Talk:Edmund of Scotland

King
There's actually almost no evidence that Edmund was King of Scots. If anything, he was his uncle Domnall's tanaiste (i.e. designated successor). - Calgacus 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But shouldn't it at least be mentioned that many works still (incorrectly) call him king? Srnec 21:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now it says that. Next to go, Margaret of Scotland as not-Queen. I wonder if I should add Olaf of Scotland, whose existence is as certain as that of Donald I of Scotland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Amlaib of Scotland? ;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I have my doubts as to the creation of the article, whatever it's called:

Amlaíb mac Iduilb (died 977) was King of Scots during the 970s. He was the son of Idulb mac Causantín and brother of Cuilén mac Iduilb.

He is known from the notice of his death in the Annals of Tigernach, which reports that he was killed by Cináed mac Maíl Coluim. His name is not included in any extant king lists, nor is he named as a king in 973 when Cináed met with Edgar of England at Chester, so that the length of his reign is unknown.

Now, even with the refs (Duncan, Kingship; ESSH), and the external links (CELT and Cornell), and the Kingy template, and a see also or two, four sentences is a miserable stub indeed. As for the article naming, I am a slave to the MoS (ahem). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If Duncan is calling him King, then Amlaíb of Scotland can be an article. And what you quoted is not necessarily a stub. This is the same kinda info level we have for lots of kings, for instance it seems to be as much as for the "king" on the current page. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)