
I don't know enough about the subject to know if the recent changes are correct, but I do know that you should wikify them. User:John Kenney 21:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC) :The problem is that to wikify would lead to articles that require rewriting because they define terms at an inappropriate place or time eg: fiefdoms article assumes English-style feudalism. I have restored this page as it is not a copyright violation. Would someone please check these things out before wiping a page. The copyright holder is the owner of www.maclochlainn.org User:195.92.168.168 == Reasons for reversion == I have reverted again. *(i) the article is not written in house style; *(ii) If there is a holder of copyright on this text, as User:195.92.168.168 states, then by definition it is a copyright violation ''even'' if it was the owner of the copyright who placed it here, as it has not been released in accordance with the rules of wikipedia. It could only stay here if the copyright holder waved copyright ''completely'', in effect allowing copyright to be owned by everyone who edits the site and visits the site here communally and in perpetuity. The owner of the website may not be aware that in putting the text here he would in effect be giving up all ownership and it would become all our property to edit and change at will. User:Jtdirl 17:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Response == * (i) Then edit it into house style rather than wiping it back to a very inferior version. ** See comments above re wikifying. ** The title does not appear in the body so no boldening is indicated. * (ii) Then lets sort out the permissions that are required (which are a mere formality) rather than wiping back, etc This page was wiped before because nobody bothered to check for permission. Try being constructive rather than destructive and point out what is required rather than getting paranoid about supposed copyright issues User:195.92.168.169 23:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==POV heading== The article does not sound like a NPOV encyclopedia article. Rather than giving all the viewpoints regarding the office of the High King, the article begins by (somewhat rudely) refuting all opposing viewpoints. I do not know enough about the subject to make any changes, but it needs to be addressed. * I think the non-neutral heading should be removed because the article reflects the current state of knowledge (see linked article for instance). An article concerning the Earth would move swiftly on from outdated concepts such as 'flat earth' and 'heavenly spheres' and so does this one. I don't see what the problem is User:195.92.168.175 21:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC) * To clarify my response above, there are no competing points of view current among historians (the linked article backs up the Wiki article in detail and stands as a standard citation in this area) and so there is no dispute to characterise. The Wiki article is strictly factual in that it states that the early narrative literature portrays a sacral kingship (eg: 8th century tale Togail Bruidne Da Derga), that the early law tracts portray a hierarchy of kingship (eg: 7th or 8th century law tract Críth Gablach) and that the annals (eg: post-6th century Annals of Ulster) show that there was no 'steady state' (the erroneous assumption of earlier historians) but that kingship developed much as elsewhere in Europe from the 5th century onwards. It is the earlier historians (driven as much by political agendas as by the historical sources) whose view has been superceded that are 'rudely' dismissed in the introductory lines and I see no problem with that. This is an article on history, not the history of history. User:195.92.168.177 12:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC) ==Other stuff== This article is not neutral at all. It gives only one viewpoint- that the High Kings are entirely ficticious and were simply made up out of thin air in the 8th century. The entire article should be completely rewritten. :I agree. Beginning the article with "The office of High King of Ireland (Irish: Ard Rí Érenn) was in origin a pseudohistorical construct of the eighth century" is deeply POV. We should begin by describing the traditional idea of the High Kings, and then go into any scholarly ideas about when the concept actually originated. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 22:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) : I disagree. The pseudohistorical origin of the high kingship is as uncontroversial as it gets, in serious circles at least. Is Wikipedia here to educate or to reflect uninformed opinion? User:195.92.168.176 10:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Can you give citation for the view that the early high kings are not fictitious. Only then can we judge the quality of the argument. User:195.92.168.176 11:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Citations== I think it would help if those wishing to change the article give supporting citation here. This will allow us to discriminate between the serious and the frivolous. User:195.92.168.176 10:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) : The article as it stands is covered by citation to the external link at the foot of the article. User:195.92.168.176 10:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although the traditional list of those bearing the title High King of Ireland (Irish language: ''Ard Rí Érenn'') goes back thousands of years, into the second millennium BC, most scholars believe that the earlier parts of the list, at least, are largely mythical. It is unclear at what point the list begins to refer to historical individuals, and also at what point these individuals can genuinely be said to be "High Kings" in the later sense of the word. Some scholars believe that the idea of the High Kingship was a pseudohistory construct of the eighth century that placed a king of all Ireland atop the fragmented pyramid of kingship that actually existed at that time. This notion of a high kingship acted as a spur to greater centralisation and was converted into political reality by the middle of the ninth century. Until quite recently the development of the pre-Norman kingship of Ireland has been expressed in simplistic terms, with both Unionists (Ireland) and Irish nationalist historians happy to portray pre-Norman Ireland as an immutable hierarchy of kings for their own purposes, the unionist so that he can better paint a picture of tribal anarchy and the nationalist so that he can better paint a picture of utopian harmony. Neither of these schools are correct. The historical reality as currently understood is more complex and mirrors the development of national kingship elsewhere in Europe. Early Irish kingship was sacred in character. In the early narrative literature a king is a king because he marries the sovereignty goddess, is free from blemish, enforces symbolic ''buada'' (prerogatives) and avoids symbolic ''geas'' (taboos). According to the seventh century and eighth century law tracts a hierarchy of kingship and clientship progressed from the ''rí'' (king of a single petty kingdom) through the ''ruiri'' (a ''rí'' who was overking of several petty kingdoms) to a ''rí ruirech'' (a ''rí'' who was a provincial overking). Each king ruled directly only within the bounds of his own petty kingdom and was responsible for ensuring good government by exercising ''fír flaithemon'' (rulers truth), convening its ''óenach'' (popular assembly), raising taxes, public works, external relations, defence, emergency legislation, law enforcement and promulgating legal judgement. The lands within the petty kingdom were held allodial by various ''fine'' (agnatic kingroups) of freemen with the king occupying the apex of a pyramid of clientship within the petty kingdom (progressing from the unfree population at its base up to the heads of noble ''fine'' held in immediate clientship by the king) and so being drawn from the dominant ''fine'' within the ''cenél'' (a wider kingroup encompassing the noble ''fine'' of the petty kingdom). Even at the time the law tracts were being written these petty kingdoms were being swept away by newly emerging dynasties of dynamic overkings. The most successful of these dynasties were the Uí Néill (encompassing descendants of Niall of the Nine Hostages such as the Cenel Eoghain) who as kings of Tara, Ireland had been conquering petty kingdoms, expelling their rulers and agglomerating their territories under the direct rule of their expanding kindred since the fifth century. Native and foreign, pagan and christian ideas were comingled to form a new idea of Irish kingship. The native idea of a sacred kingship was integrated with the christian idea in the ceremony of coronation, the relationship of king to overking became one of ''tigerna'' (lord) to king and ''imperium'' (sovereignty) began to merge with ''dominium'' (ownership). The church was well disposed to the idea of a strong political authority. Its clerics developed the theory of a high kingship of Ireland and wrote tracts exhorting kings to rule rather than reign. In return the ''paruchiae'' (monastic federations) of the Irish church received royal patronage in the form of shrines, building works, land and protection. The concept of a high kingship was converted into political reality by the Uí Néill in 862 when one of their number is styled in the annals as ''rí Érenn uile'' (king of all Ireland), but this was a personal kingship to be won anew generation by generation rather than an impersonal office settled upon a lineage. By the twelfth century the dual process of agglomeration of territory and consolidation of kingship saw the handful of remaining provincial kings abandoning the traditional royal sites for the cities, employing ministers and governors, receiving advice from an ''oireacht'' (a body of noble counsellors), presiding at reforming synods and maintaining standing armies. Early royal succession had been by alternation between collateral branches of the wider dynasty but succession was now confined to a series of father/son, brother/brother and uncle/nephew successions within a small royal ''fine'' marked by an exclusive surname. These compact families (O Brien of Munster, MacLochlainn of the North, O Connor of Connacht) intermarried and competed against each other on a national basis so that on the eve of the Anglo-Norman incursion of 1169 we find the agglomeration/consolidation process complete and their provincial kingdoms divided, dismembered and transformed into fiefdoms held from (or in rebellion against) one of their number acting as king of Ireland. ==See also== List of High Kings of Ireland ==External link== *[http://www.ucc.ie/celt/nation_kingship.html Nationality and Kingship in Pre-Norman Ireland by Prof. Donnchadh Ó Corráin, University College Cork] Ancient Ireland Irish mythology Cycles of the Kings
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with High_King_of_Ireland:
High_King_of_Ireland
High_King_of_Ireland
High King of Ireland
I don't know enough about the subject to know if the recent changes are correct, but I do know that you should wikify them. User:John Kenney 21:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC) :The problem is that to wikify would lead to articles that require rewriting because they define terms at an inappropriate place or time eg: fiefdoms article assumes English-style feudalism. I have restored this page as it is not a copyright violation. Would someone please check these things out before wiping a page. The copyright holder is the owner of www.maclochlainn.org User:195.92.168.168 == Reasons for reversion == I have reverted again. *(i) the article is not written in house style; *(ii) If there is a holder of copyright on this text, as User:195.92.168.168 states, then by definition it is a copyright violation ''even'' if it was the owner of the copyright who placed it here, as it has not been released in accordance with the rules of wikipedia. It could only stay here if the copyright holder waved copyright ''completely'', in effect allowing copyright to be owned by everyone who edits the site and visits the site here communally and in perpetuity. The owner of the website may not be aware that in putting the text here he would in effect be giving up all ownership and it would become all our property to edit and change at will. User:Jtdirl 17:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Response == * (i) Then edit it into house style rather than wiping it back to a very inferior version. ** See comments above re wikifying. ** The title does not appear in the body so no boldening is indicated. * (ii) Then lets sort out the permissions that are required (which are a mere formality) rather than wiping back, etc This page was wiped before because nobody bothered to check for permission. Try being constructive rather than destructive and point out what is required rather than getting paranoid about supposed copyright issues User:195.92.168.169 23:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==POV heading== The article does not sound like a NPOV encyclopedia article. Rather than giving all the viewpoints regarding the office of the High King, the article begins by (somewhat rudely) refuting all opposing viewpoints. I do not know enough about the subject to make any changes, but it needs to be addressed. * I think the non-neutral heading should be removed because the article reflects the current state of knowledge (see linked article for instance). An article concerning the Earth would move swiftly on from outdated concepts such as 'flat earth' and 'heavenly spheres' and so does this one. I don't see what the problem is User:195.92.168.175 21:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC) * To clarify my response above, there are no competing points of view current among historians (the linked article backs up the Wiki article in detail and stands as a standard citation in this area) and so there is no dispute to characterise. The Wiki article is strictly factual in that it states that the early narrative literature portrays a sacral kingship (eg: 8th century tale Togail Bruidne Da Derga), that the early law tracts portray a hierarchy of kingship (eg: 7th or 8th century law tract Críth Gablach) and that the annals (eg: post-6th century Annals of Ulster) show that there was no 'steady state' (the erroneous assumption of earlier historians) but that kingship developed much as elsewhere in Europe from the 5th century onwards. It is the earlier historians (driven as much by political agendas as by the historical sources) whose view has been superceded that are 'rudely' dismissed in the introductory lines and I see no problem with that. This is an article on history, not the history of history. User:195.92.168.177 12:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC) ==Other stuff== This article is not neutral at all. It gives only one viewpoint- that the High Kings are entirely ficticious and were simply made up out of thin air in the 8th century. The entire article should be completely rewritten. :I agree. Beginning the article with "The office of High King of Ireland (Irish: Ard Rí Érenn) was in origin a pseudohistorical construct of the eighth century" is deeply POV. We should begin by describing the traditional idea of the High Kings, and then go into any scholarly ideas about when the concept actually originated. User:John Kenney User_talk:John Kenney 22:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) : I disagree. The pseudohistorical origin of the high kingship is as uncontroversial as it gets, in serious circles at least. Is Wikipedia here to educate or to reflect uninformed opinion? User:195.92.168.176 10:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Can you give citation for the view that the early high kings are not fictitious. Only then can we judge the quality of the argument. User:195.92.168.176 11:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Citations== I think it would help if those wishing to change the article give supporting citation here. This will allow us to discriminate between the serious and the frivolous. User:195.92.168.176 10:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) : The article as it stands is covered by citation to the external link at the foot of the article. User:195.92.168.176 10:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
High King of Ireland
Although the traditional list of those bearing the title High King of Ireland (Irish language: ''Ard Rí Érenn'') goes back thousands of years, into the second millennium BC, most scholars believe that the earlier parts of the list, at least, are largely mythical. It is unclear at what point the list begins to refer to historical individuals, and also at what point these individuals can genuinely be said to be "High Kings" in the later sense of the word. Some scholars believe that the idea of the High Kingship was a pseudohistory construct of the eighth century that placed a king of all Ireland atop the fragmented pyramid of kingship that actually existed at that time. This notion of a high kingship acted as a spur to greater centralisation and was converted into political reality by the middle of the ninth century. Until quite recently the development of the pre-Norman kingship of Ireland has been expressed in simplistic terms, with both Unionists (Ireland) and Irish nationalist historians happy to portray pre-Norman Ireland as an immutable hierarchy of kings for their own purposes, the unionist so that he can better paint a picture of tribal anarchy and the nationalist so that he can better paint a picture of utopian harmony. Neither of these schools are correct. The historical reality as currently understood is more complex and mirrors the development of national kingship elsewhere in Europe. Early Irish kingship was sacred in character. In the early narrative literature a king is a king because he marries the sovereignty goddess, is free from blemish, enforces symbolic ''buada'' (prerogatives) and avoids symbolic ''geas'' (taboos). According to the seventh century and eighth century law tracts a hierarchy of kingship and clientship progressed from the ''rí'' (king of a single petty kingdom) through the ''ruiri'' (a ''rí'' who was overking of several petty kingdoms) to a ''rí ruirech'' (a ''rí'' who was a provincial overking). Each king ruled directly only within the bounds of his own petty kingdom and was responsible for ensuring good government by exercising ''fír flaithemon'' (rulers truth), convening its ''óenach'' (popular assembly), raising taxes, public works, external relations, defence, emergency legislation, law enforcement and promulgating legal judgement. The lands within the petty kingdom were held allodial by various ''fine'' (agnatic kingroups) of freemen with the king occupying the apex of a pyramid of clientship within the petty kingdom (progressing from the unfree population at its base up to the heads of noble ''fine'' held in immediate clientship by the king) and so being drawn from the dominant ''fine'' within the ''cenél'' (a wider kingroup encompassing the noble ''fine'' of the petty kingdom). Even at the time the law tracts were being written these petty kingdoms were being swept away by newly emerging dynasties of dynamic overkings. The most successful of these dynasties were the Uí Néill (encompassing descendants of Niall of the Nine Hostages such as the Cenel Eoghain) who as kings of Tara, Ireland had been conquering petty kingdoms, expelling their rulers and agglomerating their territories under the direct rule of their expanding kindred since the fifth century. Native and foreign, pagan and christian ideas were comingled to form a new idea of Irish kingship. The native idea of a sacred kingship was integrated with the christian idea in the ceremony of coronation, the relationship of king to overking became one of ''tigerna'' (lord) to king and ''imperium'' (sovereignty) began to merge with ''dominium'' (ownership). The church was well disposed to the idea of a strong political authority. Its clerics developed the theory of a high kingship of Ireland and wrote tracts exhorting kings to rule rather than reign. In return the ''paruchiae'' (monastic federations) of the Irish church received royal patronage in the form of shrines, building works, land and protection. The concept of a high kingship was converted into political reality by the Uí Néill in 862 when one of their number is styled in the annals as ''rí Érenn uile'' (king of all Ireland), but this was a personal kingship to be won anew generation by generation rather than an impersonal office settled upon a lineage. By the twelfth century the dual process of agglomeration of territory and consolidation of kingship saw the handful of remaining provincial kings abandoning the traditional royal sites for the cities, employing ministers and governors, receiving advice from an ''oireacht'' (a body of noble counsellors), presiding at reforming synods and maintaining standing armies. Early royal succession had been by alternation between collateral branches of the wider dynasty but succession was now confined to a series of father/son, brother/brother and uncle/nephew successions within a small royal ''fine'' marked by an exclusive surname. These compact families (O Brien of Munster, MacLochlainn of the North, O Connor of Connacht) intermarried and competed against each other on a national basis so that on the eve of the Anglo-Norman incursion of 1169 we find the agglomeration/consolidation process complete and their provincial kingdoms divided, dismembered and transformed into fiefdoms held from (or in rebellion against) one of their number acting as king of Ireland. ==See also== List of High Kings of Ireland ==External link== *[http://www.ucc.ie/celt/nation_kingship.html Nationality and Kingship in Pre-Norman Ireland by Prof. Donnchadh Ó Corráin, University College Cork] Ancient Ireland Irish mythology Cycles of the Kings
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with High_King_of_Ireland:
High_King_of_Ireland
High_King_of_Ireland
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
