Talk:List of Irish monarchs

A new article

I'd tweak the introduction though. It should begin - a list of Irish monarchs & only mention the 1801 'merger' with the Kingdom of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont know how that bit got there. Better now? --Camaeron (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, much better. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wait till the others find this page. Then we're either in for another load of lengthy discussions or another AfD...--Camaeron (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We got List of English monarchs, List of Scottish monarchs, List of British monarchs, therefore we need List of Irish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true...what about the Welsh? = ) --Camaeron (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Them too. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There was never a unified Welsh state prior to the English takeover. With regard to Ireland, a separate Irish crown was recreated in 1927 that survived until 1949, during which time Ireland was a dominion (see Monarchy in Ireland). So these later kings need to be added at the end of the list. TharkunColl (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added the "new" monarchs to a copy of the irish list in my sandbox. The only problem is I dont know how to write the text now. Would you be prepared to do it (I dont mind you editing my sandbox, promise!)? I have left the old text underneath if it is of any help. I have added (((Insert text here))) in the two places where the text needs to appear. Thanks so much! --Camaeron (t/c) 12:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done it. I also suggest we replace the UK Coat of Arms with the Irish harp. TharkunColl (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A new article? Surely it's a cut and paste (with no indication of the source)? And it's not a very accurate effort, being a cut and paste, since the dates given are reigns as kings of England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Care to state an example and it will be rectified. It is not a cut and paste as it is different from both List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs. There are considerable differences...--Camaeron (t/c) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the cut-and-pastiness, but never mind. List of Lords of Ireland already existed. Bad King John, he who attempted to solve the Irish Question by pulling beards, was Lord of Ireland before he was King of England (e.g. Fryde et al, Handbook of British Chronology at 37), which presumably means that his brother Richard, although king of England, was not Lord of Ireland. I don't know whether Henry the Young King was Lord of Ireland or not. Based on the style quoted, rex Anglorum et dux Normannorum et comes Andegavorum (ibid.), he was not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ladies & Queen consorts of Ireland

Henry VIII's first 4 wives weren't Queen-consorts of Ireland; they were Ladies of Ireland. I'm not certain about Catherine Howard, as I don't know which came first, the Ireland Act or her execution. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Her execution if I'm not mistaken..will change it accordingly. Thanks --Camaeron (t/c) 15:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It actually even looks better...--Camaeron (t/c) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, more compact. Which is good for article length. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And correcter. It was incorrect for the other consorts to be listed under the section "Kings and Queens"... --Camaeron (t/c) 15:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda spooky. My previous posting is at 15:42 (i.e. 1542). GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean ie the crown of ireland act...?--Camaeron (t/c) 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cate's execution & then the Irish crown Act. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• smacks head* yes of course..am a bit slow today...--Camaeron (t/c) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

1922 to 1949

Was the title King/Queen regnant of Ireland seperated from King/Queen regnant of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland? Just curious, people. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean? There never was a person to be King/Queen of Ireland and not simmultaneously King/Queen of England (or successor states GB/UK). Which is funny really..there never was an Irish King of Ireland. --Camaeron (t/c) 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying: George V, Edward VIII & George VI were Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland not Monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland. Basically, was Ireland a seperate Kingdom (again) from 1922 to 1949? GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well it's a tricky question really. Even the Irish are confused as to that point of their history. I would say it was..others would argue it wasnt as the Irish also had a President back then. Although legally there is nothing to say one can't have both. It's just most countries that have a monarch call their head of gov. a PM...Hope that helped...--Camaeron (t/c) 19:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I only just saw the heading was a date...otherwise I wouldnt have given you that first (rather confused) answer above! Sorry! --Camaeron (t/c) 19:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

High Kings

The later High Kings of Ireland really ought to be in this article. They aren't just other kinglets. Some of them gained international recognition of the title "King of Ireland", and are styled such in correspondence with guys like the Archbishop of Canterbury. For def kings from Brian Boru onwards, and prolly from Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see List of High Kings of Ireland split up. For that reason, I would be more than happy to see kings from Brian mac Cennétig to Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair moved here. As you say, who are we to argue with Lanfranc and Gregory VII and Anselm? As there is no reason at all why people should not appear on two lists (cf. Offa, Ecgberht, etc), kings from the one Máel Sechnaill to the other Máel Sechnaill could be here and elsewhere. Ultimately I'd like to see three lists: this one, an "according to FFE/LGE/AFM" legendary one, and the one in the middle where all the explanation and equivocation is needed. Before we go too much further though, the history of List of Lords of Ireland should be merged into this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you've no need to ask. As far as I know there arent any "ownership issues" on this page = ). I'd be more than happy to create a list for the high kings also if that is what you wish. The info can be left at the talk page of my sand box...but remember to tell me on my talk page also otherwise I may overlook it. Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The following comments copied from User talk:Angusmclellan.

It would make that list unwieldy and there is a natural break-point between native and foreign Monarchs; the High Kings list are all Irish - the "monarchs" are all foreign. In fact, I think an AfD for "monarchs" would be appropriate as all the information contained is already contained in "British Monarch". Sarah777 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one is a Scot. ;) I don't buy that argument, unless the article is renamed something like "English monarchs of Ireland", which will never happens. Anyways, I smell that you don't like these guys, but just think, if Richard hadn't got that crossbow bolt through the neck when he did, John would prolly be seen today as the progenitor of a glorious dynasty of Irish kings ... I think that's what his daddy Henry had in mind anyways. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is just about possible that I utterly detest and loath these monarchs but of course I'd never let that influence my Wiki-editing in the least. No, the Irish/not-Irish divide is much clearer than most things in this life. Striking really. Sarah777 (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

End of copied comments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I put the Irish harp in the top right but someone put back the royal arms of the UK. Is this really appropriate, as the UK monarchs between 1801 and 1922 are specifically not on this list? The Irish harp has been used since the 12th century and is indeed still used today. TharkunColl (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The coat of arms displayed at the moment is also still in use. To my knowledge the Irish harp (on its own) never was a royal coat of arms. Hence the one displayed atm which is. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the harp was used on coins and things from the time of King John. TharkunColl (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I've seen. Edward IV's "Lordship of Ireland" coat of arms was, if you choose to believe the Lordship of Ireland article, three gold crowns on a blue shield (note the expert command of heraldry-speak). Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the harp for Leinster, rather than Ireland? I vaguely recall reading that somewhere, though don't of course take me at my word on that. Anyways, it's discussed here and Coat of arms of Ireland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Names

Why does the article use Henry VIII of England? Surely after he passed the Crown of Ireland act he became 'of Ireland'? Was he called Henry VIII of Ireland or Henry I or Ireland or neither? Sorry I am rather muddle headed at the moment! --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

He certainly never used Henry "I". As today, with the Commonwealth realms, the monarchs always take their primary number - that of England. TharkunColl (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The English seals were used for Irish business after the Drogheda parliament of 1494-1495, so Henry VIII would have been Henry VIII [Lydon, Lordship of Ireland, pp. 218–219]. No credence need be lent to the fantastical retcon thought up by the idiots who work for Brenda, repeated by TC above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Retcon has five interwikis and I've never heard of it. Shame on me! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I did not state my question clearly enough: What I mean is: Did Henry ever use the title "Henry VIII of Ireland" and indeed did his successors? Was there an Elizabeth of Ireland, a Mary of Ireland?? --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: To TC: It is not the English ordinal that is used but the highest English or Scottish...it is only a coincidence that this applies retroactively...--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a coincidence. It was designed that way. TharkunColl (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, let's wait & see. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me = ). You may be interested in reading List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs. You may find it quite enlightening. You are entitled to your POV but law stipulates that the higher numeral shall be used. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware of it thank you, but the law cannot dictate what names monarchs give their children and choose to use. No British monarch has used a name that would give a higher number than the English one since the Glorious Revolution. And in any case it's not a law, it's just a proclamation. It can be changed at any time. TharkunColl (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not that I'm aware of. The Nicholas Hilliard design for Elizabeth's Great Seal of Ireland had the usual "England, France and Ireland" stuff. The coinage seems to have had the same legends as elsewhere, either "England, France and Ireland" or "Great Britain, France and Ireland". But that's not proof. No matter how many examples of not doing it I can find, all it needs to knock a hole in the inductive argument is for someone to find just the one example of someone being "King/Queen of Ireland". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Angus...that's very helpful. Just the kind of answer I was looking for. Thanks! It would also explain why Henry VIII of Ireland is not a redirect... --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Hello. Isn't this page unnecessary? There's an existing page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Ireland which has existed for years, whereas this is a new article. The other article has the same information, and is more complete over time. The other page might well be improved with the text & tables from this article, but this one should surely be merged into the other. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article is quite useless and duplication of Monarchy of Ireland. It is also very POV, the POV being that only monarchs of Irealnd were the English/British ones. Snappy56 (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place, to rename the article to List of monarchs of Ireland. Consensus is to not have a list at the Monarchy of Ireland page and to have this separate one. Perhaps someone ought be bold to remove the other list. --Cameron* 12:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The King of Ireland article was merged to this article, months ago. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he means the monarchy of Ireland article. --Cameron* 16:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms again

A user keeps reinstating the UK coat of arms here, despite that fact that this is specifically a list of monarchs of Ireland. The UK monarchs from 1801 to 1922 are not listed, because Ireland was not a separate state in this period. List of English monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs also display their own country's arms. They do not list monarchs of the UK, and therefore do not display the UK coat of arms. ðarkuncoll 22:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument and goes a long way to convincing me. I am struggling to come up with a good reason for including the post-1837 UK royal arms. Perhaps someone will help me out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea why they were there at all. ðarkuncoll 22:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because part of Ireland remains loyal to the crown? Perhaps we could add the UK c.o.a below and indicate that the Irish harp is incorperated due to Northern Ireland also being under EIIR. You may wish to contact the anon, they may not know about talk pages! ;) --Cameron* 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not included in this list though. From 1922, the monarchs listed are those that reigned over the Free State, and from 1937 Ireland (the state) until it abolished the monarchy. The Northern Ireland list is part of List of British monarchs. ðarkuncoll 12:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I know but that is the only reason I was able to come up with! ;) --Cameron* 12:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My preference is to leave them out entirely, and just have a link to List of British monarchs - which, of course, it already does. ðarkuncoll 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. Let's see how it goes... --Cameron* 13:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have something. There's a (non-free, not usable) repro of the C16th Great Seal of Ireland here. Must be an image of that in an old book somewhere. And it's easy to get an image of Hilliard's design for the Great Seal of Ireland, although that's less obviously Irish. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful...but I don't think there's anything wrong with the harp... Best, --Cameron* 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Protectorate period

Given that Cromwell ruled the three former kingdoms as one Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, with Scotland and Ireland sending MPs to the English Parliament, should Oliver and Richard Cromwell really be listed here? In the same way as the kings between 1801 and 1922 are not listed, these should probably not be, as they were not head of state to a successor of the kingdom of Ireland. --William Quill (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite or delete

I have tagged the article, hoping for either a complete rewrite or a deletion. Readers should start with Kingship of Tara, List of High Kings of Ireland, O'Neill dynasty, O'Brien dynasty, Eóganachta, and relatively informative biographies like Cathal mac Finguine and Flann Sinna. DinDraithou (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-direct? not

Please don't make this article a re-direct. We've got List of English monarchs, Kingdom of England, List of Scottish monarchs & Kingdom of Scotland. Therefore, we should have this article along with Kingdom of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not an argument. The article presents these people as ruling over a country they largely did not. Ireland is known to be a special case. "Monarchs" is absolute nonsense. For the moment I have removed all those "monarchs" who never were. And in case you don't know not even James I nor Charles I were masters of the whole country. That begins with Cromwell. This article is unhistorical and a celebration of titles only. DinDraithou (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Had {{db-a10}} existed when this article was created, I would have speedily deleted it. Arguably it's still substantially plagiarised though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It really is a curiosity. Of course it could be left alone for fools to enjoy but I worry about the schoolchildren. DinDraithou (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I hate the fact that the Normans conquered England in 1066 and have ruled the country ever since. But I don't seek to airbrush them out of history. ðarkuncoll 05:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice someone's added the High Kings now. So no one would object to the Bretwaldas being added to the English list then? ðarkuncoll 08:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. The English list already has the only king who may have himself king of the English (but more probably king of the Angles) included. Some High Kings left epigraphic claims to be "kings of the Irish", and even more of them were such in the (partisan) view of the chroniclers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoever can improve the article, feel free to do so. But don't re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Kings of Ireland

Shouldn't that be monarchs of Ireland?93.172.178.226 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite again

So I discovered tonight that in October some of the article suffered an uninformed POV rewrite, based on popular accounts, the same ones telling us Brian Boru first achieved the submission of the House of Ivar. This time I've brought the Burkes and FitzGeralds in and also mentioned the fact that Europe and the Vatican did not recognize the Tudor claims until after Henry was dead. Since he did not achieve the submission of the whole island and was not recognized as king of it in Europe then he simply wasn't. Three major regional kings and a few smaller ones just aren't enough. I haven't provided citations (like everyone else), but I have linked to the right articles. This is just supposed to be a list.

As far as what came later with Cromwell I've changed my mind. Technically there were a number of dynasties still behaving like petty royalty (e.g. Uí Maine, O'Donovans) in their domains in the first decades of the 17th century before the Rising of 1641, as everyone knows, but it was largely over after the Nine Years' War and at best Owen Roe O'Neill could have made himself sovereign of a state now over half English. Of course the English people themselves were never the problem and the best Irish always knew that, so the humanity of those English who found themselves in Ireland had to be respected. DinDraithou (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Henry VIII of England

Recent edits has stripped Henry VIII of England of his title as King of Ireland calling him only a quasi-official monarch. Why can't Henry VIII be considered a monarch of Ireland? The editor seems to say that since some Irish nobles such as Aodh Mór Ó Néill enjoyed some semi-independent rule in Ireland and that the Vatican didn't recognize it that Henry VIII and his son Edward VI can't be considered Monarchs of Ireland. Nobody cared about what the Vatican thought at the time. The Pope had not significant influence on the politics of European kings after the Middle Ages. Does the didtor propose that Henry VIII was not King of England because the Vatican did not recognize him as such do his split from the Catholic Church. By what definition is a monarch an absolute ruler of his entire territory. The medieval Kings of France and England only control parts of their kingdom and gave the rest of the lands to nobles as fiefs. Many countless nobles have rebelled and enjoyed status independent from the monarch while showing some symbolic loyalty. If the views of this editor is right, we should we out all the English and Scottish monarchs that did not control every inch of their dominion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC) PS: I feel like his/her edits are not neutral and lean toward the Irish side, disregarding the English. Please excuse the sarcasm. I try to make my point--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It really doesn't matter if they were recognised by the Vatican and the rest of Europe. If it mattered Elizabeth I would not have been considered a monarch at all. Surtsicna (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What matters is that despite being declared King of Ireland and receiving some submissions he never was. The first indisputable was really James but if you count some international recognition then Mary. The trouble is that most Irish today are not terribly educated about their history and so we get articles like Kingdom of Ireland, which is imperfectly informed and contradicts itself if you look carefully. DinDraithou (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course Henry VIII and Edward VI were Kings of Ireland, this was no hollow title (e.g. Edward appointed bishops in Ireland and so forth); there was no other King of Ireland at the time (unlike in the case of France). Buchraeumer (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. Just because there isn't a king and all of a sudden someone claims the title doesn't make it his when the majority of the nobility don't answer to him. A little bit of "international" recognition doesn't make it true either when it's minor and sympathetic. Real international recognition from a superior "overking", namely the Pope, came in 1555. The nobility were hardly involved but this time it meant the land and everyone on it. DinDraithou (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So should we remove Elizabeth I from both this list and the list of English monarchs? As far as I recall, the "superior overking" explicitly denied her monarchical status and, according to him, she was never a monarch. My point is that it is silly to regard the Pope's recognition of Philip and Mary I's title of King and Queen of Ireland as the point when the Kingdom of Ireland was created and the start of the list of kings of Ireland. If Henry VIII was an undisputed Lord of Ireland whose rule over the lordship was uncontested and if the Parliament decided to name him king in 1542, why would he need "international recognition"? Why would he need the approval of the Bishop of Rome, who he had already blatantly ignored? Why would that prevent him and his son from being included in the list of Irish monarchs? Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Listen, I've reverted you one last time for good measure, but go ahead and do whatever you want. I have better things to do and a very limited amount of time. This is unimportant and about to be unwatched. DinDraithou (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If he is accepted and declared as King of Ireland in reliable academic sources then he was King of Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Lords of Ireland

By what definition are the Lords of Ireland not Irish monarchs? Originally when this article included the Lords of Ireland and Henry VIII and Edward VI. What sources say these individual can't be monarchs? The editor seems to believe that monarchy can only be rule by a king or an emperor. But "A monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is passed down to an individual (usually hereditary) known as a monarch ("single ruler")." Lordships, counties, duchies and principalities are also monarchies rule by monarchs. So the Lords of Ireland are therefore monarchs too.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire list has vanished from Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. I wonder why? ðarkuncoll 12:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No doubt some who can't accept that "foreign" monarchs were also monarchs of Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Weird that. I have no problem accepting the historical fact that foreign monarchs ruled England after 1066, no matter how much I might dislike it. ðarkuncoll 14:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So do you guys agree that the Lords of Ireland needs to be reincluded.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. ðarkuncoll 17:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If they were monarchs of Ireland, include'em. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edward I of England was Lord Paramount of Scotland (and recognised as such by the Scots before 1292) but does not appear in the list of Scottish monarchs. Is that a similar situation? Opera hat (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The comparison is sound. Lords, yes. Rulers - partially. Monarchs - no. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In his coronation oath, Henry VIII claimed to be King of France. This pretension was not finally removed from the coronation oath until George I (I think). Does this mean that we should list Henry and his successors among the lists of the Kings of France? I think not. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Needless duplication of text

From John onwards, the text of this list is identical in every respect - including citations - to that of List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs. The form of the table is also the same, the only difference being a few of the images and the absence of a "claim"/"Succession right" column (or a "references" column in the case of British monarchs). This is needless duplication. All that is needed is a link or links, thus:

• From King John ([[List of English monarchs#House of Plantagenet|House of Plantagenet]]) to Henry VIII ([[List of English monarchs#House of Tudor|House of Tudor]]) English monarchs called themselves [[Lordship of Ireland|Lords of Ireland]].
• Under the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 The Lordship of Ireland was raised into the Kingdom of Ireland. From Henry VIII to Queen Anne ([[List of English monarchs#House of Stuart (restored)|House of Stuart (restored)]]) English monarchs called themselves King or Queen of Ireland.
• From [[List of British monarchs#House of Stuart|Anne]] to George III ([[List of British monarchs#House of Hanover|House of Hanover]]) British monarchs called themselves King or Queen of Ireland.

The reader need only click on a link to get all the information they need about monarchs of Ireland at any given time in the form of a fancy table. There is no need ever for such tabular information to be reproduced verbatim in another list. Scolaire (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And the same could be said of Scottish monarchs from 1603, and many other lists. Ireland was a separate state, so should have its own list. Also, your use of the phrase "called themselves" rather implies that they weren't, when in fact they were. ðarkuncoll 10:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It may well be that there is a list of Scottish monarchs and many other lists that should also edited down. They do not concern me. The fact remains that there is needless duplication in this list that could and should be replaced by links to the English/British monarchs lists. No need to get hung up on phrases; phrases can always be edited. Scolaire (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged with Monarchy of Ireland, which provides wikilinks in a way similar to Scolaire is suggesting above. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is alright, with its list of Irish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Same with Monarchy of Ireland which contains a full (simpler) list - is there a need for two? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as we got List of English monarchs, List of Scottish monarchs & List of British monarchs; there's need for this article. Same with the Monarchy of X articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be separate Monarchy of... articles because there were separate monarchies. The monarchs themselves were (almost always) the same people, so there's no need for separate lists. Opera hat (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of occasions when the Irish monarch was not the same as the British one. James II's abdication was not accepted in Ireland for at least another couple of years after it was in England and Scotland, and Edward VIII's abdication took effect in the United Kingdom on 11 December 1937 and in the Irish Free State on 12 December 1937. Opera hat (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

But that doesn't affect the list. The same bodies appear on the two lists in the same order. Those are interesting facts you've given us (I presume they can be sourced) but for an article, not a list. Building a separate list with tables, pictures, etc. around a couple of different dates...well, I just don't see the point! Scolaire (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though the same individual ruled these kingdoms, they were still seperate kingdoms & thus seperate monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So? Scolaire (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So, this article should remain, as we've got List of English monarchs & List of Scottish monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, actually; this information would be better provided by a link to a list of British monarchs with a note for any deviations from that list. Other articles with similar pointless duplications are List of Canadian monarchs, List of Australian monarchs, List of New Zealand monarchs and (for the last section) List of monarchs of Malta. List of Indian monarchs sensibly keeps the British section short. These articles are not equivalent to List of English monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs because for all except the last century the English and Scottish monarchs were not the same person, unlike with all these other lists. Unfortunately the dedicated Canadian monarchist presence on wikipedia means there is precious little chance of getting List of Canadian monarchs deleted, even though the only reason someone has ever been or will ever be the Canadian monarch is because they're also the British monarch. Opera hat (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Those lists you mentioned are not of British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger, merger, merger. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? The list of New Zealand monarchs, for example, gives Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II. Are you seriously trying to say that these people were not British monarchs? Opera hat (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In the List of New Zealand monarchs, they're not British monarchs. If you're gonna argue that Elizabeth II is the British monarch of New Zealand? Mies will have a fit. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The monarchy of New Zealand is now separate from that of the United Kingdom, yes, and quite right too. The Queen is the British monarch and the New Zealand monarch, and they are not the same thing. But having a list of exactly the same people in more than one place is pointless, and the list should be at List of British monarchs for preference. Although the two realms are now regarded as equal under the Commonwealth, the first monarch of New Zealand held that position solely because he was also the British monarch, and the subsequent New Zealand monarchs have succeeded to that position because they have also succeeded to the British throne. Ditto for all the others including Canada - and formerly Ireland too, to bring it back to the point at issue. Opera hat (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If ya'll wanna merge the 16 Commonwealth realms list of monachies into 1 article, that's cool. But ya'll have to name it List of Commonwealth monarchs. As for the lists of English, Welsh, Scottish & Irish monarchs? those articles must remain seperate. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Gooday except for the Welsh one. Wales was never a seperate kingdom under England.....But Ireland, Scotland, and England were so for hundreds of years seperate kingdoms so they deserve their own articles.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this thread is not about deletion or merging, and since no compelling case has been made for the retention of the duplication, I have edited the list to replace the tables with links, per my suggested outline above. Editors are of course welcome to modify my edit as they see fit. Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In disagreement with that change, as it makes the Kingdom of Ireland appear as a province (an appendage) of the Kingdom of England (from 1541 to 1707) & then the Kingdom of Great Britain (from 1707 to 1801). GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And what do you think it was? An independent kingdom? Scolaire (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It was an independant Kingdom, yes. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. I'd better re-read my history books, then. Scolaire (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ireland and England, then Ireland and Great Britain had the same individuals as monarch, but that's basically it. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's it? Wow! Scolaire (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to be seeking similiar changes to other List of X monarchs articles, that share the same monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the changes. Ireland was a seperate Kingdom during those periods. Maybe not to your definition of an independent Irish state rule by the Irish themselves, but nonetheless a seperate Kingdom. I'm not too familiar with Irish history, but I believe they had their own parliament and rule during this period, right?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a semi-autonomous parliament, Grattan's Parliament, between 1783 and 1800 (which I think you'll agree is a very short period), but even it was subject to the King of England as King of England. So no, no independence by any definition. Ireland was a colony of England. "King of Ireland" was just another title of the King of England (hence "called themselves", although I don't have a problem with your edit). A list of Irish monarchs is therefore just as logical as a List of Defenders of the Faith or a List of Emperors of India. --Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Parliament of Ireland that existed from 1297 to 1801. It was subjected to the King of England as the Lord of Ireland and later the King of Ireland. And like all parliaments back in the middle ages it was subjected to a king, no such thing as an all-powerful parliament we have in our present days. Ireland was treated as a seperate kingdom sharing the same monarch with England. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Scolaire's edit as its clearly biased and doesn't treat the Gaelic High-Kings in an equal manner despite the fact this article exists and is needless duplication as well. I've edited the article along the style he did for English/British monarchs. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't object in principle to editing the article "along the style [I] did for English/British monarchs." but that is not in fact what you have done. If you look at what I did above, where I used nowiki so that everybody could see what was proposed, you will see that at every point - five points in all - I linked to the table which showed exactly the information I was replacing. Needless duplication was replaced by sensible links. All you did was to replace eighteen linked names with two linked names. Having said that, I am not going to revert or edit further; if you want to bastardise the article (your word, not mine) you are welcome to do so. Scolaire (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you, i'd prefer if you didn't appear to stick PoV into the articles by treating them in a biased manner. I admit i could of used more specific links, which i did intend to do, though how could i link to a specific "house" when you take into the fact Irish High-Kings aren't hereditary or part of an established "house" in the way the English monarchs are, i.e. "House of Stuart" etc. So your attempt at a refute is quite lacking. Only thing i could specifically link to is the "Historical High-Kings" bit in the text which i have now done so. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

AGF please! I didn't treat entries in a biased manner; I rationalised the ones with the huge amount of duplicated text, pictures etc., and you rationalised the less cumbersome part. I didn't attempt to refute anything; I pointed out that your edit didn't link to the list it had previously duplicated, and now it does. I have taken out the reference to mythical and semi-historical kings, since this is presumably only a list of actual kings. So it's all good! Scolaire (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it was a little hard to AGF when you've only went on about the English/British monarchs of Ireland which was duplicated but totally ignored the Gaelic High-Kings duplication. Little or a lot of duplicated text, you did one and ignored the other completely. It was hard to AGF on that basis. Regardless, the link still went to the correct article so it did go to the link that was duplicated in the list, the only error with it was that it wasn't to the specific part of the article for ease of use for the reader. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And just to state: we now have an article that has little point as its still a bastardised version of Monarchy of Ireland. Redirect this article to it as it does the job better and already existed. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced by this new treatment of the Kingdom of Ireland's monarchs. If we merged this article into Monarchy of Ireland? then we'd have to merge all List of X monarchs articles into their respective Monarchy of X articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert it if you don't like it as per WP:BRD. It wouldn't be the first time we had articles that redirected to others. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving paragraph from article to talk

I am moving the following paragraph from the article to here because

1. it is unsourced
2. it is not pertinent to a list
3. most of it is not even directly concerned with the Monarchy of Ireland. It would be of more relevance to Gaelic Ireland, perhaps:

[[:File:Aodh Mór Uî Néill (anglicisé comme) Hugh The Great O'Neill) (c. 1550 – 20 July 1616).JPG|right|thumb|150px|Aodh Mór Ó Néill]]

The Lordship of Ireland was raised into the Kingdom of Ireland during the reign of Henry VIII by a 1542 statute of the Parliament of Ireland named the Crown of Ireland Act 1542. This was at the king's insistance because he had been excommunicated by the Catholic Church during the English Reformation. Henry worried that his title could, in consequence, be withdrawn by the Holy See. Unlike the Lordship, which had briefly covered a large part, but not all of the island, Ireland as a whole geographical entity was constituted entirely under a single centralised state governed from Dublin for the first time after the Tudor conquest of Ireland. Some of the Irish Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman regional kings surrendered their sovereignty to the Tudors and were regranted as members of the nobility. Most notable were the O'Neills of Tyrone, the O'Briens of Thomond, and the Burkes of Clanricarde, who all three received earldoms.

However, the Tudors were not recognized by the Vatican until 1555, and even then and for several more decades a number of powerful Irish dynasties remained independent of the Kingdom of Ireland, while others repudiated their submission. For example, Prince Shane O'Neill cared nothing for his father's English title and was even recognized by the Vatican, before his famous fall, as Duke of Ireland (Dux Hibernicorum), disregarding Tudor claims. Also in Ireland's northern half, the Burkes of Mayo or the Mac William Íochtar proved difficult (see Tiobóid na Long Bourke). In Ireland's southern half, the Earls of Desmond were the most powerful princes (autonomous rulers), their final submission being that of their destruction in the horrific Desmond Rebellions. The MacCarthy dynasty, nearly as powerful, were not in any way sorted out until the 1590s with the arrest and imprisonment in the Tower of London of Prince Florence MacCarthy. Finally, the later MacMurrough Kavanagh kings of Leinster proved consistently unwilling to cease exercising royal power in their realm until the early 17th century.

For the history of Aodh Mór Ó Néill's great revolt and his brief overlordship over more than half of Ireland, see Nine Years' War. At his height, at the turn of the 17th century, he was King of Ulster, most of Munster, and part of Connacht and other regions, and treated with by the English deputy as such.

Scolaire (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a list. Propose renaming

This article may have started off as a list, but it is not a list anymore. The title is misleading. I propose either moving the article to a more accurate pagename (I would have proposed merging it but saw the debate above), or else restoring it to an actual list. The present state of this is just silly. Richard75 (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but which one of those things? I see three issues. It is not a list and the term Irish monarch could also include petty kings. This article is made redundant by several articles. Mostly it seems to operate as a disambiguation page. Tinynanorobots (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Restoring the list is out of the question. As I said above the list was identical in every respect - including citations - to that of List of English monarchs and List of British monarchs. The form of the table was also the same, the only difference being a few of the images and the absence of a "claim"/"Succession right" column (or a "references" column in the case of British monarchs). You could rename it, but the fact is Richard75 is right - the state of the article/list is just silly. There is no relationship between the petty/provincial/high-kingship of pre-Norman Ireland and the succession of the English/British monarchy, so it makes no sense to have an article or a list trying to relate them. I suggest you begin by nominating the thing for deletion. If that fails - and it probably will, for all sorts of silly reasons - it might at least have the effect of generating a proper debate on what the thing is actually supposed to be about. Scolaire (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)