Talk:Diarmait Mac Murchada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
WikiProject Ireland (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


As of 1054, there was one single monolithic Christian Church throughout all Europe. After 1054's Great Schism, there were two, the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox. England remained in communion with the East until 1066, when the Papal crusading army under William of Normandy conquered the "Heretic English". That, one hundred years later, Ireland was still uninvaded and "heretical" would seem to say that Ireland was still Eastern Orthodox in tradition. Henry 2's invasion of Ireland was, therefore, merely the second act in the Norman crusade against Orthodoxy in the British Isles. Indeed, this is substantially the position of the modern "Celtic Culdee" Orthodox Catholic church. Do note the irony, that this second Norman Invasion came exactly on the 100th anniversary of the first: the first Norman barons invaded in 1166.

I don't think anachronistic references to "Benedict Arnold" or "Vidkun Quisling" are really appropriate, they have nothing to do with the subject and assume either that the reader knows about those individuals, or would like to leave off learning about Irish History and read about those fellows instead. Jooler

Fair enough, when writing most of the article I decided to add references to both because I saw similarities. Petty rulers who were willing to ally with large conquering nations in order to take power in their own country. (Chris Gilmore)

Page name and redirects[edit]

This person seems to have many names. What links here suggests Dermot MacMurrough may be the least common. --Henrygb 16:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Tostig, the Anglo-Saxon brother of King Harold II, who invited the Normans to England in order to take revenge on his brother is perhaps a better analogy. On an interesting note, a taxi driver in Dublin gave me a lift about a year ago. I looked down at his name: "Diarmaid MacMurrough". Talk about evil parents!

irish names[edit]

Can someone please anglicise the irish names on the article. To anyone unfamiliar with Irish names and their pronunciation (like me!) it would make the article far, far easier to read. At the moment it's worse than Tolkien! The Irish version should be put brackets on the first appearance, but the anglicised versions should be used in English language Wikipedia. 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As an editor I use the name that seems best to me, so I'd write about "Domnall mac Áedo" and had I written this article it would probably have been called "Diarmait mac Murchada". The article on "Ruaidri (mac Tairrdelbach) Ua Conchobair" is actually called "Rory O'Connor", while I'd have called it "Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair". Someone adopting an extreme use English position might have called this article Dermot MacMurphy and use Donald MacHugh for the unwritten article on Domnall. It seems to me that insisting on accuracy has two things in its favour. First, serious books probably use a more accurate name, so anyone researching further will be stumped if they go looking for Dermot and Donald and Rory, unless the person doing the index added a "see X" entry. Secondly, not every name can be anglicised, so consistency is impossible. On the downside, as you say, the names look daunting and it's not obvious how to pronounce them. But it isn't exactly obvious how to pronounce Cholmondleigh and Beauchamp, or Ecgberht and Ceolwulf, so do we americanise (which is what anglicising would mean in practice) those ? If you want to reply to this, please leave a message on my talk page rather than here. Thanks. Angus McLellan 21:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I sorta agree. However, I moved it here ages ago because it's just not consistent to have give the Gaelic kings of Scotland modern English names, but somehow the famous Irish kings get their Gaelic names. Dermot MacMurrough, like the Scottish kings, qualifies as famous enough with their English names to have English titles. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In this particular case, and for Rory O'Connor, I agree, they are fairly well known in English forms. But that's not true of most of the other people in the article. For "commonly known" anglicised names, Rory and Dermot are about it except for Brian Boru, and that's near enough the Irish version that I wouldn't quibble. Ó Cróinín (1995) uses Turlough O'Brien, but is pretty inconsistent post-Clontarf, even to the extent of using Toirdelbach Ua Conchobair in one place and Turlough O'Connor ten pages later. Angus McLellan 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Astounding the incapacity of these English speaking monoglots to accept that not every name on planet earth is anglicised. Blinkered rightwing intolerant idiots. Acceptance of life's diversity has never come easy to those people. Just look at their rule in Ireland, as a perfect example of their abject cultural fanaticism. 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This argument is more about the politics of the users than common usage.
French speakers, German speakers, Italian speakers etc… have no problem in adapting the names of both places and people to their own language.
Thus, Henry VIII becomes Henri VIII, Heinrich VIII and Enrico VIII d'Inghilterra respectively.
This is English Language Wikipedia.
For the overwhelming majority of English Speakers*…The Gaelic Languages are unknown and Very Difficult to read and pronounce.
Using unfamiliar and complex Gaelic names, particularly in the text’s body makes that text very difficult to follow and disrupts the readers flow. Continually, you have to jump back and forth to check who is who…this article on Dermot MacMurrough is virtually un-readable because of this.
This will put people off from reading Irish & Scottish history, if you continue doing this
The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, entertain and educate. By making it difficult to read you’re diminishing it.
Surely, best thing to do, is to use the name most familiar by common usage (Typically the Anglicized version) both text body & title with Gaelic version bracketed, when that character is introduced (into the text).
*Please note that the majority of English Speakers are not American, Irish, British or Antipodean but are African and Asian…for them too, English is a second language. A free resource like Wikipedia, please don’t make it unreadable.
Jalipa 09:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely if Wikipedia wishes to be a reputable source it ought to conform to reputable scholarly paradigms rather than 'popular' ones? I would think that using the names as found in the New History of Ireland - published by Oxford University Press (English) - as a guideline would non-controversial and very justifiable. For those who think this is some bizarre nationalist debate, I would point out that the use of anglicisations has long ago bitten the dust amongst anyone doing research in the topic either in Ireland, England or America. I rather doubt myself that Africans have any more of a mental block against something like Toirdelbach than they do against Leominster. With Diarmait/Dermot I grant you there's not much difference, and perhaps the English spelling may be clearer, but that doesn't hold true for other names. Take Toirdelbach: if you spell Toirdelbach as Turlough, then those not familiar with the name are going to be wondering whether they should rhyme it with rough, cough, bough, though or lough - so much for consistency! And I long to know whether Jalipa there thinks that MacMurrough would rhyme with any of the above, because if so, he/she would be mistaken. And you know the joke about Sevenoaks? (or should I say Snuks!). So climb down off your hobbyhorses.Blorgina 18:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Blorgina, especially correct regarding the non-use of anglicisations of Irish names by professional historians. 20:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

contraversial excision ...[edit]

Look, I know this must be POV, but I felt I had to remove the bit about G.W. Bush being a descendant of Dermot; I mean, the guy has enough bad press as it is, and I don't wish to speck ill of the dead. There's my ten (euro) cents. Fergananim 18:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen -

MacMurrough's Wives[edit]

Just a couple of notes...

Can anyone please verify the list of 'wives' that is there in the box for MacMurrough?

I know that his first wife was Mor O'Toole and that Domhnaill's mother is a relatively unknown woman. I had thought that it was his second wife who was the mother of Aoife also. And one more thing, 'Derbforgaill Ni Mael Sechlainn' .... is this the same Derbforgaill that was married to O'Rourke?!

Must be because that'd be her parentage. Mind you they were never married! Blorgina 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also - the order of Dermot's wives is at odds with the findings of Marie Therese Flanagan in "Irish Society, Anglo-Norman Settlers, Angevin Kingship: Interactions in Ireland in the Late Twelfth Century." She proposes that Sadbh Ni Faelain preceded Mor Ni Tuathal as Dermot's wife (Sadhb about 1132; Mor about 1152). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some inaccurate information here about MacMurrough's children. Donal Caemanach (Kavanagh) was his eldest son - apparently born around 1127 or so to a woman who does not appear to have been either of MacMurrough's recorded wives. As such he was not legitimate in the eyes of the reformed church (though not disbarred from succession under Brehon law). Sources - Diarmait, King of Leinster by Nicholas Furlong. (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC) woesinger

rewrite today[edit]

A bit of a rewrite, a new section on his churches and the first reference. Let's have some more.Red Hurley (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


Are you sure that Dermot's father was Enna Mac Donnchada? I've read several sources (inc "Irish Regnal Succession: A Reappraisal" by Donnchadh Ó Corráin) that cite his father as Donnchadh Mac Murchad Mac Diarmait Mac Mael na nBo). Donnchadh was killed in Dublin in 1115 and succeeded as king of Ui Cheinnselaig by his cousin Diarmait. Diarmait ruled for two years before being succeeded by Donnchadh's son Enna, Dermot Mac Murrough's brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. I have changed it. Scolaire (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms[edit]

Lupus, Earl of Chester

This coat of arms was recently added, and made to seem like it belonged to Diarmait. The citation is "Some Feudal Coats of Arms and Pedigrees. Joseph Foster. 1902. (p.115)", which can be read online here: [1] (click "read online" on the left part of the page). On page 114 is an image of the arms of Henry Fitzalan-Howard, 15th Duke of Norfolk (d. 1917), which has dozens of quarterings. The following page puts names to the quarterings. One of them is "Macmorrogh", one of only two names which are italicised. So the book doesn't actually show that these arms belonged to Diarmait. Maybe a better source can be found before the coat of arms is added into the infobox. Maybe this is an example of attributed arms, and he never actually used them himself. The only other italicised name is that of "Lupus, Earl of Chester". Would that be Hugh d'Avranches, 1st Earl of Chester (d. 1101)? Does anyone know anything about Hugh's coat of arms? Would he have even had a coat of arms (see English heraldry)? I wonder if his shield is considered to be 'attributed' or historically suspect. Anyone know? On pages 53-54, the book similarly covers a massive quartering of arms, and it notes that "Italic blasons denote the fabulous". If the shield is an example of attributed arms, then I don't think it should be so prominently displayed in the infobox.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brianann MacAmhlaidh, I put in these arms from Foster's book. At the bottom of the page, the author quotes blazons that are omited, and others which are included, in reference to the Somerset Herald. I therefore believe his inclusion of these arms was well researched. The fact that they are also in the British Museum, indicates that they were researched from a reliable source, which allows them to be included in WP articles. Albeit rare blazons, there are no indications that they are attributed. Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Reread my post. It's just two points that you missed. Foster never mentioned Diarmait, only the italicsed name "Macmorrogh". Also, the "Italic blasons denote the fabulous" - those are Foster's own words. It doesn't matter if they are recorded in historic armorials, if they are indeed attributed, then Diarmait never historically bore them, meaning they weren't his. I searched GoogleBooks for more on the Lupus, and found this "Azure, a wolf's head rased silver, the apocryphal coat attributed, like the nickname Lupus, to Hugh d'Avranches, the Conqueror's Earl of Chester ..." It's irresponsible to display an image of something you aren't entirely certain of, especially in an infobox. I think you should research this more before you add the image.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It is reasonable to suppose that in the context of that cited page that "Diarmait" was intended by Macmorrogh. But this is probably irrelevant as the "fabulous" detail means that they cannot be admitted, no more than the arms of Jesus or King Arthur could be admitted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 ::: Similar to Fosters listings of Strongbow & MacMorogh re: (d9 & e1 also g2 & g3). The "Scrope" family quarterings (1698), lists (10.) Strongbow, Earl of Pembroke. (11.) MacMorogh (Dermot) King of Leinster (These depict "three garbs", ie. possibly for the Earls of Chester?). Therefore I presume that the Diarmait and Macmorrogh are the same person. The well known "Scrope quarterings" also depicts Lepur, Earl of (?), as the Wolf's head. And also the "quarterings of Thomas Hussey" state and depict RE: 23. azure a wolf's head erased argent for Lupus Earl of Chester. Neither of these references indicate that these are attributed. I was/am not aware that the term "fabulous" is a heraldic term for "attributed", please cite this reference. Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It is clear that Diarmait MacMurchada is intended, but as indicated by the italics, Foster himself viewed them as fantasy (fabulous, in this case, is being used to refer to something of the nature of a fable). The fact that a manuscript is in the collection of the British Library in no way can be used to argue for its reliability. Libraries, even reference libraries, have all kinds of things in their collections. If you want to argue for its reliability, we at least need to know more about the source than simply that it is Harleian ms 1411. What this comes down to is real simple. This is too early - before the systematic usage of arms arose. That didn't stop people centuries later from making them up, and that's what has happened here and that is what Foster is saying, about Macmorrough and about Hugh Lupus. All you are documenting is that in 1902, Henry Howard, 15th Duke of Norfolk, used a coat of arms which included a blazon attributed to Diarmait, not that Diarmait himself used it. Agricolae (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)