Talk:Causantín mac Fergusa

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Medieval Scotland High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

"Constantine I"

It's easy enough to find references on Google books to show that this was once "Constantine I", for example this by Joseph Ritson. See also this page (nota bene: Donalds I to III and V and VI!). This page gives an idea of just how many of these made-up kings there were. Some of them, this one obviously, were Pictish kings, others were kings of Dál Riata, and rather a lot of them were just made up. More or less the same kind of thing as the List of legendary kings of Britain. One question I haven't been able to answer, although I haven't tried very hard, is "When was all this nonsense swept under the carpet?". Certainly by 1850, and very probably before, but I have no idea who or what provoked the change. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still appropriate to reference it. Consider Pope-elect Stephen. Michael Sanders 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a comparable case. That of English Edwards, as discussed at Edward I of England#Accession (no references though) is closer, but even then there are decided differences. You've written: "He was sometimes during the Victorian era counted as Constantine I of Scotland, with no basis in fact; the title is now given to Constantine, son of Kenneth MacAlpin". But that's not quite right.

I'm not sure when he came to be added, but he was *removed* by the Victorian writers who created, more or less, the list you can find today on the Queen's website. He wasn't on the original, fantastical lists of Boece and Buchanan (their Constantine I died in the C5th). The fact he was included at all is likely a testimony to higher standards of scholarship from Thomas Innes onwards. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do you know when he first came to be called Constantine I? Michael Sanders 21:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Causantín mac Fergusa is more likely to be the son of Fergus mac Echdach

Causantín at his death in the early 9th century is called the king of Fortriu:

U820.3 Constantine son of Fergus, king of Fortriu, dies.

The Tripartite Life of St Patrick which was dated to late 9th century (which some have claimed portions are from 12th century), says:

Foranic Patraic failti isintír ladmacc déacc Eircc, ocus rorádi Fergus Mor macc Eircc friPatraic, “dia[nu]mmairmitesi mobrathir ocraind aferainn athoperainnsi duitsiu,” ocus roedbart Patraic doepscop Olcán inraind sin .i. Airther Maigi. Aspert Patraic friFergus, “cinipmór dobríg lathbrathair indíu istú bus rí, bid húait rig cubráth istírsi ocus forFortrinn,” ocus issed ón rochomallad in Ædán macc Gabrán rogab Albain aréicin. Rawlinson B.512, fo. 19, a. 1. (from Whitley Stokes's 1887 publication):

Stoke’s translation, p.163: "Patrick found a welcome in the land with Erc's twelve sons; and Fergus the Great, son of Ere, said to Patrick: "If my brother respects me in dividing his land, I would give it to thee." And Patrick offered to bishop Olcan that part, to wit, Airthir Maige. Said Patrick to Fergus: "Though thy brother hath not much esteem for thee to-day, it is thou that shalt be king. The kings in this country and over Fortrenn shall be from thee forever." And this was fulfilled in Aedan son of Gabran, who took Scotland by force."

https://books.google.com/books?id=bchCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Tripartite+Life+of+Patrick:+With+Other+Documents+Relating+to+...,+Part+1&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipsrG1o9_YAhWumuAKHWPFCAYQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Tripartite%20Life%20of%20Patrick%3A%20With%20Other%20Documents%20Relating%20to%20...%2C%20Part%201&f=false

Now this portion of the text seems to be from the original 9th century portion of the text. The opening line of the paragraph are an expanded version of the late 7th century text found in Book of Armagh, called Tirechan's Additions. (The last line of this portion tells that "Aedan son of Gabran, who took Scotland by force", and Aedan mac Gabhrain was active in southern Pictland and and died circa 606.)

As for the claim to Fortrenn. Fortriu is only mentioned in the Irish Annals from 693 to 839, with Moreb being used for the same area in the late 10th century Chronicle of the Kings. (The 11th century Prophecy of St Berchán does used Fortrenn, however the archaic name is used to obscure its non-prophetic origin.)

Also the piece is supposed to be a prophecy by St Patrick and I doubt the author meant to make St Patrick into a liar. Hence to claim that the descendants of Fergus would be ‘the kings in this country … shall be from thee forever’ suggests it was written prior to Irish Dal Riada lossing there lands, either to the onslaught of Vikings in 9th century or 10th century crossing of the river Bann by the Airgialla people, i.e., Fir Lí and Ui Tuirtre. (The later rule the Irish Dal Riada land at the time of the Norman invasion.)

Additional Causantín mac Fergusa is associated with Custantin filius Fircus carved into the Dupplin Cross. Suggesting a friendly associations with those that area controlled the area around the Dupplin Cross, i.e. the descendants of Fergus Goll mac Eochaid Buide mac Aedain. Bannerman thought the obvious candidate for Fergus, father of Causantín, was Eochach mac Eochdaid mac Domangairt mac Domnaill Brecc mac Eochaid Buide mac Aedain mac Gabrain mac Domangairt, the said son of Fergus Mor mac Eric. Hence Fergus mac Eochaid mac Eochaid would be kin to the descendants of Fergus Goll mac Eochaid Buide mac Aedain (in Gowrie 'Cenel Gabhrain' and probably Atholl 'New Ireland') and to the descendants of Comgaill mac Domangairt who rule Strathearn at the beginning of the 8th century (and at some point Cowal and Fife). He is also would have been accepted as a descendant of Fergus Mor mac Eric whose ancestor in the Tripartite Life of St Patrick would forever rule over Fortrenn.

(The Fergus descendant of Oengus option would have associated him Eoghnacht Mag Circinn and located the Cenel Gabhrain between his homeland and Dupplin Cross.)

The form 'Custantin filius Fircus' on Dupplin Cross is suggested by Dr Alex Woolfe "to be an attempt to render the Gaelic form of the king's name by a non-Gaelic speaker. Hence Causantín mac Fergusa was a Gael and not a Brythonic speaking Pict!

It should also be mentioned that Cinaeth mac Alpin, a descendant of Eochaid Buide, died while staying at the royal palace of Forteviot, about a mile from the original location of the Dupplin Cross. Chronicles of the Kings of Alba writes: ‘died finally of a tumour, on the Tuesday before the Ides of February [the 13th], in the palacium [palace] of Forteviot’.

Additional Causantín mac Fergusa is associated with the foundation of the Church at Dunkeld in Atholl'New Ireland' and this was probably the hands of Cenel Gabhrain.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.153.206 (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]