Talk:Gaelic nobility of Ireland

Untitled

If this is about modern Irish aristocrats (of ancient creation), but not old ones such as those at Anglo-Irish, should it say so? --Henrygb 22:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Titles created by the British Monarch

How can titles created by the British Monarch still exist in Ireland now it is totally seperate from the Crown that created them? It seems odd for a country to have a nobility without a royalty, doesnt it? --Camaeron 14:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

These have significance only in the UK. They have no legal status in Ireland.--Cavort (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To the anon editor with the dynamic IP with whom I have been talking . . .

Hello, Gaelic nobility of Ireland. You have new messages at Unschool's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

McGillicuddy vs O'Sullivan

There is no precedent that I am aware of for a cadet branch/sept of a clann/tribe to be able to assume the title of the prime lineage in the absence of an extant chief of same. The O'Sullivan clan, who have an appointed chief, would be unlikely to agree with the third footnote and the suggestion that a McGillucuddy is now their head. I would recommend that the suggestion of such a practice be supported with references or the substance of the note removed.--Garranes (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can get uninformed, and I was was unaware there was the slightest thing official about the "O'Sullivan Clan" or their website, which is an America-based social club. Thus McGillycuddy is currently what remains of the "Sept of O'Sullivan", and is thus their de facto head, as their remaining noble, until an heir male of the main line or of Beare can be found. It's not his fault or mine if the "O'Sullivan Clan" are not informed enough to be aware of it. They really don't count I don't think. They think Scots should wear tartans. That said the note can certainly be removed. I'm not attached to it and actually hoped it would get a response (although from an actual McGillycuddy or O'Sullivan!) DinDraithou (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I just saw it first. It's a bit ungenerous to suggest the O'Sullivan clan is just a social club. Both they and the McGillicuddys are members of Clans of Ireland and take their heritage seriously. (And the Scots got their notion of tartans from the Gaels. It wasn't until the mid 1800's I believe that the different tartan patterns began to emerge in the Highlands.) I know this is being nit-picky, but you still have (O'Sullivan Mor) listed after the name of McGillicuddy. The McGillicuddy family seat had been The Reeks for some years but Richard (previous Chief) sold it. It's a lovely place. I don't know if it would be appropriate to list it as a family seat now though. The current chief in SA might not be pleased.--Garranes (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I have restored the note with completely new contents, and simple. I'm sure McGillycuddy can be contacted. Regarding the O'Sullivans there has been some madness going on at Talk:O'Sullivan. I'm not sure if the chief you refer to is Gary Sullivan but he and his website have been ruthlessly attacked by an Irish O'Sullivan for the contents of the website and for those of his book "The Oak and the Serpent", which I have not read. Gary actually seems like quite a nice person and so I feel sorry for him and have exited the discussion for now. I was helping them find sources. Gary has now even posted about the attacks on the O'Sullivan website blog. His attacker is an Irish language professional and has been nice to me, but Gary has made him quite angry somehow. DinDraithou (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the McGillicuddy's still are a cadet branch of the O'Sullivan's, not just 'originally'. I took a look at the exchanges on the O'Sullivan talk. It makes me think I may be attempting to be too precise myself...--Garranes (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Precedence

Eóganachta

I am a little confused about the order of things. Beginning with the Eóganachta, theoretically O'Callaghan should be listed above MacGillycuddy because his sept is considerably older, but I am confused about how their succession went. I have come across it said that the Viscount Lismore line were the Chiefs of the Name, in which case the Spanish Dons assumed the title not long after, and so the chiefship was never restored, but perhaps only went dormant for a short period. As this seems the case I am moving O'Callaghan directly under O'Donoghue. When a real MacCarthy finally appears he will of course belong on top. I am aware of at least one real MacCarthy Reagh out there, a descendant of Donal na Pipi, 13th Prince of Carbery, who has recently been certified as an immemorial noble by the Knights of Malta. He would appear to be elderly and what his family's plans are I do not know. DinDraithou (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It would appear the information I had was bad. The O'Callaghans of Spain have apparently been the Chiefs of the Name since the late 18th century.[1] Their pedigree.[2] DinDraithou (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Irish" nobility

I think there are some POV issues with some recent edits around this article re: who is an "Irish noble" and who is not. The distinction seems to have been introduced that makes out that titles created post the Kingdom of Ireland are not "Irish". This appears to be OR or a (rather POV). Use of scare quotes is also an indication of this.

The lead also appears to make arbitrary distinctions between Northern Ireland and Ireland, that seem to be at odds with the subject of the article.

The article also seems to make arbitrary distinctions between Ireland and Northern Ireland. I'm also concerned that {{cn}} templates added to the article were simply removed rather than the problems addressed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You've just not gotten it and probably haven't even looked at Peerage of Ireland. Those "not accepted as/considered Irish" are not exactly people who want to be considered Irish. Those considered Irish are generally those who want to be. You're imagining some sort of great exclusion committed. Also no mention was made of Northern Ireland at all before you arrived and it really doesn't change anything. DinDraithou (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A good part of the reason is that regardless of their changing political situations and attitudes, which varied just as did those of the "native" Gaels, the Old English for the most part became Gaelic speakers, making them a great deal more Irish than English. Even the so-called very "English" Butlers spoke Irish. From the Tudors on proceeded the reverse of Gaelicization and Gaeldom saw little "new blood". DinDraithou (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Since you moved this.) Sure, it appears to make a "ethnic" distinction. That is the problem. It is not so clear cut.

If it is Gaelic Irish nobility that this article seeks to be about, I recommend the article be moved to Gaelic nobility or Gaelic nobility in Ireland (including Gaelicised Norse and Normans nobles). A Wikipedia:Series template could be used to link relevant articles. In the mean times, I've rewritten the lead completely to remove the problematic statements.

However, any statement that someone is "not Irish" if the held or hold an title recongised by the English in Ireland is bound to be problematic. Was Hugh O'Neill not considered Irish? Or Felim O'Neill of Kinard? etc.--RA (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your move (three times now). Please engage in disucssion before making moves like this, especially when there is a discussion on-going.

As I've written above a move is probably a good idea. There are in fact two systems of noble titles in play here: the "Irish" (Gaelic) one and the "English" (non-Gaelic) one. These two systems can be divided cleanly between two articles.

A problem I have with Gaelic and Old English nobility of Ireland is that it mixes titles form the "English" system with titles from the "Irish" system. IMHO it should simply be Gaelic nobility of Ireland. That makes it clear what this article is about. The other system being described at Peerage of Ireland. --RA (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You made unfortunate allegations before reading the article through, and then started the move-warring. I've nowhere said there is a problem with the English titles. A number are included, two even held by Gaels. Really you should read it through first. Also the article is not done because it lacks a History section. Finally I note on your userpage that you have a particular political or cultural viewpoint not shared by the majority of British and Irish people, hence your allegations.

In fact the article is meant to be quite positive and inclusionist because a few of the Chiefs of the Name still don't care for even the Hiberno-Norman nobility, titled or not. So I thought that in this hybrid article I would represent the views of the other Chiefs of the Name who want to include them. See Curley's book in the references for some discussion on this. Get some background. DinDraithou (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The original issues I raised have been addressed (by removing the unverified/problem statements). Unfortunately, the page move has raised others, which I have described above @21:08, 9 October 2010. I've invited outside views and will open a new section below. --RA (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Move warring

What exactly is the reason for this? The new title perfectly suits the contents of the article. DinDraithou (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please give others a chance to post to the talk page, as I have finally been able to do above. Moving the page creates an edit conflict.

Please see Wikipedia:Moving pages and post a proposal to move this page before doing so again. It should be evident from my revert that at least one other editor disagrees with this move. Before making a proposal, you may wish to discuss an appropriate title. --RA (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Both of you: stop moving the damn article while I'm trying to post to the talk page. In fact, stop moving the damn article altogether, or I'll move-protect it. Work out some consensus, then move it. If it moves again unilaterally I'll move-protect it at irish title, which I gather neither of you like. TFOWR 21:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't start the warring, and suffered an edit conflict myself from one of RA's moverts. DinDraithou (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

DinDriathou, you moved the page while an discussion was on-going. I reverted. That should have been a signal to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Moving page or to discuss your move. By all means be bold but please discuss your edits when invited to do so by others. --RA (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Move to Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman nobility of Ireland

A page move is a good idea to address some of the issues this article recently had. However, the choice of page title raises new problems for the article: what is it about?

A problem I have with Gaelic and Old English nobility of Ireland is that it part mixes titles/nobles from the "English" system (i.e. post 1169) with titles/nobles from those from the Gaelic system. Which holders of "English" titles are included is unclear - or at least the reason why is unclear. While, there was a great deal of exchange between these groups for a certain period, there was a political difference between the two systems and I'm unsure about the arbitrary distinction between "Hiberno-Norman" nobility and later peers of Ireland. Why is a distinction made? Blurring the two gives appearance that these two groups were formed one group. While in the 17th century, they had common cause as Catholics, in earlier periods they did not. Also, do we include Gaelic nobility from before 1169?

The article has recently been changed in focus from discussing nobility in Ireland, regardless of whether they had "English" or Gaelic titles, to making a distinction between "English" and "Irish" titles. I don't think the new title does a good job of even doing that.

If it is to focus on "Irish" nobles only then, in my view, one article on the Gaelic system (including Gaelicised Normans) and one on the "English" system would be clearer way to go. --RA (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please actually read Peerage of Ireland like I have suggested to you above. You will learn that most of those families with "Irish" titles have had nothing to do with Ireland. The problem is not what sort of title they have (Earl, Chief, Baron, Rí) but the history of the family itself. In fact the Old English families in the Peerage of Ireland are considered in both countries to belong to a completely different class from those whose "association" with Ireland, if any, dates from the Tudors or later. DinDraithou (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely the issue that I am referring to. The "Hiberno-Norman" nobility of the current title were those families with "Irish" titles (in scare quotes) that you say "had nothing to do with Ireland". Sure, many of these became Gaelicisied but their titles belonged to the "English" system and were distinct from the Gaelic system. Some of them became so Gaelicised that they adopted Gaelic titles, in which case they could be listed alongside other Gaelic titles in an article solely about Gaelic nobility.

You appearing to be classifying nobles (or noble families) by some perceived notion of "ethnicity": listing "Irish" nobility here and "not Irish" nobility at Peerage of Ireland. If you are talking about "nobility", which this article purportedly does, classification is much more cleanly a matter of title and origin of that title. Forming a single purported group of Gaelic and pre-Tudor "English" title holders in Ireland doesn't make any sense except in terms of the wars of the 17th century. --RA (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly a solution would be to make it clear in the introduction that what is meant by "Hiberno-Norman" in this title are the Gaelicised Norman families, rather than simply all Normans/English in Ireland. Is that what you mean by it? --RA (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hiberno-Norman always means Gaelicized or formerly Gaelicized, to some degree or another, which is enough for eternal memory, because there was no Gaeldom after and there never will be. It never refers to just anyone English in Ireland, and especially never to the later families. DinDraithou (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite right that it never refers to later families - no less though, it is the "to some degree or another" that is problematic. More of a problem though, is the substantive point, which you have not replied to, that the titles these nobles held were not Gaelic titles, but "English" ones. --RA (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see it as a problem. One of the Chiefs of the Name (O'Brien) also has an English title, and the new Count of Tyrone has a Vatican-created title derived from the 1st English creation. A number of the other Gaelic nobles have Continental titles. A few more of the Chiefs of the Name without English titles have become very English over the last three centuries, for example the O'Donovans, and have somehow managed to get the English to recognize their Gaelic titles, which almost makes them English titles of a kind. As far as the old Hiberno-Norman families their English titles often gained the additional meaning of chief or independent magnate. The great example was Earl of Desmond. Yes it says "Earl" and they came from England-Wales, but at their height they were more powerful than the MacCarthy princes and could have rivaled the Uí Néill if it came to it. The result was they became highly respected by the Gaels for in their own way making the lordships their own. They weren't England's to take away for a while and everyone knew it. DinDraithou (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Good points have been made by both contributors. My sense of it is that the move is justified but that a LOT more definitions need to go into the lead. These definitions should say what it is and what it is not. It should make clear that there are ambiguities but that they are sufficiently distinct differences (with Peerage of Ireland) to justify a separate category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Most below are verifiable descendants

I dislike this phrase. It undermines the authority of the entire section. My preference would be to exclude those that are not verifiable. A sub-section could be created for those that are less than fully verified. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I added "verifiable" by accident and see the confusion it causes. All are descendants of kings or other nobility. DinDraithou (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mac William Uachtar

Shouldn't that read "Mac Liam Uachtar", seeing as there is no "W" in Gaelic? or even read "Mac Liam Uachtar (Mac William Upper)" ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the title, but I believe William in Irish was originally Uilliam, later contracted to Liam. Scolaire (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article

Cross-posted from Talk:History of Ireland:
To be honest, I'm not wild about either the old version of this article or the new one. Neither of them seems to know what it's about. What's wanted, it seems to me, is a collaborative effort to organise the article in some sort of coherent way e.g. Pre-Norman Taoisigh, historic Gaelic nobles, historic Anglo-Irish nobles, current existing families and current heads, and to decide on a consistent format i.e. list, text or text followed by list. As it stands (or as it stood last week) it is unhelpful to those who know the subject and unintelligible to those (including me) who don't. Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I believe if it could be determined what this article is about everything else (including the title) would flow from that. I'm going to propose another move below that might clear that up. --RA (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

{{movereq|Gaelic nobility of Ireland}}

Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman nobility of Ireland → Gaelic nobility of Ireland — There is a lack of clarity to what this article is about - or at least a lack of clarity to the reason why some titles of English origin are included alongside Gaelic ones, and why some are not. Personally, I think a clean division between Gaelic titles and titles of English origin would provide clarity around the topic. The upshot of this move would be to create two major articles:

• The current Peerage of Ireland, which is about "English" titles.
• This one, which would be about Gaelic titles.

Of course some people held both, and some dynasties moved from one to the other, in which case those people would appear on both lists/articles but each title would only appear in one.

There is of course a complication to this in that many of the people who held "English" titles became Gaelicised to some extent. However, the alliances between Gaels and Norman nobles and the Gaelicisation of nobles of "English" title are better dealt with elsewhere rather than mixing the two up. --RA (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I see it's been moved. --RA (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The move seems to resolve the current disagreement. For the future, I don't think that splitting the article is the way forward. Readers who want to know about the nobility in Ireland don't want to have to find out in advance which nobility they want to know about. As I said above, arranging the article into logical sections and improved clarity of writing should make the distinctions clear. As I also said above, the distinction between historic and modern is as important, or more important, than the distinction between Gaelic and "English". Even in the seventeenth century there was not very much difference between, for instance, O'Neills and Fitzgeralds. Scolaire (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, and the original title Irish nobility was best. All the article needed was more historical discussion and better sectioning. But I'm finished fighting with RA. Currently those missing can be found at Talk:Hiberno-Norman. DinDraithou (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is for comments such as yours, Scolaire, that the RM process exists. One bold move followed by another is no substitute for discussion. We need to decide what this article is about. Now we're being told the original title was "best"? Good heaven! I reverted you three times yesterday, DinDriathou, when you moved the article from that location. Now you want it back? What is going on here? --RA (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Warring again already?

Did we not say that collaboration is the way to go on this article? Discussion by edit summary is the least useful form of collaboration. How about some dialogue, lads? Scolaire (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Scolaire. I've just posted a comment to that effect on DinDraithou. TBH, I'm about to walk from this article. --RA (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of this talkpage. Got anything else to say? DinDraithou (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh, no guys! RA, it's not one-sided - you did a "copy-edit" without prior discussion. There's a pair of you in it. Now RA is "about to walk" and DD is "finished fighting with RA". Is that collaboration? Not in my book. Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone else. When it comes to edit warring over a talk page comments, I feel like I've fallen through the rabbit hole :-) --RA (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That is bizarre indeed! I hadn't noticed it when I posted the above comment. There's also this rather dubious post on the History of Ireland talk page. Looks like somebody has issues. Scolaire (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is surprising and unfortunate, Scolaire. I didn't think you and I had a problem, but I see you two are friends. Do you plan to contribute to this article (if you can) or just continue to socialize? DinDraithou (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

We are on speaking terms. I wouldn't call us friends particularly. You and I didn't have a problem before now, but if I see strange or inappropriate behaviour from anybody I call it. I don't ever just socialise. Whether I plan to edit this article (I am already contributing) is my business and nobody else's. Scolaire (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You keep calling it! I'm sure RA is impressed and will reward you. DinDraithou (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What on earth seems to be the problem here. Given the move-warring and reverts in the article 'and the talk page -not to mention some of the remarks made on this talk - I would have expected some serious content dispute (perhaps worthy of a Norwegian peace-keeping mission) but I can't really understand what you seem to disagree about?

Anyway, to me this appears to be a list of Gaelic nobilty of Ireland, that is well&good and worthy of an encyclopaedic article. (I would have liked us to have a more general article on what "nobility in Ireland" is and has been too- but that may not be this article). Concerning the current article: Given that there is no official recognition of Irish Chiefs since 2003, what sort of criteria is used/ should be used for which families to list as "Irish nobility"? Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant by a collaborative effort. Ideally we would have a structure: for instance, historical background on Gaelic chiefs and Anglo-Irish lords followed by lordship in modern Ireland to 1922 or 2003 followed by who is entitled to what or who claims what today. It needs input from people with expertise in each of several different areas. Scolaire (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Do something. So far you have done nothing. You're still on the talk page. Meanwhile I've been adding sources and doing further cleanup. If you can manage better than RA, who seems to favour extensive copy-editing of the contributions of others to make it look like he knows something when he has no background at all, I'll be genuinely impressed. If you can go beyond that and make a genuine contribution it would be great, Scolaire. Give us some content. Or am I supposed to write everything you would like to see? DinDraithou (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on the talk page, offering suggestions for what the article should include and pointing out stuff that needs to be sourced/rewritten is doing something. Extensive copy-editing of what others have contributed is what wikipedia is about. And removing other users copyediting with the summary "unhelful" certainly doesn't come across as an invitation to others to edit the article. Whenever there's a disagreement on content (I haven't yet figured out what you people disagree about, but it has to be something..), using the talk page to make suggestions is exactly what should be done. If we cooperate, we can come up with something better than any of us could do by themselves, but that requires a different kind of communication than I've seen so far on this talk page. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm the only one with any sources and it will probably stay that way. I have no confidence anyone here with the possible exception of Laurel, who is genuinely interested and has some related background, will be helping. Honestly I don't think you will either, Finn. You'll lose interest. So this is all pretty meaningless. DinDraithou (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly have no interest in engaging with anybody who takes that sort of an attitude! Sources on what? What is Laurel's "related background"? What is the point of anybody adding and sourcing content when nobody knows what the article is supposed to be about and how it is to be structured. And when they know in advance that you are going to do a knee-jerk revert with a snotty comment? What are your sources on pre-Norman Irish history and society, and where is the evidence of them in this article? Saying there was such a thing as Rí túaithe and Rí ruirech (without citations) is not exactly a strong background to the Gaelic lords, is it? So which is it to be? Are you willing to collaborate or will you just continue to assert ownership of the article and write what you please? Scolaire (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to claim someone else is owning an article when you have nothing to contribute to it yourself. What of RA's "work" I did revert I reverted because it was bad. He was hastily trying to assert control because he felt a conflict had started, and was not really trying to improve anything, just change it. What did not make the article look poorer I let stay. As far as the Rí, if you don't know anything about them, who were central in Gaelic Ireland, then you have no business here and are doing nothing more that RA, except staying on the talk page. You don't know anything (yet) and are trying to find a way to assert yourself. Finding unfamiliar terms is easy and isn't contributing. I've quickly checked your work since 2005 and find no evidence you have any business here... yet. This is not the sort of article where a part-time socializer, or in RA's case an aspiring admin, can do much good for his career... if you're not willing to do some extensive reading of unfamiliar material. But if you or anyone manages to do something for the benefit of the article it will stay. I have a good history of working with respectable editors. Notice that when I chastised you (when you were busy socializing with your angry friend and calling me "bizarre" for his benefit) into actually reading the article for the first time, and making some observations, I respected them and made changes. It was to put you to work and show I would work with you. Yet you say I am owning. What a joke. You sound like a proper newbie. DinDraithou (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a post of such abysmal ignorance that I will not respond to anything in it. This is a piss-poor article and I have no interest in improving it if it means being patronised by the likes of you. Goodbye and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This unedifying discussion does no credit to anybody and can only damage the reputation of all concerned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Inline citations

"The Gaelic nobles" has no inline citations at all, just a number of footnotes, also unsourced. I'd like to know what the sources are for the following statements:

• Any Irish Chief of the Name descended in the male line from a rí may style himself a Prince if he so chooses...
• A number of rí ruirech also became Ard Rí and their surviving princely descendants remain claimants to the High Kingship to this day.
• The remainder...are at the very least allowed to style themselves lords, if they so choose.
• A noble chief or lord may be styled a flaith (originally meaning prince) or tiarna.

Is all of this from Burke's Peerage? If so, what page(s)? Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good, Scolaire! Very nice! No, hardly in Burke's. Now the two about choosing I will rewrite or remove soon because I haven't been quite satisfied with them. They can be sourced but don't really need to be there; the current styles of the chiefs say as much. The other two I will find the sources for soon because they need to stay. DinDraithou (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's meant to be patronising it doesn't work; it just comes across as creepy! You'd do better to leave out the personal comments altogether. Scolaire (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Creepy! You keep calling it! Ha! DinDraithou (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Reign of Terror

Here alone for too long, I'm now sick of this article, so I'm unwatching it. DinDraithou (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Tyrone?

I remove the following passage as unsourced:

Not contesting the title of O'Neill, Prince of Ulster (currently) is the newly restored Count of Tyrone, Jacobus de Tyrone, Comes (Vatican 2006).<:ref>NB, This name in its Latin form sometimes appears in the accusative case as "Jacobum", but Latin names are correctly given in the nominitive case as "Jacobus" (i. e., James).</ref>

The misspelt footnote on schoolboy Latin is all there is as a source. Who is this person? Is this the Martiniquais O'Neills about whose claims Complete Peerage is so scathing? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaelic nobility of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516102833/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaelic nobility of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119075126/http://www.hbci.com/~tiraha/leinster/mmk.html to http://www.hbci.com/~tiraha/leinster/mmk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)