Template talk:Kings of Ireland

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. 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

Royalty and Nobility

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility

Comments

No place for Brian Ua Neill and Edubard a Briuis? What about King Haakon? :) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped with the Normans. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Since the title got changed from 450-1175 to 400-1175, I will mention this is based on the ODNB article on Niall (died circa 452, undue precision surely) and Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland, p. 441 (floruit mid-C5th). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Kings?

Is there a reason the template doesn't say "High Kings of Ireland" at the top? When I first saw it some weeks ago I thought it was a template of all the kings in Ireland, not just high kings. Srnec (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. The answer is that there is no one title that plainly unites all of the people on the template. King of Ireland was shorter, and seemed to be no more misleading, than any alternative title. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template title is no big deal. Also, the latter bunch of these kings are quite entitled to be called, as they were in contemporary Irish and foreign sources, Kings of Ireland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about "(High) Kings of Ireland"? I disagree that it's no big deal, since it confused me at first. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tara and Cashel and the rest

This template should be divided by overkingdoms, provinicial kingdoms, and regional kingdoms, and only include notable individuals. A number of the Uí Néill "High Kings" clearly do not belong. DinDraithou (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want to make it too big. And if there's a commonly agreed fiction for Ulster, Munster and Connacht, Leinster seems to be enormously more complex than our Kings of Leinster suggests. One option is to make more templates and link this one to those new ones. Apart from the provinces, which kingdoms did you have in mind?

But as recently as Byrne's Irish Kings and High-Kings, and probably more recently if we look longer, the list is pretty much taken to be nearly all Uí Néill kings. Things would be simpler if we could start with Domnall mac Áedo - including Cathal and Feidlimid is no problem, Ruaidrí perhaps more so - but I can't think of any reasonable justification for that. Starting with Diarmait doesn't solve any problems as it still leaves those rather implausible northern Uí Néill nonentities. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there is another page for the lists. We aren't required to list non-entities in a template for notable kings. Personally I'm happy to go as early as Niall N. because for Munster I believe we need to include the semi-historical Conall Corc. Linking the Connachta-Uí Néill and Eóganachta is of course Crimthann mac Fidaig, who is probably our earliest Irish king for whom we have any evidence, although it is all indirect. Another Munster or Cashel king who should be included is the Patrician Age Óengus mac Nad Froích, who appears in many tales and is essentially contemporary with Lóegaire mac Néill. Also it is unfair to Connacht to ignore Nath Í and especially Ailill Molt.

The pre-Norman kingdoms I have in mind are Ailech, Mide, Brega, Dublin, and perhaps Iarmuman, the last with tantalizing legendary and genealogical links to the dynasty of Óengus I of the Picts. But we also have the occasional Cerball mac Dúnlainge for the "Other".

Leinster I am still lost in and must rely on you and others to guide me. Was it as disorderly as Ulaid? I read in Byrne that the Uí Dúnlainge had some unprecedented magic, but it seems the Uí Chennselaig had more success outside the province when they could pull it together. What about the Uí Bairrche? DinDraithou (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was missing the point there. I'll see if I can mock up some templates and you can tell me what you think.

For Leinster, things are complicated and it seems that they can be made even more complicated without too much work. But the same will be true of Ulaid I expect.

Charles-Edwards is not at all convinced by Uí Dúnlainge and Uí Cheinnselaig claims that early Leinster kings belonged in their family trees other than Bresal Bélach. The Uí Bairrche do better but he still has his doubts about some of their claims too such as their appropriate of Mac Cairthinn mac Coelboth of Uí Enechglaiss and the omission of Findchad mac Garrchon and his son Fróech from the (seemingly pro-Uí Bairrche) lists in CGH. That's for the early period. Ó Cróinín's "Three Weddings and a Funeral" in Smyth (ed.) Seanchas finds problems with the 9th century king lists. And no doubt someone will be along shortly to do the same for the later 7th and 8th centuries. Even in that period, according to the lists given by Charles-Edwards, Uí Dúnlainge aren't clearly top dogs until some time after the death of Cellach Cualann. Uí Dúnlainge attempts to write Áed mac Colggen out of the picture aren't up to the standards set by Uí Néill historians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]