Talk:Monarchy of Ireland

message: What needs to be 'cleaned up' in this article?  There's no comment whatsoever here by the user by the user that added the tag, which seems both to defeat the purpose of the exercise, and to be contrary to the tagging policy.  Numerous edits have happened subsequently, seemingly quite blithe to said tag.  (The suggested merger's another issue.)  Alai 21:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The writing is very childlike 195.92.168.165 21:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup?

message: There are plenty of mentions of such a creature in the records outside the dates mentioned. Here is one as an example from the CELT database of Irish historical texts
Annals of Innisfallen 1114.2 'Galar do gabáil rig Érend isin bliadain so i medon samraid' which translates as the king of Ireland was struck down by disease this year in the middle of summer. The Annals of Inisfallen is a 1092 manuscript and this text is a contemporaneous continuation so I shall be making some changes in the article 195.92.168.165 21:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Precise term king of ireland

message: The list of Lords etc 1541-1801 has, against Elizabeth: (Not "Elizabeth I" in Ireland because, excepting Northern Ireland, Ireland has never had an "Elizabeth II.").  The obvious question is, what do people in Northern Ireland call the present Queen?  The exception seems to tell the story.  Northern Irelanders would nowadays distinguish between Elizabeths I and II, whereas Irish citizens only ever had one Elizabeth so no distinction is necessary.  But the title Lord etc of Ireland referred to the entire island.  I think the name should be Elizabeth I, and the comment in brackets should say "Irish citizens refer to her as "Elizabeth", without the regnal number, because she is the only queen of that name they ever had". - or something like that.  JackofOz 01:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my point.  Referring to her in the list as "Elizabeth" (regardless of any comments in brackets) is not correct because nobody refers to her without a regnal number.  JackofOz 02:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that part.  I disagree with having a comment in brackets which implies that Irish people do not use the ordinal because there has not been an Elizabeth II of Ireland. Because Irish people, like everybody else, do use the ordinal. john k 06:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we agree that we are in agreement about agreeing to agree. I will change it to "Elizabeth I" and remove the brackets.  Cheers.  JackofOz 10:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Irish people regard the kingship of Ireland set up in 1542 as being 'English' rather than 'Irish' (it being part of the colonial apparatus) and so have none of that sense of ownership that would create a proper usage in the Irish sense 195.92.168.166 16:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Elizabeth I's regnal number

message: Should this reference to the Queen's mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon be changed to her "proper" reference now that she's deceased?  There's a lot of discussion over on her page about how she should be referred to... Thoughts? JByrd 20:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Elizabeth the Queen Consort? 

message: I've 'moved' this page to Irish monarchy from King of Ireland. The former title was gender bias, since there's been Queen regnants of Ireland. GoodDay 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it again to Monarchy in Ireland from Irish Monarchy, because the pre-Norman Monarchs were of the Island of Ireland, whereas the post-Norman conquest Monarchs were from England / Britain (non-native). The title Monarchy in Ireland is neutral enough, I think. Snappy56 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page movement 

message: I just removed an [anonymous edit] from two years ago that asserted that Elizabeth II, JFK and Ronald Reagan were descendants of Brian Ború.  No citation was offered.  This kind of patent nonsense needs to be aggressively trimmed.   Ferg2k 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't difficult to find citations (e.g.) but it is meaningless in this article. --Rumping 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JFK, Reagan, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon descended from Brian Boru?  Pull the other one! 

message: Interesting but in fact Philip II of Spain was already king of Ireland (and England) from  1554, by marriage to Mary.  The Bull recognises the two of them together as loyal Catholic monarchs [unlike Mary's brother and father] and looks more like Rome slowly trying to catch up with events and preserve some ancient and dubious claim to suzreignty of islands.  --Rumping 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Papal Bull of 1555

message: Strictly speaking Richard I was never Lord of Ireland. Shortly after the Anglo-Norman conquest, Henry II had "given" Ireland to his youngest son John Lackland. Only when Prince John succeded his brother, did the Lordship of Ireland become "permantly" co-joined with the monarch England. Jalipa (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lordship of Ireland 

message: Anybody want to make the list? --Camaeron (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Monarchs of Ireland

message: If Philip was granted the Crown of Ireland in 1555 by Pope Paul IV, why didn't his Habsburg descendants pretend to the throne afterwards? Was it too embarassing a reminder after the Armada? - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand it correctly, the Papal Bull only confirmed Philip's and Mary's right to style themselves King and Queen of Ireland (de facto, but in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church it made them de iure King and Queen of Ireland). Thus, the Crown of Ireland passed to Mary's heir (as Mary was the one who inherited the crown). Philip tried to claim both the Crown of England and the Crown of Ireland after Mary I's death, but, as we all know, he failed. However, I'm not sure why the site mentions "The papal bull of 1555 conferring the title of king of Ireland on Philip II of Spain". The bull always mentions the names of both Philip and Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Philip

message: Having copyedited this text until it began to make sense, 
Overview
After Henry VIII of England made himself Supreme Head of the Church of England, he also requested and got legislation through his Irish Parliament, in 1541 (effective 1542, see Crown of Ireland Act 1542).  This named  him King of Ireland and head of the Church of Ireland (which today, both in Ireland and Northern Ireland, remains a member of the Anglican communion but is no longer an established church like the Church of England). The title "King of Ireland" was then used until 1 January 1801, the effective date of the second Act of Union, which merged Ireland and Great Britain to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
In 1554, King Philip II of Spain became co-monarch of England (and thus of Ireland), by his marriage Queen Mary. In  1555, Pope Paul IV issued a papal bull granting the title King of Ireland to him.Historic douments on Ireland. This reasserted the Pope's authority followed his excommunication of English King Henry VIII, after the latter's break with Rome. (This was the same feudal overlordship of the Papacy which, under the English Pope Adrian IV, had granted Ireland as a Lordship to King Henry II of England in 1155). Philip reigned from 1554 to 1558, along with his wife Mary I. With the death of Mary, the crown of England passed to Elizabeth. Regarding Elizabeth as a heretic, Phillip attempted to recover (both) crowns.  With the failure of the Spanish Armada, Philip could not establish a foothold in England, and the Irish efforts to abolish English rule in Ireland with the help of Spain were defeated at the Battle of Kinsale in 1601.  
In 1949 the Irish state, now named simply Ireland (as the Irish Free State had been renamed in 1937) severed its last link with the monarch when it declared that it was a republic, thereby leaving the Commonwealth. Partly to reflect the fact that the King was no longer King in all of the island of Ireland, the Monarch's Style was once again revised in 1953. The following title was adopted for the United Kingdom: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. The Act also marked the first time that Northern Ireland was explicitly referred to in the monarch's title. 1953 was also the first year in which the Monarch adopted more than one Royal Style, adopting separate Styles for her various realms, i.e. Queen of Canada.
but now I have no idea why it was there at all.  The article reads perfectly well without it.  It claims to be the overview, but in fact it is only an overview of the 260 years from 1641 to 1801, relegating the original Irish monarchy to the body as a detail not worth mentioning.  The whole thing reads as WP:POINT.  I would like to see a convincing argument before it goes back. --Red King (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So called 'overview', which was only an overview of 250 years. 

message: This article doesn't adequately take into account the effects of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, at which time the monarch ceased to reign in the Irish Free State as a British sovereign and was instead monarch of Ireland separately (as illustrated by the need for Irish legislation to allow for Edward VIII's abdication from the Irish throne). Somewhere along the line, the list of monarchs needs to be split, or it's indicated that after 1931 the same individual reigned in the Irish Free State as monarch of Ireland and in Northern Ireland as the monarch of the United Kingdom. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division of the Crown 

message: This article is incredibly confusing, and needs rewriting. For example, there are nothing but links under High–Kings of Ireland 846–1198 and there is nothing explaining what that means. Also, it starts abruptly at 846 and doesn't tell us anything about anything. In fact, if I go to List of Irish monarchs, there is a link there that goes to List of High Kings of Ireland, which is yet another article. Why the duplication? This is only one example of many. There are just so many things wrong with it I couldn't possibly list them all. I would be more than happy to help, but unfortunately, this is a subject matter that I know absolutely nothing about, which is why I came here to read about it. I thought some feedback though was definitely needed. I should also add that the long list of very well written references, but not even used in citations in the article itself, should go, unless they truly were used in the article (in which case it would be a good idea, though not required, to make inline citations so that facts can be checked. If they are for "additional reading" then they need to go under a heading stating just that. I have to laugh at the very top post on this Talk page. Someone evidently tagged it as needing clean up because it's just plain confusing. Someone asked what needs cleaning, and the response would be almost everything. I hate to be so blunt, because I'm sure that someone or several someones has worked very hard, and for that I am eternally grateful, but we all wish Wikipedia to be helpful, rather than scaring potential readers away. Suffice it to say that I am leaving the page having learned very little due to both information overload and disorganization. My comments here are respectfully intended, hopefully it sounds so as well. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I the only one who thinks this entire article needs a rewrite? 

message: There's a citation needed tag being inserted around the statement that the Personal union was ended and the Political union was created.  Maybe I'm being slow but what citation is required exactly?  It seems a little WP:SKYISBLUE to me.  Yes, there's definitions of both a Personal union and a Political union.  Yes, there's references that state it was originally a Personal union.  Yes, there's references that state a Political union was created.  What's missing that needed a reference?  BTW, there's an onus on the editor placing the tags to do some research too, and this one seems easy enough to research (unless I'm completely missing the point of what is required in this case)  --HighKing (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I sense that Mabuska doesn't quite understand the difference between a personal and a political union; this edit implies a personal union and political union can exist at the same time. They can't. In a political union, there is one crown held by one person with a singular sovereignty over all the jurisdictions involved. In the case of Ireland and the United Kingdom between 1801 and 1927, the monarch in his or her British parliament, council, and courts held sovereignty over Ireland. By contrast, in a personal union, there are at least two crowns held by one person, and the sovereignty held by one crown over one territory is distinct from that held by the other crown over the other territory, though one person exercises both. In the case of Ireland and England/Great Britain between 1542 and 1801, the monarch in his or her British/English parliament, council, and courts held no sovereignty over Ireland; only the same monarch in his or her Irish parliament, council, and courts did. Hence, it was necessary that the Irish parliament pass an act to relinquish the sovereignty of George III in Right of Ireland to George III in Right of Great Britain and form the political union with the latter in 1801; before that, the British parliament's legislation had no effect in Ireland. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Says it right here in fact.  --HighKing (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for a full explaination Miesianiacal, it and HighKing's source fully satisfy my issue and I withdraw my questioning about the statement. Mabuska (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Miesianiacal for his exposition of the matter. And for the record I agree with his conclusion. However, there is a small flaw in the reasoning I think. Due to the operation of Poyning's Law, can the Irish parliament be really said to be sovereign? If the council of another crown must first approve the calling of parliament and the list of bills that may be presented, then is the first council and parliament really sovereign? Is it not more accurate to say that it was subordinate? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

text: True, but can a period of 18 years be regarded as a Golden Age of Sovereignty? The preceeding 300 years of subordinacy would have to set the tone for the bulk of the experience. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no time limit required or a need for a "Golden Age". If something has legislative independence at the time of an event then it still had legislative independence regardless of how long it's had it. Though I do think that some of that legislative independence had been chipped away by Britain before the Act of Union. Mabuska (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of personal union, start of political union 

message: I have added two links for See also. On further consideration: Instead of revising the article simply on the basis that Edward VIII was last monarch, this is to propose revising the article on the basis of what is described at Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. The arrangement between the Irish Free State and kings Geoge V, Edward VIII, and George VI successively as explained there differs from what is said about those kings in the present article. Certain aspects were discussed above in 2008 "Ireland - a Separate Realm?", in 2010 "Division of the Crown" and in November "End of personal union, start of political union". The source for the parts of the present article under the headings "Monarchs of the Irish Free State" and "Monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" appears to be "Official Website of the Almanach de Saxe Gotha" for "Kingdom of Ireland" - none other is cited. The Almanach states: "In 1937, the link to the U.K. Crown was repealed, but the monarch was the de jure King in the new State until 1949". But that is not borne out by the facts meticulously described in "Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949". Subject to any further comment here or at "Last monarch, Edward or George?"Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, some rewording is, in my view, required for:
:1_George V (1927–1936) (The Irish Free State became a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire and subsequently, in 1931, a legislatively independent country in personal union with the United Kingdom and the other independent Dominions of the British Commonwealth that ratified the Statute of Westminster, ..)
:2_George VI (1949–1952) (Following the declaration of the Republic of Ireland in 1949, only that part of Ireland known as Northern Ireland retained the British monarchy.) 
:3_"Edward VIII was the first monarch to accede to the British throne with the Northern Ireland designation attached to his title. His brother, George VI, was the first actually so crowned. He was also the last monarch to reign as king in all of the island of Ireland." Qexigator (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's wrong. Edward VIII didn't have the NI designation attached to his title. Neither did George VI and niether did the present Queen when she acceded. NI was only made part of the royal title in 1953. Charles will (if he succeeds) be the first to have NI as part of the royal title on accession. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you saying the article as then revised to clarify the point is now wrong, please say what wording of the present version is incorrect. Qexigator (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's not what I was saying and the article is fine in that respect. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisiting "Monarchs of the Irish Free State"

message: The information at List of Irish monarchs appears to duplicate, or be similar to, much of the information here. DrKay (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 2015 

message: FYI Talk:The Queen of Ireland (film) → The Queen of Ireland. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Project related move request

message: Substituted at 00:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I'm not familiar enough with Irish history to feel comfortable making this edit. But it looks like Alister an Dubh was added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=1184873326) and along with it this citation: 
 . 
Alister was deleted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=1196807506, but the source stayed. There's also no page for Alister.
I don't think it exists as a book or chapter of a book. The ISBN is too short, and I wasn't able to find anything on Cambridge's website. It may just be a mistake/spam, but I'm trying to assume good faith. Snowman304|talk 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. DrKay (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alister an Dubh and Life of all Irish Monarchs before 1200