Talk:History of Ireland (795–1169)

I'm a bit doubtful about this idea of a tuath as a kind of elected commune. From what I know of Gaelic Irish society, albeit at a later date, it was extremely hierarchical and violent, with whoever was strong enough to raise enough fighters forcing the submission of everyone else. Jdorney 21:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Viking Ireland
First! As a casual visitor Ive noticed that this article is about the Viking invasions of Ireland up to the Norman invasions etc...all very correct until someone suddenly changes the Norman invasion into the English invasion! As the English had been defeated in on one of the most decisive conquests in European history ,and England was for the next 350 years a French speaking nation ,how do the English come into it..and I dont think the English servants slaves cooks washerwomen etc count as part of the Norman army!This kind of distortion is ridiculous and in some way dangerous,How ever difficult ,try and keep early Irish history free from modern predudices! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.216.229 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that a redirect from Viking Ireland was created to this article - as this article currently stands that is more or less correct (though I think "Norse Ireland" would be a better term...). That is not what Ireland 800–1169 is limited to however, some things that should have been included but aren't mentioned (from the top of my head, in more or less chronological order): The establishment of Kells as new center for the Columban church (from Iona) and by that cease of the rivalry between Armagh and Iona, the concept of highkingship becoming (more or less) real more than just nominal with Mael Sechnaill I / Flann Sinna (and perhaps the Christianisation of Highkngship with Aed Ordnide), the final split between northern and southern Ui Neill leading the way for Brian Borus rise to power, the shifting powerstruggles (High King with opposition) following Mael Sechnaill II second reign, Irish involvement in Welsh/Norman wars prior to 1169 + + +

In short, this article isn't yet what it's supposed to be - but it is supposed to be more than an account of Viking Ireland. Noone's to blame for this, since noone has undertaken writing the parts that are lacking - but we should definitely not settle for this version. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is essentially why I created the redirect. The substance of the article really does seem simply to be just Viking Ireland. I understand why you mean by "Norse Ireland", and you are probably more technically correct, but "Viking" is the common name (in Ireland at least).
 * Given its current content (and since it would make for a good topic) I'd support a move of this article to Viking Ireland (or similar) rather than try to "fix" it. It think too, alongside the discussion happening at Gaelic Ireland a rethinking of the series of Irish history articles. That however would require broader discussion. --RA (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that a broader discussion rethinking (or clarifying whatever has been thought) would be good - where could we try to facilitate such a discussion? Talk:History of Ireland? Someplace at wikiproject Ireland (is that project alive btw)? I would also suggest waitng with a possible move of this page until we've had an attempt at such a general discussion. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The project is active, but I think in this case it would be better to have a discussion at Talk:History of Ireland. More interested people might take part. --RA (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Irish history series
I have opened a discussion on a reorganisation of the series of articles dealing with Irish history at Talk:History of Ireland. --RA (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

...expansion or major revamping
I'm going to try to expand this article a bit, the goal is to give a (short) chronological account of the most significant events in Irish history in the whole period 800 (or rather 795) to 1169, as well as some background. The background will include
 * a description of the sources avvailable for knowing this period (mainly the annals etc, but perhaps something about archeology as well)
 * General background (status as of 800)
 * A description of the political landscape AD 800, more or less a good map with some explanations and internal links.

There should be sections on Geography, Economy, Demographics, Law, etc etc - but that's probably not going to happen just now...

For my own convenience, I'm starting this work "backwards", by making the "Reference"-section first.

Any comments are welcome, and as I'm not a native speaker I'm extremely grateful for copyediting. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea about starting with the references. You may wish to look at the sections Early history, The Kingdom of Connacht, Kings and High Kings wot I wrot in Connacht. By all means steal them and apply them on a national scale. I don't know where you'll get a map; the ones we have a adaquate, but could be so much better. Mind you, we'll need one for 800, 1000, and c.1130 and c.1169. Be back soon, Fergananim (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

See also articles
Should be useful, and they do have good references which can be used in the main article. They are:


 * Cormac Mac Carthaigh, King of Munster, died 1138 (unfinished)
 * Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair, ditto
 * Irish genealogy

That should be enough for now. Will check on your first drafts later. Well done for taking it on! Fergananim (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Section proposals
I wonder if we could even extend the lenth of the article to 1198, the year the last high king died? Would it help integrate the early Norman years, or should 1169/1171 be left as a watershed? Gaelic Ireland didn't stop in 1169, nor did the changes its society were undergoing regress in an instant. Thoughts?

Here are proposals for section six:

Title section 6 Rise of the High Kings
 * 6.1 Máel Sechnaill and Brian
 * 6.2 High Kings with Opposition
 * 6.3 Gaelic church reformation
 * 6.4 Kingdoms consolidated and annexed
 * 6.5 Feudal Ireland
 * 6.6. Ruaidrí, King of Ireland


 * 1 covers 980 to 1022 and the tension between the old dynastys and the parveaus.
 * 2 the era 1014 to 1072 when there was no accredited high king, but several notable and innovative rulers such as Diarmait mac Maíl na mBó
 * 3 covering the church and monastic reform movement featuring Máel Máedóc and its repercussions in Gaelic social and politcal life
 * 4 the fall of the kingdom of Mide, its implications, and the rise of Breifne, Desmond and Connacht
 * 5 how, in the fifty-plus years prior to 1169, Gaelic polity was becoming more feudal, in tandem with change on the European mainland.
 * 6 how it all came together in the years 1156-69 in the unopposed regognition of Ruaidri Ua Conchobhair, not as High King, but King of Ireland. And how he let it all slip through his fingers. Ta dah!

I want to add something about the origins of Irish learned families, who were first recorded in the decades after 1100. They arose as a result of changes inherent in Gaelic Ireland, not because of the invasion.

Hope this does not seem overbearing. Let me know what you think. Fergananim (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for very valuable input, it doesn't seem overbearing at all. Instead of commenting directly on the sections you've suggested right, I'll make some general remarks and later (after sorting my thoughts in a sandbox) try to compare those suggestions with what I already had in mind.


 * First of all, there are two deep ditches that historians tend to fall in when presenting this period of Irish history, and they actually rhyme: "Vikings" and "Highkings". The Viking ditch is to present it as a period of actions by the Vikings and reactions from the Irish. The highking ditch is to make too much out of the Uí Néill/Armagh chroniclers naming of Highkings (in various forms), and then chronologically present the "reign" of various highkings. Most of the Uí Néill "highkings" had just as much (if not more) opposition as the post-Brian ardrí co fressabra. Máel Sechnaill I probably came close to being defacto King of Ireland, Brian probably even closer: at some point effectively controlling all of Ireland except roughly present Donegal, Derry & Antrim. As the regional rulers got stronger (and the subregional ri tuatha became more like feudal lords instead of kings), de facto kingsship became a more realistic ambition (when Brian got the submission of the Uí Néill nominal overking Máel Sechnaill II - the Northern Uí Néill didn't join in...). Ok, that was some unsourced rambling on my part - the point I was trying to make is that it's hard to present history of this period without falling in either of these ditches, but it's certainly worth a try (keeping in mind not to fall in Wikipedias bottomless pit of "No Original Research" either).


 * A quick initial response to your points 1-6 though:
 * Tricky period to write about, too much has been written about it and quite a lot of it is coloured by Cogadh - one way or another.
 * Diarmait mac Maíl na mBó was the first to conquer and actually take residence in Dublin, instead of just looting it like Brian and his predecessors. Also the first Irish king (since Dal Riata anyway) to control territories outside of Ireland proper.
 * Definitely, also the relationship between Ui Briain, Canterbury and Rome.
 * Good point (though Mide had been in the process of falling for a while, had it not). I know nothing about Desmond yet, and Kingdom of Desmond wasn't helpful at all...
 * Yes, it's important to show that Ireland was a-changing before the Normans.
 * Have to read up of Ruaidri


 * Again, thanks for your input - more response to follow :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad Fergananim raised the idea of extending the article to the death of Ruaidrí, because it addresses a question that's been bugging me - why have an article titled 'Ireland 800-1169' (or 'History of Ireland 800-1169') when 1169 wasn't the end of anything? It was the beginning of Norman Ireland, but that's a whole different article.  'History of Ireland 800-1200' is actually far more logical.  If we are intending at some point to write a History of Ireland article bridging the gap between this one and Henry VIII, it could just as easily be called 'History of Ireland 1200-1600', and have a short 'Background' section recapping the Henry II and John periods.  To put it another way, when there are separate articles for Lordship of Ireland, Kindom of Ireland etc., why do the chronological articles need to be constrained within the same dates?
 * As regards Desmond, you couldn't really say that it "rose" during this period. It was the result of the partition of Munster by Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair, so its existence was more a sign of the Ua Briain kings' weakness than its own strength.  It's only later that we see the MacCarthaigh kings as a force in Gaelic Ireland.  There is a List of monarchs of Desmond which at least gives you some names if you want to research it.  Scolaire (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Desmond: It would seem that the division of Munster in Thomond and Desmond was more or less a formalization of the division between the spheres of influence between Dal gCais (Ua Briain) and Eogonachta, which had been brewing since mid-10th century. These "sub-regions" appearing as "kingdoms" (I notice some of them categorised as Former countries in Europe| which strikes me as somewhat odd) could also be interpreted as part of the development of a feudal structure I think.
 * Extending the length of the period: The more I work with this, the more I see that there are no beginnings or ends to anything :) Writing about Áed Oirdnide without drawing the lines back in time to the 8th century expansion of the Uí Néill didn't feel right. I would expect that concluding the account of Ruaidrí with the arrival of some Norman knights in Wexford would be equally unsatisfactory. That said, we have to draw the line somewhere, and the Norman Invasion is where all scholarly literature (I have seen) has drawn this line. The Norman invasion brought some new participants into Irish history, and their actions (and reactions to these) I would say is beyond the scope of this article. Tying up some ends and summarising the conclusion of processes already started before the Anglo-Normans interfered is however, IMO within the scope. In short, keep the timeframe/scope, but include a final chapter to the chronological history drawing the lines to 1200 (and probably beyond). Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sections suggested by Fergananim: Makes a lot of sense, I'll try to use these with the exception of "Rise of the High Kings" as overall title for post 980. On a side note, giving the sections a relevant name is a real challenge here. Calling the 9th Century "The first Viking Age" has a lot of historiographical presendence, it does give however the wrong impression that everything that happened in Ireland in that Century was related to the Vikings. So far I have tried to write about the 10th century without subsections.
 * Thoughtful input like the above from Fergananim and Scolaire makes this work so much more rewarding :)Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll all have to go on a date. Fergananim (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair
Per your request, I've began revisions on Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair and remember why I've been putting it off for so long! Scolaire - your idea of Ireland 800-1200 is a massively well-expressed idea. Have not had so much fun since playing the Palace Hotel Ballroom with Jake and Elwood. Fergananim (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While you're at it: Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair could need some expansion as well... The remarkable turn of Connachts political fortune in the 12th century, from "political backwater" to home of "High Kings" is indeed worth elaborating. Verstraten has what seems like a good overview in Duffys Encyclopedia. (464-466)


 * Also, it seems the symbolic pre-Brian "King of Tara"=most powerful king in Ireland, from Diarmait mac Maíl na mBó seizure of Dublin in 1050 was replaced by a realistic "King of the Gaill in Dublin"=most powerful king in Ireland.Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right there! And that includes Henry II, who drove the unfortunate Ostmen north of the river to Oxmanstown.  Scolaire (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit of an irony here - the Norse couldn't conquer Ireland the way they conquered Northumbria because there was no power-centre like York to take - so instead they ended up creating just that kind of power-centre (Dublin) which made the Norman conquest so much easier. OK, this was over-simplyfying a lot, I know... ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, I find Tairrdelbach more interesting than Ruaidhri, but have likewise baulked at writing him up because of the breath of his reign. Guess I better heave ho and away I go! And Finn; adding the photo of Eoin to the historgraphy section is really cool. Very nice tough! Fergananim (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Cóiceda and modern provinces
In the 'Background' section it says "when discussing the political subdivisions of Ireland at this time it is still useful to refer to this pentarchy, roughly corresponding with the modern provinces of Ireland." Not exactly, because there are only four provinces in modern Ireland, as can be seen from the article linked to. The point is still worth making, I'm just not sure how to re-word it for accuracy. Scolaire (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it could be rephrased to "...roughly corresponding with the modern provinces of Ireland, with the northern part of Leinster separated into the 'fifth province' Mide. "
 * "Roughly" is a key word here, as we don't know any fixed boundaries for any de facto historical division in 5 parts, but especially for Munster and Connacht (which are used, historiographically, as equal to the present provinces; almost never as Mumu and Connachta), to a lesser extent for Leinster/Laigin and Meath/Mide, and not at all for Ulster (the Ulaid of our period was just east of the Bann) - this province division makes it easier for the readers to orientate themselves. Part of present County Cavan (now within Ulster) was at some point within Mide, but I think adding this detail would confuse more than clarify. Suggestions for rewording very much welcome, taking a look at the article kingdom of Mide might be helpful. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do understand the ins and outs. It's only the phrasing that's the problem.  First of all, "separated" would definitely be the wrong word; it needs to be the other way around - Meath incorporated into Leinster, as actually happened.  Second, I think it should explicitly say "four provinces" to avoid any confusion.  And for the same reason I wouldn't use "pentarchy" in this sentence, but a more general word like system, order, layout, organisation or pattern.  I suggest the following, though it's still a bit clunky:
 * "when discussing the political subdivisions of Ireland at this time it is still useful to refer to this system; if Laigin and Mide are combined as Leinster, it roughly corresponds with the modern four provinces of Ireland ."
 * That looks much better, thanks. I have a small concern with Laigin vs Leinster though, as most literature translate Laigin (they're generally better at using Mide to distinguish from present county Meath). Would "...when Laigin and Mide are combined as the modern province Leinster, it roughly corresponds with the modern four provinces of Ireland." make this clearer? Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, strike that - I'm going to cut&paste Scolaires suggested rephrasing as it is (also with system instead of pentarchy). Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

800-1169/1200?
Upon a reminder from Fergananim on this question, as raised by him and enthusiastically supported by Scolaire, I said I'd elaborate a bit here. Looking though the discussion again I see I have already (tried to) say something about it.... Anyway, I think we should follow the now established historiographical division of of 800-1169. To amend problems the limitations from such a division I'm thinking the we should to the following It's not like I'm married to 1169 though, but maybe we could wait drawing a conclusion on this until I've gotten around to write something (except church history) about Ireland after 1050... Might be easier for you to understand my thinking (and argue against it ;) if it's in the article and not just in my head. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Add a couple of sentences, either in the lead or in the historiography section, explaining why this division is somewhat problematic. (Mind, any division that gets established is problematic, for the same reasons)
 * 2) Have a solid background-section to draw the lines from before 800 into our period. I've slready started that, but it might be expanded.
 * 3) Have a solid "whatever-the-opposite-of-background-is-called-in-English"-section drawing lines from our period into the future, so to speak.
 * 4) Don't treat 1169 as limit written in stone, despite being in the title. The second synod of Cashel should be discussed here (despite being in 1172), the career of Rory O'Connor after the invasion should be included, etc etc.


 * All good points. Shall refrain till then! Fergananim (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate what I said before: books and articles are constrained by their format - they can't have Gaelic Ireland, Viking Ireland, Norman Ireland and "Ireland 800-xxxx" all at the same time. We can and do.  Books and articles that end in 1169 don't deal with Ruaidrí's later career or the second Synod of Cashel.  You intend to.  Think about it: the Synod of Cashel was Henry's synod - how can you deal with it fairly when Henry hasn't been mentioned previously in the article?
 * I'm thinking globally here (and I meant to say this weeks ago at Talk:History of Ireland but didn't). If we're going to go for a series of articles covering the whole of Irish history, to me it makes more sense to have it as 800-1200, 1200-1600, 1600-1800 etc. than to have cut-offs with 9's and 6's in them.  It should be as easy or easier to deal with the Norman invasion in this article as a full section than as a "whatever-the-opposite-of-background-is-called-in-English" (I don't think we have a word) section.  But that's just me.  I'm enjoying watching your article expand, and I'll wait to see what the finished product is like before I make any (further) pronouncements.  Scolaire (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points you are making - to add to them History of Ireland currently have the sectionheader History of Ireland, under which it says Main article: Early Medieval Ireland 800–1166 which is a redirect to Ireland 800–1169... But I'm still stuck in 1050 in secular history, and have just reached 1150 in ecclesiastical, so the very thought of adding another 30 years make me somewhat despaired :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no rush. I would say, continue to write for now, and then think about titles.  Titles can be changed down the line anyway.  Scolaire (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Legend for File:Dioceses of Medieval Ireland.jpg
Could you add a legend to the map depicting the dioceses of Ireland from the original source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.247.113 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Medieval Irish women
The following extracts are from "Medieval Ireland:An Encyclopedia", edited by Seán Duffy, 2005. I won't edit it into the article myself as I no longer feel competent to make such edits, but will leave it here for those who can. The section is titled "Women", the author is Katherine Simms and it is divided into the following sections:

"Women in Sagas Irish sagas set in the pre-Christian period feature some very masterful heroines, notably Medb, queen of Connacht ... This can give people the impression that women had greater freedom and control in pagan Ireland before the norms of Christianity redefined their role in society. However, there are two problems with this interpretation. First, most of the sagas were actually written between the ninth and the twelfth centuries or later, by Christian scribes adapting their rich inheritence of old traditions to suit the taste of their own times. Second, a number of their female protagonists, Queen Medb in particular, were based on goddesses or female symbols of soverignty, whose extensive powers reflect their own supernatural attributes rather than the role of ordinary women at any date." (p.520)

"Women in Saints' Lives Female saints also had supernatural attributes, in the sence that the Latin or Irish accounts of their lives credit them with many miracles. Otherwise they are shown as respected abbesses running communities of nuns ... . They show the nuns employing men to plow the lands attached to their communities, entertaining visiting bishops and abbots to hospitable meals that might include home-brewed beer, fostering young boys ultimatly destined for the priesthood, and giving them their early education. Certain saints, like Lasair of Kilronan, are reputed to have pursued academic studies under the instruction of male saints and to have become qualified to instruct male clerics themselves, but the Life of St. Lasair is a late text written in a secular school of hereditary male historians, and it is uncertain if this feature of the Life is bas on very early tradition. The fact is, we have no Latin works from early Ireland attributed to female authors, though we may have some Irish poems, such as "St. Íte's Lullaby to the Baby Jesus" or "The Lament of the Hag (or Nun) of Beare." ... as "heir" to the lands and authority endowing her nunnery, any abbess qualified as a female landowner, and this was the one class of female who did enjoy a degree of independene and power in early Irish law." (p.520)

"Landownership in the Laws ... Full status as a free citizen in early Ireland depended on landownership, and fmaily lands could only be transmitted through male heirs. If a man had no sons, his daughter might inherit his share of the family estate for her lifetime. Such an heiress would have the legal rights of a property owner, and the same public liability for tax and services as a male landowner. ... However, she could not pass on her estate to her children. After her death it would revert to her father's kindred, unless she married her first cousion on her father's side or another close relative, allowing her children to inherit the land through their father." (pp.520-21)

"Legal Capacity Apart from these exceptional heiresses, women received only movable property - cows, household goods, or silver - from their fathers, normally as marriage goods. They were thus "second-class citizens", legally dependent on their fathers or brothers if they were single, or on their husbands or grown-up sons if they were married. However, women were not completly without rights. Honor price (lóg n-enech) was a graded system applied to different  classes in society, and used by lawyers to calculate the amount of compensation a freeman or noble could claim for insults or injuries. A wife's honor price was set at half the value of her husband's. ... The husband had an even greater right to object to his wife's contracts for a period of fifteen or twenty days after she agreed to a bargin. Secondary wives or concubines with children had lesser rights, and concubines with no children had even less control. ..." (p.521)

"Marriage Although Old Irish treatises on customary law bear all the sings of having been written by or for clerics, suprisingly they recognise many more types of union between man and woman than a monogamous Christian marriage. They were compiled between the seventh and the ninth century C.E. before Carolingian church reforms gave Continental clergy a greater tole in regulating marriage laws, and at a time when Christian Merovingian and Anglo-Saxon kings publicly kept concubines and sometimes passed on their thrones to the sons of those concubines. Old Irish law tracts give pride of place to a man's one offical wife, the "first in the household" (cétmuinter), who normally contributed movable property of her own to the joint housekeeping and was entitled to recieve it back, with any accumulated profits, if the couple divorced later. Divorce could be initiated by either the husband or the wife, on a number of grounds. A wife, for example, could cite her husband's impotence or sterility, beating her severly enough to leave a scar, homosexuality causing him to neglect her marriage bed, failure to provide for her support, disscussing her sexual preformance in public, spreading rumors about her, his having tricked her into marriage by using magic arts, or his having abandoned her for another woman. In this last case, however, the first wife had the right to remain in the marriage if she wished, and was then entitled to continued maintenance from her husband.

A man could only marry another cétmuinter if his first wife was a permanent invalid unable to fulfill her marital duty, but it was not uncommon for husband to acquire one or more secondary wives or concubines, known in the Old Irish tracts as airech', but significantly described in the later commentararies as adaltrach (adulteress). Irish marital customs attracted severe criticism from church reformers in the late eleventh century. Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury referred to Irishmen arbitrarily divorcing one wife in exchange for antoher "by the law of marriage or rather the law of fornication," and Pope Gregory VII heard it rumoured that many Irish "not only desert their lawful wives, but even sell them." (p.521)

"The Later Middle Ages ... Ordinary Irishwomen are first described by foreigners, medieval pilgrims to St. Patrick's Purgatory, or the bureaucrats of the Tudor reconquest. All report a generally relaxed attitude toward nudity and sex, which may relate to the failure of the Gregorian drive for clerical celibacyt to make much headway in rural Ireland. Christina Harrington has noted that Irish churchmen, often themselves married, did not normally dmonize women in their writings or project her as a temptress responsible for man's sins. Young girls in Cork were seen by Fynes Moryson grinding corn stark naked, presumably to preserve their clothes from flour. The rural prostitutes of sixteenth century Gaelic Ireland, described by Edmund Spenser as monashul (mná siúl:wandering women), in default of urban centers wandered from place to place and fair to fair, and were seen as just one of the lower-class entertainers like gamesters or jugglers, suitable recipients of a great lord's fringe hospitality. Moryson noted as unusual that gentlewomen and irish chieftains' wives stayed drinking "health after health" with the men at banquets, though unmarried maidens might be sent away after the first few rounds. Monder Irish Puritanism originated in the seventeenth century, promoted by the Counter-Reformation missionaries and the extension of English common law to Gaelic Ireland under James I." (p522) Author - Katherine Simms.

Related works noted by Katherine Simms are:


 * Marriage in Ireland, ed Art Cosgrove, Dublin, 1985.
 * Women and the Church in Medieval Ireland by Dianne Patricia Hall, Dublin, Four Courts Press, 2003.
 * Women in a Celtic Church: Ireland 450-1150, Christina Harrington, Oxford Univrsity Press, 2002.

I hope this will be of use to the editors. Fergananim (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Irish kings, kingship, and kingdoms
I note there is some discussion on the above topics. As an aid, I shall add the following extracts from the above publication, titled "Kings and Kingship", by Bart Jaski, pp.251-254.

"Kings and Kingship Medieval Ireland was marked by the existence of dozens of kingdoms, each ruled by a king who in the early medieval period was technically the highest nobelman in the túath. Most kings were subject to over kings, who were the policy-makers of the time. They based their authority over other lords and kings on ties of blood relationship and alliance. The integrity of such alliances partially depended on the pwoer and personal qualities of the over king. The ruling kindreds of the Irish kingdoms were often caught between the forces of internal division and outward stability. The rule of inheritance and succession stiulated competetition among relatives and expansion by the kindred's branches. Yet it also gave the kindred as a whole a measure of stability and flexibilty, as the kindred hardly ever died out in the male line. Several royal dynasties remained in control of an area for many centuries." (p.251)

"Historial Roots The historical roots of Irish kingship are still debated. It has been argued that pagan sacral kings, who ruled over tribes, were replaced by aristocratic kings, who ruled over kindreds in the period of the coming of Christianity and the rise of expansionist dynasties. The monst anceitn collective names are those only found in the plural (such as Laigin and Ulaid), and those names enging in r(a)ige, from -rigion (kingdom), such as Cíarraige and Osraige. These are held to express a tribal feeling, since they are connected to matters usch as human characteristics, totem animals, or deities. Yet such "tribes" may well have been ruled by certain families, as they were among the continental Celts in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. ..." (pp.251-52).

"Royal Duties At around the eight century there were probably over one hundred territories that were ruled by a rí túaithe (king of a people or territory). Although the title rí means litterally "king", the holder was essentially the highest nobleman of the túath. He held the main nobilbity of the tuath in clintship; they owed him tribute and support in exchange for protection and representation. Together with the bishiop and the master-poet, the king had the highest status in the territory. A person's status was expressed by his honor price, wich determined his legal rights and entitlements. ... As leader of the people, the king hosted ayearly assembly (óenach), had a council (airecht; later oireacht)with members of the secular and ecclesiastical elite, and conferred with other kings at a meeting (dál). He had a number of servitors to support him in his office, such as a steward, messenger, judge, and champion." (p. 252).

"Succession According to theory, the headship of a royal or noble kindred was due the most suitable person in regard to descent, age, and abilities. When the head of a kindred died, and he had no other near relatives, this oldest son succeeded him. ... In practise, such matters were often resolved by internal struggle or by negotiation, by which a senior candidate could relinquish his claims in exchange for certain privileges. No candidate had an absolute right to the succession, not even the tánaise ríg. Daughters had no permanent right to kin-land, and heiresses could not pass on kin-land to their offspring. Hence, outsiders could not take the headship of a family that had died out in the male line by marrying an heiress, as became common in medieval Europe. When a lineage died out, their land reverted to their male next-of-kin. Theis catered to stability within the Irish dynasties in the long run, but division fo the kin-land and collateral succession often resulted in temporary fragmentation of the kindred's assets and political power." (p.252)

"Dynastic Kingship In theory, the descendants of the sons of a lord alternated in the headship of the kindred, as long as they were duly qualified. In practise, who who - for whatever reason - were passed over for the succession for often unable to attract sufficient clients to maintain noble status for several generations. Their descendants became commoners and clients of their more fortunate relatives. This fate could be avoided by joining the ranks of the poets or clerics, or by competing successfully for power."

"In order to relieve internal pressure and extend the domination of the kindred, a ruler could install brothers or sons as rulers over neighboring client-peoples. The new noble or royal branches thus created remained part of the same kindred, and nominally subject to an over king as their common head. The over kingship was often contested by the leaders of the most powerful branches of the kindred, and this often led to destructive succession struggles. An over king who was disobeyed raided the territory of his errant subkings, in order to drive off their cattle as tribute or to take their hostages as guarantees for future obedience. Internal wargare could weaken the kindred as a whole, with the succession erratically being taken by this branch or that."

"Usually, one or two branches came out on top and subjugated all others. Yet within a few generations the winningh branch would itself be split up into rival lineages, and the whole cycle would start anew. This process remained typical for irish dynastic kingship until the end of the Gaelic order in the decades around 1600." (pp.252-53)

"Over Kingships The importance of blood relationship for claims of submission and tribute is reflected in the Irish political nomenclature. The ruleing dynasties are all named after a legendary or historical ancestor, who name is preceded by a term expressing kinship, such as Corco (seed), Dál (division) Clann (children), Cenél (kindred), Síl (seed) and Uí (grandson or descendants). All those who recognized the same ancestor politically tied together. Certain dynasties were, by mutual consent or a procured relatioship, held to be related. This reflected in the Old-Irish word cairdes, which means "kinship" and by extension, "friendship." A popwerful over king could claim that others were his relatives, and thus claim authority over them. Genealogical bonds expressed political bonds, hence the importance of the recording of genealogy in the medieval sources."

"The law tracts of around 700 recognize a hierarchy of kings of a túath, king of several túatha, and the provincial kings. The provincial king ruled not only a powerful dynasty but also a defined territory that he habitually dominated, named a cóiced (literally "fifth"). A king of Ireland only existed on a theoretical basis, as no dynasty had bee able to rule Ireland permanently."(p.253)

"Political Structure Already before the eighth century the over kingship had begun to dissolve the túath as the basic sociopolitical unit. Most of the irish petty kings were subject to an over king, and many were hardly independent rulers. The power of the over kings over their dynasties and neighbouring kings increased in time, and about a dozen were of major consequence. The Uí Néill rule in Mide, Brega and The North (In Túasceirt); the Uí Briúin and Uí Fiachrach in Connacht; the Uí Meic Uais and Uí Chremthainn in Airgíalla; the Dál Fiatach and Dál nAraidi in Ulster; the Uí Dúnlainge and Uí Cheinnselaig in Leinster; and the Eóganachta in Munster. until the tenth century the over kings of the Ui Neill and Eóganachta dominated Ireland, and claimed suzerainty over Leth Cuinn and Leth Moga, respectively. ... The kings of Tara came to overpower the kings of Ulster and Leinster as well. Hence Máel Muire Othain (d. 887) attaches the Laigin and Ulaid (Dál Fiatach) to those whom shared a common ancestor with the Ui Neill in his poem on the Irish invasion myth. A few kings of Tara, from Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid (ruled 846-862) onward, took hostage of the kings of Cashel and claimed to be kings of Ireland. Internal rivalry and losses against the Vikings were among the factors by which the Eóganachta and Uí Néill fell apart in the tenth century."(p.253)

"Later Developments The career of Brian Boru (d.1014) marked the end of the domination of the Eóganachta and Uí Néill. This gave other dynasties the opportunity to rise to power. Notable kings were now given the honoary title "high king" (ard-rí), a term subsequently used to denote the kings of Tara of old. This gave rise to the anachronistic notion of a high kingship of Ireland. In the new political order that ensued, the leading families were Mac Murchada (Uí Cheinnselaig) in Leinster, Mac Carthaig (Eoghanacht Caisil) in Desmond, Ua Briain (Dal gCais in Thomond) Ua Conchobair (Ui Briuin Ai) in Connacht, Ua Bruaic (Ua Briuin Breifne) in the northern Midlands, and Ua Domnaill Cenel Conaill) Ui Neill, and Mac Lochlainn (Cenel nEoghain) in the North. Apart from Mac Lochlainn, they remained powerful from around 1150 to 1600, which tesifies to the resilience of the main Irish dynasties. These families also had the tendency to extend the domination by planting branches on neighbouring territories. After the Anglo-Norman invasion there was an increading development toward the exercise of lordship among feudal lines, but on the whole Gaelic tendencies persevered. These included the donation of turastal and the impositions of coshering and coyne and livery. Internal rivalry, raiding, hostage-taking, and fluctuations in alliances and power remained characteristic for the Gaelic lordships. This hampered the implementation fo the English surrender-and-regrant policy in the decades around 1600, by which the Irish kings and lords were recreated as English earls and barons, with the promise to follow English law and custom. In the end, the irish royal families died out, lost power, or their chiefs went abroad, and few managed to keep up their noble stature." (p.253-53)

Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

When was "Early Medieval Ireland"?
Early Irish law contains a link to Early Medieval Ireland, which redirects to History of Ireland (800–1169). However, the lede of History of Ireland (400–800) describes that period as "early medieval". Which period is the Law article refering to, and which should be the redirect for "Early Medieval Ireland"? (Posted in all three talk pages) Iapetus (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)