the owner of the copyright who placed it here, as it has not been released in accordance with the rules of wikipedia. It could only stay here if the copyright holder waved copyright completely, in effect allowing copyright to be owned by everyone who edits the site and visits the site here communally and in perpetuity. The owner of the website may not be aware that in putting the text here he would in effect be giving up all ownership and it would become all our property to edit and change at will. FearÉIREANN 17:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Response

• (i) Then edit it into house style rather than wiping it back to a very inferior version.

• • See comments above re wikifying.
  • The title does not appear in the body so no boldening is indicated.

• (ii) Then lets sort out the permissions that are required (which are a mere formality) rather than wiping back, etc

This page was wiped before because nobody bothered to check for permission. Try being constructive rather than destructive and point out what is required rather than getting paranoid about supposed copyright issues 195.92.168.169 23:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV heading

The article does not sound like a NPOV encyclopedia article. Rather than giving all the viewpoints regarding the office of the High King, the article begins by (somewhat rudely) refuting all opposing viewpoints. I do not know enough about the subject to make any changes, but it needs to be addressed.

• I think the non-neutral heading should be removed because the article reflects the current state of knowledge (see linked article for instance). An article concerning the Earth would move swiftly on from outdated concepts such as 'flat earth' and 'heavenly spheres' and so does this one. I don't see what the problem is 195.92.168.175 21:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• To clarify my response above, there are no competing points of view current among historians (the linked article backs up the Wiki article in detail and stands as a standard citation in this area) and so there is no dispute to characterise. The Wiki article is strictly factual in that it states that the early narrative literature portrays a sacral kingship (eg: 8th century tale Togail Bruidne Da Derga), that the early law tracts portray a hierarchy of kingship (eg: 7th or 8th century law tract Críth Gablach) and that the annals (eg: post-6th century Annals of Ulster) show that there was no 'steady state' (the erroneous assumption of earlier historians) but that kingship developed much as elsewhere in Europe from the 5th century onwards. It is the earlier historians (driven as much by political agendas as by the historical sources) whose view has been superceded that are 'rudely' dismissed in the introductory lines and I see no problem with that. This is an article on history, not the history of history. 195.92.168.177 12:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Other stuff

This article is not neutral at all. It gives only one viewpoint- that the High Kings are entirely ficticious and were simply made up out of thin air in the 8th century. The entire article should be completely rewritten.

I agree. Beginning the article with "The office of High King of Ireland (Irish: Ard Rí Érenn) was in origin a pseudohistorical construct of the eighth century" is deeply POV. We should begin by describing the traditional idea of the High Kings, and then go into any scholarly ideas about when the concept actually originated. john k 22:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The pseudohistorical origin of the high kingship is as uncontroversial as it gets, in serious circles at least. Is Wikipedia here to educate or to reflect uninformed opinion? 195.92.168.176 10:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you give citation for the view that the early high kings are not fictitious. Only then can we judge the quality of the argument. 195.92.168.176 11:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Annals of the Four Masters refer to the Kings of Ireland on numerous occasions, as does St. Patrick's Confession, and there are other (ancient) historians in Britain and on the continent whose accounts of events such as Niall's raid on Britain correspond with Irish legend. P.W. Joyce's two volume social history of Ireland goes into detail on the governmental system of Ancient Ireland. Indeed, unless the existence of Niall of the Nine and Laeghaire is absolutely true the codification of Féineachas (The Brehon Laws) does not make any sense. Just like the article on the lists of High Kings, it is a matter of some urgency to correct this obvious bias. General Michael Collins (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the use of 'pagan kings' - why draw attention to their paganism? The author has a fixation on Catholicism from what I read of their website and this shouldn't be allowed to taint the article. I also have a problem with the near dismissal of the older kings - Niall of the Nine Hostages is reckoned to have lived around 372BCE and there is substantial evidence for this - why would all the other kings that followed him be fictitious or doubtful? Noel 20:58, 27 Jan 2007 (GMT). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nodolan (talk • contribs).

You can sign messages on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~. Niall of the Nine Hostages is confidently reckoned to have lived in the 5th century AD by modern historians. If he really existed that is. Which author's website has a fixation on Catholicism? The conversion of Ireland is traditionally seen as one of the key events in its history, just as it is for Anglo-Saxon England. It's not just Irish kingship that's treated this way: J. M. Wallace-Hadrill's Early Germanic Kingship is relevant. I haven't read Bart Jaski's Early Irish Kingship and Succession myself, but it would be the obvious source to improve this article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We have no contemporary historical records from Ireland earlier than about the 8th century. Everything before that, including Niall (sensationalist reporting of DNA analysis nothwithstanding), must be doubtful. It's a general historical principle. --Nicknack009 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All the same, the "sensationalist reporting" is based on interesting scientific evidence. Y-chromosome analysis by geneticists at Trinity College, Dublin, shows a strong correlation of a specific widespread-in-Ireland Y-chromosome to the male O'Neills tested (and many other men including 1 in 10 in Scotland). The Y-chromosome definitely dates back to a single ancestor, and the estimated period of his existence is the same in which Niall would have lived.

Personally, I think the simplest solution to the question of that O'Neill ancestor is that, just as tradition holds, he was Niall himself, a real and powerful ruler who left strong traces in tradition.

[1]

Can't *prove* it without Niall's actual body/DNA, though. And that will be tough to come by, I admit. Evangeline (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I think it would help if those wishing to change the article give supporting citation here. This will allow us to discriminate between the serious and the frivolous. 195.92.168.176 10:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article as it stands is covered by citation to the external link at the foot of the article. 195.92.168.176 10:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So every sentence in this article can fairly be rewritten to begin, "In the assessment of Professor Donnchadh Ó Corráin..."? That is hardly NPOV. I think it's clear that 195.92.168.176 has been confusing the idea of a respectable scholarly consensus with a neutral point of view in Wikipedia's sense. The latter always holds its statements at arm's length: we report on what others believe to be the uncontroversial truth; we ourselves do not pronounce on whether a perspective is truth. This is one of several areas where Academe and Wikipedia must respectfully part company. (Not coincidentally, academics also value original research and supporting the thesis of an essay, which are both taboo in Wikipedia's style of reporting.) A number of sentences here still need to be rewritten: I'm bothered, for example, about the sentences concerning 'the unionist' and 'the nationalist' – two purely fictitious straw men who are both apparently of the masculine gender. I'll try to tweak these areas as best I can. QuartierLatin1968 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dative?

Does the Irish version really take the dative (Ard Rí Éirinn, 'high king to Ireland') rather than the genitive (Ard Rí na hÉireann, 'high king of Ireland')? The first is certainly conceivable (think of German Herzog zu Sachsen), but apart from Wikipedia mirrors, websites seem to prefer Ard Rí ar Éirinn or more frequently Ard Rí na hÉireann. Anybody know for sure? QuartierLatin1968 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The rest are either modern back-translations from English or modern Gaelic forms. The version here is better (but rí Érenn would apparently be better yet). "OF Ireland" is wrong to begin with. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

But Érenn is genitive too, n'est-ce pas? It's just the older spelling of Éireann, I thought... QuartierLatin1968 14:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like a dative to me, but how could you tell a proper dative from a dative-looking locative anyway ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Brian Boru was self-styled as Emperor of the Irish, the people as distinct from the island.78.16.49.194 (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Why just Ireland?

Isn't there evidence of a similar system in Scotland?--MacRusgail 18:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not for sacral kingship, at least in terms of reliable sources. For the other eras, warlords like Domnall mac Áedo, early kings of Ireland like Máel Sechnaill and Flann Sina, and later ones like Brian Boru, all have equivalents in Scotland. The drowning of kings is reliably attested in Scotland, Onuist/Óengus had at least two rivals drowned in the 730s, and there's every reason to suppose that Pictish and Irish kingship and society were pretty similar. Irish poets certainly thought so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Forgot to state that "High King" and "Ard Ri" redirect here, hence my comment. --MacRusgail 15:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tá me i leith Ard Ríocht na hÉireann a thabhairt arais, ma's feidir sin.

Royal "Coronation"/consecration rites

Not wanting to be vulgar, but on one of those finely-made TV histories of early Ireland there was a visit to an island - perhaps Croag Padraig but if not another one down by there - where the sacred mare of the sun ran wild; according to the show, part of the consecration of the kingship was the ceremonial mating of the anointed High King with the mare. As I said I don't mean to be vulgar, but wouldn't the coronation and other special rituals and appurtements and doo-dads/symbols of the High Kings be accounted for here; this would include the paraphernalia, like the orb and sceptre for other kings; a harp was part of the material panoply of the High King, was it not? Not the Harp of Tara necessarily, but I know the "outfit" of official kingship was very different from the European, and especially per Christian, norms.Skookum1 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced "crowned" from the image caption with "installed", as that is the usual word in English. Let's keep to what we know. Crowns were first used by, e.g.,

• the Anglo-Saxons c.973, (see eadgar and
• Stephen of Hungary 1000AD.

As far as we know, there was no crown.86.42.196.213 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to this discussion. I came to have a look here because I found parts of the article wholly inaccurate. One of the things being, the coronation. Although I am not an expert, at least not in that aspect of early medieval Irish history, I've never come across the notion of "coronation" of early medieval Irish kings, neither in primary sources nor in scholarship. Why has someone apparently reverted back the corrections suggested by the person above? Other stuff that is clearly inaccurate is about there not being clear rules about succession to kingship. While much may be uncertain, it seems most probablme that there were definite rules (even scholarship as old, though perhaps not wholly dated, as that by Byrne etc wil tell you about it). One of the scholarly sound theories I can recall is that kings were elegible if they belonged to the derbfine of the last ruling king and that political aliances (e.g. marriage and clientship) and seizure by force would frequently play a role as to who would actually take the kingship (not to speak of the symbolism suggesting the sacred roots of the king and his kingship in promoting such kings and dynasties). Just my two pence...

Bottom line: I really appreciate al the work people are doing on wikipedia but i find it a pity people reverting improvements made by others. I feel this article should definetly get a notice signalling the reader that it needs improvement of accuracy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.128.70 (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

POV

Both Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannia^[2] say that Brian Boru was the High King of Ireland, so it can't all have been a fiction. As it is, this article violates WP:NEUTRAL, not to mention WP:FRINGE. -Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've rewritten the bit about Brian Boru to take out a lot of the POV and I've added some references. i also deleted the bit about Brian having designs on the throne of Scotland. If anyone wants to put that back, add a reference - i've never heard this before and it seems most unlikely.Steve3742 (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs rewriting/reorganising

There's a lot of material in this article which is not directly relevant to the concept of the High Kingship. I propose a new article on Early Irish kingship which would be the appropriate place for discussion of laws of succession and sacral kingship (articles on Sacral kingship and the Sovreignty goddess, which are features of numerous cultures, would also be advantageous. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah - sacral kingship already exists as a redirect to Sacred king. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Politically unified state"

This is getting ridiculous. The fact (and it is a fact) that Ireland was not a politically unified state under he High Kings is unrelated to the fact that the High Kings did not always manage to extend their authority over the whole island. The reference provided by User:86.188.201.211, a link to the bare text of the Annals of Ulster, does not provide any comment one way or the other on either issue. There is no "disagremeent among scholars" (and "disagreement among scholars" is in any case a weasel phrase) on this issue, and our anonymous friend has not cited any scholars in support of his contention that there is. I have attempted to accommodate ignorant one-track editors like this before, and it has never been productive, but I have been threatened with a block for "edit warring" if I revert again. I am therefore at a loss as to what to do to restrain this editor's disruptive behaviour, and have no choice but to leave it to others. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The latest sets of edits seem to lack secondary sources, and at best feel like OR. Let's see the editor concerned is willing to come to the talk page to discuss constructively. If not, then I'll revert. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You might wish to revert the latest edit by User:Trackteur, who has twice removed a piped link and left the article reading "ruling from Hill of Tara", which is obviously poor English. I have reverted once, but he's just reinstated it with no edit summary, and I'm not giving anybody any excuse to accuse me of edit-warring again. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite wise. How about you leave Trackteur a message on his talk page, pointing him in the direction of the discussion here and inviting him to comment? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Already left him a message. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

'Ta. Will see if he replies... Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are the names all in Gaelic?

For the most part historic figures are known by an English rendering of their name. I don't know what rule means that we should use either the ancient or modern Gaelic instead of English. That is they should be referred to by the name they are most well-known by in the English speaking world. To do otherwise is confusing especially as the use of Gaelic names is not consistent. 2.247.251.213 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"rule rather than reign"

What does this phrase mean? In normal current use, these are synonyms as verbs. Is there some difference in connotation here I'm not aware of? Urutapu (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)