Talk:Coat of arms of Ireland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Brian Boru harp

This page is confusing. It discusses two quite different things: (1) an actual harp kept in Ireland, which ought to have its own entry as the Brian Boru harp; (2) the coat of arms representing a gold harp on a blue background, which is the coat of arms of Ireland, Although it is indeed now used as the coat of arms of the Republic of Irleand, it has a longer history. As it appears on the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom, it represents not the Republic of Ireland, but the ancient kingship of the island of Ireland, and in particular the historic claim by the sovereign of England to the lordship of Ireland in succession to Brian Boru, last High King. (No doubt if Northern Ireland were ever to pass out of British sovereignty, then the harp would be removed from the royal standard, just as the fleur de lis was removed after the end of all credible claimns to French lands.) I'm reorganizing the entry on this basis, though I'm happy for better-informed people to amend it further. Myopic Bookworm 13:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Beer

Seeing how the vast majority of people's historical/current exposure to the design (outside of Ireland, naturally) is on Guiness (in its 'original' or modified forms), should there be some sort of note about said fact. One of the world's top selling beers gets exposure in the way that coat of arms don't these days.

• The Guinness harp always has the soundbox to the left, and the state emblem, since its adoption in the 1920s always has it to the right. RashersTierney (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

All parties - please bear in mind WP:3RR.

And the reference I provided states "oldest surviving Irish harp" - not "oldest surviving harp in Ireland" - please do not misrepresent the references I have provided. Repeated intentional misrepresentation could be considered vandalism. Djegan (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone (else) out their with the Encyclopedia of Ireland, Brian Lalor, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin 2003? Djegan (talk)

Dubious

Harp isn't datable specifically to 14th century. May date to either 14th or 15th centuries, prolly the latter. Tried to clear that up, anon reverted it as "weasal words". Harp is oldest "Irish hap"? The harp almost certainly isn't Irish in origin and there's no reason to believe it is older or younger that its two brothers, Lamont Harp and Queen Mary Harp. I've provided a citation for this, but it got reverted, presuamably motivated by "patriotism". So I'm just gonna tag it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read (and understand) WP:VERIFY. Djegan (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Djegan, the problem for you is that your source is tertiary, the source I'm using is a scholarly article from a peer-reviewed journal. If a source like that is contradicting the assertion "oldest Irish harp", both on the grounds of being oldest and being Irish, you can't find it acceptable to state this as a fact because at the very least the comment is controversial. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That does not justify you misrepresenting what I placed in the article by rewording - what you did was simply misrepresentation. By all means provide your "own" words and references. Djegan (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to my comments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - Firstly guys, these notes (whether dubious or not) are redundant in this article. There should simply be a note in this article that the "harp used on the coat of arms is an Irish harp, similar to the Brian Boru (or Trinity) Harp as displayed in the long room at Trinity College Dublin." And leave it at that. This discussion about how old it is, and whether it's the oldest surviving example can then move to the appropriate article.

Now, with regard to the two dubious tags. I am no expert myself, but the TCD website itself claims that the harp is the "oldest to survive from Ireland, and probably dates from the fifteenth century"[1]. If someone wanted to reword to account for any varying theories and put it IN THE RELEVANT ARTICLE, then I think that would be an OK compromise.

Finally, this article has bigger redundancy issues than duplicate content or overlap with other articles. Specifically, the sectioning and layout (specifically the "last" section) are redundant, and may be a throw back to a previous version of this article. (Possibly under another title). It makes the article seriously disjointed, and difficult to read.

As am "impartial" contributor, I will review and reorganise to address these. Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll see that the TCH article provides a separate scholarly reference than the one I gave for the same assertion. The artistry on it makes its attribution to a "school" in 15th cent. Knapdale not very far from certain, and also that, in Bannerman's words, "the Trinity College Harp cannot have left Scotland for Ireland until the second half of the sixteenth century at the earliest. Certainly the earliest possible Irish owners, who are not the invention of nineteenth-century myth makers, seem to be a branch of the Ó Neill kindred who flourished in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries"(p. 10). This is supported my the Michael Ryan, Treasures of Ireland, p. 180. So the matter is at the very least controversial. I'd like to hear of one modern scholar who has investigated this and who thinks Irish provenance for this covered-in-15th-cenury-Argyll-art harp is likely. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree with the evidence cited (and that I have also read) by the Deacon of Pndapetzim. The TCH is clearly medieval in origin dating from the characteristic shape of the instrument and originated sometime in the late 15th – early 16th century. Moreover research states the instrument was constructed in Scotland (conclude from that what you may?). I feel the acount of Vincenzo Galilei, can be discredited on two counts; Empirical research does not back up such an assumptions that wire strung harps were used as decoration on civic buildings, as the first royal standards and coinage to show a harp appear in the reign of Henry VII used by English monarchs to represent their claim to the island since (r. 1509-1547), who first used a harp on Irish coinage. Secondly, the term and (popular assumption) attests the the inhabitants of Ireland have practised on it (e.g.TCH) for many and many ages, must also be regarded with caution. as noted harp historians like Roslyn Rench (1969), Edward Bunting (1948), Kenneth Mathieson (2001), Norah Joan Clark (2003) and Caren Ralls-MacLeod (2000) all agree that quadrangular instruments were used in ecclesiastical religious ceremonies due to their small size from the introduction of Christianity and the triangular harp does not arrive in Ireland till the 11th century. Moreover the “Tropographica Hibernica” sites Cythera playing by Irish abbots and bishops the cithera of saint Kevin chants and funeral lamentations till the 11th century. “Medieval Musical relations between Scotland and Ireland, Andrea Budgey.” Even that the term Clarsach is of Scottish providence Wilson MacLeod (2004). If such stringed instruments were held in high esteem then they would be a kythera or lyre rather (until the 11th century) than a triangular harp. Also the quotation bellow is taken in context from the period of Vincenzo Galilei life from (1520 – July 2, 1591) at a time when the harp featured quite promonently in an Irish context and has no evidence as to its use during the 1300's as stated on buildings and coinage. Therefore the comment bellow does not meet wiki standards. Celtic Harper (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Quote: "the triangular harp does not arrive in Ireland till the 11th century."

A Triangular harp is depicted on Muiredach's High Cross which dates from the 9th or 10th century.Murchadh (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perspective:

This most ancient instrument was brought to us from Ireland (as Dante says c. 1300) where they are excellently made, and in great numbers, the inhabitants of that island having practised on it for many and many ages; nay, they even place it in the arms of the kingdom, and paint it on their public buildings, and stamp it on their coin, giving as the reason their being descended from the royal prophet David. The Harps which these people use are considerably larger than ours, and have generally the strings of brass, and a few of steel for the highest notes, as in the clavichord. The musicians who perform on it keep the nails of their fingers long, forming them with care in the shape of quills which strike the strings of the spinnet.

— Vincenzo Galilei (father of Galileo Galilei)

78.19.212.22 (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi "Deacon". Can you please move this discussion to the relevant article? The age and history of the Trinity College Harp should be discussed under that article, and validated there (before it is discussed in the context of the "Coat of arms of Ireland"). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't be here, though 'tis only here because the content was. There doesn't seem to be an issue in the other article yet, though if there is I'll happily move this. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Supporters

Why doesn't the coat of arms have supporters as most of the arms?

Historically, has this coat of arms ever had supporters? Leprechauns perhaps? --217.227.117.162 (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A little known historical fact

The Harp in question (that adopted by the Irish Free State and subsequently by 'Ireland') was based on a photograph of the Trinity Harp supplied by Eoin MacNeill to Hugh Kennedy for the purpose of designing a State Seal for the new IFS. Kennedy, as the Attorney General, was charged with that responsibility by the new cabinet. When it was pointed out in a popular monthly Dublin magazine, subsequent to its formal adoption, that it bore a striking resemblance to the Guinness copyrighted emblem, Kennedy wrote a furious letter to the editor in question, demanding that the similarity be minimised in future articles. His wishes were duly accommodated. (Magazine in question was The Lady of the House)RashersTierney (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

contemporary with what?

Picture caption:

Contemporary depiction of the Coat of Arms of Ireland during the Kingdom of Ireland included the impreial crown and supporters

If contemporary ('of the same time') here means contemporary with the Kingdom of Ireland, then during makes it redundant. If (sigh) it means 'recent', then it contradicts during. Either way, it ought not to be there. Have I missed another possible meaning? —Tamfang (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)