Talk:Diarmait Mac Murchada

message: This person seems to have many names.  What links here suggests Dermot MacMurrough may be the least common. --Henrygb 16:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name and redirects

message: Look, I know this must be POV, but I felt I had to remove the bit about G.W. Bush being a descendant of Dermot; I mean, the guy has enough bad press as it is, and I don't wish to speck ill of the dead. There's my ten (euro) cents. Fergananim 18:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: contraversial excision ...

message: Just a couple of notes...
Can anyone please verify the list of 'wives' that is there in the box for MacMurrough?
I know that his first wife was Mor O'Toole and that Domhnaill's mother is a relatively unknown woman.  I had thought that it was his second wife who was the mother of Aoife also.  
And one more thing, 'Derbforgaill Ni Mael Sechlainn' .... is this the same Derbforgaill that was married to O'Rourke?!
Must be because that'd be her parentage.  Mind you they were never married! Blorgina 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacMurrough's Wives 

message: A bit of a rewrite, a new section on his churches and the first reference. Let's have some more.Red Hurley (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: rewrite today

message: Are you sure that Dermot's father was Enna Mac Donnchada? I've read several sources (inc "Irish Regnal Succession: A Reappraisal" by Donnchadh Ó Corráin) that cite his father as Donnchadh Mac Murchad Mac Diarmait Mac Mael na nBo). Donnchadh was killed in Dublin in 1115 and succeeded as king of Ui Cheinnselaig by his cousin Diarmait. Diarmait ruled for two years before being succeeded by Donnchadh's son Enna, Dermot Mac Murrough's brother.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.165.199 (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right. I have changed it.  Scolaire (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parentage 

message: This coat of arms was recently added, and made to seem like it belonged to Diarmait. The citation is "Some Feudal Coats of Arms and Pedigrees. Joseph Foster. 1902. (p.115)", which can be read online here:  (click "read online" on the left part of the page). On page 114 is an image of the arms of  Henry Fitzalan-Howard, 15th Duke of Norfolk (d. 1917), which has dozens of quarterings. The following page puts names to the quarterings. One of them is "Macmorrogh", one of only two names which are italicised. So the book doesn't actually show that these arms belonged to Diarmait. Maybe a better source can be found before the coat of arms is added into the infobox. Maybe this is an example of attributed arms, and he never actually used them himself. The only other italicised name is that of "Lupus, Earl of Chester". Would that be Hugh d'Avranches, 1st Earl of Chester (d. 1101)? Does anyone know anything about Hugh's coat of arms? Would he have even had a coat of arms (see English heraldry)? I wonder if his shield is considered to be 'attributed' or historically suspect. Anyone know? On pages 53-54, the book similarly covers a massive quartering of arms, and it notes that "Italic blasons denote the fabulous". If the shield is an example of attributed arms, then I don't think it should be so prominently displayed in the infobox.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Brianann MacAmhlaidh, I put in these arms from Foster's book. At the bottom of the page, the author quotes blazons that are omited, and others which are included, in reference to the Somerset Herald. I therefore believe his inclusion of these arms was well researched. The fact that they are also in the British Museum, indicates that they were researched from a reliable source, which allows them to be included in WP articles. Albeit rare blazons, there are no indications that they are attributed. Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reread my post. It's just two points that you missed. Foster never mentioned Diarmait, only the italicsed name "Macmorrogh". Also, the "Italic blasons denote the fabulous" - those are Foster's own words. It doesn't matter if they are recorded in historic armorials, if they are indeed attributed, then Diarmait never historically bore them, meaning they weren't his. I searched GoogleBooks for more on the Lupus, and found this "Azure, a wolf's head rased silver, the apocryphal coat attributed, like the nickname Lupus, to Hugh d'Avranches, the Conqueror's Earl of Chester ..." It's irresponsible to display an image of something you aren't entirely certain of, especially in an infobox. I think you should research this more before you add the image.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is reasonable to suppose that in the context of that cited page that "Diarmait" was intended by Macmorrogh. But this is probably irrelevant as the "fabulous" detail means that they cannot be admitted, no more than the arms of Jesus or King Arthur could be admitted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  ::: Similar to Fosters listings of Strongbow & MacMorogh re: (d9 & e1 also g2 & g3). The "Scrope" family quarterings (1698), lists (10.) Strongbow, Earl of Pembroke. (11.) MacMorogh (Dermot) King of Leinster (These depict "three garbs", ie. possibly for the Earls of Chester?). Therefore I presume that the Diarmait and Macmorrogh are the same person. The well known "Scrope quarterings" also depicts Lepur, Earl of (?), as the Wolf's head. And also the "quarterings of Thomas Hussey" state and depict RE: 23. azure a wolf's head erased argent for Lupus Earl of Chester. Neither of these references indicate that these are attributed. I was/am not aware that the term "fabulous" is a heraldic term for "attributed", please cite this reference. Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

text: It is clear that Diarmait MacMurchada is intended, but as indicated by the italics, Foster himself viewed them as fantasy (fabulous, in this case, is being used to refer to something of the nature of a fable).  The fact that a manuscript is in the collection of the British Library in no way can be used to argue for its reliability.  Libraries, even reference libraries, have all kinds of things in their collections. If you want to argue for its reliability, we at least need to know more about the source than simply that it is Harleian ms 1411. What this comes down to is real simple. This is too early - before the systematic usage of arms arose. That didn't stop people centuries later from making them up, and that's what has happened here and that is what Foster is saying, about Macmorrough and about Hugh Lupus. All you are documenting is that in 1902, Henry Howard, 15th Duke of Norfolk, used a coat of arms which included a blazon attributed to Diarmait, not that Diarmait himself used it.  Agricolae (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: There are various different spellings in reference to this character in different Wikipedia articles. For ease of reference the spelling should be made standard on the English Wikipedia. As Dermot MacMurrough is the most common Anglicised spelling of this character's name I propose the article title should be changed to this. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hit-counting aside, modern encyclopedic-type books call him Diarmait Mac Murchad[h]a, but I'm not going to bamboozle you with a million examples. The Dictionary of National Biography calls your man here "Mac Murchada, Diarmait". The century-old original has "MacMurchada, Diarmaid". MacMurrough is common, but it's not standard and it hasn't been for some time. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 03:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose the Anglicisation, that he himself did much to facilitate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem I have is how to pronounce this name.  I only speak English. Even Dermot MacMurrough is not obvious to me, especially the "-ough" at the end. Should we add a pronounciation link? AlwynJPie (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good idea. These days, at least in Irish school TV programmes, the -ough is pronounced like "uh". Angus McLellan  (Talk) 03:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to change article title to Dermot MacMurrough  

message: In Irish history books written after 1800, Diarmait Mac Murchada was often seen as a traitor, but his intention was not to aid an English invasion of Ireland, but rather to use Henry's assistance to become the High King of Ireland himself. The imperialism of the English, and later British, empire must not be placed anachronistically on to the events of 1166. The adventurers who answered Diarmait's call for help were reacting to the opportunity for land and wealth. Henry II did not wish to invade Ireland, he was forced to react to earl Richard's aggrandisement. The counts of Strigoil had been supporters of King Stephen, and Henry II did not forget easily
British propaganda seems to permeate every section of Irish history or Ireland related on Wikipedia.  First off Mac Murachda had promised king Henry and strong bow full control of Ireland after his death and the marriage of his daughter Aoife MacMurrough or Red eva in English, so yes he was a traitor. Henry II did want to invade Ireland he wrote a letter to the pope asking for his permission to invade Ireland long before Diarmait Mac Murchada had requested aid to retake his kingdom. Laudabiliter makes clear Henry intentions to invade Ireland and to enforce Norman/English reforms in Ireland.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.173.38 (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section relating to his later reputation needs to be rewritten it reeks of British propaganda.