Talk:Chief of the Name

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name Spelling[edit]

Why "O Brien" etc? In English it is "O'Brien", in Irish "Ó Briain". Most of these names are in English, so should have the apostrophe. BrendanH 15:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

If it's the anglicised form (e.g. Doherty, Connor) then you should use "O'". If it's the Irish form (e.g. Dochartaigh, Conchubhair), then use "Ó". Otherwise you are switching languages mid-name. Now the traditional family name and the name of the current chief or claimant could well be in different languages. Kevlar67 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan has a point. Some names are in Irish, some English, but some have neither apostrophe or accent. Also, one has the English article (The) which would be appropriate, except that the others do not. Shouldn't the encyclopedia article have some standardization? Also, an explanation on the use of the English definite article might be added. --Nike 13:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling of "Surnames and their varients" has evolved with the distribution of the persons using them, worldwide; so, why is it an issue. The title of ["THE"] has not evolved as it is from days past; an age in our history we hold dear..if it is to be used as a means of recognition "Irish or Worldwide recognition". What difference does it make if it is an English form, an Irish form or a varient form- so long as the title is recognised, worldwide. It should be noted that many chiefs live away from their Irish origins. We still honour them.

About Sean Murphy[edit]

This article, and others on related topics, will need to be watched to prevent Mr. Sean Murphy using them for self-promotion. It is not appropriate for Mr. Murphy or anyone else to insert references to himself and his importance in articles.[1] He admits adding the references to himself to his article. It should be noted that Mr. Murphy is trying to sell a book so he has reason to draw attention to himself.[2].

Outside Observer, 2 June 2005

Whilst it would be incorrect for Mr Murphy to blow his own trumpet here, it does not mean that all mention of his contribution towards the exposing of the fraud should be expunged. Waltsbane (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that self-promotion is inappropriate, but as you say there is no questioning the fact that Murphy was the leading figure in the uncovering of this fraud and identifying those "ennobled" by MacCarthy. It goes without saying that much opposition to even the mention of Murphy (often with a very similar tone to the first comment here) derives from those that bear a grudge, be they directly impacted by his exposé or among those affiliated with those individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.199.79 (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was the basis for criticism of the government's new policy to end recognition of chiefs.[edit]

"After embarrassing official blunders in the 1990s which saw a 'MacCarthy Mór' and several other impostors receive recognition, the Irish government decided in July 2003 to abandon this practice as there was no proper legal basis for it, and to continue such recognition would, on the advice of the Attorney General, necessitate a constitutional referendum to amend Bunreacht na hÉireann.This decision was criticised by, among others, Etienne Rynne, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at NUI Galway."

Why did Professor Rynne and others criticize the decision? Did they disagree with the attorney general's opinion that recognizing chiefs violated the consitution or did they disagree with the government's decision not to seek an amendment to the constitution? What arguments did Professor Rynne make? Who is Professor Rynne anyway? Why is a retired professor of archaelogy cited as an authority with regards to a government policy on recognizing chiefs? Does archaelogy have anything to do with this debate? Did the critics represent a substantial or respected body of opinion? It goes without saying that someone will criticize any governmental decision. Why are these criticisms relevant?

As it stands, the mention of criticism adds nothing to the story. I cannot tell whether there is a serious debate in Ireland about recognizing chiefs or just a few people with "sour grapes." --64.12.116.74 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


What's it all about?[edit]

The above are good questions concerning the chiefs controversy to which there are in fact answers. With respect to Professor Rynne, I doubt if archaeology can supply them. Call it self-promotion if you will, but you will find a coherent set of answers on my website at http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/. And yes, in my new book, 'Twilight of the Chiefs: The Mac Carthy Mór Hoax'. I have spent the best part of 7 years and thousands of hours researching the chiefs, and so can claim some expertise in the matter. Incidentally, I always try to append my name to my writings, and wonder if 'Outside Observer' would care to do the same? - Sean Murphy, 5 June 2005.

Wiki-promotion[edit]

Having been accused of the vice above, I might be excused for drawing attention to the tendency of bogus and questionable chiefs, or their supporters, to use Wikipedia for purposes of self-promotion. For example, the claimant to the title of Mac Sweeney Doe is not 'now recognised', and 'O Hanlon, Prince of Ulster' is entirely self-designated. Amendments of these unsupported claims are invevitably deleted (at least once with abusive comments), and there are simply not enough hours in the day or night to keep trying to set the record straight here.

Sean Murphy, 26 April 2006


The subject of the page is "Irish Chiefs". Mr. Murphy has turned this into a page that is his own personal judgement on Irish Chiefs. The controversy is something all together different and should be on a seperate page, not be the primary focus of the subject. There are plenty of discussions and other written accounts of Irish Chiefs besides Mr. Murphy's book. He should not be able to hijack the entire subject to sell his own books. Steven, Dublin, May 2006.

Tagged[edit]

I have tagged this article because it cites one book and one website, it really needs to cite more as it makes a number of claims and recently some changes have been made. Additionally it is a controversial subject and not well understood in the public domain. Djegan 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have retagged the article as the only book reference would appear to be promoted by the author both on the article page and this talk page. Whilst I am not implying anything improper wikipedia must maintain high standards particularily in topics such as these and the history of this article. If anyone can add references or a more appropriate template then do so. Djegan 00:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. --Nike 00:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two websites and one book - of which an author is common to one of the websites and the book. I'm not so sure that this reassures me on one of the greatest fiascos sponsored by the Irish Government. Djegan 00:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than two web sites listed. How many references are needed? How about adding some, yourself? --Nike 01:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While many are prepared to advance opinions on the question of Irish chiefs, as they should be free to do, my book, Twilight of the Chiefs: The Mac Carthy Mór Hoax is the only scholarly, fully sourced account. I believe my supplementary website was an essential reference point for the originator of this Wikipedia article, and as it was not mentioned by him, I felt entitled to add a reference. I must say that I find it odd to fail to acknowledge essential sources, and then accuse an author of self-promotion when he tries to remedy this. It is an indication of the unawareness which surrounds the subject that an entirely spurious claimant such as 'O Hanlon, Prince of Ulster' should be deemed suitable to be on Wikipedia's list of chiefs. If there are other high grade sources which I have somehow missed, by all means let someone add them. - Sean Murphy, 1 May 2006.

Mr. Murphy, you are anything but scholarly in this piece. You are not the least bit unbiased in your analysis, nor your research. Loads of negativity does not equate to good scholarship. William, May 10th 2006- Cork.


Sean, thanks again for the free publicity. - The O'Hanlon, Prince of Ulster, 1 May 2006.

William, I have to agree with you. Mr.Murphy is little more than an authority in his own mind. As the 'self annointed guardian of Irish genealogy' Mr.Murphy demands access to information from people and organizations that he has no legal right to demand access to. When said people and organizations rightfully deny him access to the information he seeks he labels them as being questionable or self-styled. He has no government appointed power and is little more than a vigilante with a website. Mark, May 12th 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBonnell (talk • contribs) 07:49, 13 May 2006.

While sympathetic to Wikipedia's aims, I am struck by some problems: insertion of false or unproven information, failure to cite sources properly, and personal attacks on those who try to improve the quality of certain articles. I have never claimed any official powers, and the fair-minded will realise that what I have written about Terence MacCarthy and other bogus and questionable chiefs is accurate. - Sean Murphy, 13 May 2006.

I am seeing ad hominem attacks on an author, but little in the way of actually disputed facts. What, exactly, is Mr. Murphy wrong about in this article? If someone feels that there are not enough references cited, why not add some, as I did? I would agree that it would be nice of Mr. Murphy to provide some independent sources that he used in his research, but why should it be his sole responsibility? If Mr. Murphy is in error, it is incumbent on those who disagree to specify where he is wrong, and provide their sources. Otherwise, it just sounds like sour grapes by those with dubious claims of nobility. --Nike 08:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to sources, a link was added some time back to my website *Sean Murphy's site on Irish Chiefs. Those who have taken the trouble to read the content of my website will see that primary as well as secondary sources are carefully cited, much too many to be imported here. My website is based on thousands of hours of careful scholarship, but someone has removed the link from the present Wikipedia article, and a poster above abuses the freedom of expression we all hold so dear to defame me as 'a vigilante with a website'. Meanwhile, the present Wikepedia article is copied uncritically to many other sites, and the claims of bogus and questionable chiefs receive more, what I will call for want of a better term, cyber-validation. As to promotion of sales of my book, I accept that it is a pricey academic tome which few will buy, and I am personally purchasing copies as funds allow, in order to deposit it in libraries internationally, where I would certainly recommend the interested to read it. - Sean Murphy, 14 May 2006.

For me the greatest concern is that Sean Murphy - or someone who claims to be Sean Murphy - is referncing his own publication on this website and editing the article. In particular Wikipedia:No original research maybe the relevant policy here and it just seams a bad idea to have people openly promote their own ideas and theories; for instance if George W. Bush editing articles on Iraq or weapons of mass disruction their would undoubtably be an uproar, if it would not make international headlines. Its not so much of the factual nature but more so that they have an obvious conflict of interest that makes wikipedia look like a free advert space and may skew the facts. Additionally, the subject of this article is of such an abstract and controversial nature that its not much wonder that its been continously tagged. Djegan 11:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Murphy misses the point. The subject is "Irish Chiefs of the Name", not the MacCarthy Mor scandal. Only the first two lines are dedicated to hundreds of years of Irish history, and the following six are dedicated to a scandal and the subject of Mr. Murphy's book. It isn't about the sources, it is about the subject. Take out the scandal and move it to another page and let the Chiefs of the Name have a history longer than ten years. SPavilion 12:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'SPavillion' misses the point: a significant number of those who claim to be Irish chiefs are bogus or questionable, as Terence MacCarthy's was not an isolated case. Uncritically promoting the claims of such individuals, and attempting to close minds to the consequences of the MacCarthy Mór scandal, is anything but scholarly. Again, my website *Sean Murphy's site on Irish Chiefs, the link to which has been removed from the present article, deals not only with the MacCarthy Mór case, but with Irish chiefs in general, and includes well referenced reports on several claimants, including Maguire of Fermanagh, O Long of Garranelongy, Mac Sweeney Doe, and so on. If you are not inclined to read such reports and produce reasoned criticism, fair enough, but it accords neither with the spirit of learning or of Wikipedia, as I understand it, to rubbish or delete references to my work here. - Sean Murphy, 14 May 2006.


In response to Djegan's points above. Firstly, I am indeed Sean Murphy. As to Wikipedia:No original research and the allied principles of neutrality and verifiability. Firstly, I refer to my published and fully referenced work and do not work out new ideas here. Secondly, the principle of neutrality is sometimes misinterpreted to mean credulous acceptance of false claims, for example, the Wikipedia article on Prince Michael of Albany does not breach the principle of neutrality by rejecting his unfounded claim to be a descendant of Bonny Prince Charlie and heir to the throne of Scotland. Thirdly, the claim of Mr Hanlon to be 'O'Hanlon, Prince of Ulster' cannot be verified, and this title should have no place on a serious list of Irish chiefs. - Sean Murphy, 14 May 2006.

I have read Wikipedia:No original research and I do not see how it applies here. I also do not know what, specifically, is being disputed here. What are facts whose accuracy are in dispute? In what way is this article not neutral? Because it says that the guy claiming to be MacCarthy Mór was a fraud? Does anybody here believe he wasn't? Since nobody has made this clear, and since they were supposedly put there because of a lack of sources, which has been remedied, I will remove the tags, myself.

However, I do think that the article could be improved if Mr. Murphy would list a few of his sources. It is not necessary to import all of them here, just a small number of significant ones. He does cite sources on his extensive site, but they seem to be scattered around and not listed in one place, and I don't know which would be most apropos to the article. Also, I see no reason to force readers of this encyclopedia to search through another web site in order to find sources, although I do think that the site is a good secondary source. A couple of sources I found on his site were given as:

  • C Eugene Swezey in The Irish Chiefs, New York 1974
  • Burke's Irish Family Records 1976

If anyone disputes any specific statement he has written, then he should provide sources which back him up, at least here in talk. Likewise, those who disagree should provide their sources.

From my own POV, it appears that some here have a pre-existing bias against Mr. Murphy, perhaps due to some personal stake in the issue. Since I don't know anything about him beyond what I have read here and on his web site, I have no reason to doubt anything he has written. The newsgroup thread referenced above by the anonymous "Outside Observer" certainly does not discredit him. Also, the fact that he has published a book on the subject does not indicate that he does not know what he is talking about, either. Unless it can be demonstrated that his site is greatly flawed, I think that it should be listed as a reference. It is the best one online which I have found on the subject. --Nike 08:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think my main offence was to shine a light in the hall of smoke and mirrors occupied by bogus and questionable Irish chiefs, and in particular to expose the role of the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland in validating fakes. I won't make any further amendment to the text of the article here because of past reactions and deletions, but in view of Nike's more constructive approach I offer the following sources for consideration:

Terence Gray, Gaelic Chiefs, National Library of Ireland, Genealogical Office MS 610 (analysis of chiefly pedigrees completed in the 1940s).

Register of Chiefs, NLI, GO MS 627. A listing of chiefs recognised 1944-45, well checked by Gray and MacLysaght, and 1989-95, inadequately checked and including Mac Carthy Mór and other controversial recognitions which resulted in the termination of the registration process in 2003. Note that Mac Sweeney Doe and O Hanlon do not appear in this register, and that O Conor Don and Mac Murrough Kavanagh are not described as princes.

Burke's Peerage, 3 volumes, 107th Edition 2003. Includes for the first time Irish and Scottish chiefs, but does not include the controversial Irish recognitions of 1989-95, for very good reasons. Leaving aside my published work, this edition of Burke is now the most authoritative published listing of Irish chiefs. This and other Burke's publications are of course now available online by subscription at http://www.burkes-peerage.net/. I would recommend the deletion of the first link referring to my brief article for Burke, as it only brings you to the latter subscription homepage.


Sean Murphy, 20 May 2006

Princeton03 changed the link without explanation. I have reverted it to the correct URL. --Nike 01:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mild cleanup[edit]

I've mildly cleaned up some stuff based on this article's listing on WP:TASK. No real textual change: some cites and facts are stated without backup and I've commented what seems to be missing, I've reorganised slightly to bring all of Ireland together. Nothing major.

One outstanding query: by wiki standards this article should be moved to the singular: "Chief of the name", with a redirect here to that page. I didn't want to do that without discussion though. FT2 (Talk) 10:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in The Encyclopedia of Ireland, Gill and Macmillan it has the article under the name "chiefs of the name" (plural) and indicates that the person would be regardes as "chief of his name" (singular). I will mention the issue on the Irish noticeboard as their maybe other opinions and consensus. Djegan 18:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its wikipedia style convention that where a singular can exist, the article is named as the singular. if one would say "X is a chief of the name" then that's usually the correect title for the article, even if it does discuss the group and collective of all chiefs of the name. FT2 (Talk) 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals): "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors)." --Kwekubo 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commentry[edit]

While I can understand the hostility that Mr. Murphy arouses from certain quarters, it must be pointed out that any and all conclusions he has ever made on subjects which he has an abiding interest - as a professional genealogist - have being fully supported by facts. Rather, it is those who are supposed to be the professionals - particularly the woefully misnamed Genealogical Office - and the claimaints who have being forced to retract their claims.

Its little wonder that there is not a great deal of literature on the subject available. The simple reason is that there is very little to begin with. This is because there is just not very many people even in Ireland actively engaged on the issue, and because of a lack of regulation in certain quarters all sorts of dubious actvities have being cheerfully engaged in for decades. This has being a subject of deep disquiet, disgust and fury to those such as myself who, while not professional genealogists, are nevertheless Seanchai by pride, profession and vocation. I include in this professional and accomplished amaeuters in the feild of Irish history, heraldry, genealogy, etc.

A few links which may prove illumanating to those who wish to learn more are as follows:

Suffice to saw, Mr. Murphy's published conclusions in 1999, following several years research, pretty much blew the lid on a very messy business that many vested interests quailed at seeing the light of day. There had being some concern at the more outlandish activities of the hoax macarthy mor for several years, and it was as a direct result of this that led to many others - of whom Mr. Murphy remains the most publicly notable - to query the status accorded by an office of the state to several of these individuals. Macarthy mor was merely the most public, most outrageous but certainly not the most deserving of investigation into independently unproven claims of descent and titles (in a Republic!!!).

The very insularity of these circles led to the revelations recieveing little coverage even here in Ireland and this is something that continues. Because far too many simply do not understand the substance of the issues concerned - or care - some of the most blatent acts of theft and piracy have being carried out against both personal property (in the form of coats of arms) and the heritige of the nation, for years. No criminal proscutions have being brought, even though maccarthy more is reputed, via his courtsey recognition from an office of the state, to have swindled a number of millions by selling knighthoods, lordships, membership fees of his organisations, and other ingenious stratageys. Other such cases may well lie hidden from public view. In fact, they do.

As someone who has long being acquainted with the subject I can only heartily welcome the new provisions and the the withdrawal of courtsey recogniton some years ago. That's not to say that either myself or others do not wish to see Cheifs of the Name being identified and recognised by the state. We do. We simply feel that it should be done properly and openly. Claims by amadans to be Prince of Ulster, Hereditary Prince of Corcabaskin and of Thomond, when shown to be false, cheapen our collective heritage and our guardianship of it. Exactly how these titles could be held by citizens of the Republic of Ireland, or how they could be granted by the same to citizens of other states, has never being properly explained.

I and many more like me very much look forward to the day when there will be a fully accredited list of Irish Chiefs of the Name. That we are a Repulic is a fact and one which the overwhelmingly vast majority of Irish people are happy with. Yet in now way should this rule out recognition and understanding of our past, and current representatives of the dynastys that ruled and reigned over this land since before history began.

In conclusion I must note for the record that I am not a member of any of the above organisations listed, nor have I ever held any position from any of them. Like Professor Rynne of NUIG, I have being simply a deeply concerned by-stander in the general feild of Irish heritage. Is mise, Fergananim 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get your tongue out of the British monarchy's arsehole. The native Gaelic rulers of Ireland did not have dynasties, and they explicitly rejected primogeniture in favor of elected kings. The very notion of a "Chief of The Name" is offensive to Gaels as it was one of the policies imposed upon the native Irish by the English crown as part of their policy of surrender and regrant, which they used to eliminate indigenous leaders in favor of reliable colonial puppets. Go peddle your West Briton bullshit somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.248.84 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cac go Leor![edit]

Gaelic clan leaders were elected by the members of the clan, not merely the eldest son of the former leader. Primogeniture was an alien custom forcibly imposed by the same people who attempted to eradicate Gaelic culture.

The Irish Republic was right to toss this anglicized "chief of the name" nonsense onto the dungheap. It is repugnant to both Gaels and republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.240.66 (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonment list & a web page discussing some of our articles[edit]

Please don't replace this without an official source. I also note that one of the entries, Diarmait Mac Murchada, doesn't mention this. If living people are named they also need reliable sources. An aside -after deleting the section I found [3] which discusses some of our articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chief of the Name. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chief of the Name. 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:

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) 21:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chief_of_the_Name&oldid=1200842877"