Talk:Kingdom of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ireland (Rated Start-class, Mid-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
An editor has requested that a coat of arms image be added to this article and placed within the infobox.

A crown is not a post[edit]

As a crown isn't a "post" any more than it is an office, I would suggest changing that part to "the throne of Ireland was held by the reigning..." PML

Done, PML. BTW what do you think of the pic? My first pic on wiki, taken last night on my new digital camera. ÉÍREman 04:43 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

'Tis enough, 'twill serve. I imagine that it is a faithful rendering, muck and all, which makes it hard to make out detail from the wording and heraldic symbols. But the dexter supporting beast is quite obviously post 1707. (I was interested when I was first in the Master's Lodge in Trinity, Cambridge to note that the dexter supporting beast at the mantlepiece there was a griffin.) PML.

Claim to the French throne[edit]

British monarchs dropped their "theoretical claim" to the French throne soon after the French Revolution and this was reflected heraldically when the coat of arms was modified after the union with Ireland was effected in 1801. That's why I snipped out the reference to France in the caption (you'll note the absence of Fleur-de-lis in the picture.)

http://hometown.aol.com/cusam2/myhomepage/index.html Argues that Act Union 1801 was ultra Vires King George III as King Henry IX of Ireland was alive till 1807.

Table broken[edit]

Table is broken, someone with more knowledge fix it. Behemoth01 20:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot missing[edit]

This is fine, but it should really point out that there were several major individual Irish kingdoms that lasted into the early years of the 1600's. Fergananim 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms[edit]

Surely the same coat of arms as appears on the Republic of Ireland page can be used? Andrew Yong 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I had always thought the arms of the KOI was a crowned harp. After Yorkshirian corrected the arms of the LOI (here), I decided to investigate. As I expected, coinage from the period (here) does indeed show a crowned harp. Hence I’ve made a new coat of arms (here) combining the crown from the LOI arms and the harp from the modern ROI arms. I also made a flag (here) but I’m not sure if I should include it. Any thoughts? ~Asarlaí 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
A crown was certainly a common adornment but it was not the official coat of arms. The actual blazon was simply: Azure, a harp Or, stringed Argent (no mention of a crown). Compare with the lower-left quadrant of the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom comprising the arms of Ireland - no harp.
What the current state does not do is use the official - official for the Kingdom of Ireland at least! - crest and torse. I recently updated the coat of arms of Ireland page with a description of the crest and torse and an image of it.
I think adding either the crest or the crown here would be too much. But the arms of Ireland article could do with more dicussion of both (particularly the harp).
I like Yorkshirian's image but the actual arrangement of the LOI arms is not stated. They are simple: Azure, three crowns Or, bordure Argent not mention of "in pale" (i.e. arranged one-above the other). Compare with the blazon of the coat of arms of England.
I would be cautious about reading too much into was you see or don't see on the back of a coin. Coats of arms come with blazons. These can simply be looked up in verifiable secondary sources. No need to read this or that into the back of a coin. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the change to the arms (the placing of the crown above the harp). Here's my sources:

"King James not only used the harp crowned as the device of Ireland, but quartered the harp in this royal achievement for the arms of that kingdom, in the third quarter of the royal achievement upon his Great Seal, as it has continued ever since. The blazon was azure, a harp or string argent, as appears by the great embroidered banner, and at the funeral of Queen Anne, King James' queen, AD 1618, and likewise by the great banner and banner of Ireland at the funeral of King James. The difference between the arms and device of Ireland appears to be on the crown only, which is added to the harp when used as a device.

At the funeral of King James was likewise carried the standard of the crest of Ireland, a buck proper (argent in the draught) issuing from a tower tripple towered or, which is the only instance of this crest that I have met, and therefore was probably devised and assinged for the crest of Ireland upon occasion of this funeral, but with what propriety I do not understand." - Questions and Answers, Notes and Queries‎, 1855, p. 350


"The insignia of Ireland have variously been given by early writers. In the reign of Edward IV, a commission appointed to enquire what were the arms of Ireland found them to be three crowns in pale. It has been supposed that these crowns were abandoned at the Reformation, from an idea that they might denote the feudal sovereignty of the pope, whose vassal the king of England was, as lord of Ireland. However, in a manuscript in the Heralds' College of the time of Henry VII, the arms of Ireland are blazoned azure, a harp or, stringed argent; and when they were for the first time placed on the royal shield on the accession of James I. they were thus delineated: the crest is on a wreath or and azure, a tower (sometime triple-towered) or, from the port, a hart springing argent. Another crest is a harp or. The national flag of Ireland exhibits the harp in a field vert. The royal badge of Ireland, as settled by sign-manual in 1801 is a harp, or, stringed argent, and a trefoil vert, both ensigned with the imperial crown." - Chambers's encyclopædia: a dictionary of universal knowledge‎, Page 627, 1868

The use of the crown is this a badge, or a device, or an (unofficial) crest. It is not part of the arms.

  • Badge, or Cognizance: a mark of distinction somewhat similar to a crest, though not placed on a wreath, nor worm upon the helmet. They were rather supplemental bearings quite independent of the charge of the original arms, and were borne on the banners, ensigns, caparisons, and even on the breasts, and more frequently on the sleeves of servants and followers.
  • Device, (fr. devise): a motto, emblem, or other mark by which those who entered the lists were distinguished at tournaments, but especially a motto affixed to the arms, having some punning allusion to the name. It differed from a badge or cognizance only inasmuch as it was an arbitrary and generally temporary distinction, whereas the badge was often borne by members of the same house successively.
  • Crest, (fr. cimier): a figure anciently affixed to the helmet(fr. casque) of every commander, for his distinction in the confusion of battle, and in used before the hereditary bearing of coat armour: it is not unfrequently confounded with the badge or cognizance, which is a different thing. The word timbre includes the crest, helmet, wreath, &c., in short every-thing which is above the shield. Crests do not appear to have been considered as in any way connected with the family arms until the fourteenth century, when Edward III. conferred upon William of Montacute, Earl of Salisbury, the right to bear an eagle.

- Definitions from James Parker, A Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry, 1894

The upside of this though is that we have a source to back up the arrangement of the crowns on the LOI article ("In the reign of Edward IV, a commission appointed to enquire what were the arms of Ireland found them to be three crowns in pale.") There is also a source, ableit 66 years into the UKGBI as to the flag of Ireland ("The national flag of Ireland exhibits the harp in a field vert.") --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm disappointed that my work was for naught, but at the same time I'm glad we've finally got it sorted! What remains to be done is adding this info to the Coat of arms of Ireland article. ~Asarlaí 07:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it was for nought. It's a good image of something that certainly exists. It should be added to the arms of Ireland article too. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Kingdom of Ireland[edit]

In researching the flag/arms of the Lordship of Ireland when I came across a curious line in ATQ Stewarts The Shape of Irish History. On Henry VIII's changing the arms of Ireland when moving from Lordship to Kingdom he wrote: "Ireland was given a new green flag and the harp as its national symbol."

First off, I must say that I had always fallen in to the trap of thinking that the Patricks's Saltire was the flag of Ireland during the Kingdom of Ireland. On a little bit of research, I can see now that this is a non-runner, and I suggest it should be taken down. The Saltire was coined only 20 years before the dissolution of the Kingdom and was never a flag of that kingdom but the colours of the Order of St. Patrick, an order of knights created in honor of Poynings laws being eased. From what I can see, that flag was in no way (ever) a flag of the Kingdom of Ireland, and in fact 19th century official British sources deny that Ireland ever had a flag before the Union flag.

But what was this "green flag" that Stewart is referring to? The first thing that struck me was if this was the same Green Flag we all know? i.e. the flag most associated with Irish rebellion during the Kingdom and up to and including 1798? I must say, at the moment, I'm leaning towards "yes, it was."

The green flag was certainly widely popular. It was used as a naval jack and is listed for Ireland in books of flags at least from 1685. However, following the Act of Union it drops out - as I said, with sources denying that it ever had any legitimacy, and saying instead that Ireland never had a flag before the Union Flag, not even the Saltire. Was this because it had become so closely associated with Irish nationalism?

There is another curious hint: the standard of the Lordship, as I have discovered, was the Three Crowns (identical to the flag of Munster). One source says in declaring himself King of Ireland "the three crowns were replaced with the harp by Henry VIII, in case they were mistaken for the Papal tiara." Did Henry VII swap the "flag of Munster" for the "flag of Leinster" (with the convenience that it featured the harp, a symbol listed as the arms of the Kings of Ireland at least since 1280)?

There is also a switch in the "colours of Ireland." Prior to the Norman invasion, there appears to be no colours for Ireland. During the priod of the Lordship, Gaelic leaders appear to have adopted blue as the colour of Ireland. However, during the Kingdom, green became the colour. Could this colour change have been inspired by the "green flag"?

What is the opinion of others? Both with regard to the "green flag" and also with regard to the Saltire being purported as the flag of the Kingdom? I am of the opinion, at the moment at least, that we should change the Saltire to the Green Flag (we know at least that it was very popular, official or not). The Saltire is a non-runner, from what I can see.

--sony-youthtalk 11:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Saltire as I cannot find any source that gives it credence as a flag for the kingdom (except in retrospect). As noted above, 19th century British sources deny that Ireland ever had a flag before the Union flag. --sony-youthtalk 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm re-adding the Saltire as there is more than ample evidence that it was used to represent Ireland long before the Order of St. Patrick; its recorded use dates from 1601 and speculated early derivatives have been noted from the 1400s onwards. Please see "History of Irish Flags from Earliest Times", G A Hayes-McCoy (Academy Press), Dublin 1979, pp 32 – 41. Evidence of its use to represent Ireland in the 1612 Trinity Arms can be found here[1]; as well as its use in the 17th century Cork City arms [2] and the arms of County Fermanagh[3]. -- Gisbwoy (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There is ample evidience that it was in existance as a flag before then, but not that it was used as a flag of the Kingdom of Ireland. It certainly had no official (or either de facto or de jure) status for the state known as the Kingdom of Ireland. --89.101.103.144 (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It CLEARLY had de jure status at the very least, otherwise it would not have been used in coats of arms representing places the entire length of the country. The fact that it is flying opposite the English flag in the Trinity arms makes it implicit the cross represents Ireland as a nation. Gisbwoy (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"De jure" means "by law", for which there is no evidence what-so-ever. I'm certain you mean "de facto". De facto, during the period of the Kingdom of Ireland, if any flag came close to representing Ireland, it would have been the harp on a green field (flag of Leinster).
For certain, red saltire flags/banners appears on various coats of arms across Ireland - always (?) alongside a flag/banner of a red cross similar to St. George's flag- and I don't dispute that it may have had some significance. What that significance was, I don't know - but it's occasional appearance here-and-there is NOT evidence that such an emblem was the flag of the state known as the Kingdom of Ireland, which is the subject of this article.
If you have published evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears. Until then, per policy, I'm going to go with the published evidence, which is that it is an unknown at best - and that's being generous. (What do you make of the reaction of people who actually lived in the period of the Kingdom of Ireland to the red saltire's use as a symbol for the Order of St. Patrick, that's use as such was "a manifest insult to common sense and to national propriety"?)
A neat summation of the satire's "ephemeral existence" is given by W. G. Perrin and Herbert S. Vaughan (1922, "British Flags. Their Early History and their Development at Sea; with an Account of the Origin of the Flag as a National Device", Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 51-52):
The red saltire on white ground which represents Ireland in the Union flag had only an ephemeral existence as a separate flag. Originating as the arms of the powerful Geraldines, who from the time of Henry II held the predominant position among those whose presence in Ireland was due to the efforts of the English sovereigns to subjugate that country, it is not to be expected that the native Irish should ever have taken kindly to a badge that could only remind them of their servitude to a race with whom they had little in common, and the attempt to father this emblem upon St Patrick (who, it may be remarked, is not entitled to a cross - since he was not a martyr) has evoked no response from the Irish themselves.
The earliest evidence of the existence of the red saltire flag known to the author occurs in a map of "Hirlandia" by John Goghe dated 1576 and now exhibited in the Public Record Office. The arms at the head of this map are the St George's cross impaled on the crowned harp, but the red saltire is prominent in the arms of the Earl of Kildare and the other Geraldine families placed over their respective spheres of influence. The red saltire flag is flown at the masthead of a ship, possibly an Irish pirate, which is engaged in action in the St George's Channel with another ship flying the St George's cross. The St George's flag flies upon Cornwall, Wales and Man, but the red satire flag does not appear upon Ireland itself, though it is placed upon the adjacent Mulls of Galloway and Kintyre in Scotland. It is, however, to be found in the arms of Trinity College, Dublin (1591), in which the banners of St George and of this saltire surmount the turrets that flank the castle gateway.
The Graydon MS. Flag Book of 1686 which belonged to Pepys does not contain this flag, but give as the flag of Ireland (which, it may be noted, appears as an afterthought right at the end of the book) the green flag with St George's cross and the harp, illustrated in Plate X, fig. 3. The saltire flag is nevertheless given as "Pavillon d'Ierne" in the flags plates at the commencement of the Neptune François of 1693, whence it was copied into later flag collections.
Under the Commonwealth and Protectorate, when England and Scotland were represented in the Great and other Seals by their crosses, Ireland was invariably represented by the harp that was added to the English and Scottish crosses to form a flag representative of the three kingdoms. At the funeral of Cromwell the Great Standards of England and Scotland had the St George's and St Andrew's crosses in chief respectively, but the Great Standard of Ireland had in chief a red cross (not saltire) on a yellow field.
When the Order of St Patrick was instituted in 1783 the red saltire was taken for the badge of the Order, and since this emblem was of convenient form for introduction into the Union flag of England and Scotland it was chosen in forming the combined flag of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1801.
I have removed the flag again and added Perrin and Vaughan as references. --89.19.67.46 (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I can see how a book from Cambridge printed in 1922 is clearly more authoritative than one printed in Dublin in 1979, especially when asserting arguments as academic as "it is not to be expected that the native Irish should ever have taken kindly to a badge that could only remind them of their servitude". Now shall we move onto the pages of Nazi Germany, the Ottoman Empire and the Union of South Africa to remove their flags? We know that those flags were considered more than "an insult to common sense" by the people living under them.
I do agree with you that the flag never had popular support, but neither did the constitutional relationship with the King. But this is an encyclopedia, not an attempt to poll the opinion of those who lived 300 years ago. I presumed this is what you were accepting when you wrote: I tend to agree that it is 'implicit the cross represents Ireland as a nation' - or at least the Old English flavour of the nation on my user page. Is it just this "Old English flavour" you are trying to remove then?
And yes, I did in fact mean "de jure" - as in the various coats of arms depicting the Saltire as a flag were issued by the Ulster King of Arms on authority of the Crown - what you've described as an occasional appearance here-and-there. That's like saying the current Irish flag is only defined by a throwaway reference in the constitution!
What is clear is that sporadically, but consistently, the flag was depicted and used either as or in the place of any other flag, and by 1783 was recognised as such to the extent of its adoption by the Order of St. Patrick. Even the availability of quotations showing public revile for the flag further asserts its prominence and filtration into the public domain. Had it only been used between 1783 and 1800 it would still be Wikipedia precedent to have it as the most recent flag of that political entity - see Ottoman Empire etc. Gisbwoy (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottoman Empire? Nazi Germany? I don't quite follow. This article is about once specific state, the Kingdom of Ireland - not the coat of arms of County Fermanagh or Trinity College or the city of Cork or any other thing. I understand that Hayes-McCoy gives tremendous treatment to the saltire, tracing it's earliest origins and displacing the myth that it was a late-18th century concoction. I was not aware that he said that it was the flag of the Kingdom of Ireland. Can you please provide a quotation?
With regard to why I referred to the saltire as being particularly associated with the Old English in Ireland - and not the Kingdom of Ireland, or even the nation of Ireland as a whole - Charles Arnold-Baker, Companion to British History (2001, Routledge: London, p.521) has the following entry for national flags on land: "Until 1603, England (St. George's) red cross on white, Scotland (St. Andrew's) white saltire on blue. English in Ireland, red saltire on white. 1603-1801. The first union flag, a combination of England and Scotland. Since 1801 the second union flag, a combination of all three." As you see, he specifically associates the red saltire with the English in Ireland. You may notice too the absence of mention of a flag for Ireland itself, merely the English in Ireland.
This is what Ian Sumner (2001, British Colours and Standards 1747-1881 (2): Infantry, Osprey Publishing: Oxford, p. 8) has to say:
"Following the Act of Union with Ireland, every stand of colours had to be altered. A red saltire (diagonal cross) was added to the Union Flag, and all the Union wreaths had henceforth to include shamrocks. Neither the saltire nor shamrock was known as a national symbol in Ireland at the time, although they were thought of as such in England. Both devices had been incorporated into the insignia of the star of the Order of St Patrick in 1783."
(And, yes, Sumner read Hayes-McCoy as well, he cites him further on.)
This opinion is not merely held by those who wrote in the 20th and 21st century, but those closer to the time too. Here is what a writer in 1827 - citing an writer from 1801 - had to say on the use of the saltire in the design of the 1801 Union Flag (1827, "On the Union Banner of Great Britain and Ireland" in The Naval and Military Magazine, March 1827, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed. T. Clerc Smith: London, pp. 182-192):
"The subject did not, however, escape observation at the moment, for a correspondent in the Gentleman's Magazine for January 1801 expressed his disapprobation of the new banner, and after sneeringly alluding to the taste which formed it, entreated an explanation from the heralds; and suggested that instead of introducing the saltire of St. Patrick, it would have been preferable to have placed an escutcheon of pretence on the centre of the cross, containing 'Vert, a harp Or, stringed Argent,' the emblem of Ireland."
In any case, you say that Hayes-McCoy says otherwise: that Hayes-McCoy says that red saltire was the flag of the Kingdom of Ireland. Like I said before, I'm all ears, so per policy, let's have that quote please. --78.152.217.51 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Difficult to know where McCoy stops and Pádraig Ó Snodaigh begins with that (slender) authoritative tome. The book was first published four years after the authors death. RashersTierney (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Flag President of Ireland.svg was an unofficial flag. Read the acticle on the Irish flag. Maildiver (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Irish history series[edit]

I have opened a discussion on a reorganisation of the series of articles dealing with Irish history at Talk:History of Ireland#RFC: Irish history series. --RA (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1800 v 1801: Apparent dating inconsistencies/errors[edit]

Many of the dates shown, especially the date ranges in the box at top right, seem incorrect, as they are of the format '1659-1801' when, with some possible exceptions, they probably should mostly be of the format '1659-1800', as the Union came into effect on the first day of 1801. Because of possible exceptions unknown to me, I hesitate to correct this myself, but some editor more expert than me might perhaps correct the erroneous 1801s, and include some note explaining why any given exception has been retained. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of any response on this, I've decided to make the article consistent by changing all 1801s to 1800 except where there's a clear reason not to do so, and to explain in the introduction that it ceased to exist on the last day of 1800. If anybody then knows of a good reason for keeping some particular 1801, they are free to change it thmselves. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ríoghacht Éireann v Ríocht Éireann v Ríoghacht/Ríocht na hÉireann ?[edit]

The opening paragraph gives only Ríoghacht Éireann, whereas Note 2 gives both Ríoghacht Éireann and Ríocht Éireann in different places. And, though I can't be sure, I would expect that Ríoghacht na hÉireann and/or Ríocht na hÉireann may also get used, possibly erroneously, either at the time or in more recent writing, if only because Ríoghacht/Ríocht na hÉireann is the literal word-for-word translation of 'Kingdom of Ireland', just as Poblacht na hÉireann is used to translate 'Republic of Ireland' (plus I'm also thinking of 'ríocht na greine' - kingdom of the sun - in Monsignor Padraig de Brun's poem Valporaiso). As this kind of issue must have frequently arisen before, there may already be some Wikipedia policy on the matter of which I'm unaware. So I'd prefer to leave any fix to some editor more expert than me. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there's no harm in replacing the hidden comment at the beginning with "(Modern Irish: Ríocht Éireann)", since it's in the cited source. I don't see any particular benefit in adding more alternatives that "may get used". Scolaire (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added it in as 'Modern spelling', along with a couple of supporting links Tlhslobus (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
In the context of Ireland I would question the translation of 'kingdom' to 'riocht' (or any other version). The King of Ireland would have been referred to as 'Ard Rí', rather than simply 'Rí'. Ireland would have had a number of regional kings, who would have been refered to as 'Ri', but who would have been subservient to the 'Ard Ri', or high king https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_King_of_Ireland. Therefore when talking about a kingdom of the whole island the correct translation for me would be Ard Ríocht Éireann, or some variation.Qside (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The kingdom being talked about here is the kingdom established by Henry VIII of England, long after the last of the High Kings. --Tóraí (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Translation, please[edit]

"Féach ár bpain le sé chéad bliain aige Gaill in éigean, gan rí dár rialadh de Ghaeil, mo chian, i ríoghacht Éireann" This is in the Vincent Morley reference (currently refernce 3), but an accurate translation needs to be added, as this is English Wikipedia. I also suspect there are misspellings, such as 'bpian' (or maybe bpían), meaning 'pain', rather than 'bpain'. A crude translation probably runs something like 'Look at our pain with 600 years of foreigners in control, without a king from our Gaelic rulers, my dear, in the Kingdom of Ireland', but I'd appreciate if somebody could check and correct it, please, as well as checking for possible Gaelic misspellings, as already mentioned. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There's the ref in Google Books. Correct spelling and translation are both there. Personally, I think the quote is ridiculously long just to cite the fact that Ríoghacht Éireann was the Irish for "Kingdom of Ireland". By the way, there is now one footnote inside the parenthesis and one outside, which looks funny. Scolaire (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that most useful link, which we may want to stick in the article. I don't know who put the quote there, but I think he or she was probably wise. The quote isn't simply about translation, but about establishing that (at least some) Irish-speaking Catholics at the time saw Ríoghacht Éireann as the name of their country. Without the quote, hardline Republicans and/or fundamentalist republicans are liable to demand that the entire article be renamed on grounds that 'Kingdom of Ireland' is some kind of 'alien British concept'. If anything I'd be inclined to put in more of the quote, but putting in your link will do fine instead, plus translating the line plus correcting the spelling, which I hope to do later. As for the footnotes looking funny, the one inside the parenthesis refers solely to 'Ríocht Éireann', while the one outside refers to everything from the start of the sentence. Indeed originally I put the footnote beside 'Ríocht', as it's a link to a dictionary that shows that Ríocht (with a fada over the i) is the correct modern spelling (I felt this mattered, especially as there was no fada in the Morley quote, at least as currently shown in the article; I'll put the fada in there too but only if it's in the Morley book). I then shifted the footnote to make 'Ríocht Éireann' easier to read. I can put it outside the parenthesis if you tell me you still think that would be better having read my explanation (or if you prefer, please feel free to shift it yourself). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Simple WP rule IIRC: footnotes always go outside the punctuation, be it full stop, comma or parenthesis. Scolaire (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but, since you've mentioned a rule, ideally I'd prefer to check the rule myself, in case there are relevant exceptions, and, as you can see from the red ink, WP:IIRC does not exist, so would you by any chance be able to give me the correct address of the rule? WP:IAR (Ignore All Rules if they prevent an article being improved, etc) may also be relevant in this case, though I'm not sure whether it is, as it's always going to be a matter of subjective opinion whether or not this would be an exception that improved the article. Can I assume you think it disimproves the article, regardless of what the rule says? Because if you tell me that you think it does, I'll be happy enough to go along with that, especially given that I'm not particularly convinced that my contrary view is correct, plus I don't want to waste too much time on a seemingly rather trivial issue. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
IIRC means "if I remember correctly". You'll find the rule in the Manual of Style or How to write an article or some such place. I don't care what you do, I just mentioned that it looks funny. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I learn something every day. Is IIRC from Wikipedia jargon, or from texting, or from somewhere else? I guess I'll just change it anyway, and maybe I'll have a look through the rules later. Anyway I've put in the link to Google, corrected the spelling, and added the translation, as per the source. But I'm not too happy with it, as I don't see the word 'violent' there ('aige' normally means 'with him', and 'éigean' is 'compulsion' and 'necessity' in irishionary.com, not 'violence', so 'Gaill in éigean' sounds more like 'oppressive foreigners'), plus I'm a bit surprised to learn that my nephew Cian's name means 'grief' (I haven't found a translation of 'Cian' on irishionary.com, Google, or Wikipedia). But unless you've got any better ideas I reckon it'll just have to do, at least for now. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Successors and Predecessors[edit]

Hi Laurel Lodged. Personally, I think that if a state existed within the periods of existence of this state, it should not be listed as a successor or predecessor. The 'life_span' section shows clearly that the state was not in existence during this period. Placing these in the successors and predecessors suggests that these came before 1542 and after 1800. This causes unnecessary confusion, and doesn't actually inform the reader of anything, since it's already made clear in the 'life_span' section. Regards, Rob (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rob. Might the "Formation" section of the info box in Kingdom of Spain be a better model? It makes room for the republics, which are clearly different states. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I have went ahead and added them to the 'History' section as regardless, they were significant historical events however I'm unsure exactly what your preference is on the Successors and Predecessors and Life Span sections. Rob (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there a better way to illustrate the timeline? So it should be (1) Predecessors: Lordship of Ireland and Gaelic Ireland (2) Successor: Commonwealth (3) Restoration (Ireland) (4) Successors: Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So there were two successor periods, not one. As the confederates professed loyalty to Charles, I would not regard that period as a a dissolution of the kingdom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not necessary to break up the timeline like that. This article is about a polity that existed between 1542 and 1800. Although a republic was declared in England, and extended in principle to Ireland and Scotland, the fundemental nature of the polity did not change. Pedecessors and successors should refer only to the polities that preceded and succeeded the article subject – the 1542-1800 polity – as they do in the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland articles. Reference to the Commonwealth in the History section is sufficient. I am also dubious about the inclusion of Confederate Ireland in the infobox. The Kingdom of Ireland did not cease to exist in 1642. The fact that the king was not in control of much of the country is irrelevant, just as the fact that the king was not in control of much of the country between the thirteenth and the sixteenth centuries does not stop the Lordship of Ireland from being presented in the infobox as a single entity between 1171 and 1542. Scolaire (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I have made the overlap clear. The Confederation did take over much of the Kingdoms territory, so I think its inclusion is necessary. Rob (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing about it in the article! If its inclusion is necessary, you should add it to the article first. Infoboxes aren't for dumping all the "necessary" stuff that nobody can be bothered to write. Scolaire (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
There should be a section on the Irish Confederate Wars however its absence is no reason to removed accurate information from the info-box. Rob (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. The infobox is for giving the salient facts about the subject of the article. Something that nobody ever thought about adding to the article can't be a salient fact and shouldn't be in the infobox. And in this case, as I have said, the formation of the Confederation did not mean the cessation of the kingdom, so it doesn't belong in the infobox even if it was added to the article. The Irish Republic "took over much of the territory" of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1919-22, but it's inclusion has never been deemed necessary in the infobox of that article. So in what way is the Kingdom article different from both the Lordship article and the United Kingdom article? Scolaire (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the inclusion of the Confederacy and the interregnum confuses matters. It was a period of civil war within and between the English-Irish-Scottish states. Yes, new orders briefly (to one degree or another) sprung up but in the scheme of things there were not lasting and things restored to the usual order, no more than the Republic of Connacht at the end of the Kingdom's lifespan.
Leave them out, the Kingdom of Ireland was preceded by the Lordship and/or Gaelic order and succeeded by neatly by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. --Tóraí (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you clarify that for us? Are you saying only that they should not be added back as predecessor and sucessor states, or that they should be taken out of the timeline and the history as well? Scolaire (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the Confederacy or Commonwealth should be added as successor states in the info box. Further, I've just made an edit that moved mention of them to a note in the infobox. They are part of the history of the Kingdom of Ireland. They were not successors to it. --Tóraí (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The Confederacy was not a successor state as it professed loyalty to the King. The Commonwealth on the other hand, was a successor state as they killed the King and proclaimed a republic. That's also what they did in France around 1798. Was Revolutionary France not a successor state? Does the fact that a monarchy followed it invalidate the fact of that state? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If the First French Republic was followed by the swift restoration of the ancien régime, it would be a comparable situation. It's not just that "a monarchy followed it". The state was restored to order after a period of upheaval. The Commonwealth literally didn't succeed in replacing the kingdom. The kingdom wasn't succeeded for anther 160 years. --Tóraí (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Tóraí that the analogy is not apt. Kingdom of France deals only with the 843–1791 kingdom. It does not go forward to 1848 and treat the First Republic and the Empire as an "interregnum". Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland are the more appropriate models, and neither of them treat the Commonwealth as a successor state. Scolaire (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree in principle with the footnote, but I think it contains far too much information. This text should go in the History section of the article, and the footnote should be a very brief summary (~15 words). The whole point of an infobox is to provide information at a glance, and save the reader having to read large amounts of text. Scolaire (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I think including '1652–1660: Commonwealth' in the life span section of the info-box was more appropriate. The entire island was annexed by the Commonwealth of England and therefore the kingdom was effectively disestablished during the period. However, I agree that there should be a section in the article, compromising of a brief summary of Interregnum (Ireland), with a link to the main article. This is how it is currently presented at Kingdom of England. Rob (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The current state of the infobox is fine by me. But why simply delete Tóraí's content instead of moving it into the article, where you are arguing that it is needed? Scolaire (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm good with it too. It's the same as Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England. --Tóraí (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not against including Tóraí's content into the article, go ahead. Rob (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Scolaire (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That the Commonwealth was short-lived might indicate that it was a failure as a state (i.e. not a success); this has nothing to do with it being a successor state (i.e. a state that followed or replaced a state). The etymology of the two is related but the meanings distinct. What is important is that it was a state and was internationally recognised as such. The "interregnum" is revisionist humbug. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

LL, this is nothing to do with either etymology or revisionism. The article is about a polity that existed from 1542 to 1800. Something was there before 1542 and something was there after 1800. Those, by definition, are the predecessors and sucessors. Something that came in the middle is not either a predecessor or a sucessor. If you want to say that the Commonwealth was a successor state then you have to end this article in 1652, rename it "Kingdom of Ireland (1542-1652)" and create a new article named "Kingdom of Ireland (1660-1800)". Good luck with doing that! Scolaire (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not necessary to create two articles: one article can contain both periods. To deny that the Commonwealth was a successor state is to deny that the Commonwealth was a state. Is that what this is about? Who denies that the Commonwealth was a state? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Nobody's denying anything. There's no agenda here. I'm only saying that the "successor" to a 1542-1800 state must have come after 1800, by definition. The Commonwealth didn't. Which, by the way, is what Rob said a week ago when he opened this thread, so why are we still going around in circles? It isn't a successor state in the Kingdom of England or the Kingdom of Scotland articles; why should this one be different? Scolaire (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

'Part of'[edit]

The "today" field in the infobox should be left blank. The island of Ireland is not part of the Republic of Ireland, neither is it part of the United Kingdom (nor of Northern Ireland). There is no way to label that field that will not confuse the reader more than it informs. Scolaire (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Today the territory of the Kingdom of Ireland is part of the the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. It's not saying the entire territory is occupied by either state, in-fact it's not saying anything, and we can assume that a reader looking up historical states will probably have a reasonable understanding of current states and therefore will be-able to figure out what the section is showing. After also including '(Northern Ireland)', I think definitely clear enough. Rob (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, no. The infobox is for people who don't have a reasonable understanding of anything. It's designed to show things, not leave the reader to "figure them out". Providing information to people who already have all the information is a pointless exercise. As far as this particular field is concerned, you have hit the nail on the head: "in fact it's not saying anything". That's why it should go. Scolaire (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind if you blank it if you think it's misleading. I don't think it's particularly significant anyway. Rob (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Today, the north-east of the former Kingdom of Ireland is "part of" the United Kingdom. --Tóraí (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the whole kingdom is not part of the United Kingdom. We can't change the template; it says "Today part of" and therefore as it stands gives the impression that the whole of the island is part of both the Republic and the UK at the same time. And it doesn't serve any useful purpose. Ireland is Ireland, you can't expand its boundaries like you can with landlocked territories. Its location, shape and extent is exactly the same as it was 500 years ago. The field is meant for articles like Principality of Transylvania, Free State of Fiume or Free City of Danzig, the whole of each of which is now part of a larger state. Its use here confuses rather than informs. Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
No, the whole kingdom is not part of the United Kingdom today. If it were, only the United Kingdom would be listed.
Today, the whole of the kingdom if not part of any one state. A north-eastern portion is part of the United Kingdom. The remaining portion is part of (in fact the whole part of) the Republic of Ireland.
I don't think there's anything confusing about that. Particularly, with "Northern Ireland" added in parenthesis. Compare with Austrian Empire or Weimar Republic, for example, which lists several modern states of which a former state's territory is now a "part of". --Tóraí (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's equally confusing on those two articles, and if I were minded to start a campaign – which I'm not – I would remove it from them as well. The Republic of Ireland covers five sixths of the territory of the Kingdom of Ireland. To say that the latter is "part of" the former is to say that the part is greater than the whole. The same is true of Austria and Germany in the examples you cited. If the template were worded differently, that problem wouldn't arise, but it's worded the way it's worded, and to fill it the way it's filled here is to create a logical absurdity. Scolaire (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The Republic of Ireland covers five sixths of the territory of the Kingdom of Ireland. To say that the latter is "part of" the former is to say that the part is greater than the whole. That is a rhetorical fallacy because that is not what is being said. What is being said territory of the Kingdom of Ireland is today part of the Republic of Ireland AND the United Kingdom. You neglected to mention the United Kingdom in your mathematics. --Tóraí (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Nope. It is saying that it is part of a smaller polity and of a larger polity. It can't be part of a smaller polity, therefore it can't be part of both. Never mind. You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you and I'm not going to edit-war. Let it be. Scolaire (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

UKGBI[edit]

WheelerRob has changed the successor state from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to United Kingdom, with the edit summary "Changed successor link from article about a period, to article about the sovereign state." But this article is only about a period too, as is Lordship of Ireland and Gaelic Ireland. The UKGBI article, like this one, has a "former country" infobox, and its life-span is given as 1801-1922. For consistency this "former country", and not the modern state, should be used as successor. Scolaire (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree. The successor was United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland not just the United Kingdom. That is too unspecific in this context and points to the wrong place. Dmcq (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The 'United Kingdom' has existed since 1801 and has one article covering its overall existence. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article simply covers the history of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1922. I don't like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article, as it only covers content already covered in other articles in less detail. History of the United Kingdom covers the period in as much detail so from what I can see, it's pointless. The fact that it has a former country info-box is wrong anyway, since it's not a former country. Currently, I haven't started discussions at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for changes or for its deletion, as I am awaiting the result of discussions at other articles covering British history. I wont pursue my edit here until I have a better idea on what British history articles will look like, if any of my proposed changes go ahead. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom seems to be the redundant one and should be the one deleted. Content should be moved to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the former state where it belongs. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom is the equivalent of History of Ireland (1801–1923). It appears that Irish Wikipedians preferred to have separate articles: one on the period and one on the polity (in fact, I remember a long discussion on that, but I can't link to it off-hand). This article has its equivalent in History of Ireland (1536–1691) and History of Ireland (1691–1801), and the Lordship article in History of Ireland (1169–1536). It may seem barmy, but if that's the way people want to it, then there's no harm in it. If you do succeed in changing or deleting the UKGBI article, then obviously we would need to have a re-think. Scolaire (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. History of the United Kingdom is a top level article about the history and it summarizes and links to articles about various periods of history. This is as how things should be done when the separate parts make decent sized articles in themselves and a single article would be too big. Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Rob, can you give us an indication of what other "British history articles" you are currently in discussion about, or is it just that you are disputing the use of UKGBI in other infoboxes? It's not that I want to stalk you, but if there are going to be significant changes in the way that British history is written, it would be useful for us to keep track of them. Scolaire (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not expecting any of these changes to go ahead, but here are some discussions I have started:
Depending on the outcome of these discussions, will affect whether I reopen a discussion at United kingdom, making that article clearly show that the United Kingdom was formed in 1801, not 1707 like it currently suggests. Then my argument to list that article as the predecessor to this state will make more sense. Rob (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, though, if you're not expecting any of these changes to go ahead, would it not be wiser just to accept that people don't share your views, and give up? Scolaire (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There's no hurry, and I'm not going to make any drastic edits without getting clear consensus. People don't like change, and I haven't got a significant amount of response. Rob (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)