text:
Talk:Monarchy of Ireland

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)

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)

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 * I would like a citation to a serious work in support of this as your view is very much that of an outdated school textbook.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) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.) but it is meaningless in this article. --Rumping 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

 * Indeed, having looked at it further neither the Irish Free State or Ireland were separate Realms at any time during the Twentieth Century. There were serious inaccuracies in the Article concerning this. Essentially, by reason of a change of the King's Style, Editors were claiming the IFS or Ireland had become a separate realm: The change in Titles in no way turned the IFS or Ireland into a realm. The following is the position:

 * The King's title in the Irish Free State was exactly the same as it was elsewhere in the British Empire, being:

 * From 1922–1927 - By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India

 * From 1927–1937 - By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India

 * The change in the King's title was effected under an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom called the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. The Act was intended to update the name of the United Kingdom as well as the King's title to reflect the fact that most of the island of Ireland had left the United Kingdom. The Act therefore provided that: I have tried to put the Article right. Editors were mixing up what happened in the 1920s with what later happened after Ireland left the Commonwealth - in 1953 - when the Monarch did indeed assume multiple titles e.g. Queen of Australia etc. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted my revert as I now agree it is not clear cut - on the one hand it certainly appears that until the act, the King still claimed to be king of all Ireland, but this flies in the face of the Irish declaration of Independence, so giving credibility to one ignores the other. I believe it is a worthwhile note to make in the article all the same.  --HighKing (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Irish declaration of independence was irrelevant. The King was king of all Ireland until the republic was declared in 1949. Until then, the Irish Free State had "dominion status" like Canada, Australia, where the King remained head of state. Mooretwin (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * MT, I believe you are right. The Irish Free state was established as a constitutional monarchy and that the British monarch was the head of state until 1949.  No probs with that.  Article 12 of the Irish Free State constitution states A Legislature is hereby created, to be known as the Oireachtas. It shall consist of the King and two Houses, the Chamber of Deputies (otherwise called and herein generally referred to as "Dáil Eireann") and the Senate (otherwise called and herein generally referred to as "Seanad Eireann"). The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the peace, order and good government of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) is vested in the Oireachtas.  But also relevant to another discussion taking place elsewhere, this document contains within the title THE TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND SIGNED AT LONDON ON THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1921 - referring to the state as Ireland? and also ends with a phrase of sit in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, referring to the Irish Free State as "Southern Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When the Treaty was drafted and signed, the Free State did not exist. It only came into existence as a result of the Treaty, therefore the Free State could not have been a party to the Treaty. Southern Ireland, however, existed (in theory, if not in practice) at the time of the Treaty and its parliament was required to ratify the Treaty (which it did - an exercise in constitutional theory rather than practical politics). Mooretwin (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Duh! Of course (smacks forehead)!  Thanks :-).  But the inclusion of the "Southern Ireland" still echoes oddly in this official document...AFAIK it had no official recognition as a term...--HighKing (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It did. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 established Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. NI obviously became a reality. SI existed in legal theory only because de facto power resided in the (illegal) Dáil. The SI Parliament did exist, and did meet, but the only MPs who attended were the 4 Southern Unionists.  When it came to ratifying the Treaty, the Unionists were joined by the pro-Treaty Shinners and voted for the Treaty (the anti-Treaty Shinners continued not to recognise it). The legislation that was passed to establish the Free State then abolished Southern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. Can you look at my contribution under "Titles again" below? I really think 4.2 and 4.3 in the article should be merged under the single title "Kings and Queens of Great Britain and Ireland" - as the tautology "King of the United Kingdom of ..." really grates. Mooretwin (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re PS. Can you look at my contribution under "Titles again" below? I really think 4.2 and 4.3 in the article should be merged under the single title "Kings and Queens of Great Britain and Ireland" - as the tautology "King of the United Kingdom of ..." really grates.. I agree and support the change. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2008
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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I oppose too, so I'm going to remove the proposal tags as no consensus - rst20xx (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Monarch numerals
The article currently says (unsourced):

Although universally known as "Henry VIII," he was technically Henry I in Ireland, as the first of the English kings Henry to be King of Ireland; and the same principle applies to his successors until 1801.

...and successive monarchs have been numbered on the basis that it all began in 1541, then was reset in 1801 and againish in 1927. Everywhere else I've seen has indicated that the monarchs used their English/British numbering for their Irish titles (in the same way that Elizabeth II is "Elizabeth II of Australia" regardless of there not having been an "Elizabeth I of Australia") and that the UK monarchs carried forward the same numbering for the single UK title (whatever Scottish nationalists who object to "Elizabeth II" try to argue). It's very confusing when the same person is listed as "Edward" but later called "Edward VIII" or to have "George (II) (V)" listed.

So are the current numbers correct or should it be the English/British/UK numbers? It would be original research to start applying an original numbering system that wasn't what the monarchs actually used. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

 * P.S. Monarchy in the Irish Free State gives the relevant monarchs the same numbering as on their British titles - i.e. George V, Edward VIII, George VI. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think that a seperate number would be correct from 1541 to 1801. As it was in Scotland until 1707. After that it seems to me that there should be one numeral because of the merger of the crowns.145.33.33.69 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I think post-1801 must be right, and I've edited accordingly. There's still a question mark over 1541-1800, though. Mooretwin (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Scotland is a slightly different case because there was an existing throne independent of both the English throne and English royal line. The Irish throne, however, was created as a subordinate title of the English monarch and I think the practice of using the same numbering across the board regardless was already established in this period. For what it's worth the articles for the relevant monarchs who might have different number say:
 * Henry VIII of England says about his style from 1541: The style "Henry the Eighth, by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith and of the Church of England and also of Ireland in Earth Supreme Head" remained in use until the end of Henry's reign.
 * (The style may confuse though. James VII & II had "King of Scots" in a style that began "James the Second".)
 * Edward VI of England doesn't say anything at all about different numbers, though the succession boxes call his predecessor just "Henry VIII"
 * William III of England says: He reigned as 'William II' in Scotland, and 'William III' in England and Ireland.[2] He is informally known in Northern Ireland and Scotland as "King Billy".
 * The succession boxes for Anne of Great Britain call her predecessor "William III/II".
 * Also Williamite War in Ireland makes no reference to "William I".
 * If the basis for the Irish titles having their own numbering starting from fresh is just the assumption that the first monarch was "the first" then it's not the strongest. Monarchical numbers aren't always logical. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tim. Unless there is a source to indicate that the numerals used for Ireland were different, I think the article should be edited so as they mirror those for England. (I think it's unlikely that much thought was given to the king's title as it related to Ireland - but that's just a hunch.) Mooretwin (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Titles again
I've made some edits. It seems to me that it is a tautology to say that someone is "King of a Kingdom of ...", and hence the current title is surely "Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Likewise this would surely be (at least the common) form from 1801 ("King of Great Britain and Ireland"). I also see from Monarchy and the Irish Free State that after 1937, the title changed from "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" to "King of Great Britain and Ireland". I've reflected this, although the first title still seems like a tautology. In reality, he was king of Great Britain and Ireland, and the different administrative and governmental arrangements in GB, NI, and IFS are irrelevant. Happy to discuss of course. Mooretwin (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would prefer to use the actual words used in the actual title, as used by the actual monarch at the time. So in that case, before 1801 there was a separate title for Ireland, but afterwards there was only a single "United Kingdom of GB&I" until 1927.  After that date it gets unclear.  I think it's interesting that while the parliament changed it's name in 1927 to GB&NI, it appears that the official title of the monarch wasn't changed to exclude the Irish state until 1953.  Other oddities exist - for example the Oath of Allegiance in Ireland swore allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish free state, and (only) swore fidelity to the British King in his role within the treaty settlement.  As the Oath was effectively to the elected government in the Irish Free State, it was also described as the Crown in Ireland.  So at this time, who was King?  Was there a "Kingdom of Ireland" established at this time?  --HighKing (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Before 1801 is not in question. After 1801, I believe "King of Great Britain and Ireland" to be unambiguously the correct title to use until 1922. Between 1922 and 1949, I still believe "King of Great Britain and Ireland" is correct, because the Irish Free State was a constitutional monarchy. I see the point you make, however: if the UK of GB&I ceased to exist in 1922, did this mean that the IFS was a separate "kingdom"? Logically, if it had a king, then it must have been a kingdom, yet I am sure that this would never have been stated as being the case, nor would the Free State ever have been described in this way. Is it possible to have a king without being a kingdom? I think we need to look to the other dominions for guidance - were/are Australia, New Zealand and Canada separate kingdoms? Mooretwin (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree up to 1922. And I simply don't know the answer regarding IFS.  Seems to be difficult to get a clear answer from any sources.  --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to have a king without being a kingdom? I think it is. Australia, for example, is the "Commonwealth of Australia", yet it has a queen. I think the Free State and Éire (1937-49) fall into the same category - not a separate kingdom, but nonetheless having a king. Mooretwin (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. But I'm not sure if it's as simple in this case.  Beforehand, all of Ireland was one country but now it was split into two areas - the IFS separate from Northern Ireland.  Is it possible that a single kingdom encompassed both?  Since there was no longer a "United Kingdom of GB&I", this appears to suggest that there was at least one kingdom - that of GB&NI, so where does that leave the IFS?  It doesn't seem logical to suggest that there was a new kingdom created, that of a 26 county Ireland, or that there was a 32 county kingdom of Ireland because that would have overlapped with the UK.  It looks like once the kingdoms were joined into a united kingdom, they were never subsequently devolved, and that the united kingdom effectively contracted.  --HighKing (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: "United Kingdom of GB&I" until 1927. After that date it gets unclear. - There is absolutely nothing unclear whatsoever about the King's title. He had the exact same title in all of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, Australia, South Africa etc. during that period. Multiple titles only came about in 1953. Please read up on this. Monarchy of the United Kingdom would be a good start.
 * Re: the IFS being a separate Kingdom - No, it was a dominion. Again please read up on this.
 * I support Mooretwin's original suggestion.
 * Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redking - perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not arguing - I also support Mooretwins suggestions.  Nor am I disputing anything.  If you read what I said above you'll see that I agree with the title, with the IFS being a dominion, etc.  This is a friendly conversation where I'm trying to understand the concept of "Kingdom of Ireland" after 1927. --HighKing (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In 1922, the United Kingdom reduced in size, with the Irish Free State no longer part of it (although the name wasn't changed until 1927). As I understand it, and as Redking7 says, the IFS became a dominion, and was therefore not a kingdom (either a separate one or part of the UK). Despite not being a kingdom, it still had a king - seems odd, but it was the same as the other dominions, e.g. Australia, Canada, etc. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As above, I agree. I'm trying to understand the concept of "Kingdom of Ireland" after 1927.  Thanks for your help. --HighKing (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been no "Kingdom of Ireland" since 31st December 1800. On 1st January 1801 it ceased to exist along with the Kingdom of Great Britain, and a new "United Kingdom" was established, which has continued ever since (albeit reduced in size in 1922 when the Irish Free State ceased to be a part of that kindgdom). The Irish Free State was not a kingdom - either a separate one or part of a larger one.  1927 represents a mere name change - reflecting what had happened five years previously. Mooretwin (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the way I would think, except this article states ...and in 1927 the old Anglo-Irish title "King of Ireland" was revived to emphasize the Irish Free State's status as one of several independent countries worldwide under a shared monarchy. --HighKing (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Well spotted. Mooretwin (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably the statement comes from the 1927-1953 title of the monarch: "By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India". Note that Ireland is listed separately to the dominions.  I guess it is logically possible to extract "King of Ireland" from this, but I don't think it means Ireland was a kingdom.  Equally, we can extract "King of the British Dominions beyond the Seas", but that does not mean that those dominions were themselves kingdoms. The fact that Ireland continued to be listed separately supports the current title of "King of Great Britain and Ireland" that we have in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem with the title - the legislation was clear. But where does the assertion above come from in the first place?  Is it true and can we find references?  I agree that it's possible to have a king without a kingdom, but if the title "King of Ireland" existed, it implies a king over all of Ireland (like the old Kingdom of Ireland) - the article says the old title was revived, but does it make sense to have a "King of Ireland" without the kingdom?
 * I believe that some editors have attributed the rephrasing of the title from "UK & I" to "UK, I" to mean that the title was revived, and this ties in to the statement in the article that in 1953 the title of "King of Ireland" was abolished because it says the British Act of Parliament clearly stated that it applied only to the United Kingdom and those overseas territories whose foreign relations were controlled by the UK government. So in summary, it seems that all of Ireland was claimed/headed by the British monarch until 1953? --HighKing (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, the title wasn't changed from "UK & I" to "UK, I", but from "GB & I" to "GB, I". But on your substantial point - yes, I agree that the most likely explanation for the assertion is that it comes from an inference that the 1927 title "revived" the title "King of Ireland", by referring separately to "Ireland" alongside "Great Britain". I think this is not safe and that the assertion should be removed pending references being found to support it. What do you think?
 * I agree - removal may be a little hasty but it should at least have a tag asking for references, and if none forthcoming in a week, then remove the text. --HighKing (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the tag. If there is no response, feel free to remove altogether in a week, in case I forget to come back. Mooretwin (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My own view is that the most likely explanation is that the title was changed because of the change of name of the UK, and the removal of the Free State from the UK, BUT because the king was still king of all Ireland (albeit that part of Ireland was not part of the UK), then it was considered reasonable to refer to all of Ireland with one reference in the title.
 * Regarding your suggestion all of Ireland was claimed/headed by the British monarch until 1953, I disagree. I think that all of Ireland was headed by the British monarch until 1949, but that it took 4 years for the title to be changed to catch up with reality. From 1949-53, the monarch may have been styled King/Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, etc., but the reality was that he/she was not King/Queen of Ireland, but only Northern Ireland.  Interestingly, this was a repeat of what happened with the title of the UK. The UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland began in 1922, but its title wasn't changed until 1927. That doesn't mean, however, that the Free State was part of the UK until 1927: it was just that Parliament was slow to change the formal title. Mooretwin (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And this also makes sense. I'm happy I understand this now.  And I'd like to say that I appreciate your helpfulness, thank you.  --HighKing (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been a constructive, enlightening and enjoyable discussion. In contrast to the tiresome discussions elsewhere. Mooretwin (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin, I think you deserve a Star for your patience in explaining things.
 * The references to "King of Ireland" as a distinct title in modern times, inferring it had some sort of legal basis were, as I have said, entirely inaccurate. I have done some more work on removing them. There is no doubt whatsoever about this point. See for example Style of the British sovereign - Only in 1953 were other Styles adopted. Other Articles cover this point too. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm content with your changes. Mooretwin (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Esteemed colleagues, just to reiterate the point made by @Redking7 below is that English kings have been and still are monarchs of Ireland (whole or just part) provides the answer to this discussion in the still active in UK Crown of Irelnd Act 1542, retained here. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, it answers @Mooretwin questions re: separate realm (yes) and titles. It was a separate realm since 1922 under imperial Crown of England, hence technically a 'dominion'. CitoyenU (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

(unindent) Some boring legal stuff...

Section 3(2) of the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 say that
 * "Immediately upon the passing of this Act, the instrument of abdication executed by His Majesty King Edward the Eighth on the 10th day of December, 1936, (a copy whereof is set out in the Schedule to this Act) shall have effect according to the tenor thereof ..."

This instrument of abdication says:

"I, Edward the Eighth, of Great Britain, Ireland, and..."

An incidental acceptance of the title perhaps? As I said on the Republic of Ireland talk page, I would assume the treaty, created a political unit equivalent to Canada. King of Canada thus, King of Ireland. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not boring at all. So is it open to interpretation that this appears to recreate the title "King of Ireland", or does this language make it pretty clear?  For me, it seems clear that it is different that stating "Great Britain and Ireland".  --HighKing (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Well if nothing else the title is consistent with the 1927 Act. I don't think the 1936 Act recreated the Kingdom of Ireland, but its wording appears to be consistent with the theory that the Anglo-Irish Treaty created such an entity. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Philip
If Philip was granted the Crown of Ireland in 1555 by Pope Paul IV, why didn't his Habsburg descendants pretend to the throne afterwards? Was it too embarassing a reminder after the Armada? - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand it correctly, the Papal Bull only confirmed Philip's and Mary's right to style themselves King and Queen of Ireland (de facto, but in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church it made them de iure King and Queen of Ireland). Thus, the Crown of Ireland passed to Mary's heir (as Mary was the one who inherited the crown). Philip tried to claim both the Crown of England and the Crown of Ireland after Mary I's death, but, as we all know, he failed. However, I'm not sure why the site mentions "The papal bull of 1555 conferring the title of king of Ireland on Philip II of Spain". The bull always mentions the names of both Philip and Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So called 'overview', which was only an overview of 250 years.
Having copyedited this text until it began to make sense, Overview

After Henry VIII of England made himself Supreme Head of the Church of England, he also requested and got legislation through his Irish Parliament, in 1541 (effective 1542, see Crown of Ireland Act 1542). This named him King of Ireland and head of the Church of Ireland (which today, both in Ireland and Northern Ireland, remains a member of the Anglican communion but is no longer an established church like the Church of England). The title "King of Ireland" was then used until 1 January 1801, the effective date of the second Act of Union, which merged Ireland and Great Britain to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

In 1554, King Philip II of Spain became co-monarch of England (and thus of Ireland), by his marriage Queen Mary. In 1555, Pope Paul IV issued a papal bull granting the title King of Ireland to him. . This reasserted the Pope's authority followed his excommunication of English King Henry VIII, after the latter's break with Rome. (This was the same feudal overlordship of the Papacy which, under the English Pope Adrian IV, had granted Ireland as a Lordship to King Henry II of England in 1155). Philip reigned from 1554 to 1558, along with his wife Mary I. With the death of Mary, the crown of England passed to Elizabeth. Regarding Elizabeth as a heretic, Phillip attempted to recover (both) crowns. With the failure of the Spanish Armada, Philip could not establish a foothold in England, and the Irish efforts to abolish English rule in Ireland with the help of Spain were defeated at the Battle of Kinsale in 1601.

In 1949 the Irish state, now named simply Ireland (as the Irish Free State had been renamed in 1937) severed its last link with the monarch when it declared that it was a republic, thereby leaving the Commonwealth. Partly to reflect the fact that the King was no longer King in all of the island of Ireland, the Monarch's Style was once again revised in 1953. The following title was adopted for the United Kingdom: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. The Act also marked the first time that Northern Ireland was explicitly referred to in the monarch's title. 1953 was also the first year in which the Monarch adopted more than one Royal Style, adopting separate Styles for her various realms, i.e. Queen of Canada.

but now I have no idea why it was there at all. The article reads perfectly well without it. It claims to be the overview, but in fact it is only an overview of the 260 years from 1641 to 1801, relegating the original Irish monarchy to the body as a detail not worth mentioning. The whole thing reads as WP:POINT. I would like to see a convincing argument before it goes back. --Red King (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Division of the Crown
This article doesn't adequately take into account the effects of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, at which time the monarch ceased to reign in the Irish Free State as a British sovereign and was instead monarch of Ireland separately (as illustrated by the need for Irish legislation to allow for Edward VIII's abdication from the Irish throne). Somewhere along the line, the list of monarchs needs to be split, or it's indicated that after 1931 the same individual reigned in the Irish Free State as monarch of Ireland and in Northern Ireland as the monarch of the United Kingdom. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But that is exactly what happened after 1931.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this entire article needs a rewrite?
This article is incredibly confusing, and needs rewriting. For example, there are nothing but links under High–Kings of Ireland 846–1198 and there is nothing explaining what that means. Also, it starts abruptly at 846 and doesn't tell us anything about anything. In fact, if I go to List of Irish monarchs, there is a link there that goes to List of High Kings of Ireland, which is yet another article. Why the duplication? This is only one example of many. There are just so many things wrong with it I couldn't possibly list them all. I would be more than happy to help, but unfortunately, this is a subject matter that I know absolutely nothing about, which is why I came here to read about it. I thought some feedback though was definitely needed. I should also add that the long list of very well written references, but not even used in citations in the article itself, should go, unless they truly were used in the article (in which case it would be a good idea, though not required, to make inline citations so that facts can be checked. If they are for "additional reading" then they need to go under a heading stating just that. I have to laugh at the very top post on this Talk page. Someone evidently tagged it as needing clean up because it's just plain confusing. Someone asked what needs cleaning, and the response would be almost everything. I hate to be so blunt, because I'm sure that someone or several someones has worked very hard, and for that I am eternally grateful, but we all wish Wikipedia to be helpful, rather than scaring potential readers away. Suffice it to say that I am leaving the page having learned very little due to both information overload and disorganization. My comments here are respectfully intended, hopefully it sounds so as well. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

End of personal union, start of political union
There's a citation needed tag being inserted around the statement that the Personal union was ended and the Political union was created. Maybe I'm being slow but what citation is required exactly? It seems a little WP:SKYISBLUE to me. Yes, there's definitions of both a Personal union and a Political union. Yes, there's references that state it was originally a Personal union. Yes, there's references that state a Political union was created. What's missing that needed a reference? BTW, there's an onus on the editor placing the tags to do some research too, and this one seems easy enough to research (unless I'm completely missing the point of what is required in this case) --HighKing (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I sense that Mabuska doesn't quite understand the difference between a personal and a political union; this edit implies a personal union and political union can exist at the same time. They can't. In a political union, there is one crown held by one person with a singular sovereignty over all the jurisdictions involved. In the case of Ireland and the United Kingdom between 1801 and 1927, the monarch in his or her British parliament, council, and courts held sovereignty over Ireland. By contrast, in a personal union, there are at least two crowns held by one person, and the sovereignty held by one crown over one territory is distinct from that held by the other crown over the other territory, though one person exercises both. In the case of Ireland and England/Great Britain between 1542 and 1801, the monarch in his or her British/English parliament, council, and courts held no sovereignty over Ireland; only the same monarch in his or her Irish parliament, council, and courts did. Hence, it was necessary that the Irish parliament pass an act to relinquish the sovereignty of George III in Right of Ireland to George III in Right of Great Britain and form the political union with the latter in 1801; before that, the British parliament's legislation had no effect in Ireland. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Says it right here in fact. --HighKing (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a full explaination Miesianiacal, it and HighKing's source fully satisfy my issue and I withdraw my questioning about the statement. Mabuska (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Miesianiacal for his exposition of the matter. And for the record I agree with his conclusion. However, there is a small flaw in the reasoning I think. Due to the operation of Poyning's Law, can the Irish parliament be really said to be sovereign? If the council of another crown must first approve the calling of parliament and the list of bills that may be presented, then is the first council and parliament really sovereign? Is it not more accurate to say that it was subordinate? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ireland had gained legislative independence by the 1780s during "Grattan's Parliament" so I don't think it could be classified as subordinate by the time of the Act of Union a couple of decades later especially seeing as the Irish Parliament was bribed beyond belief to get it passed. Mabuska (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but can a period of 18 years be regarded as a Golden Age of Sovereignty? The preceeding 300 years of subordinacy would have to set the tone for the bulk of the experience. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no time limit required or a need for a "Golden Age". If something has legislative independence at the time of an event then it still had legislative independence regardless of how long it's had it. Though I do think that some of that legislative independence had been chipped away by Britain before the Act of Union. Mabuska (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Edward VIII as last monarch
Would it be acceptable to omit George VI from the list of the last of the Monarchs of the Irish Free State ]? The position seems to have been as stated at Constitution of Ireland[], and Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. Please see also comment at Talk:George VI[] which in summary is: from the abdication, sovereignty in name and fact was assumed by the Irish government as recognised by the George VI and his governments of the UK and other realms - the king had no part in the government of the Irish Free State or its successor, and its government had no other claim of right upon the king - it was a republic de facto and, as far as the parties to the arrangement themselves were concerned, de jure - the parties allowed themselves some flexibility with reference to "head of state" - the legislation at the time of George VI's accession was intended to change the residual position of the king which had obtained in the latter days of George V's reign and to which Edward VIII had succeeded - if in some respects the legislation was as equivocal as the political circumstances, all principal parties at the time had to be wary of allowing questions of allegiance and loyalty be overstrained when negotiating a settlement for the future government of the people of Ireland.Qexigator (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting "Monarchs of the Irish Free State"
I have added two links for See also. On further consideration: Instead of revising the article simply on the basis that Edward VIII was last monarch, this is to propose revising the article on the basis of what is described at Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. The arrangement between the Irish Free State and kings Geoge V, Edward VIII, and George VI successively as explained there differs from what is said about those kings in the present article. Certain aspects were discussed above in 2008 "Ireland - a Separate Realm?", in 2010 "Division of the Crown" and in November "End of personal union, start of political union". The source for the parts of the present article under the headings "Monarchs of the Irish Free State" and "Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" appears to be "Official Website of the Almanach de Saxe Gotha" for "Kingdom of Ireland" - none other is cited. The Almanach states: "In 1937, the link to the U.K. Crown was repealed, but the monarch was the de jure King in the new State until 1949". But that is not borne out by the facts meticulously described in "Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949". Subject to any further comment here or at "Last monarch, Edward or George?"Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, some rewording is, in my view, required for:
 * 1_George V (1927–1936) (The Irish Free State became a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire and subsequently, in 1931, a legislatively independent country in personal union with the United Kingdom and the other independent Dominions of the British Commonwealth that ratified the Statute of Westminster, ..)
 * 2_George VI (1949–1952) (Following the declaration of the Republic of Ireland in 1949, only that part of Ireland known as Northern Ireland retained the British monarchy.)
 * 3_"Edward VIII was the first monarch to accede to the British throne with the Northern Ireland designation attached to his title. His brother, George VI, was the first actually so crowned. He was also the last monarch to reign as king in all of the island of Ireland." Qexigator (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Revisions now made to clarify. Qexigator (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No that's wrong. Edward VIII didn't have the NI designation attached to his title. Neither did George VI and niether did the present Queen when she acceded. NI was only made part of the royal title in 1953. Charles will (if he succeeds) be the first to have NI as part of the royal title on accession. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you saying the article as then revised to clarify the point is now wrong, please say what wording of the present version is incorrect. Qexigator (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No that's not what I was saying and the article is fine in that respect. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2015
The information at List of Irish monarchs appears to duplicate, or be similar to, much of the information here. DrKay (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the article's can be changed to a list. Note that, we've got List of English monarchs, List of Scottish monarchs and List of British monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The article originally contained a long list of monarchs. These were chopped some time ago. As it stands, the article consists of a series of re-directs to the main articles for Gael Ireland and the Lordship etc. So there's not much left worth preserving. Any remaining unique material can be merged into the target. If it is not merged, then rename to "History of monarchy in Ireland". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Laurel Lodged: the list is not a list. However, I also think that the lists in this article should be removed as superfluous. See Talk:List of Irish monarchs. Exactly the same applies here: if you link to the relevant Gaelic kings and English kings, readers will find the lists there. Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Project related move request
FYI Talk:The Queen of Ireland (film) → The Queen of Ireland. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Question
"In early 1166, Ruaidhrí, King of Connacht, proceeded to Dublin where he was inaugurated King of Ireland without opposition." What is the source for this? Dublin and what is today county Dublin was at that time a Norwegian enclave and city. High Kings of Ireland (who by this time were fairly meaningless) have no history of coronations in Dublin. 86.142.165.157 (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Annals of the Four Masters, M1166.13: "An army was led by Ruaidhri Ua Conchobhair, with the Connaughtmen, the men of Meath and of Teathbha, to Ath-cliath [Dublin]; and Ruaidhri Ua Conchobhair was there inaugurated king as honourably as any king of the Gaeidhil was ever inaugurated; and he presented their stipends to the foreigners [Norsemen] in many cows, for he levied a tax of four thousand cows upon the men of Ireland for them. On this occasion the foreigners accompanied Ruaidhri to Droicheat-atha [Drogheda], whither Donnchadh Ua Cearbhaill and the chieftains of Airghialla came into his house, and gave him their hostages."
 * Ruadhrí was the first and only king to be inaugurated in Dublin. I would not agree that the high-kingship was more meaningless in 1116 than at any time previously. Scolaire (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Gaelic kingdoms lasted for centuries after Norman Invasion
"The Gaelic kingdoms of Ireland ended with the Norman invasion of Ireland (1169–1171), when the kingdom became a fief of the Holy See under the Lordship of the King of England." This line is incorrect, many Gaelic kingdoms lasted until the sixteenth century. For example, Hugh Roe O'Donnell was king of Tyrconnell in the late sixteenth century.

Alister an Dubh and Life of all Irish Monarchs before 1200
I'm not familiar enough with Irish history to feel comfortable making this edit. But it looks like Alister an Dubh was added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=1184873326) and along with it this citation: . Alister was deleted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=1196807506, but the source stayed. There's also no page for Alister.

I don't think it exists as a book or chapter of a book. The ISBN is too short, and I wasn't able to find anything on Cambridge's website. It may just be a mistake/spam, but I'm trying to assume good faith. Snowman304'|'talk 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed. DrKay (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Monarchy of Ireland


text:
Coherentism

In philosophical epistemology, there are two types of coherentism: the coherence theory of truth, and the coherence theory of justification (also known as epistemic coherentism).

Coherent truth is divided between an anthropological approach, which applies only to localized networks ('true within a given sample of a population, given our understanding of the population'), and an approach that is judged on the basis of universals, such as categorical sets. The anthropological approach belongs more properly to the correspondence theory of truth, while the universal theories are a small development within analytic philosophy.

The coherentist theory of justification, which may be interpreted as relating to either theory of coherent truth, characterizes epistemic justification as a property of a belief only if that belief is a member of a coherent set. What distinguishes coherentism from other theories of justification is that the set is the primary bearer of justification.

As an epistemological theory, coherentism opposes dogmatic foundationalism and also infinitism through its insistence on definitions. It also attempts to offer a solution to the regress argument that plagues correspondence theory. In an epistemological sense, it is a theory about how belief can be proof-theoretically justified.

Coherentism is a view about the structure and system of knowledge, or else justified belief. The coherentist's thesis is normally formulated in terms of a denial of its contrary, such as dogmatic foundationalism, which lacks a proof-theoretical framework, or correspondence theory, which lacks universalism. Counterfactualism, through a vocabulary developed by David K. Lewis and his many worlds theory although popular with philosophers, has had the effect of creating wide disbelief of universals amongst academics. Many difficulties lie in between hypothetical coherence and its effective actualization. Coherentism claims, at a minimum, that not all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief. To defend this view, they may argue that conjunctions (and) are more specific, and thus in some way more defensible, than disjunctions (or).

After responding to foundationalism, coherentists normally characterize their view positively by replacing the foundationalism metaphor of a building as a model for the structure of knowledge with different metaphors, such as the metaphor that models our knowledge on a ship at sea whose seaworthiness must be ensured by repairs to any part in need of it. This metaphor fulfills the purpose of explaining the problem of incoherence, which was first raised in mathematics. Coherentists typically hold that justification is solely a function of some relationship between beliefs, none of which are privileged beliefs in the way maintained by dogmatic foundationalists. In this way universal truths are in closer reach. Different varieties of coherentism are individuated by the specific relationship between a system of knowledge and justified belief, which can be interpreted in terms of predicate logic, or ideally, proof theory.

Definition
As a theory of truth, coherentism restricts true sentences to those that cohere with some specified set of sentences. Someone's belief is true if and only if it is coherent with all or most of his or her other (true) beliefs. The terminology of coherence is then said to correlate with truth via some concept of what qualifies all truth, such as absoluteness or universalism. These further terms become the qualifiers of what is meant by a truth statement, and the truth-statements then decide what is meant by a true belief. Usually, coherence is taken to imply something stronger than mere consistency. Statements that are comprehensive and meet the requirements of Occam's razor are usually to be preferred.

As an illustration of the principle, if people lived in a virtual reality universe, they could see birds in the trees that aren't really there. Not only are the birds not really there, but the trees aren't really there either. The people may or may not know that the bird and the tree are there, but in either case there is a coherence between the virtual world and the real one, expressed in terms of true beliefs within available experience. Coherence is a way of explicating truth values while circumventing beliefs that might be false in any way. More traditional critics from the correspondence theory of truth have said that it cannot have contents and proofs at the same time, unless the contents are infinite, or unless the contents somehow exist in the form of proof. Such a form of 'existing proof' might seem ridiculous, but coherentists tend to think it is non-problematic. It therefore falls into a group of theories that are sometimes deemed excessively generalistic, what Gábor Forrai calls 'blob realism'.

Perhaps the best-known objection to a coherence theory of truth is Bertrand Russell's argument concerning contradiction. Russell maintained that a belief and its negation will each separately cohere with one complete set of all beliefs, thus making it internally inconsistent. For example, if someone holds a belief that is false, how might we determine whether the belief refers to something real although it is false, or whether instead the right belief is true although it is not believed? Coherence must thus rely on a theory that is either non-contradictory or accepts some limited degree of incoherence, such as relativism or paradox. Additional necessary criteria for coherence may include universalism or absoluteness, suggesting that the theory remains anthropological or incoherent when it does not use the concept of infinity. A coherentist might argue that this scenario applies regardless of the theories being considered, and so, that coherentism must be the preferred truth-theoretical framework in avoiding relativism.

History
In modern philosophy, the coherence theory of truth was defended by Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Harold Henry Joachim (who is credited with the definitive formulation of the theory). However, Spinoza and Kant have also been interpreted as defenders of the correspondence theory of truth.

In late modern philosophy, epistemic coherentist views were held by Schlegel and Hegel, but the definitive formulation of the coherence theory of justification was provided by F. H. Bradley in his book The Principles of Logic (1883).

In contemporary philosophy, epistemologists who have significantly contributed to epistemic coherentism include: A. C. Ewing, Brand Blanshard, C. I. Lewis, Nicholas Rescher, Laurence BonJour, Keith Lehrer, and Paul Thagard. Otto Neurath is also sometimes thought to be an epistemic coherentist.

The regress argument
Both coherence and foundationalist theories of justification attempt to answer the regress argument, a fundamental problem in epistemology that goes as follows. Given some statement P, it appears reasonable to ask for a justification for P. If that justification takes the form of another statement, P', one can again reasonably ask for a justification for P', and so forth. There are three possible outcomes to this questioning process:
 * 1) the series is infinitely long, with every statement justified by some other statement.
 * 2) the series forms a loop, so that each statement is ultimately involved in its own justification.
 * 3) the series terminates with certain statements having to be self-justifying.

An infinite series appears to offer little help, unless a way is found to model infinite sets. This might entail additional assumptions. Otherwise, it is impossible to check that each justification is satisfactory without making broad generalizations.

Coherentism is sometimes characterized as accepting that the series forms a loop, but although this would produce a form of coherentism, this is not what is generally meant by the term. Those who do accept the loop theory sometimes argue that the body of assumptions used to prove the theory is not what is at question in considering a loop of premises. This would serve the typical purpose of circumventing the reliance on a regression, but might be considered a form of logical foundationalism. But otherwise, it must be assumed that a loop begs the question, meaning that it does not provide sufficient logic to constitute proof.

Foundationalism's response
One might conclude that there must be some statements that, for some reason, do not need justification. This view is called foundationalism. For instance, rationalists such as Descartes and Spinoza developed axiomatic systems that relied on statements that were taken to be self-evident: "I think therefore I am" is the most famous example. Similarly, empiricists take observations as providing the foundation for the series.

Foundationalism relies on the claim that it is not necessary to ask for justification of certain propositions, or that they are self-justifying. Coherentists argue that this position is overly dogmatic. In other words, it does not provide real criteria for determining what is true and what is not. The Coherentist analytic project then involves a process of justifying what is meant by adequate criteria for non-dogmatic truth. As an offshoot of this, the theory insists that it is always reasonable to ask for a justification for any statement. For example, if someone makes an observational statement, such as "it is raining", the coherentist contends that it is reasonable to ask for example whether this mere statement refers to anything real. What is real about the statement, it turns out, is the extended pattern of relations that we call justifications. But, unlike the relativist, the coherentist argues that these associations may be objectively real. Coherentism contends that dogmatic foundationalism does not provide the whole set of pure relations that might result in actually understanding the objective context of phenomena, because dogmatic assumptions are not proof-theoretic, and therefore remain incoherent or relativistic. Coherentists therefore argue that the only way to reach proof-theoretic truth that is not relativistic is through coherency.

Coherentism's response
Coherentism denies the soundness of the regression argument. The regression argument makes the assumption that the justification for a proposition takes the form of another proposition: P" justifies P', which in turn justifies P. For coherentism, justification is a holistic process. Inferential justification for the belief that P is nonlinear. This means that P" and P' are not epistemically prior to P. Rather, the beliefs that P", P', and P work together to achieve epistemic justification. Catherine Elgin has expressed the same point differently, arguing that beliefs must be "mutually consistent, cotenable, and supportive. That is, the components must be reasonable in light of one another. Since both cotenability and supportiveness are matters of degree, coherence is too." Usually the system of belief is taken to be the complete set of beliefs of the individual or group, that is, their theory of the world.

It is necessary for coherentism to explain in some detail what it means for a system to be coherent. At the least, coherence must include logical consistency. It also usually requires some degree of integration of the various components of the system. A system that contains more than one unrelated explanation of the same phenomenon is not as coherent as one that uses only one explanation, all other things being equal. Conversely, a theory that explains divergent phenomena using unrelated explanations is not as coherent as one that uses only one explanation for those divergent phenomena. These requirements are variations on Occam's razor. The same points can be made more formally using Bayesian statistics. Finally, the greater the number of phenomena explained by the system, the greater its coherence.

Problems for coherentism
A problem coherentism has to face is the plurality objection. There is nothing within the definition of coherence that makes it impossible for two entirely different sets of beliefs to be internally coherent. Thus there might be several such sets. But if one supposes—in line with the principle of non-contradiction—that there can only be one complete set of truths, coherentism must therefore resolve internally that these systems are not contradictory, by establishing what is meant by truth. At this point, Coherence could be faulted for adopting its own variation of dogmatic foundationalism by arbitrarily selecting truth values. Coherentists must argue that their truth-values are not arbitrary for provable reasons.

A second objection also emerges, the finite problem: that arbitrary, ad hoc relativism could reduce statements of relatively insignificant value to non-entities during the process of establishing universalism or absoluteness. This might result in a totally flat truth-theoretic framework, or even arbitrary truth values. Coherentists generally solve this by adopting a metaphysical condition of universalism, sometimes leading to materialism, or by arguing that relativism is trivial.

A third objection that coherentism faces is the problem of isolation. Intuitively, one might think that the justification of an empirical belief must depend on some connection between the believed proposition and the way the world is. For example, a belief that 'snow is white' must in some way connect to the fact that snow really is white in the external world. Such a connection could be found in how the agent in question has experiences of the world being this way. However, if coherence is sufficient for justification and coherence is only a property of sets of beliefs, hence ruling out any such connection through experience, then it seems that coherentism would allow for the justification of empirical beliefs in isolation from the external world. Coherentists have a variety of responses to this. One strategy is to argue that no set of beliefs held by an agent would remain coherent over time if it was isolated from the external world in this way. Another approach argues that coherentism should be modified such that empirical beliefs can only be justified if the relevant set includes beliefs and experiences, and hence no belief can be justified without involving experiences about the world. This latter position is known as non-doxastic coherentism.

However, metaphysics poses another problem, the problem of the stowaway argument that might carry epistemological implications. However, a coherentist might say that if the truth conditions of the logic hold, then there will be no problem regardless of any additional conditions that happen to be true. Thus, the stress is on making the theory valid within the set, and also verifiable.

A number of philosophers have raised concerns over the link between intuitive notions of coherence that form the foundation of epistemic forms of coherentism and some formal results in Bayesian probability. This is an issue raised by Luc Bovens and Stephen Hartmann in the form of 'impossibility' results, and by Erik J. Olsson. Attempts have been made to construct a theoretical account of the coherentist intuition.

Epistemological theories

 * Foundherentism
 * Bayesian epistemology

Related ideas

 * Web of belief

Theories of truth

 * Consensus theory of truth
 * Correspondence theory of truth
 * Deflationary theory of truth
 * Epistemic theories of truth

 * Indefinability theory of truth
 * Pragmatic theory of truth
 * Redundancy theory of truth
 * Semantic theory of truth

title: Coherentism