Talk:Macbeth, King of Scotland/Archive 1

Archive 1

System of Succession

The discussion of the succession is rather messy: the matrilineal theory is introduced (with a mention that there is no direct evidence), and then the events interpreted in its light. Then somebody seems to have added the better-supported tanist theory, but the paragraph just sits there interrupting the flow.

I have tried to improve it by introducing the two theories as bullet points. However, the following paragraphs only really make sense in the context of the matrilineal theory. I don't know the subject well enough to feel confident to rewrite them neutrally, or provide a tanist interpretation of them.ColinFine 09:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

While a solid understanding of the rules of succession are surely pretinent to the discussion of Macbeth, is it not somewhat misplaced? Certainly a link to another article would suffice. As it stands, the better part of the article is not about Macbeth at all.

Untitled

Gillacomgain looks like a man's name to me. In English it means Comgan's boy. I think it more likely that Macbeth's wife really was called Gruoch. -- Derek Ross 06:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One of the Gilla Coemgáin links actually links to Lulach, I am fixing to point correctly. NevarMaor 19:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Last Celtic king?

Why is Macbeth attributed 'last Celtic king'? Like Macbeth, his stepson and successor Lulach descends from Kenneth III and should, therefore, be the last Celtic king, if at all.--Martin Friedrich

I think this is in a political sense as Malcolm III was groomed in Edward The Confessor's court and his challenge of Macbeth was aided from england.--as

I guess, from the data we have now, it would be correct to bestow that title on Lulach. However, Macbeth apparently got it in a time when the sussecion of kings was described differently. Then again, during Lulach's reign Malcolm III was trying to conquer his kingdom, so Lulach may have been more active as a army leader than as a king. Still, there is a sense in which Lulach wasn't Celtic: Like Malcom III he claimed the throne of his father, whereas for Malcom II and Macbeth and their forefathers succession seems to have goen from cousin to cousin. Aliter 23:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From what I recall reading, the reference to MacBeth as the last Celtic king is in reference to his adherence to the "old-style" succession - whether tanist or matrilineal - rather than the primogeniture style of succession that Malcolm III and his successors followed. In light of that would not the "last Celtic king" be in fact Donald III, the brother of Malcolm III who fled to Ireland and by some accounts "usurped" the kingship for himself after Malcolm's death and again after the death of Malcolm's first son Duncan? I am going to try to find sources for this. NevarMaor 15:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, a little reading shows Duncan wasn't Malcom's first son. Sorry. But most sites state that Donald III did try to eliminate the heavy English influence introduced by Malcolm III and his wife Margaret. That would seem to indicate he was more "Celtic" NevarMaor 15:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What English influence would that be ? Margaret wasn't born in England and may have been an adolescent by the time she arrived there. Her well known piety makes Hungary a good bet as the place she was raised. Marrying Margaret was a simple, anti-the-current-king-of-England, act of policy. The names of their sons ? Yes, there's a message in Edgar & Edmund, Ethelred & Edward, but it's not anglophilia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going on what I had recalled reading when I was younger. Malcolm married Margaret as support for the deposed Saxon line of kings, did he not (deposed by William the Norman)? Margaret brought a more-English (or continental) style of Christanity to Scotland in opposition to the Celtic church - most notably in the date of Easter and the church organisation around bishops and such. Malcolm died in a war against the Norman king of England, due in large part to his support of his brother-in-law's claim to the throne and the number of Anglo-Saxons at his court. Malcolm gained the throne with support from the Saxon king Edward the Confessor. And to play devil's adviocate, if you read the discussion page on Celts you see that there are some who say that calling the insular Britons Celts is an 18th century invention. Meaning of course that there were no Celtic kings in Scotland at all :)

Of course I had also read that MacBeth was a tyrant and a murderer (the author likely influenced by the Shakespearean play), which I could never figure out in light of the fact that he reigned for 17 years at a time when the average reign was shorter.NevarMaor 19:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we must have read the same books as I have exactly the same recollections. The idea of Malcolm being helped by Earl Siward and Edward the Confessor is no longer in vogue. The question is dealt with in the Oxford Companion to Scottish History article on MacBeth, and at greater length in Archie Duncan's The Kingship of the Scots, 842–1292. Neither this, nor the Malcolm III of Scotland article really address the matter; the short article Lulach of Scotland is closer to being the accepted version. Hope this helps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit to my ignorance, that when i read this play i had no idea that it was a true story!

Good Article nomination

Having looked through the article, I must say, it's very good! It's very well referenced and a non-specialist in the subject like myself has no problems understanding it. One little thing would be the size of the lead - it needs to be 2-5 paragraphs long but otherwise - a great article congratulations! --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Malky

Firstly, the article looks really good now. I was looking for sources on Máel Coluim mac Donnchada and whether he was brought up in England, and came across this article Heart of Darkness about Macb which seemed quite useful, particularly on tanistry, but would hesitate to add the link to this well researched page. Máel Coluim's exile seems well covered here, and it would be great if someone more scholarly could put the same info into that article, probably in the context of leaving the current tales but saying that like the Macbeth stories they have been subject to distortions. If not, I'll try to get around to it sometime. Back to the 19th century now, ..dave souza, talk 17:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image

I think the image (Macbeth.jpg) should be removed. It depicts a scene from the play and has no connection to the historical person. Chl 16:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The images for this article need to relate to the history figure not the fictional one. While there are probably few/no contempory images of macbeth, perhapes some of some locations might help set the scene. Rincewind42 08:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. It's the equivalent of sticking a picture of Mel Gibson into the lead of William Wallace. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Even moreso for the image with the witches, I'm going to go ahead and remove that.Ultranaut

And now I'm going to remove Macbeth.jpg since it seems to have been intended as a placeholder anyway. Ultranaut 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Got something to replace it with ? The Fuselli image appears on the cover of Aitchison's Macbeth: Man and Myth, so the designers of a work on the historical Macbeth didn't agree that it was inappropriate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And it's not like the portraits and busts of other pre-modern historical figures are more realistic depictions. The image should be restored pending another image. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was withdrawn by nominator Patstuart^talk|edits 20:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Macbeth of Scotland → Malcolm III — Because Malcolm I is called Malcolm I and Malcolm II is called Malcolm II there's no reason why Malcolm III should be called MacBeth because that's the name Shakespeare liked best in his play that was almost completely fictional. Teofil Bartlomiej 05:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC) — "Malcolm III and MacBeth were completely different people." —  AjaxSmack  06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Sorry can someone take this off? I now see my error. It's obvious that I'm blonde. Malcolm III and MacBeth were completely different people. I'm so embaressed. :*) Teofil Bartlomiej 05:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose per nom. :) Obvious procedural error, let's hope we can get it cleared up quickly. Tevildo 05:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Thorfinn?

In the "Life to legend" section, we read: In modern times, Dorothy Dunnett's novel King Hereafter aims to portray a historical Macbeth, but with a singular twist--Thorfinn and Mac Bethad are taken to be one and the same. But this is the only time anybody named Thorfinn is mentioned in the article, which makes it rather hard for ignorant persons like myself to grasp the significance. --Paul A 07:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. When I added the Dunnett reference Thorfinn did appear in the article, but Angus MacLellan's masterful rewriting has edited him out. I've reworded to make it make sense, and done a couple of other things with that section:

• Unlinked titles of works
• Removed references dependent on Shakespeare's Macbeth rather than this one (including Pratchett's Wyrd Sisters). ColinFine 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was the reference to Gargoyles removed? It was badly written as it stood ("a character named Macbeth appears"...um, okay), but the character of Macbeth in Gargoyles is more or less independently drawn from the historical figure rather than based on Shakespeare's character, although the Weird Sisters do feature and the whole thing takes place in a world with Gargoyles, and Macbeth gets a spell cast on him so that his life is bound to that of the gargoyle Demona, so that they both live forever unless they kill each other. But the story of Macbeth's life that is given is mostly independent of Shakespeare - the only thing that happens more or less the same is that Macbeth kills Duncan, but he doesn't murder him. Obviously the reason that they present a story of Macbeth is because of Shakespeare's play, but they way he's presented isn't anything like Shakespeare's presentation. So, anyway, this all has gone to show what an incredibly enormous dork I am. john k 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add it back before User:Dimadick notices. Regarding the original question - what about this Thorfinn guy ? - the article is missing a bit because I seem not to have written it, although I thought I had. The Orkneyinga Saga mentions a Scots king called Karl Hundason, who supposedly ruled in the lifetime of Thorfinn, which means that either (a) he's made up, (b) he's Duncan I, (c) he's Macbeth, or (d) the story is attached to the wrong earl of Orkney. Macbeth is the favoured candidate, just ahead of made up, so there should be a mention here which is where Thorfinn would have been discussed. I hope this makes sense. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have recently started reading the Orkneyinga Saga and was confused by the character of Karl Hundason. However some time spent on Google turned up KARL HUNDASON, "KING OF SCOTS." BY A. B. TAYLOR, D.LiTT., F.S.A.ScoT. (http://www.tarbat-discovery.co.uk/Learning%20Files/Karl%20Hundason%20'King%20of%20Scots'.pdf). Maybe I'm no further forward with the identification of Karl Hundason, but thought I would bring this topic to the fore again! Brewphilip 15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Starting with the idea that you can't please everyone, I've made it my aim to please nobody. Well, maybe the reader who shares my fascination of historical minutiae will be happy. The pictures are not very appropriate, but they are only there as placeholders. Happy editing ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you're pleasing nobody, I'll do the same. I really hate to raise the objections I raised at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland, but I must object to using Mac Bethad over Macbeth in the main article. The article's title conforms to English usage, but the rest does not. The article uses "Canute the Great" instead of "Knud den Store," why? Almost every person coming to this page (not as an editor) is coming because they want to know more about Shakespeare's historical basis for Macbeth and they will not welcome having to read about Mac Bethad. Definitely his name should be explained and his Gaelic name included, but this is an English encyclopaedia and the article called "Macbeth of Scotland" should use Macbeth, not Mac Bethad. This is one reader who shares a fascination with historical minutiae (albeit, different minutiae) and is not happy. Srnec 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Macbethad isn't his modern Gaelic name, it is his actual original name. Macbeth is a modern corruption. As I said on Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland, the names used by scholars are preferrable to those used in popular works, as wiki should not be Lowest common denominator. And as it is common across wikipedia to refer to people by their native or national names, Macbeth and medieval Scottish Gaels should not be an exception just because a few users want to push Anglicized forms on them. Oh, thanks Angus for turning this trashy article into something decent. FA will come one day I'm sure. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said Macbeth was his modern Gaelic name. To say its his actual name is a little off. It's difficult to know how things were pronounced a thousand years ago and spellings were far from standardised. What is his Latin name, Calgacus, as that would appear more often in written form?

The names used by scholars are not necessarily preferable, only sometimes. As scholars will differ, it is important not to rely on some opinions about propriety. Just because something is "popular" history does not make it "trashy" and just because it is published in a scholarly journal does not make it quality (as a few recent hoaxes have pointed out). Furthermore, it does not matter by what scholars are referring to anybody in any language other than English. This is an English encyclopaedia. Most English scholarly works I've read do not use Mac Bethad. It is not common accross Wiki to refer to historic personages by their native names: Alexander the Great, William the Conqueror, Baldwin I of Jerusalem, Ferdinand the Catholic, etc. I am arguing not to make Gaelic rulers an exception, but to make English names the rule.

Finally, why do you keeping linking "lowest common denominator"? I know what it means, but you apparently do not. I am trying to keep articles from sinking to the low depths of accomodating every nationalist who wants to "push" his language on an English encyclopaedia. I have no problem with any other languages. I've tried to learn a few, but I do not want to see any Wiki turn into a repository for foreign language articles that would not be read if they were at their own, small Wiki. Why do you insist that these articles are trashy until Gaelicised? Is the Alexander the Great article trashy until Hellenised? Srnec 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I didn't really understand much of what you wrote, but MacBethad is not a Gaelicization. It was his real name with literal meaning Mac + Bethad, son of life. C/F Máel + Coluim, "devotee of Columba" - i.e. he's the "Devotee of Columba", not your mate Malcolm; that kinda thing is lost when you anglicize it. Moreover, as I've said on other occassions, only a small proportion of these names actually have Anglicized forms, so in any big article, if you bastardize one form, but not the others, you get inconsistency. As for accusations of nationalism, keep them to yourself; the Middle Irish language actually has no modern state anyway nor does it have any first-language speakers, so it's difficult to see what kind of nationalist would want to push these. Not everything has to come down to POV pushing, although obviously if you call it that, you stand more chance of distorting the issue and creating a polarized revert warring session. In my individual case, I used to think Anglicized forms were in order, but more experience has taught me that pretty much the only non-English culture that consistently got English forms on wiki for even the most obscure persons are the medieval Scottish Gaels. That aside, speakers of other language wikis almost always just pull the forms from English wiki, thus universally importing English forms for a non-English culture into loads of languages which previously had no such form. Using the real forms is both educational and avoids the disinformational effects created by using corrupt exonymic forms. And all the arguments about "this is an English encyclopedia" mean little, as English has a more linguistically diverse base of users than any language in the history of the planet, and the idea that there is any "English form" at all holds no ground when the general trend in 21st century English scholarly usage is to use native forms; that, and look at any Poland-topic article on wiki. :) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

While I try to respond to each and every point you raise, you rarely do my arguments any justice in your responses. But, as you admit, you don't understand what I write. Why not ask for clarification? I intend to return most Mac Bethads to Macbeths.

No, Mac Bethad is not a Gaelicisation, but changeing an article from use of Macbeth to use of Mac Bethad is Gaelicising it. That's all I meant.

Who cares what his name means. All names have archaic meanings. Nobody claims that everybody is named because of the meaning of their name. Malcolm need not be devoted to Columba. So what's your point? I do not believe in removing an explanation of his name and its Gaelic form or its meaning, just in using its Anglicisation in the main text.

The incosistency you cite is preferable to the confusion caused casual, nonexpert readers on articles about well-known people. Why don't we use Dabíd at David I of Scotland or Alasdair at Alexander I? Because it's silliness. For the same reason Wenceslaus is preferred over Vaclav, but Sobeslav remains unchanged. Where Anglicisations exist, they should be used. "Disinformational effects created by using corrupt exonymic forms"? These are not corruptions, they are Anglicisations. There are some Gaelicisations, no? Like Dabíd and Alasdair above? On the Gaelic Wiki, Dabíd and Alasdair are preferred because they are Gaelic, but on the English Wiki, David and Alexander (and Malcolm and Kenneth) are used because they are English. It does not matter what other people do to import English language stuff to their respective Wikis, that does not determine policy here. Neither does the linguistic diverseness of the Anglophone world, so your argument means little. You say that there is no "English form"? What then is Macbeth? Or Malcolm? Or Duff? English forms. Contemporary scholarship fads do not determine Wiki policy either. Just the facts, ma'am. The Poland articles should be changed. Look at most Bohemian rulers on Wiki. Furthermore, your experience is limited. I have done work on Spanish articles to ensure consistent use of Anglicisations where they exist and Spanish forms where they don't. This hasn't caused any problems. Why can't we do the same everywhere? Because individuals don't like English they are not familiar with. When I read a Spanish history book, I expect and accept that they will call the man I am familiar with as "Henry II of England", Enrique II.

Finally, I did not actually accuse you of being a nationalist. Though the pushing of aspects of one's heritage, including old languages, is often considered nationalistic. I did not distort the issue and I came to the talk page first to avoid a revert war. Distortion can be caused, however, by a blatant refusal to admit that 99 out of 100 English speakers know Macbeth and haven't got a clue who Mac Bethad is. Srnec 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that 99 out of a 100 English speakers don't have a clue who the historical Macbeth is either. I'm sure, from your views expressed here, you do like to Hispanicize non-Spanish names in Castilian wiki, but you're not everyone. In truth, most people prefer to take native names, including the guy who started pl:Kenneth I; the trouble is that, in general, non-English-speakers have such poor knowledge of non-English British history, they think Kenneth is actually the real form. Enrique II BTW is probably better that Henry II, as Henry wasn't in the slightest bit of English culture, requiring (as Gerald of Wales tells us) a translator to speak to English-speaking subjects; a name like Henric or Henri'd be much more appropriate. David and Alexander, unlike Máel Coluim and MacBethad, are standard Romano-Judaic names of pan-European tradition, so using these forms is fine, and David I and Alexanders II and III were multi-cultural kings. In cases like this, with David and Henry II, the only safe bet is to go with neutral forms. But actually, one historian (Richard Oram) uses the name Alasdair for Alexander I, a Gaelic king (but notably not for Alexander II or III), so what you describe as sillyness is employed by professional salaried historians. You seem to want to deGaelicize for the sake of it. Duff is not even more common that Dub (black), yet you want to use Duff anyway; why not rename Áed (fire) Hugh of Scotland? Actually, we're in a no lose situation; either the reader will know the king and won't need to read the article, or he won't, and thus won't be misled by the deGaelicized name. As I said, the names Máel Coluim and MacBethad (perhaps coined just for this man) are Gaelic names with literal Gaelic meanings which meant something other than just a name; the pre-Davidian Scottish Kingship relied heavily on the cult of Columba, the most important Scottish saint until the later middle ages. Let me give you two list of witnesses from Carrick charters of around 1200; one by "Earl" Donnchad of Carrick : Gillenef, Gilledovengi, Gilcrist mac Makin, Murdac mac Gillemartin, Gilleassald mac Gilleandres, Gillemernach mac Gilleandres; another by a Norman called Roger de Skelbrooke: Gillemen mac Colman, Gilbert (Gillebrigte) mac Kennedi, Gilcrist Bretnach, with some of the names in Donnchad's charter repeated. What does this tell you? With one exception, all these names are coined, because in that culture at that time, that's what you did, with the exception of a few core ancestral names. The forms above are bastardized by the author I took them from, and probably the Latin charter from which she took them from, but most are identifiable: Gillemartin means "Devotee of St Martin", a saint connected with Whithorn, Gilleassald means "Devotee of St Oswald", a Northumbrian warrior saint; Gilleandres means "Devotee of St Andrew", etc. Like Máel Coluim and Mac Bethad, all these names are expressions of the namer's christianity. Naming should serve to place people (esp. if they are obscure) in their cultural context; i.e. Macbethad and Máel Coluim III were part of an obscure and foreign celtic civilization, and had almost nothing in common with the modern Scotland and general English speaking world that produces, say, Malcolm in the Middle. That's just another argument in this particular case. More generally, maybe if you want to build a better case, you should go raising the same issues on articles such as Henry III of France, Rory O'Connor (High King), Władysław II Jagiełło or Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd; otherwise, trying to use general arguments for only Scottish cases isn't very convincing. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm always open to criticism; I may not change my opinion as a result. Thanks very much for taking the time to comment. If you have any other comments, please do leave a note on my talk page.

1. The name: Macbeth is a problem. It's got so much baggage courtesy of the "Scottish play" that using it might be just as confusing as Mac Bethad in its own way. For 95% of the revision's life in a sandbox, it did actually use Macbeth, but I think the introduction covers it. However, I wouldn't be devastated if it was changed.
2. As regards the article name, I didn't pick that. Should it be moved ? Whatever arguments I can muster, I'm not likely to get to move it. The MoS police are far too vigilant and numerous for that to happen.
3. As regards the general "use English" admonition, I could certainly have used Malcolm and Duncan. However, I have no idea what the English version of Gruoch, Boite, Gilla Coemgáin, Matad, Máel Snechtai, Lulach, Báetán, Cathamal, Eochaid, Ferchar, Ainbcellach, Muiredach, Máel Brigte, Echmarcach and Crínán might be. Essentially, what you'd have had were kings in "English", because those are the only ones where a reliable source presented them that way, and everything else not. So we could have Malcolm for one person, and Máel Coluim for another.
4. The secondary sources I used are written in English, by native English-speakers, for an English-speaking audience. Archie Duncan, whose Kingship of the Scots I used heavily in writing this, is (so far as I can tell) largely a "Normanist" historian of traditional stripe (he's been retired for some years now I believe) rather than a historian of the Gaelic/Norse periphery. Duncan used Gaelic names, without diacritics, for kings up to Malcolm III of Scotland and his brother Donald III of Scotland, and English ones for the later kings. That seems like the best compromise to me, although I'd use the diacritics for all the difference it makes. Electrons are effectively cost-free, unlike type and ink.

Thanks again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering about the spelling of 'MacBethad'. To lend some information I have been learning Gaelic for a couple of years now. The Gaelic spelling of 'Son of Life', which is mentioned above, would be spelled 'MacBeatha', as for the spelling of Máel Coluim for Malcom is interesting to me. As for my history lesson on MacBeth, I was taught that Malcom was translated to Calum Ceannmòr, translated literally to Malcom Bighead, which sounds silly, but is actually a reference to how much he was admired by his clansmen.

As for the spelling of Duncan and Donalbain, I am currently without my book of names. Duncan and Donald are not names which I come across often, Calum and life are words I use more often. So I'll post again with more on my Gaelicization, if you'd like me to. Sonalchagi 13:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Sonalchagi

Bear in mind that the names aren't Scots Gaelic, they are the pseudo-Classical Gaelic used by modern historians. Using modern Scots (or Irish) Gaelic versions is like referring to Caio Giulio Cesare, Antonino Pio, or Marco Aurelio. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, I also understand that Gaelic has gone through more changes than English, yet Máel Coluim still seems very different.Sonalchagi 22:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)sonalchagi

Why don't we just totally eliminate the English language and substitute another one in its place? Doing that would make so many people so happy. I'm glad to see that the author(s) of this article have made a step in that direction. Congratulations on your accomplishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.108.76 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

Google results: "Mac Bethad mac Findlaích" gets 1080 results; "Macbeth of Scotland" gets 10700 results. "Macbeth of Scotland" is thus most common. Michael Sanders 14:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What does this prove Michael? That teh internets surpass Ted Sturgeon's fears is not really news. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It proves that Macbeth is far more commonly used than Mac Bethad. As editors above have indeed complained about. Michael Sanders 14:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed Mac Bethad to Macbeth ... partly because it doesn't have the same issues others have, and partly because I'd like to see how you react to compromise this time around.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

However, it still prioritised unused forms of Gaelic over usual forms of English - how would it be if Robert the Pious had Robert le Pieux and then "Robert the Pious" inserted as an afterthought? Michael Sanders 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

unused <-- that summarises the level of argument I've been wasting so much time responding to. I mean, really. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

unused. Nobody calls this man Mac Bethad, using that form in the article is simply pushing a POV. Michael Sanders 15:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Gaelic Wikipedia. English should be the primary name, please be content gaelic is there at all. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not true, cause loads of authors do. And I think at the very least 1000 + google hits indicates that it not unused. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Deacon, please fix those Scottish monarch biography articles to english names primary, gaelic names secondary. This is the English Wikipedia not the Gaelic Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If everyone can hold off fighting on this for a few hours, I have a solution in mind, which I will propose on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I can waint, there's no fire. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Deacon.27s_suggestion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm III vs. Máel Coluim, "son of the king of the Cumbrians"

The article on Macbeth of Scotland notes that Malcolm III has often been confused with Máel Coluim, "son of the king of the Cumbrians." However, the article on Malcolm III notes in footnote 22 that numerous sources suggest Malcolm III and the "son of the king of the Cumbrians" are the same person, and furthermore Duncan I was made king of Cumbria by Malcolm II (see Macbeth, Aitchison 53-4). How strong is the evidence that Malcolm III is not, in fact, the "son of the king of the Cumbrians"? G7what (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. A few pointers for the future are that the Legacy section should be referenced, the lead needs to be expanded and it might be useful to give some background into the histories quoted, particulaly those that do not have their own articles. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

His first name

There's no explanation of his first name. Why would it be 'son of...'. I don't speak Scots Gaelic, but know a little Irish and it looks like 'Son of Life'. It would be good if the article could cover this. DeCausa (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, 2 years later (!) I'ved added a sourced etymology. DeCausa (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

King of Scots, NOT King of Scotland

All Scottish monarchs, i.e. prior to the personal Union of the Crowns with England in 1603, were styled "King/Queen of Scots" (that is, ruler of the PEOPLE) and not "King/Queen of Scotland" (the land). 2 B Promoted (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of coinage, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the vernacular style was rí Alban as is found in Irish sources. (See Style of the monarchs of Scotland.) To translate this as "king of Scotland" may potentially mislead readers - the region encompassed by the term Alba/Scotland has changed - but that's another matter. Nobody seems concerned that William the Conqueror or Edward the Elder are invariably called kings of England when their coinage read "king of the English". The same can be said of, among others, early French kings. It's really not an issue. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur and would move that the article be moved to "Macbeth, King of Scots" JamesReyes (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, "King of Scots" would be a more accurate translation. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the evidence that Macbeth was styled "King of Scots" not "king of Scotland"? The later style may be "King of Scots", but no one has, as yet, advanced WP:RS to justify it for Macbeth. On the contrary the article Style of the monarchs of Scotland suggests rí Alban based on Irish sources. Absent any real WP:RS for King of Scots then King of Scotland is a reasonable solution in that (i) he was a king and (ii) his realm was Scotland i.e. it's simply descriptive rather than literally a style. king of Scots without clearly supporting WP:RS could be an anachronism. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

King of Scots probably makes most sense for the Bruce and Stuart monarchs, and before that it's basically all just a giant anachronism, isn't it? That being said, the article itself calls him "King of Scots," so it's a bit odd for the title to use "King of Scotland." john k (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Page titles are descriptive rather than following the official styles. This is why the kings of the Hellenes are at "of Greece", the kings of the Belgians are at "of Belgium", the kings of Ireland are at "of England", "of Great Britain" and "of the United Kingdom", etc. DrKiernan (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)