Talk:O'Brien dynasty

Seemingly irrelevent "see alsos"

I removed from the "see also" section, links to Ming dynasty and so on, because its seems highly unlikely that people who want to read about Irish royal houses, would care about the connection based on "peasant" origins. Too far fetched. If you go back far enough, probably most noble and even royal houses emerged from lower classes, but achieved their higher rank through military prowess or some other such notable circumstance. Also the Bonapartes were not peasants, they, like the Medici to some extent, came from a bourgeoise background. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a big deal about it. And I never said the Bonapartes were peasants. But I think we need some perspective in the article, because peasant origins for a north European royal dynasty are in fact quite uncommon, in fact unheard of. Generally the northern European royalty and immemorial nobility have Iron Age origins, Germanic and Celtic. Lower classes? I've never seen that anywhere. DinDraithou (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that the ancestors of the Dál gCais were not actually peasants. The earlier Northern Déisi dynasty is noted in the annals in the 7th or 8th century, and the Déisi in general did not belong to Ireland's lowest classes. They were not slaves and did not belong to the "base" and "crude" of Irish society. Déisi women were periodically taken as wives by powerful dynasts. DinDraithou (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the dynasties in Europe, covering a similar geographical area in terms of size, cut off into obscurity and myth around the 6th century (including the nearby Welsh and English ones). Most European dynasties can only be reliably traced to the aftermath of the Roman Empire collapse, not the Iron Age. Even the Nordic dynasties origins are mostly obscure and covered in unreliable myth (many genelogies claim descent from "Odin" and other such nonsense). Right through the Middle Ages also, many social climbers would lie about having "Norman origins" to achieve more respectability. Somebody coming fromer a lower class and ending up as a noble is not really unusual. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before we had the medieval dynasties we had 'tribal polities' and some entered history clearly better off than others. In some cases they can be traced further back, yes into the Iron Age, with linguistic analysis and other methods. It seems like you're trying to say that because a few might be questionable then that's the case for all. It doesn't explain the Dál Fiatach and Dál Riata and their counterparts in Munster, who all obviously derived from the old Uluti-Iverni-Darini block. Likewise the later Dál Cuinn have their origins in the pre-historic Féni "warrior bands" apparently based in Connacht (they were probably not recent invaders like O'Rahilly thought). Finally the Laigin probably have the most reliably ancient origins, with tribal memories from the 3rd century BC. DinDraithou (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-elitism and obscurantism

Again we seem to have more of DinDraithou, barging around the place like a bull in a china shop and claiming people who disagree with his self-proclaimed "acamedia" as having a "limited understanding of the subject" and requesting that he "take over". Regardless of the general smarminess of such comments, a few points.

(1) I changed the wording of the earlier version I wrote from meritocratic to aristocratic, since it is a more historically correct designation. Meritocratic is a neologism, aristocratic is rule by the best. The system in which Irish monarchs were elected.

(2) DinDraithou crudely refers to Irish noble titles as "foreign titles". This is either contentious POV description (and denigration) or obscurantist intellectual meandering. The noble titles such as Earl of Thomond for the Kingdom of Ireland are not "foreign". They were titles in Ireland held by the nobility.

(3) Obscurantist Gaelicisism. For instance, despite everybody on Brian Boru talk stating that Din is wrong, the uncommon "Brian Bóruma" is beign added into this article. As is the Gaelic version of Dalcassians when the aforementioned English translation exists.

(4) an error is being added into the article that this dynasty were "Kings of Cashel". This is exactly the same title of the King of Munster. There was no Kingdom of Cashel, but rather that was the capital of Munster and whoever controlled Cashel was King of Munster.

- Yorkshirian (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yorshirian, you're a great Wikipedian but this is not your area of deep expertise (yet), and I think both you and I are having a bad day. The fact that you are unable to separate the kingships of Cashel and Munster and on top of that believe the Uí Néill were 'High Kings of Ireland' for 'centuries' means problems for this article. And in your bad day you are also misreporting the discussion at the other talk page, and are accusing me of 'denigration' here, etc. Your work on the British aristocracy is marvelous but I think your knowledge of Irish kingship needs increasing. Have a look at Kings of Tara and Cathal mac Finguine for some great references. DinDraithou (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of O'Brien monarchs?

For starters, I'm a bit uncertain what an "O'Brien monarch" is, as is this a term I have never come across elsewhere. But more important (perhaps): This sentence "In total, four O'Brien monarchs ruled Munster and held the High Kingship of Ireland between the years 978 and 1119." seem to be not very precise, and possibly incorrect. With no other sources at hand than Wikipedia ATM, it would seem that more that four men descending from Brian ruled Munster in this period (5 to be excact), and less than four men have any reasonable claim of having been called high kings (3 - and two of these "with opposition"). The whole concept of High Kingship of Ireland is somewhat unclear, and perhaps not something to be discussed in this article - "...were titled High Kings of Ireland..." might be a more accurate wording though. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great points, Finn. I've made adjustments following them but am not attached to the way I've gone about it. The counting could be reworded or dispensed with. DinDraithou (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion needed

This article is in need of expansion. I would help, but I don't have the sources for it. It has become dwarfed by the likes of O'Neill dynasty, O'Flaherty, and O'Donovan. In the case of the last, it is something O'Briens should not allow! It's alright to go big for a great dynasty, in case anyone is wondering. DinDraithou (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

What should the spelling of the name be? Right now several diff. spellings are being used. Samuel Webster (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]