Talk:Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone

Inaguration image
This image is not one of O'Neill being inagurated. What's the source?

2005 post
What on earth are you doing referring to the Uí Néill as a figure in "British political history"? The British state wasn't even invented when Ó Néill was in action. He was a Prince of Gaelic Ireland and if you must put a modern description on him you could call him an Irish statesmen because of his involvement with European powers in his struggle against the English crown. And why can't you have the historical accuracy- not to mention respect- to refer to him by his real name, Aodh Mór Ó Néill? Would you anglicise a Chinese, Japanese or other name? Lastly, how in the name of God can you say he resisted the seventeenth century plantation when he fled from Rathmullen in 1607 (Flight of the Earls), the very year the plantation commenced? Instead of an independent Prince, Ó Néill was reduced to being an extremely powerful landowner after the Treaty of Mellifont in 1603. His resistance was between 1594-1603 and it was inspired primarily by a realisation that, because he was a Gael, he would never become the most powerful man in Ulster under English rule. Ó Néill would have sold his granny, had the English been able to contain their hatred for the "barbarous" Irish a bit better. It had nothing to do with resisting a plantation which was implemented in order to subdue Ulster after the Nine Years War 1594-1603.

Why does Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone get directed to this page which says '3rd Earl of Tyrone' ? I haven't seen anywhere else O'Neill (1540-1616) labelled as the 3rd Earl of Tyrone. Tehmasp


 * Blunders are made - there's a similar one in relation to Gerald Fitzgerald, 15th Earl of Desmond, who should in my opinion be listed as the 14th. As for resistance to plantation - it was a creeping policy of the crown from the mid-1550's. O'Neill had seen the first effort in Ulster in Clandeboye under Essex in the 1570's, and would have realised that William Fitzwilliam's push toward the Ulster borders in the 1590's - especially his execution of the MacMahon, following that of the O'Rourke a few years earlier - not only reduced his influence but left his territory vulnerable to various legal claims (see later the Case of the Bann Fishery in 1609, which asserted a legal entitlement stemming from the Norman conquest that had been extinct for hundreds of years) and a splintering off of his dependents. Eventually, he would have been surrounded in Tyrone by English landowners with a more direct line to the English court. The same thing happened to Desmond and, to a lesser extent, Ormond. It was not a good time to be overmighty and Irish (Gaelic or Norman).---shtove 22:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So which is he, 2nd or 3rd? He can't be both. And if you have a problem with it why don't you correct it? Mike Hayes (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor but important change
Just revised "Uí Néill Dynasty Today" to "Ó Neill Dynasty Today". People constantly confuse the two, which is understandable, but leads to deep misunderstanding. Fergananim 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mór
On the recent edit to his name - does Mór make him Hugh the Great, or Big Hugh?--Shtove 22:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely "The Great" Irishpolitical (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It is literally 'big', but definitely translates as 'the Great'. Iamdmonah (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Birth date confusion
The birth date given in the text and infobox is c. 1565; but the birth category is 1540s; should it be changed to 1560s? which is correct?--FeanorStar7 (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Uí Néill or Ó Néill
This article has both. Which is correct? 87.38.42.48 (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Ó Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone → Hugh O'Neill, 2nd earl of Tyrone Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone — It's a pity and a shame that disagreement over the name of this article derailed into a ‘move war’ so soon, especially since it could have been resolved through the regular procedures just as easily. It's never too late for that though, so here's a clean slate.

As he pointed out on his talk page, User:DinDraithou is right that our man is usually called either Hugh O'Neill (English) or Aodh Ó Néill (Irish), and not some combination of those names like Hugh Ó Néill or Aodh O'Neill. I believe that English secondary sources tend to favour the name Hugh O'Neill over Aodh Ó Néill when referring to this particular person. E.g.:


 * two relatively recent articles in encyclopedias of good reputation: ODNB and DIB
 * And this list could easily be supplemented with further examples.
 * two relatively recent articles in encyclopedias of good reputation: ODNB and DIB
 * And this list could easily be supplemented with further examples.

The other issue is about disambiguation. Hugh O'Neill, 2nd earl of Tyrone, clear and simple and in line with the sources above, looks good enough to me (in case anyone wonders, the only reason why we have '2nd' in the title is because there's a later namesake who's styled 6th earl of Tyrone). Cavila (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the move, with the caveat that it should be Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone (capitalizing "Earl"), as that is our general format for peers. john k (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the move, per above Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the move, per above Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support with capitalization; it is consistency and usage - "Earl of Tyrone" is a proper noun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson


 * Support per John K. --Labattblueboy (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Consensus: convincing solution to the problem at hand, and a common sense exception to WP:NCROY. -- Hadal (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hugh O& → Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone –

Sources appear to be about evenly divided between calling him 2nd and 3rd Earl; the problem is whether to count his older brother, Brien O'Neill, who had the same claim to be Earl as Hugh did, but who was not recognized in the three years between the death of the first Earl, their grandfather Conn, and his own assassination. At some point, we should write an article on Brien, and it should be titled Brien O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone, for disambiguation from the other men of that name.

The subject is certainly primary usage for the proposed title; long after the subject's attainder, two of his grand-nephews claimed to be Earl of Tyrone, but
 * The title was forfeit
 * Their pedigree is disputable
 * They are infinitely less well known that the Great Earl.
 * Their numbering is at least as arguable.

I would also accept Hugh O'Neill, 3rd Earl of Tyrone, but I see no real reason to not just make both numberings redirects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. This is a slight tweaking of WP:NCROY, but guidelines have occasional exceptions, and I've discussed it on their talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Proposed title is closer to royal. DinDraithou (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Our normal custom is to pick one number and explain the disagreement. I see no reason why this can't be done here. I wouldn't object to a move to Hugh O'Neill, 3rd Earl of Tyrone if that reduces confusion with his brother, but I don't think removing the number entirely is the right solution. Proteus (Talk) 13:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support If the ordinal is causing confusion, just drop it (I presume it's anachronistic anyway, though not sure when English earls start using ordinals). Same goes for Conn and Brian. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes sense to avoid confusion. Also wouldn't object to Hugh O'Neill, 3rd Earl of Tyrone if NCROY absolutely has to be followed (but it seems a tad unnecessary). Jenks24 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "2nd earl" is the overwhelming consensus on Google Books, compare |+%22second+earl+of+Tyrone%22%29&btnG=Search+Books here and here. In fact, I suspect most of the few measely hits for "3rd earl" are typos. Even if Brien really was an earl, the numbers are traditional and it is not Wiki's place to be renumbering earls. "Brien O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone" -wikipedia gets no hits whatsoever, although there is one hit for "Brien O'Neill second Earl of Tyrone" -wikipedia. Please do not create an article of this title. Kauffner (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding pedantic, gbooks can't have "consensus". They don't sit around talking to each other until the strongest books agree on something. If an ordinal is really necessary, I think we should concentrate on whether or not Brian O'Neill was earl of Tyrone. If he was, then "2nd Earl" is simply a factual error and it doesn't matter how many or who call Aodh "2nd Earl". Of course, we can circumvent the whole discussion by omitting the ordinal too. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph on Brien O'Neill as second Earl in Complete Peerage is not a typo; it is the statement of a de jure claim, the chier matter of interest about this long-deceased teenager. I proposed omitting the ordinal precisely to avoid having our article take a position on de jure as opposed to de facto titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Conn was earl for life only (Britannica 1911), so I don't follow the de jure argument. Google Books is almost 11 to 1 in favor of "|+%22second+earl+of+Tyrone%22%29&btnG=Search+Books 2nd earl" over "3rd earl." Hugh is by far the most notable earl of Tyrone, so what does he need an ordinal for? But here you using the ordinal issue to attach undue emphasis to a fringe claim. Kauffner (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the personal attack: I propoased to omit the number precisely to de-emphasize the question of succession, which should not be implicit in the title; I could have proposed 3rd Earl of Tyrone, and cited Complete Peerage, which is not  a fringe source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A misreading, I think, of the original DNB, which says "for life, with remainder to his supposed son Matthew";  this is one way of expressing a grant which does not extend to the grantee's heir male. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography explains more fully: All three earls arise from the same patent, of 1542, with the extraordinary special remainder that the Earldom was to be inherited by the first Earl's illegitimate son Ferdoragh or Matthew, and his heirs male; since this Ferdoragh was killed in his father's lifetime, his sons inherited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I read what you write and draw reasonable conclusions, it's a "personal attack"? This is the second time in three posts that you have suggested that we put the phrase "third earl" in the article title, but of course only in order "de-emphasize the question of succession." I suggest removing the phrase "2nd or 3rd[1] Earl" from the opening line, where I notice that boldface is currently used to de-emphasize it. This issue can be stuffed into the footnote. The footnote should be moved out of the lede and into to the "Early Life" section, where it can be attached to Brian's name. That is all de-emphasis this issue deserves. Kauffner (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, if you accuse me groundlessly of doing what I have carefully avoided doing; that is a personal attack. Please discount this !vote accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, sounds a sensible solution; no need to choose between contested points of view in an article title if an equally good title can be constructed that avoids doing so.--Kotniski (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Kotniski. This is an elegant solution to an otherwise vexing issue. Let's take it and move on. Andrewa (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This is a sensible and honourable exception to NCROY. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Portrait is from 1800s, not original
http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume13/issue5/features/?id=113898 said to be "developed from a ‘true likeness’ of the earl".86.42.193.65 (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

O'Neill never claimed the title Ard ri
O'Neill never claimed this title. He wished to see Phillp of Spain, or any other European Catholic monarch, as King of Ireland, rather than an English or Scottish one. Fergananim (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But you deleted a referenced paragraph on this point - need to show the ref is bad.Shtove (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Family
I have replaced the family section but someone may wish to mine the old text for more information, so I am placing it here. NB the sources need to be checked against the text as not all of them are accessible.

He had a large number both of legitimate and illegitimate children: four legitimate daughters, including Sarah, Cortine who married Sir Henry Oge O'Neill, grandson of Shane the Proud, and Alice, who married Randal mac Sorley Mac Donnell, the two latter having issue in the O'Neills of the Feevagh, including Captain Conn O'Neill, with whom Bonnie Prince Charlie Stuart escaped from Culloden; two illegitimate sons, Turlogh and Conn; four legitimate sons, Hugh, Henry, Bryan, John. His many descendants include Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington and Queen Elizabeth II.

-- PBS (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I see the online link for his descendant Elizabeth II is still working. Easiest to cut them all out, eh? This is why so many people dislike wikipedia.78.16.22.229 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

In-line citation placement
PBS, Please read WP:DUPCITES and WP:REPCITE before reverting again. To try and claim WP:SYN is a false claim: there is no sythesis in having two citations at the end of a sentence. SYN states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources": there is no implication or conclusion in the statements in quesion. (see also What SYNTH is not). - The Bounder (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a synthesis because the ODNB is a more modern rewrite of the DNB and placing its citations against information provided by the DNB implies that the 21st century source backs up the 100 year old source. However that is not so. It does not contradict the DNB but neither does it support it. Placing them next to each other does not allow the reader to discern without looking at the sources which source supports what text. -- PBS (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not know whether you are deliberately misconstruing SYN or not, but I shall AGF and assume that you are just mistaken. Two sources are providing two pieces of information that can be contained in short sentences. The two citations can both be placed at the end without breaching SYN. We are drawing no conclusions, simply repeating the facts. If you feel that there is a problem because of the sources, then new sources should be found that deal with any problem ares. - The Bounder (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:REPCITE is from an essay and does not apply, as nothing that is supported with a citation is repeated.
 * The policy WP:V makes it clear that "the Burden" lies with the contribution editor "and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". You are moving citations away from directly supporting the contribution. --PBS (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The end of the sentence is still directly supporting the information. As above, if there is a problem, another source should be located or used. - The Bounder (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting the citations at the end of the sentence when doing so distorts the support that the citations give as they no longer directly supporting the information. As to date all you have contributed to this article is a rearrangement of some short citation are you going to follow you own advise "As above, if there is a problem, another source should be located or used", or do you expect others to do that for you? Personally I think it would be useful to have other sources, but until they are provided then the citations from the DNB and the ONDB should not be combined implying that the modern source supports information from the older one. -- PBS (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think it appropriate to delve into someone's entire edit history because someone disagrees with you, but if you are prepared to go to those lengths to protect your article, then I am out. I suggest you read WP:AGF, because it is obvious that you have no idea what GF actually is. - The Bounder (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked you that question on your talk page and I do not think this is the forum to discuss that subject as it is not directly relevant to the content of this page. I have reverted you last edit because of the reasons stated in my last contribution to this talk page which you have not addressed. -- PBS (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop harassing me on my talk page. Yet again, you need to actually read WP:AGF and take on board what it says. - The Bounder (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807142408/http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/T100070 to http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/T100070

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807142233/http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/E600001-002 to http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/E600001-002
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807142134/http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/E590001-003 to http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/E590001-003

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Disputed succession infobox
An infobox was added by in December saying that Hugh was a disputed High King of Ireland, that his immediate predecessor was Edward Bruce, and that his immediate successor was somebody called Diolmhain Críostóir Ua Ruairc Lobley, Duke of Meath. I'm reverting as unsourced, but I'm curious to know how somebody who was born in 1550 could succeed someone who died in 1318. If Tadhg can produce a reliable source, perhaps he could tell us about it here on the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Succession to the Irish High Kingship is not direct and is not always one-after-the-other. The history of Ireland's High Kings is riddled with interregnums and disputed claimants. Not to mention that the last undisputed High King of Ireland, Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, died in 1198, then legitimate claimants are often far and few between, and would only be recognised often upon coming to great power and/or influence (usually in Ireland). As such, Edubard a Briuis technically has no successor. There is seldom a direct successor to such a title, and Edward himself could hardly be called a successor, save for Gaelic recognition and support. In any case, on of the many O'Neill Clan Association websites claims that Hugh was a self-proclaimed High King of Ireland. I will search for the exact webpage and post it here when I have found it. Tadhg Dómhnall Ó Ruairc 17:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read Reliable sources. Family web pages do not count – you need to find a reference in a book published by a reputable publisher or an article in a reputable journal. As for Diolmhain Críostóir Ua Ruairc Lobley, Duke of Meath, he appears to be the same person as Dylan C. Lobley, an otherwise unremarkable person who claims to be the current High King of Ireland. Good luck finding a reliable source for that! Scolaire (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * http://www.ronsattic.com/oneill.htm Tadhg Dómhnall Ó Ruairc 18:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TadhgORuairc (talk • contribs)


 * Did you read what I said? A family web page is not a reliable source. This one is particularly bad; it calls him "Red Hugh O'Neill", which nobody in history ever called him – obviously the author confused him with Red Hugh O'Donnell! And anyway, that web page doesn't say that Hugh claimed the High Kingship of Ireland. Scolaire (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your reversion makes sense to me, thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)