Talk:Monarchy of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Cleanup?

What needs to be 'cleaned up' in this article? There's no comment whatsoever here by the user by the user that added the tag, which seems both to defeat the purpose of the exercise, and to be contrary to the tagging policy. Numerous edits have happened subsequently, seemingly quite blithe to said tag. (The suggested merger's another issue.) Alai 21:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The writing is very childlike 195.92.168.165 21:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Where is your evidence that Henry II became Lord of Ireland in the year 1169? I'd love to see it.

Terrible still in 2007! Pope Adrian was dead by 1169 so I moved that date to 1155. The 'king of Ireland' was a Tudor construct which wasn't very popular. The high-kings were usually 'kings with opposition' - a polite way of saying 'not the actual king of the whole island'.Red Hurley 17:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] precise term king of ireland

There are plenty of mentions of such a creature in the records outside the dates mentioned. Here is one as an example from the CELT database of Irish historical texts

Annals of Innisfallen 1114.2 'Galar do gabáil rig Érend isin bliadain so i medon samraid' which translates as the king of Ireland was struck down by disease this year in the middle of summer. The Annals of Inisfallen is a 1092 manuscript and this text is a contemporaneous continuation so I shall be making some changes in the article 195.92.168.165 21:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] National Kingdom of Ireland?

"In the centuries prior to 1169 Ireland had coalesced into a national kingdom under a High King of Ireland"

This is not a correct description of the state of affairs up to 1169. Up to that year there were nine main kingdoms (Connacht, Aileach, Airgialla(Kingdom of Oriel), Ulaidh, Midhe, Lagain, Osraige, Mumhain and Thomond) on the island. None of them was ever under the similtanious controal of any High King of Ireland. While there certainly existed the sence of the Irish people as a nation, we were never politically united into a single national kingdom. The High Kings were only something akin to "first among equals", or better yet, recognised as the most powerful ruler on the island, but not of the entire island.Fergananim 02:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like a citation to a serious work in support of this as your view is very much that of an outdated school textbook. It places form over substance by concentrating on nomenclature rather than function (titles are notoriously conservative) and applies an anachronistic concept of statehood (dynastic squabbles and layers of regional jurisdiction, often dissenting, between the proto-state and the individual were the norm elsewhere in Europe) 195.92.168.166 18:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your nine named kingdoms in Ireland in 1169, if you read the political history in something like 'Irish Kings and High Kings' by FJ Byrne you will see the rulers of Airgialla, Ulaidh, Midhe, Lagain and Osraige described as kingmakers rather than king material. Of the remainder, Mumhain and Thomond (actually Desmond and Thomond) were two halves into which the old kingdom of Mumhain had been split in order to frustrate the national ambitions of the rulers of Mumhain leaving the rulers of Aileach (until 1166) and Connacht (1166 onwards) as kings of Ireland by any reasonable contemporary measure 195.92.168.174 18:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Back again! On a general level I think that a lot of misunderstanding stems from failure to distinguish the concept of kingdom (a territory) from monarchy (an impersonal institution governing a kingdom). It seems to me that many of those who say that Ireland was not a kingdom are really trying to articulate that it had no monarchy, a subtle but important difference 195.92.168.173 18:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
User:195.92.168.166 is right to suggest that we look at substance rather than be dazzled by form. The mere fact that his inferiors can be titled "king" isn't an automatic hindrance to the "kingness" of a high king. But that sword cuts both ways: the mere fact that lesser kings have sworn some sort of fealty to him doesn't mean that a high king really rules their lands. Now of course there were strong regional lords across Europe and we don't account all of them as sovereign -- but that's the point: it's a matter of degree. It's unfair to expect strong central control at that date; but it's also unfair to expect none at all. Just how autonomous were the lesser kings of Ireland in the face of a high king?
There are many instances in the Irish annals of a lesser king being removed and their territory obliterated/split/granted to a king's relative or favourite acting essentially as an official 195.92.168.175 20:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
User:195.92.168.173 (perhaps the same person?) warns that we not fail "to distinguish the concept of kingdom (a territory) from monarchy (an impersonal institution governing a kingdom)". Now here's the problem with that logic: what makes a territory a kingdom? Cuba may have a logical geographical extent (i.e. a whole island) and a reasonably united and distinct populace and a single sovereign government; but of course it is not a kingdom; it has no king. So how can we define a kingdom? Those sanguine about our ability to define things might say "a place with a king" -- but that looks circular and/or equates "kingdom" with "monarchy."
There isn't actually a process of logic there, just an observation that personal kingship passing by force of character can develop into an impersonal office passing by accident of birth 195.92.168.175 20:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Right, but the issue is continuity. Even before the hereditary principle was established, some "personal" kingdoms had a regular series of kings, one following another. And in some places an elective monarchy survived into the modern era. I don't think anybody would use lack of heredity descent as an argument in the Irish case. Doops | talk 21:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It was 'gappy' until circa 1100, then ruler of Munster until circa 1120, from then ruler of Connacht until circa 1150, from then ruler of Aileach until 1166, from then ruler of Connacht until Normans arrive 1169. By that time Munster and Aileach had been split and part granted to favourites so as to stymie national ambitions 195.92.168.165 21:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Finally a comment on the sentence "In the centuries prior to 1169 Ireland had coalesced into a national kingdom under a High King of Ireland". The problem with this sentence is that we're reading it TODAY, with a modern sense of what a "kingdom" is and a modern sense of coalescing. If it was like mediaeval england, then great; call it a kingdom. But if it was like the mediaeval holy roman empire (or even shakier, lacking the "monarchy" aspects of the Holy Roman Emperor?), then wouldn't it be more useful to describe the situation for the reader? Let him/her judge?
As a quick summation it's not inaccurate. If Joe Public imagines ermined figures wearing crowns and opening leisure centres when reading this sentence then there is little we can do about it 195.92.168.175 20:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean "modern" in the sense of 20th-century. But I think Joe Public probably does think Shakespeare when he thinks about a "kingdom"; and that's not an unreasonable thing to think. Doops | talk 21:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Note that I'm not offering answers to any of these issues; I don't know enough about Irish history to do so. Just asking questions. But the high king sounds awfully like the Bretwalda who is never accounted "king of England." Doops | talk 20:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
From some knowledge of both histories, the emergence of England circa Egbert 10th century seems a mantra repeated rather than the product of modern scholarship. In fact I had a quick browse today in a decent English university library and was shocked at the lack of early medieval England scholarship as against early medieval Irish scholarship over the last 30 years. While the main English source of the period, the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, is now held to have been synthesised by the West Saxon king Alfred circa 9th century I do not believe the viewpoint of its continuators has yet been sufficiently adjusted for (just how many of these continuators were based in Wessex?). In any case the argument for the emergence of an English state under the West Saxon royal family in the 10th century is made largely against a background of silence from these chronicles. When the chronicles pick up again we find chaos under Aethelred, Cnut, etc and this just poses the question of what was actually happening during the silence of the 10th century (just what happened to all the old royal families?). The sources in England are actually quite poor compared to those in Ireland. Whereas in England there are synthesised chronicles telling a 'royal story' in Ireland there are raw annals giving a pretty much undoctored picture of who did what to who that are contemporaneous and continuous from the sixth century onwards 195.92.168.175 20:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Your picture of England seems rather inaccurate to me. Firstly, you seem to be conflating the 9th century (when Wessex slowly asserted its dominance in the face of the Viking threat) and the 10th century (when an actual Kingdom of England was established under Edward the Elder/Athelstan/Edmund I/Edred/Edgar). I've never heard anyone dispute that by, say, the latter part of the reign of Athelstan, there was essentially a single kingdom of England. As to what happened to the old royal families, Wessex had established its control of Kent, Sussex, and Essex in the 9th century. East Anglia and most of Mercia and Northumbria were overrun by the Danes in the later 9th century. The remainder of Mercia soon acknowledged Wessex's overlordship, and the last ruler of it was married to Alfred the Great's daughter. The northern part of Northumberia also maintained its independence for a while, but eventually acknowledged Wessex's overlordship, as well. The Danish kingdoms were gradually reconquered by the Kings of Wessex over the course of the 10th century. Then, during the weak reign of Ethelred II, the Danes return - first as raiding parties, and later for conquest. King Sweyn manages to conquer England briefly, but dies, and Ethelred is restored. Sweyn's son Cnut/Canute then comes back, fights for a while with Ethelred's son Edmund, they agree to split England, and then Edmund dies. Cnut/Canute is king, and so on. While extrapolating Wessex as "England" in the 9th century seems problematic, by the early 10th century it seems that the existence of a "Kingdom of England" is fairly clear. john k 06:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
This all sounds very persuasive but I wonder what substance lies behind it. Sources for 10th century England (between Alfred and Aethelred) are comparatively poor yet there has emerged a confident assertion that an English kingdom/state/monarchy was established during that time. You have told what happened to the various kingdoms but not what happened to their royal families. Their complete disappearance from the scene raises a suspicion that the sources are giving the West Saxon royal story rather than a blow by blow account full of nasty infighting 195.92.168.175 12:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure the sources we have are somewhat biased in favor of Wessex. But royal families disappeared all the time in the early Germanic kingdoms. The Visigoths had numerous dynasties, for instance. From my vague understanding, though, the East Anglian royal family was killed off by the Visigoths; the Mercian royal family died off in the early 10th century - Edward the Elder's sister ruled by herself as Lady of Mercia after her husband's death, suggesting an absence of heirs; the Bernician royal family seems to have survived and simply become vassal earls under the Wessex kings. Not sure about the dynasties in Kent, Sussex, and Essex, but, as I said, they were incorporated into Wessex quite early. But why do you keep saying that sources are so poor between Alfred and Aethelred? As an example, here's the ODNB's bibliography for its quite long article on Aethelstan: ASC · The chronicle of Æthelweard, ed. and trans. A. Campbell (1962) · The battle of Brunanburh, ed. A. Campbell (1938) · William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum Anglorum / The history of the English kings, ed. and trans. R. A. B. Mynors, R. M. Thomson, and M. Winterbottom, 2 vols., OMT (1998–9) · Hrotsvitha, ‘Gesta Ottonis’, in Hrotsvithae opera, ed. H. Homeyer (Munich, 1970) · Hrotsvitha, Gesta Ottonis / Deeds of Otto I, trans. B. H. Hill, Medieval monarchy in action: the German empire from Henry I to Henry IV, ed. and trans. B. H. Hill (1972), 118–37 · AS chart., S 392, 394–7, 399, 400, 403, 407, 412, 416–17, 425, 429–31, 437–8, 441–2, 445–6, 1043, 1417 · C. E. Blunt, ‘The coinage of Æthelstan’, British Numismatic Journal, 42 (1974), 35–160 · F. Liebermann, ed., Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 3 vols. (Halle, 1903–16) · ‘Historia regum’, Symeon of Durham, Opera, 2.3–135 · ‘Historia de sancto Cuthberto’, Symeon of Durham, Opera, 1.192–214 · Les annales de Flodoard, ed. P. Lauer (1905) · Richer of Saint-Rémy, Histoire de France, 888–995, ed. and trans. R. Latouche, 2 vols. (Paris, 1930–37) · La chronique de Nantes, ed. R. Merlet (1896) · Folcuin [Folcwinus], ‘Gesta Abbatum Sithiensium’, ed. O. Holder-Egger, [Supplementa tomorum I–XII, pars I], ed. G. Waitz, MGH Scriptores [folio], 13 (Hanover, 1881), 607–35, 600–35 · John of Worcester, Chron. · Taliesin, Armes Prydein / The prophecy of Britain, ed. I. Williams, trans. R. Bromwich (1972) · S. Keynes, ed., The Liber vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester (Copenhagen, 1996) · Willelmi Malmesbiriensis monachi de gestis pontificum Anglorum libri quinque, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, Rolls Series, 52 (1870), 399–400 · Ann. Ulster · The Old English version of the Heptateuch: Ælfric's treatise on the Old and New Testament, and his preface to Genesis, ed. S. J. Crawford, EETS, orig. ser., 160 (1922); repr. with two additional mansucripts (1969), 416–17 · E. O. Blake, ed., Liber Eliensis, CS, 3rd ser., 92 (1962) · M. Förster, ed., ‘Exeter relic list (Bod. MS Auct. D.2.16, fol. 8r)’, Zur Geschichte des Reliquienkultus in Altengland (Munich, 1943), 63–114 · M. Swanton, ed. and trans., ‘Exeter relic list (Bod. MS Auct. D.2.16, fol. 8r)’, Anglo-Saxon prose, 2nd edn (1993), 19–24 · D. N. Dumville, ‘Between Alfred the Great and Edgar the Peaceable: Æthelstan, first king of England’, Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar (1992), 141–72 · S. Keynes, ‘King Athelstan's books’, Learning and literature in Anglo-Saxon England: studies presented to Peter Clemoes on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, ed. M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss (1985), 143–201 · J. A. Robinson, The times of St Dunstan (1923) · M. Lapidge, ‘Some Latin poems as evidence for the reign of King Athelstan’, Anglo-Saxon England, 9 (1981), 61–98 · R. I. Page, ‘The audience of Beowulf and the vikings’, The dating of Beowulf, ed. C. Chase (1981), 113–22 · F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edn (1971) · M. Wood, ‘The making of King Æthelstan's empire: an English Charlemagne?’, Ideal and reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon society, ed. P. Wormald, D. Bullough, and R. Collins (1983), 250–72 · H. R. Loyn, ‘Wales and England in the tenth century: the context of the Æthelstan charters’, Society and peoples: studies in the history of England and Wales, c.600–1200 (1992), 173–99 · D. P. Kirby, ‘Hywel Dda: Anglophil?’, Welsh History Review / Cylchgrawn Hanes Cymru, 8 (1976–7), 1–13 · K. Leyser, ‘The Ottonians and Wessex’, Communications and power in medieval Europe: the Carolingian and Ottonian centuries, ed. T. Reuter (1994), 73–104 · D. N. Dumville, ‘Brittany and “Armes Prydein Vawr”’, Études Celtiques, 20 (1983), 145–59 · P. Grierson, ‘The relations between England and Flanders before the Norman conquest’, TRHS, 4th ser., 23 (1941), 71–112 · C. F. Battiscombe, ed., The relics of St Cuthbert (1956) · C. Brett, ‘A Breton pilgrim in England in the reign of King Æthelstan’, France and the British Isles in the middle ages and Renaissance, ed. G. Jondorf and D. N. Dumville (1991), 43–70 · K. Harrison, ‘A note on the battle of Brunanburh’, Durham Archaeological Journal, 3 (1984), 63–5 · A. P. Smyth, Scandinavian York and Dublin: the history of two related Viking kingdoms, 2 vols. (1975–9) · D. Rollason, ‘St Cuthbert and Wessex: the evidence of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 183’, St Cuthbert: his cult and his community, ed. G. Bonner, D. Rollason, and C. Stancliffe (1989), 413–24 · R. L. Poole, ‘The Alpine son-in-law of Edward the Elder’, Studies in chronology and history, ed. A. L. Poole (1934), 115–22 · L. H. Loomis, ‘The holy relics of Charlemagne and King Æthelstan: the lances of Longinus and St Mauricius’, Speculum, 25 (1950), 437–56 · English historical documents, 1, ed. D. Whitelock (1955), nos. 24, 25, 26, 228, 239 (I) · M. Gretsch, The intellectual foundations of the English Benedictine reform (1999) · S. M. Sharp, ‘England, Europe and the Celtic world: King Æthelstan's foreign policy’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library, 79 (1997), 197–220 · M. Wood, In search of England: journeys into the English past (2000) [[[User:John Kenney|john]] k 15:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)]
(I nested your sources paragraph, hope you don't mind) Impressive, but strip away the modern books (1940s Stenton still an authority!) and journal articles, then strip away the late sources (William of Malmesbury, etc), then strip away the foreign sources (Taliesin, etc) and you are left with considerably less than might first appear. What seems to be left are the chronicles (which are thin at this point) and saints lives (which are not exactly history, to say the least). Thanks for the talk by the way, this has whetted my appetite to return to studying the Anglo-Saxon period 195.92.168.165 16:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, though, is a primary source of the first order. What makes you say they are thin at this point? The ODNB managed to get a rather full article on Aethelstan based largely on them. And why exclude William of Malmesbury? He was only writing 200 years later, which is better than we have for, say, many period of ancient Greek history (for instance, our nearest source to give a narrative of the history of Philip of Macedon is Diodorus, writing 300 years later) john k 17:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Dumville describes the Anglo-Saxon chronicle at this time as 'an emaciated record'. Using William of Malmesbury as evidence for the 10th century is like using Bede as evidence for Hengist and Horsa. As you say about Greece, I do believe many national histories display an unseemly eagerness to join the dots into a continuous narrative 195.92.168.163 18:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Having got that off my chest, while I think Bretwalda might be an illusory concept (didn't Bede name some powerful kings and someone else gloss one of them as Bretwalda?) such a person could perhaps be considered close to the kings of Tara of early medieval Ireland (this was titular and alternated between the kings of Meath and Aileach). Seperately, the idea of a high king was a pseudohistorical invention of circa 7th century and became identified with the national claims of the kings of Tara. Seperately again, a real (but intermittent) personal kingship of Ireland first emerged circa 9th century, usually held by kings of Tara. By 1169 the contenders were closely related by intermarriage and were essentially an extended family 195.92.168.169 21:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The Bretwaldas, though, are not the same as the Kings of England from Athelstan or so onwards. The latter were clearly rulers of a relatively consolidated kingdom. john k 06:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, hence the broad equivalence of king of Tara with bretwalda 195.92.168.175 12:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth I's regnal number

The list of Lords etc 1541-1801 has, against Elizabeth: (Not "Elizabeth I" in Ireland because, excepting Northern Ireland, Ireland has never had an "Elizabeth II."). The obvious question is, what do people in Northern Ireland call the present Queen? The exception seems to tell the story. Northern Irelanders would nowadays distinguish between Elizabeths I and II, whereas Irish citizens only ever had one Elizabeth so no distinction is necessary. But the title Lord etc of Ireland referred to the entire island. I think the name should be Elizabeth I, and the comment in brackets should say "Irish citizens refer to her as "Elizabeth", without the regnal number, because she is the only queen of that name they ever had". - or something like that. JackofOz 01:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course Irish citizens do not refer to her as "Elizabeth," without the regnal number. To most Irish people, she is Queen Elizabeth I of England, and must be distinguished from the current queen, Elizabeth II, just like with everybody else. john k 01:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Referring to her in the list as "Elizabeth" (regardless of any comments in brackets) is not correct because nobody refers to her without a regnal number. JackofOz 02:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with that part. I disagree with having a comment in brackets which implies that Irish people do not use the ordinal because there has not been an Elizabeth II of Ireland. Because Irish people, like everybody else, do use the ordinal. john k 06:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we agree that we are in agreement about agreeing to agree. I will change it to "Elizabeth I" and remove the brackets. Cheers. JackofOz 10:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Irish people regard the kingship of Ireland set up in 1542 as being 'English' rather than 'Irish' (it being part of the colonial apparatus) and so have none of that sense of ownership that would create a proper usage in the Irish sense 195.92.168.166 16:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Elizabeth the Queen Consort?

Should this reference to the Queen's mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon be changed to her "proper" reference now that she's deceased? There's a lot of discussion over on her page about how she should be referred to... Thoughts? JByrd 20:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page movement

I've 'moved' this page to Irish monarchy from King of Ireland. The former title was gender bias, since there's been Queen regnants of Ireland. GoodDay 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it again to Monarchy in Ireland from Irish Monarchy, because the pre-Norman Monarchs were of the Island of Ireland, whereas the post-Norman conquest Monarchs were from England / Britain (non-native). The title Monarchy in Ireland is neutral enough, I think. Snappy56 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JFK, Reagan, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon descended from Brian Boru? Pull the other one!

I just removed an [anonymous edit] from two years ago that asserted that Elizabeth II, JFK and Ronald Reagan were descendants of Brian Ború. No citation was offered. This kind of patent nonsense needs to be aggressively trimmed. Ferg2k 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't difficult to find citations (e.g.[1]) but it is meaningless in this article. --Rumping 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Papal Bull of 1555

Interesting but in fact Philip II of Spain was already king of Ireland (and England) from 1554, by marriage to Mary. The Bull recognises the two of them together as loyal Catholic monarchs [unlike Mary's brother and father] and looks more like Rome slowly trying to catch up with events and preserve some ancient and dubious claim to suzreignty of islands. --Rumping 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lordship of Ireland

Strictly speaking Richard I was never Lord of Ireland. Shortly after the Anglo-Norman conquest, Henry II had "given" Ireland to his youngest son John Lackland. Only when Prince John succeded his brother, did the Lordship of Ireland become "permantly" co-joined with the monarch England. Jalipa (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Monarchs of Ireland

Anybody want to make the list? --Camaeron (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland - a Separate Realm?

The current article states: "It was five years before the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 revived the title King of Ireland as a separate position to the British crown"

Was the King acting on the authority of the Irish Free State (later Ireland) government acting in "a separate position to the British crown"? To my knowledge there was no Act of the Oireachtas declaring the King, "King of Ireland". - On my, admittedly unresearched reading, the 1927 Act merely restyled the UK monarch's title and in no way created "a separate position" for the Free State. On my reading separate monarchs for each Realm was a later development (1950s) although the restyling of the UK monarch's title was a precursor. Am I wrong on this? Does any one have any legal knowledge on this matter? I have tagged the particular reference on the page as requiring verification.

I've also made a few changes: deleting reference to Canadian campaign for Dominion sovereignty etc - it seemed outside the scope of the Ireland monarchy subject. I also corrected references to Eire (as these should be to Ireland - See Names of the Irish state). Redking7 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain. I'm not very good at the legal stuff. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

Surely two articles are not necessary? The other more recent article, the list article, contains far more information than a mere list, including images, information, etc. all of which is good stuff, but overlaps with this. This, the older article, contains information on Kings of Ireland over a longer period and also contains a list, although the list on the other article is better illustrated, tabulated, etc. A merger into the older, longer-established article seems sensible. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merger. A list a very handy device for thew who-when questions, but this article is and shoulkd be more discursive, explaining how the concept of monarchy in Ireland changed over the centuries. At points, this article does degenerate into a bare list, and that material should be trimmed ... but I would not like to lose this article. It should be expanded, not merged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Merger - The article List of Irish Monarchs contains one section 'The Kings of Irish Kingdoms to 1607' which lists Irish Kings that is Native ones, the rest is just a duplication of the List of British Monarchs from 1170 to 1948. Why is it needed in 2 articles? Snappy56 (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The list at List of Irish monarchs is better. If you do merge please keep the list!--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No argument that the list at List of Irish Monarchs is good, but it focuses on one period. Right now it seems that either a merge or a major tidying up of one or both articles is needed. There is overlap, underlap (if such a word exists), etc. Wotapalaver (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Wotapalaver, the discussion above shows no consensus to merge.
If you think that "a major tidying up" is required, please explain what you have in mind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
For goodness sake BrownHairedGirl, the discussion above includes is (a) only a couple of days old and (b) includes at least one other editor suggesting that there's overlap with a 3rd article. Besides, do you see me merging? No, but it does seem to me that one would help. Maybe I'm wrong, which is why I bring it to the talk page to discuss it rather than just do it. As for your question, I'll try to outline a suggestion. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Noting that there is overlap is not necessarily support for merger, and the other two replies explicitly opposed merger (one of whom agreed that there is overlap, but still opposes merger). The reason for my "for goodness sake" was that you responded to this by saying that a merger still appeared to be needed. Yes, the discussion had been open only for a few days, but your comment appeared to be a summing up as a prelude to action.
Anyway, I look forward to your suggestion for tidyup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)