Talk:Tanistry

October 24 Revisions
Just want to state that they were by me, Fergananim. I forgot to sign in again! Sorry.Fergananim 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Milesius, the father of Hermann, the ancient ancestor of the O'Neills, could not decide which of his sons should succeed him as King, so he ordered them to race across the waters, with the understanding that the first of them to place his hand upon the shore of the Island of Destiny (Ireland)would become King. Heber's boat was first, and as he leaped into the surf and began wading toward land, Hermann chopped his own hand off and threw it onto the beach, ahead of his brother. Thus he became King and founded the royal line from whom Niall of the Nine Hostages, Ireland's first High King, and founder of its 600 year dynasty, descended. The motto of the O'Neill family is "The Red Hand Forever!" The O'Neill's are one of several clans descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, who include the "Red Hand" in their coats of arms. The claim of the Red Hand symbolizing anything else is wrong. This is according to the oral traditions of the O'Neill and O'Brien families, the descendants of Hermann and Heber. The Flag of Ulster is misidentified as that of Leinster. The Red Hand of the O'Neills and the Red Cross from the Burke family's coat of arms are combined in the provincial flag.
 * Jacobusrex (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)JacobusRex 2/12/2010 5:13 AM (PST)

Usage
Wouldn't "the Tainiste" be the position, and "Tanistry" the process or system of which that position is a part? The definition is a little confusing - you define Tanistry as being the position, then use Tainiste thought the article. I want to make sure I'm using the term properly in the artive Doherty. Thanks. Kevlar67 13:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Neo-paganism
" Tanist figures appear in much popular neo-paganism." This on its own has little value. Rich Farmbrough, 13:24 4 October 2007 (GMT).

Tanistry and "A View of the Present State of Ireland"
There is also discussion of "Tanist" and "Tanistrye" in Edmund Spenser's "A View of the Present State of Ireland." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchoulidrop (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Article POV
Needs both cites and neutral sources. Phrases like tanistry being revived by "clans with membership deeply aware and appreciative of their history." do nothing for the credibility of the article.

The article pushes tanistry contrary to the reality. From 1943, until the discontinuation of the recognition of 'Chiefs' in 2003, the method used by the Chief Herald of Ireland, was primogeniture. AllsoulsDay (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I bet it was, especially after Ireland had been completely taken over by England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.210.128 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Red Hand and Ui Neill
I disagree with - "The usual rules for qualification as a roydammna was that a candidate had to be a member of the "Derbfhine", a kindred all descended in the male line from a common ancestor (usually a great grandfather or great-great grandfather). This is recalled in the coats of arms of representatives of the many clans and septs descended from the Uí Néill royal dynasty, many of which feature the Red Hand. The joints in the fingers, the fingernails, and the hand itself, represented the four/five generations that qualified for inclusion within the Derbfhine."

The red hand was used in many other Ulster armorials, not just the Ui Neill clans.Red Hurley (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Tanist held office for life and was required by custom to be of full age, in possession of all his faculties and without any remarkable blemish of mind or body. At the same time, and subject to the same conditions, a tanist or next heir to the Monarchy was elected, who if the king died or became disqualified, at once became king."

Should the first mention of "Tanist" actually be "King"?

62.172.108.23 (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

POV
This article virtually ignores the fact that tanistry is a system practiced in other parts of the world. See  - it's mentioned a bit in the last section but without nearly enough coverage, and should be in the lead and in fact in the first sentence. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Male?
Could I have a source for the requirement that the person be a male please? I didn't think that was neede. In fact extra cites would be a good idea overall. By the way, nothing to do with this just I've forgotten, what is the term for the custom of swapping children with another family anyone know thanks? Dmcq (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The custom was called fosterage. (Celtic Fosterage: Adoptive Kinship and Clientage in Northwest Europe, Comparative Studies in Society and History; Urth noe e tat: The Question of Fosterage in High Medieval Wales, North American Journal of Welsh Studies ) Sjgwyn (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for that and I see now there is an article about it fosterage. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway there seem to be plenty of places that say males only whatever about having women queens in Britain and Ireland even in the earliest times. Dmcq (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Tanistry customs Link the Righdamhna with the Scythians
Besides modern Genetics and exact language correlations which i point out on my talk page dealing with the Rawlinson Quote, the social system of Tanistry in itself is another pointer to the Validity of Native Irish Historical records known as Lebor Gabála Érenn and i think it is important to show my input on  02:43, 16 September 2013‎ which further drives home the knowledge of the actual History of my people as told by ourselves--Prestigiouzman (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stop trying to push pseudohistorical nonsense about the "Aryan race" based on fringe authors into encylopedic articles. It has no place here. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hows Dinner sound--Prestigiouzman (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

So... how does this work again?
I still can't make any sense of this article. I'm writing a historical novel and sadly it hasn't helped me much.

"The Tanist held office for life and was required by custom to be of full age, in possession of all his faculties and without any remarkable blemish of mind or body. At the same time, and subject to the same conditions, a tanist or next heir to the Monarchy was elected, who if the king died or became disqualified, at once became king"

So shouldn't the first mention of "tanist" be "king"? Also, it says that the king was elected at the same time as the tanist. But if a previous king (previously a tanist) had already been elected, how did they elect the king at the same time? Again, this article doesn't make sense and that's pretty frustrating.

So if I deduce correctly, as soon as the tanist took office king for whatever reason, at the same time a new tanist was elected? Is that right? That's the only way it could work IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizlivadi (talk • contribs) 00:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes basically they'd need a new one soon after the new king took over. The king or chief was as far as I can see more akin to an executive manager and didn't have the powers of a medieval king so sometimes I feel king is not quite the right term. Dmcq (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sacred Tanist
How do historical usages of the tanist custom correlate, if at all, to poet/historian Robert Graves's notion of a "Sacred Tanist," actually a proxy sacrifice employed (according to Graves) by the proto-Greeks such that should custom call for the sacrifice of a female ruler's male consort, the tanist was killed instead. (I think. . . .) This could simply be Graves on what British law calls "a frolic of his own" but if there is a perceived correlation I'd be interested to learn of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.74.163.11 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

outdated tags removed after undisputed edits
Following old tags were removed



Contradiction
We have a statement, "The office was noted from the beginning of recorded history in Ireland, and probably pre-dates it.", to which is attached a contrary footnote which reads "According to the evidence in the annals, tanistry originated only about century after the Anglo-Norman invasion." Confusing our readers is not what footnotes are for. If the sources conflict on something this basic, then we need to be clear in the main text that there is debate about it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

On Citing, Page Needed: Found Page #
Hi there, I'm new to editing sources on Wikipedia and can't find the page for citations. I found that the page number needed for source 12, use a (Fletcher 1979) is p. 239. This is part of an article that spans multiple pages and is used again in a broader way; would the citation only need to include the one page quoted? CranialCase (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Ack. When I wrote "used again," I meant cited again in this article (one paragraph down). CranialCase (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)