This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland
Somethings needs to go here if the First Interregnum and Second Interregnum are also listed. Whilst Scotland came under the governance Commonwealth of England for a good deal of this time, it would surprise me if either this or the English Interregnum is the common Scottish name for this period. Is it called the Third Interregnum? Greenshed22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, † is being used to indicate people who were also monarch of England, and * for Ireland. However, those are the same people – everyone on this list who was monarch of England was also monarch of Ireland. May I propose we consolidate the two symbols to a single one?
24.21.178.8303:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Pictish monarchs, as the emerging historical consensus is that there is no dividing lines between "Scotland" and "Pictland", being essentially the same kingdom; the idea of a brake being much later propaganda issued by the descendents of Cináed mac Ailpín. I also put the word "Alba" in brackets next to Scotland. The reason isn't nationalism, but because the term "Scotland" is much later than the earliest kings of "Scotland", and Alba was the name for both Pictland and Scotland, and remains to this day the Gaelic name for the country. I also piped some of the links, and the reason for this to achieve orthographic consistency not currently existent in the wikipedia names. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Covenanters"
Does it make sense to list them as though they formed a proper head of state? It was my understanding that they recognized Charles II as succeeding Charles I in January 1649, although they did not actually allow him to come to Scotland and be crowned until he agreed to their terms. Might it make more sense, since this is a list of Scottish monarchs, and not of Scottish regimes, to simply follow Charles I by Charles II, and ignore the Interregnum? john k17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it's appropriate. It's an issue of accuracy and orthographic consistency. Some may oppose this on wiki grounds, but to those like yourself who oppose it on anti-Gaelic grounds, let me inform you that Malcolm is still a Gaelic name whether render "Malcolm", "Máel Coluim" or "Maol Chaluim", as is Kenneth whether rendered as Cináed or Kenneth (no Ks in any insular language before the Normans), likewise Duncan, Donald, etc. And I don't see any argument for trying to get rid of the bracketed "Alba". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Gaelic were spoken by more than 1% of the Scottish population, this would not be relevant. This is the English wikipedia, and we should not be piping links to a Gaelic name. It is not about being anti-Gaelic (for example, according to policy, it is acceptable to state the Gaelic place names, or for offical bodies that use Gaelic such as the Parliament)- however to force Gaelic across the Wiki is unacceptable and against policy. Astrotrain14:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What has the percentage of modern Gaelic speakers got to do with anything? Those kings have culturally little to do with modern Scotland, which is almost totally anglicized. Not being anti-Gaelic would be believable if you were John Kenney or someone, but all you do on Wikipedia is POV push against Gaelic, so we know fine well why you are here. The piped names are a subjective issue. Some prefer accuracy and orthographic consistency to anglicization and modernization, both of which in the context mislead. Still don't see any argument for trying to get rid of the bracketed "Alba". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)14:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not POV to implement existing WP policy- ie not to use foreign languages inappropiately. I would say piping the links to force Gaelic through (when your attempts to Gaelicise the article names themseleves was defeated) is more POV. Astrotrain15:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course you would say that. Am I supposed to be suprised? If you knew anything about "WP Policy", i.e. WP guidelines, you'd know that there are many and conflicting guidelines designed only to be applied with some thought. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Astrotrain, your edits mean that we have two Kenneth Is and two Kenneth IIs on the template. Anyway, if you're going to insist on anglifying names, why are there only two Pictish Kenneths when there should be three (well, four really, but leave that for now)? And you missed a Constantine. Can we expect Áed to be renamed Hugh? Drusts to be renamed Tristans? Eoganán to be renamed John? I suppose it's just as well I never made a King of Dál Riata template thingy. For all that you're het up about it, four of these articles got tagged as GAs with Gaeliform names throughout (except for the usual "anglicised X" where applicable). I find it unlikely that the editors who reviewed them were closet Gaelic-pushers. During the page naming fracas, the articles looked almost exactly the way they do today, yet nobody remarked upon it that I recall. Could it possibly be that nobody but you really gets het up about this? Angus McLellan(Talk)21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only removed pipes from English names to Gaelic names. I didn't rename the Kings already listed under a Gaelic name (although this should be done). Whatever the merits of using the names- this is the English language wikipedia, and only English should be used (although citing of Gaelic names would be allowed in some circumstances), and at the end of the day only 60,000 people actually speak this dead language. Astrotrain23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The language these names are written is dead, just like the one Gaius Julius Caesar's name is written in. Well, even deader than that since some very small number of whackos speak Latin for fun. Máel Coluim is not Gaelic. Really. Some of the other ones are close to Gaelic, none are identical. These names are Old Irish, or rather they are the standardised language that is used to represent Old Irish names in modern printed works. There's no more ulterior motive to preferring these versions thatt there is in preferring Æthelfrith (as I do), or even Æþelfriþ (but the the use of eth and thorn strikes me as twee), to Aethelfrith. Indeed, if there were a some sinister political motive, it would have been better served by the versions which existed before Calgacus and I got started, the versions which presented Scotland as existing in unchanging glory since 843 or thereabouts. Angus McLellan(Talk)23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for using the Gaelic rendering of names would imply that the names of New Testament people should be rendered in עברית (Hebrew) or should that be ܐܪܡܝܐ (Aramaic)? Admittedly the first version of the New Testament was in Κοινὴ Ἑλληνική so perhaps that language should be used. At the moment they seem to have English renderings. What do all the cunning linguists think?
In this qustion, I agree mostly with Astrotrain. I find it odd that the only name forms we would see in this list, would be Old Irish. Not exactly all the names are to be anglicized (Aedh probably is good example of such), but most are to. My view is that we should put all names in their anglicized version, if a Gaelic/Irish name form is not common in English texts (= if anglicized version is common in English texts). Then, we could add, in parentheses, the Gaelic name as (and if) it was used by the monarch and of him when he was living (this is an optional extra, but I would not happily agree to take the Gaelic versions totally out from here). In those exceptional cases where an Old Irish or Gaelic name is common in English literature and not the anglicization (= situation where anglicization feels odd to anglophones themselves), it should not be anglicized (but anglicized one could and probably should be given in the article itself). Voilá, results will be something like:
Malcolm II (Mael Choluim)
Robert II (Raibeart)
Aedh.... and so forth
Let me repeat and clarify: it is height of foolishness to put these lists to display only Gaelic/ Old Irish name versions, as mostly they are unrecognizable to almost every reader, except experts. Shilkanni00:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I'd be utterly opposed to "Robert II (Raibeart)"; as somebody likely said already, this isn't the Scots Gaelic Wikipedia. As for the rest, I just the write the content. So long as the articles don't incorporate antiquarian anglicised twaddle, it seems that I'll have to be content with the titles, and now the templates, doing so. Suit yourself. Angus McLellan(Talk)01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that comes across rather more snippy than I had intended. Let's just say: no to Gaelic names after Domnall Bán, and if I haven't convinced anyone to use them for supposed "kings of Scots" before Duncan II, go ahead and change the template. Angus McLellan(Talk)02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for the use of native names for all kings with native names. I suppose the matter is no more than one of subjective preference ... some users prefer modern forms, others prefer native forms; but there is not so much consensus here that either view can predominate, which clearly points to some form of compromise. Angus and I have both spent a lot of time reading texts were these names are used and have grown used to them, so we both have a that perspective. Don't really agree with Angus (following Duncan?) that Máel Coluim IV should be an exception, and I certainly don't think Donnchad II should be (the latter just baffles me). A.A.M. Duncan had the highly flawed view that modern name forms in the English language somehow correspond with contemporary French forms, but if you look at contemporary forms of the names, this simply is not true. Names like Máel Coluim, Donnchad and Domnall were not English or French names, and never had one form in this period; Malcolm, Duncan and Donald would have been more foreign to the ears of, say, William Rufus or Henry I, than Máel Coluim, Donnchad or Domnall would have been, as he at least would have heard the latter. And for example, later medieval non-Gaels recognized the name we now call Donald more usually as Dovenald. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also for the use of native names especially for for New Testament people with native (Aramaic) names. I suppose the matter is no more than one of subjective preference ... some users prefer modern forms, others prefer native forms. Do you think I could gain enough consensus so that my view will predominate? Surely Jesus would have been more foreign to the ears of, say,הוֹרְדוֹס, than ܝܫܘܥ or Yeshua. Do you think I have any chance of persuading people to accept the native names or should I just bully and cajole them into doing so while at the same time claiming it to be compromise?
Well, you have a point, but if everyone does their own thing we get chaos, so someone (Shilkanni in this case) has to play policeman. However, since next to nobody edits the articles in question, I'm not convinced that it is a big deal. As a general rule (*cough*), rules are for other people. Angus McLellan(Talk)19:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if I can get the policeman Shilkanni onside, which would seem easy enough since he seems to have sided with the Old Irish forms of names even though he suggested it is height of foolishness to put these lists to display only Gaelic/ Old Irish name versions, as mostly they are unrecognizable to almost every reader, except experts. Since I am also intending to abandon my real life, become a geekynerd, and take up permanent residence in Wikipedia I will simply dismiss such concerns along with my schoolgirl experiences of the likes of Macbeth - now an expert's Mac Bethad, Kenneth MacAlpin - now an expert's Cináed mac Ailpín and Malcolm Canmore - now an expert's Máel Coluim mac Donnchada, all strangely redirected to pages with lay titles but expert's names in the articles. In my endevour to become an elististpedant with a paraphilic, esotericfetish for all things Aramaic - as opposed to all things Goidelic - I seek your support. Please join my coterie of revisionists, though I must insist we will not be negationists. Some have suggested I may be suffering from paraphilia but that is simply not true. Those New Testament people deserve to have their native names used. Who is brave enough to join me? We know what's best, as you say, rules are for other people.
I object strongly to the deletion of Pictish kings, esp. the 7th and 8th century ones, from this template. No new kingdom comes with Cinaed mac Ailpin. It doesn't matter if many internet royalty pages start with that, it's not a matter of tast like Use English, it's simply factually incorrect and should be reverted. The last scholar to have believed Cinaed mac Ailpin did actually conquer the Picts was John Bannerman, who retired nearly a decade ago; no present scholar believes in it, and it is historical consensus that Pictland and Scotland (both called Alba) were the same state, the rest is gradual cultural change and is dynastic. There is no factual reason to begin with Cinaed mac Ailpin. Parallels with Wessex and ... lol ... Mercia are not even nearly useful. The state in question, Pictland, Alba, Scotland, whatever you wanna call it, did not change, having the same boundaries in the 7th century it had in the 11th. If never using the title "King of the Picts" is the issue, Domnall Dasachtach would be the first king, not Cinaed mac Ailpin. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is of 'traditional Scottish monarchs'. The list of Scottish monarchs traditionally begins with Kenneth MacAlpin - an omission would appear strange. It doesn't matter that the territorial boundaries weren't the same (and you're the only one arguing for the inclusion of 7th century kings, so it's hardly a problem): Hugh Capet's kingdom of France had different territorial boundaries to modern France, but he is still accepted as having ruled it; besides which, it requires original research to determine when 'Scotland' began if you ignore the traditional (and still common) view of MacAlpin as the 'founder-king'. Furthermore, it is illogical to argue that Scotland as it was the 11th century did not exist in the 7th century - and use that assertion to justify the inclusion of more kings who have not been claimed as Kings of Scotland since the beginning of the 19th century. The traditional list as beginning with MacAlpin has the weight of tradition to support it. Neither of your two ideas - to confuse the ordinals by removing "Kenneth I", "Donald I", "Constantine I"; or to add a list of people never considered kings of Scotland - is appropriate. MichaelSanders13:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has the same territory, not different territory!
The list with the weight of traditional support is simply inaccurate; it doesn't matter how much tradition there is. This is not Use English where one can try and argue for the popular over the scholarly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be Kenneth McAlpin if we're going for traditional lists. Otherwise we would have to remove him and his immediate successors and start the list only when Alba merged with Strathclyde, because only then was the true Kingdom of Scotland actually founded (regardless of terminology). I would suggest that including Kenneth and his immediate successors is itself a concession to ideas of romantic nationalism, rather than the other way round, and its only possible justification is the fact that to do so is indeed traditional. TharkunColl (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "true" Scotland you refer to would start with David I, way way after the beginning of any traditional list. Sometimes kingdoms expand, as Michael Sanders was so keen to point out when he misinterpreted an argument above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been having a similar debate elsewhere concerning the events of 1707. Since, as you obviously accept, states can expand and change their name, would you accept that the events of 1707 were, in effect, the anexation of Scotland by England? I think this question is exactly analogous to the merger of Strathclyde with Alba. TharkunColl (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would, but don't tell anyone cause they'd all hate me. The case of 1707 though was one where, even if it was just a kind of politically motivated legal fiction and even if few took it seriously, the state did actually change its name ... but with Pictland to Scotland it is not clear that there was ever a endonymic change of name. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, you would not be able to pinpoint a beginning of 'Scotland', and of this list, apart from using the traditional form (as Tharkun demonstrated, there are different ideas of when it started). MichaelSanders14:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The traditional form is inaccurate, and those Pictish rulers demonstrably ruled the same state. No reason to exclude them ... the template clearly stated that one was a traditional list of Pictish kings, the other a traditional list of "Scottish" kings. Collectively, it avoided any controversy, while at the same time including "tradition". Deleting the Pictish section just makes the template silly and inaccurate, without having any advantages. I don't see what your problem with having the Pictish kings there is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kenneth MacAlpin is commonly considered 'King of Scotland/of Scots'. His predecessors are not (nor did they in any sense rule modern Scotland. You can argue that the Kingdom of Scotland did not exist at the time of MacAlpin, you can't argue that it pre-existed him). MichaelSanders14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That common consideration is incorrect, and thus irrelevant. Just because it's popular doesn't make it true. The Kingdom of Scotland is just nomenclature ... Pictland and Scotland were the same, both called Alba, and the distinction between the two is later myth. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template itself is called "Scottish Monarchs". The Picts should have their own template if one is considered necessary. Kenneth is the traditional founder of Scotland, but as I said a much better case could be made for starting the list with the merger of Alba and Strathclyde. Including the Pictish kings is the equivalent of including all the kings of Mercia on the English list (and including instead the Dalriada kings would be the equivalent of including all the kings of Wessex on the English list). TharkunColl (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no merger. These territories were incorporated. Repeating myself time ... Parallels with Wessex and ... lol ... Mercia are not even nearly useful. The state in question, Pictland, Alba, Scotland, whatever you wanna call it, did not change, having the same boundaries in the 7th century it had in the 11th. If never using the title "King of the Picts" is the issue, Domnall Dasachtach would be the first king, not Cinaed mac Ailpin.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm happy to allow Kenneth in, even though he didn't really found anything resembling the Scottish state, simply because of tradition. In reality the list should start much later. TharkunColl (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 'tradition' has a lot to answer for, but we should be structuring this list in a manner which would not seriously surprise anyone. It would be a serious surprise if the supposed founder of the Kingdom of Scotland wasn't on the list of Scottish monarchs; furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a clear, 'historical' alternative to when to begin the list. MichaelSanders15:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the 1 and half year old template was fine. It had no problems. No we have problems because the Pictish kings have been omitted. Instead of letting the reader judge for himself, the template explicitly indicates it starts with Cinaed, which is demonstrably false. Not acceptable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is acceptable to me. May I ask why the kings of Wessex should not be added to the English list? It was demonstrably the same state, simply with expanded territory. TharkunColl (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't the same state, cause we know it changed it's name to something much broader. And "Simply expanded" territory is a bit of a euphemism for a state that came to expand many times in size, whereas roughly 2/3rds of the territory of modern Scotland was in the Scoto-Pictish kingdom. Anyways, your example was Mercia. :p
There was no definite point at wich the kingdom changed its name from Wessex to England. And its expansion was done in stages over a half century from Alfred to Athelstan (and earlier expansions had been equally dramatic). It was definitely the same state with the same ruling family, same capital, same administrators, etc. The analogy is precise. And I'm using Wessex as the analogy here, not Mercia. TharkunColl (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No because "King of the English" was a separate title. Here a substate of a greater ethnic region became a core region of a new state. In Pictland/Scotland, there was no new state. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"King of the English" was not a separate title, it was simply a supplementary one that was used sporadically along with older titles. There is no date you can pick for any sort of transition, because there wasn't one. You appear to be trying to argue that Scotland is somehow a special case, when in fact it is nothing of the sort and parallels the English experience quite closely in fact - one of a number of smaller states gradually dominating and absorbing the others. TharkunColl (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear ... "King of the English" was a separate title. Here a substate of a greater ethnic region became a core region of a new state. In Pictland/Scotland, there was no new state. Since when did "second" and "suplementary" become contradictions? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our place to rewrite history or historiography. Kenneth MacAlpin is commonly known as "the first King of Scotland". Address the issue where relevant with sources, but don't try to rewrite historiography with crude solutions such as cutting out or adding in extra kings. MichaelSanders15:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Dalriada had been destroyed as an independent state and incorporated into Pictland in the 8th century. Another thing you don't know. Can you have the decency to at least do some basic historical reading on this subject. All this is is a series of history lessons. Go read Óengus I of the Picts at the very least. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This assumption of superior knowledge of yours is very tiresome you know. The fact is that the Dalriadans were Irish settlers, and the Picts were native British. Kenneth and his dynasty represented a foreign takeover (by whatever means) of a native kingdom. TharkunColl (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, either you have a lost Chronicle that all the historians in the area seem to have missed which tells you this; or else ... and it's prolly a long shot ... you've not done any reading past Pears and other such sources and you believe a long debunked theory about early Scottish history. Which is it? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't know, let's see... oh yes, that's it - the fact that Gaelic is an Irish language and the Gaels came from Ireland. I knew there must be something! TharkunColl (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So how would you explain the Gaelic poetry commissioned by 8th and 7th cent. Pictish kings, and the Gaelic inscriptions on Pictish royal masonry from the same period? Cinaed was a Pict, but that doesn't mean he didn't speak Gaelic. Even if he did speak Gaelic (it's probable, but we don't actually know one way or the other if he did), that doesn't mean he or anyone else at the time thought of him as a Gael. Ethnicity is a complex thing. Most Scots since the 15th cent. have spoken English, doesn't mean they called themselves English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The language was obviously infiltrating Pictland over a long period and gaining in status. And as I understand it, Scots in the south-east of the country did call themselves English until the end of the Middle Ages. Which is hardly surprising since they were English - that area used to be part of the English kingdom of Northumbria. TharkunColl (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having a list of Pictish kings who never claimed and are never claimed to rule Scotland or be King of Scots in a time when Scotland didn't exist...under the title "List of Scottish monarchs"? And that avoids crude solutions? My God, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelsanders (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what harm there is in including the Pictish monarchs in this template, given that the distinction is largely artificial. john k (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Template:Pictish monarchs, and have let the list run up to Giric (if it should go further than that, correct it). I still find it overly crude to include Pictish monarchs in a list of 'Kings of Scotland', when men such as Constantine of the Picts have not been so-called for about 200 years (whereas the list beginning from MacAlpin, although flawed, is a common device); using two templates allows more finesse, since you can place both templates on men such as MacAlpin, to indicate that they are known as both (and then indicate the precise state of affairs in the actual article). It would look strange to not include MacAlpin in a list of Scottish monarchs, and it would look equally strange to include not just him but also his predecessors; whereas, it would not look particularly strange even to those who don't know much about the subject that MacAlpin is on a list of Pictish kings. MichaelSanders22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the point of this. The template clearly separates both lists, while combining them in a non-confusing way. If you want, the title of the template can be rephrased, but I hope by now you'll appreciate the complex issues that have to be balanced here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you reverted. The separation of the two lists allows the issue to be dealt with properly. Combining them simply creates a false image of continuity, which there wasn't. MichaelSanders23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, it creates a false sense of break. The separate lists are artificial and misrepresent the historical reality; having both under the current titles displays them without misleading (surely what you'd want); separating them, as you have learned, would mislead. As you have learned by now also, Kenneth I ruled the same Kingdom as Oengus I and II, Causantin, etc. Only you and TharkunColl have expressed an interest in changing the status quo, I and four others have voiced opposition. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does mislead: combining the two creates the impression that men such as Oengus and Constantine of the Picts ruled 'Scotland' - which you will not find on any monarch list. True, there may not have been any break between Drest and Kenneth (although I'm not sure you've successfully debunked the idea that Kenneth was a Scot who conquered the Picts), but that at least is sanctioned by usage; whereas, whilst Kenneth and co up to Donald II are in a grey area, there is a definite white and black either end - Constantine II was definitely King of 'Alba', i.e. Scotland, Oengus was definitely King of the Picts only. That being the case, it is better to apply the commonly accepted layout, rather than mislead readers with an overly-inclusive list. MichaelSanders00:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note the titles: Traditional List of Monarchs of the Picts and Traditional List of Monarchs of the Scots. There's nothing misleading about that. This and the rest is well covered above and mostly hasn't been responded to. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the overall title is still "monarchs over Scotland" - which any reader would imagine to mean "the Kingdom of Scotland". The men preceeding Kenneth were never rulers of the 'Kingdom of Scotland', and are never claimed as being such. Furthermore, even if you make it "Monarchs over Scotland" - well, where's Strathclyde? Where's Galloway? Argylle? The Isles? What about the Norwegian kings, they ruled parts of Scotland until the 15th century. The template is not a sophisticated device, it can only go for simple measures, and as you propose making it, it is just too crude to be useful. MichaelSanders00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet your over-riding title was still "Monarchs over Scotland". By that title, you either can't include anyone until David I, or have to include everyone until 1468. MichaelSanders00:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was just an attempt to appease you, "over" being less formal than "of". Since all kings of the Picts/Alba/Scots after Bridei son of Bili ruled 2/3rds + of modern Scotland I thought that would be acceptable. If you have any other suggestions I'm all ears. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that this list separates and combines the Kings of Picts and Kings of Scots in a non-confusing way. This seems to be self-contradictory - you object to Kenneth MacAlpin being represented as a King of Scotland - but the list as you would have it indicates a break or change of the very sort you complain of. MichaelSanders01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It indicates a break in the traditional lists, not an actual break. Note the titles: Traditional List of Monarchs of the Picts and Traditional List of Monarchs of the Scots. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it still says 'traditional list' both here and on the Pictish list. However, since your complaint appears to be that the 'traditional list' perpetuates old stereotypes, I don't understand why you favour a list which reinforces such stereotypes by depicting Pictish and Scottish monarchs in such a way that any reader will automatically assume that, yes, there was a break between Drest X and Kenneth MacAlpine, and that MacAlpin cannot and would not be described as "King of the Picts". MichaelSanders01:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you arguing? That the default version separates them, but splitting them doesn't? (stunned) Or do you wan't trad. Pictish kings and trad. Scottish kings just to merge into each other? The titles: Traditional List of Monarchs of the Picts and Traditional List of Monarchs of the Scots are there to address the concerns about "tradition" that you are trying to support; why on earth are you opposing the one thing (both things) about the default version that you otherwise appear to back? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing that a "List of (traditional) monarchs of Scotland" should contain only people who would be commonly described as monarchs of Scotland. The Pictish monarchs preceeding Kenneth I are never described as monarchs of Scotland. Therefore, they should not be on this list. Kenneth I and his successors, by contrast, are commonly described as monarchs of Scotland. So they should be on this list. That is really not a particularly complicated position, and I doubt anyone would be seriously surprised by the template as it is now - which is the whole point. MichaelSanders01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that position is not accurate and is misleading, as copiously described above. It's strange that while pursuing that you spent so much time arguing for this:
I have no idea what you are talking about. However, the simple truth is as follows:
We are both, to a certain extent, favouring a misleading presentation.
Your version gives the impression that there is no middle ground between the "Kingdom of the Picts" and the "Kingdom of the Scots": but rather, that they all happily ruled the "Kingdom of Scotland", but that something significant yet unexplained happened between Drest X and Kenneth I.
My version separates the two out, and gives the impression that Kenneth and his immediate successors are traditionally known as both Kings of the Picts and of the Scots, but at least doesn't suggest that Drest and his ilk were ever monarchs of Scotland.
In other words, my version is at least the version the readers would expect, and furthermore allows a leeway that can actually indicate to readers that Kenneth &co are also known as monarchs of the Picts. Your version, on the other hand, simply gives a quite false impression that the Kingdom of Scotland existed in about 500-600 AD.
Your version gives the impression that there is no middle ground between the "Kingdom of the Picts" and the "Kingdom of the Scots": but rather, that they all happily ruled the "Kingdom of Scotland", but that something significant yet unexplained happened between Drest X and Kenneth I.
There is no middle ground between those two kingdoms, as they are the same. Matter of factly, you are correct that the term "Kingdom of Scotland" isn't used today to refer to both, but then again "Kingdom of Scotland" isn't used in the template title ... but "Monarchs of/over Scotland", which is as accurate for the late "Pictish" kings as the early "Scottish kings"; maybe the problem here is that you're not taking Scotland to be a geographical term like "Ireland" and "Britain" can be, but solely as a modern political term. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it comes down to the same thing. Would you put Boudicca in a List of English monarchs, on the basis that she ruled in a part of what is now geographically England? MichaelSanders02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was your aim to convince me with that point or get a prize for "most fatuous remark of the century"? If Boudica did in fact rule England then I would, but she didn't, as there was no England for another 8 centuries. The "Pictish state" is the same as the "Scottish state", just called by a different name because of myth and later terminological change. This convo is just boring now, and is going nowhere since even the most basic points I've been making still aren't being grasped. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She ruled in geographical England, just as Drest etc ruled in geographical Scotland. And there was a change - there was a change at the time in how the Kings perceived the territory and nation they ruled. (Also, the Byzantine Empire is the same state as the Roman Empire. However, it is far more rational to consider them separately). MichaelSanders02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say that the template is confusing. It makes perfect sense to me. It is very clear, in fact. Almost more illuminating than the long articles! The only sticking point worth trying to work on is the "Monarchs over Scotland" part, but I don't know if there's a better phrase. I have reverted based on the fact that this template is in use in the current way, so Michael should get consensus for change before implementing his version and his new Pictish template. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which shouldn't be the case. The Wessex Kings reigned "in" South Britain (geographical England), but only as one of several kingdoms. The Pictish kings reigned "in" North Britain (geographical Scotland), but only as one of several kingdoms. We should begin both sets with the commonly accepted and unsurprising beginnings of the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland, and save historical quibblings over when they could be said to have actually begun to the relevant articles. MichaelSanders16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just showing you guys, that the Scottish & English templates have similiar questions. Hope you both can straigten things out here. PS- put back the of Scotland, please. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a long time these Scottish monarchy related articles were stable & quiet. Suddenly, in this last week, things have flared up - with long discussions occuring, Afds, near 'edit wars' etc. It has become a highly emotionally charged atmosphere on those articles. I've posted at Wikipedia: WikiProject Scotland, expressing my displeasure of these past weeks battles. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between England in Scotland is that the former is definitely born out of a union of kingdoms, but the latter is predominantly born of an evolution in nomenclature. Thus the Pictish and Scottish kings are justifiably merged, while the kings of Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, and Wessex &c. are all forebears of the kings of England in basically the same way. It just so happens that a dynasty with West Saxon origins was the first to establish hereditary rule over all the gens Anglorum. And Sanders, why couldn't you wait for a consensus to develope as I suggested? This style of editing is contentious and slows down the process considerably. I think somebody may have to nominate Template:Pictish monarchs for deletion soon (as a POV fork and contraWP:POINT), unless the situation is cleared up amicably here sooner. Srnec (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply nationalistic myth-making to claim that the Kingdom of Scotland, or anything claiming continuity with it, existed as far back as the Pictish Kings. The standard historical line is: "the earliest evidence of a cohesive northern kingdom is linked with the name of Kenneth MacAlpin and the period 843-50." (Michael Maclagan, Lines of Succession) Now, you may question that, and you may cite historians who have doubts about that, but no historian claims that 'Scotland' as anything more than an anticipatory reference to the geographical region existed prior to Kenneth MacAlpin. It is simply Original Research - you have cited no evidence that those men prior to MacAlpin are ever described as ruling the Kingdom of Scotland, or ruling over Scotland. They didn't. They ruled a very small part of North Britain, and they ruled a kingdom which was conquered by the Gaelic Kenneth MacAlpin; his territory, perhaps was not 'the Kingdom of Scotland', and certainly was not so territorially, but the state he established evolved into Scotland in a way that the conquered Kingdom of the Picts had not. MichaelSanders21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's complete hokum. You comment extremely inaccurately on the historiography, of which you don't know anything, ignore most of the points already made, and call following modern historiographic consensus "OR" (i.e. a reference to WP:OR). Maybe I and everyone else are wrong and you are right, but as you don't have a clue about the topic it's all for very little except sucking our time. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What, it's complete hokum because it doesn't agree with your notion that the Pictish Kings were Kings of Scotland? Find me a modern source that describes MacAlpin's predecessors as "Kings of Scotland". Otherwise, you are just formulating your own novel point of view. MichaelSanders22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And still you don't respond, instead making insulting remarks. Typical. Do you have any sources saying that the Pictish monarchs are known as Kings of Scotland?MichaelSanders22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Michael, the template only says "Monarchs over Scotland (Alba)" and it has been established that the Pictish kingdom morphed into the Scottish one. Perhaps just "Alba" should be used, since this term was used for the Pictish kingdom and the Scottish one at one time or another, but that will force many people to click a link to understand what the template is referring to. How about "Monarchs of Alba (Pictland and Scotland)"? By the way, I don't think anybody would oppose moving this template to "Template:Pictish and Scottish monarchs" if that is your concern. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the title is flawed. If the Pictish kingdom evolved into Scotland, as you say...well, it still wasn't Scotland at the time, any more than Charles the Bold is a ruler of 'Belgium'. The term 'Alba' wasn't used until the reign of Donald II, in 889-900. Nor did the Pictish monarchs rule over much of modern Scotland - the Kings of Strathclyde and Dalriada, not to mention the territorial magnates in Moray and the Isles were as significant in geographical Scotland. Furthermore, Scottish monarchs are not commonly listed as beginning before Kenneth I - to put the 'monarchs of Scotland' in the same list as the 'monarchs of the Picts' is like putting Pepin the Short and Louis XVI on the same list, because they were "Kings of the Franks and of French". The Frankish kingdom evolved into France, did it not (obviously there was Verdun, but the machinery Charles the Bald inherited was derived from old Frankland)? So would you favour one continuous list from Clovis to Louis-Philippe, because they all ruled in the geographical territory of France? I know you've expressed dismay at the idea that Pepin the Short ruled 'France' - and it is as outrageous to claim that Drest or Caustantin or Oengus ruled 'Scotland', barely a glint in a monarchical propagandist's eye. MichaelSanders23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Pictish and Scottish monarchs" at the top of the template is a very acceptable solution, as it bypasses the matters which confuse readers like Michael. Alba should be avoided being in any centrality, as anti-Gaelic editors will removed it almost instantly and suggest its inclusion is down to Gaelic nationalism. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the rest of geographical Scotland? Dalriada was a pretty important part of the region in the Middle Ages, and according to the article Dál Riata there are even suggestions that they took over the 'Kingdom of the Picts' - in which case, the monarchs of Scotland would by your logic have continuity not with Pictavia but Dalriada. What about Strathclyde, a fairly integral part of the 'Kingdom of Scotland' of David I? What about the Isles, Moray, Man? What makes Pictavia so special? MichaelSanders23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Not mentioned above, which you should know (making those assertions) but unsurprisingly don't, "Moray" is part of the heartland and territorial base of the Picto-Scottish kingdom. The only reason it's got a reputation for being distinct is that after the succession crisis post Malcolm II, it backed the losers ... though half the 10th cent. kings had been based there. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Moray was semi-independant in the early 1000s - Findlaech is called "King of Alba", so shouldn't he be on this list?) And again, you dodge the question? What about Dalriada, Strathclyde, etc? You claim that there was a continuous 'Picto-Scottish' kingdom. Your only evidence is that Kenneth MacAlpin and his immediate successors are referred to as "King of the Picts". Charlemagne called himself "King of the Lombards", was his empire part of a continuous "Lombardo-Frankish kingdom"? Should he be listed with Emperor Augustus and Constantine because he was "Emperor governing the Roman Empire"? MichaelSanders23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a very difficult point about Findlaech, though not a relevant one. It very possibly means Findlaech was claiming to be king of Alba ... but note ... he is king of Alba ... Moray is part of it. This is digressionary, but just for your info, the last of the Moray branch of the MacAlpin dynasty is Constantine III; Constantine's death without direct heir would have left the region without a candidate for the Scottish throne (which seemed to rotate between Moray and Gowrie throughout the 10th cent.) ... you'd suspect Findlaech filled that void in some way, perhaps through marriage. Anyways, speculation. RE: Dalriada, 'twas conquered by the Picts in the 8th century, about 7 decades after southern Pictland had been (re?)conquered by Fortriu from the English; the evidence appears to indicate that it became a Pictish sub-kingdom from then on, the base of Pictish dynasts ... perhaps including Cinaed and his ancestors. Don't see how that's relevant though. As you should know, I'm not claiming continuous 'Picto-Scottish' kingdom ... that's historical fact. If you wish to advance an alternate theory or resurrect an old belief, publish an article ... but per WP:OR wikipedia is not the place. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you don't provide sources. I, on the other hand did - the claim that Kenneth MacAlpin was a Gael who conquered the Kingdom of the Picts. There was no continuous 'Kingdom of the Picts', because the Picts were conquered, and whilst that is not always a barrier to continuance (e.g. 1066 England) in that particular case there wasn't a coherent enough 'kingdom' existing; just a people and a title. The Pictish monarchs ruled Pictland. Pictland was conquered by a Scot. Pictland ended. Alba began. That's the history: so what makes the Picts so special that they can be claimed as in continuity with those actually named rulers of the Kingdom of Scotland. If we're putting mythical characters such as Drest of the Hundred Battles into the same list as Mary Queen of Scots and Charles II, maybe we should ensure that Vortigern and Hengest and Horsa are on the same list as Henry VIII, eh? MichaelSanders23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've already been given sources. The only sources you have used so far are tertiary and outdated. You expect myself, Angus and others to do your reading for you; have a little self-respect: you need to take some responsibility if you want to be taken seriously as an editor. You're not dumb, so go to your university library, actually read something about the subject in proper sources (which you'll find in all the articles you've already been directed to), process the info, and come back. I'd recommend you get Woolf's From Pictland to Alba and (when it comes out this year) Fraser's From Caledonia to Pictland, read them, chase up the bibliographies, etc. You could be right in your basic suspicions, but unless you do something along those lines you're gonna be wasting your time and energy here because you're not currently able to take this anywhere. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And nor are you. You haven't given any evidence to support your assertions that the Pictish monarchs were "Kings of Scotland", that the "Kingdom of Scotland" existed either in reality or in historiographical terms prior to 843, or that there is any particular reason why either a "List of Scottish monarchs" should include people who are never, ever listed as such, or why Pictish and Scottish monarchs should be casually and clumsily lumped together in the same template. This template should reflect the list of Scottish monarchs, both that on wikipedia and that used in general. Both always begin with MacAlpin. There is no reason to include people who are never known as Scottish monarchs. If readers want to find out who were Pictish monarchs, they can go to the Pictish articles. Otherwise, they have nothing in common, except that they both ruled in Northern Britain - in which case, why not add Boudicca to the list of English monarchs, on the basis that she ruled in Southern Britain? (not England back then, of course...but then, Scotland wasn't Scotland back in the days of Drest I, either). MichaelSanders00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I will say this. "Rulers over Alba" or Scotland is historically inaccurate. Neither existed in the days of pre-Kenneth I. Thus, we have to go with historiography - which always begins monarchs of Scotland with Kenneth I. That is the accepted standard. To do otherwise creates a false impression of Scottish history, that there is some marvellous continuity between Drest of the Hundred Battles and Anne Stuart which did not in fact exist. It skews history, and it is based purely upon your personal opinion. This template should be based upon accepted common usage. Which always begins the history of the "Kingdom of Scotland" with Kenneth MacAlpin, always names him as the first monarch of "Scotland"/"Alba", and which never names any of those before as such. That is how this should be organised, not according to fictions about the proto-Scottish Picts. MichaelSanders00:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have some points worth listening to, but this last post sounds just silly. Historiography is never so universal as you imply. I stupidly said "almost always" at Talk:House of Hohenstaufen and got myself screwed. Traditional historiography does as you say, but current history makes plain that the kingdom of the Picts continued until it was the kingdom of the Scots (and it was called Alba somewhere in between). There is no danger in a template listing all such monarchs under headings that indicate what they are traditionally called, kings of Picts or Scots. The king articles are typically copiously sourced, so to call this "personal opinion" is off-base. I have moved this template to a new title which is undeniably accurate, since it avoids even suggesting that anybody calls the Pictish monarchs of the 7th century "Scottish". Srnec (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break
A source is easy. Woolf's From Pictland to Alba will tell the reader a very great deal about the latest thinking on the subject. Something less cutting edge? Foster's Picts, Gaels and Scots (2nd edition, 2004) is published for Historic Scotland, for a general audience, and corresponds more or less with the English Heritage books also published by Batsford. You'd like the traditional view of the creation of "Scotland" and a more recent one in one book? The contrasting essays by John Bannerman and Dauvit Broun in Broun & Clancy (eds) Spes Scotorum would be just the thing. An Irish-centred view of the change from Pictland to Alba in Little Ireland? Máire Herbert's paper "Rí Éirenn, Rí Alban" is available free here. The Glasgow Uni eprints server has interesting odds and ends by Steve Driscoll. Angus McLellan(Talk)00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't address the fact that this template as it stands is still incredibly clumsy. The German Empire was 'the same state' as Prussia, and has far more claims to such than Pictavia/Scotland - so would you describe the Great Elector as having 'ruled Germany'? Spain was continuous with Castile - would you list the Castilian and Spanish monarchs together? It is clumsy, and it is defiant of history and common usage, and if anything it gives an impression that you are not trying to give, that there was a break between Drest X and Kenneth I. MichaelSanders15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the template too big? It takes up less screen area than *cough* an ahnentafel, or one of those side-bar things, or many sets of succession boxes. From a purely practical point of view there's no obvious problem. The idea that two distinct templates imply continuity while one implies a break seems counter-intuitive to me. Angus McLellan(Talk)16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The German Empire was not the same state as Prussia in any way, given that Prussia was a constituent state of the German Empire, and continued to exist, with its own separate institutions, down to 1945. Also, the Kings of Prussia were also German Emperors, and a template for Kings of Prussia should obviously include the three last ones. As to Castile, I think a template which included kings of Asturias, León, Castile, and Spain would be fine - defining exactly when a "Kingdom of Spain" comes into existence is pretty difficult, and the numbering obviously continues - Alfonso I and II of Asturias, Alfonso III, IV, and V of León, VI and VII of Castile and León, VIII of Castile, IX of León, X and XI of Castile, XII and XIII of Spain, in the most notable example. john k (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The German Empire was effectively Prussia expanded - since the Prussian governmental institutions became those of the Empire, the Minister-President became the Chancellor, Prussia was the dominating force. All that changed was that some of the states Prussia had conquered got to retain a notion quasi-independence. And a mixed template along the lines of your suggestion for Iberia seems overly confusing.
No, the institutions of the North German Confederation became those of the Empire. The institutions of Prussia (Prussian army, Prussian cabinet, Prussian king) remained distinct from those of the Empire (Imperial Navy, Chancellor, Emperor), although there were commonalties in that the Prussian king was always emperor and the Prussian prime minister was almost always chancellor). The German Empire was a genuine federation of several states - it just happened that one of the states was considerably bigger than all of the others put together. But Prussia did not in any sense become the German Empire. It just didn't. I agree that a mixed template for Spain might be problematic, largely because León wasn't succeeded by Castile, but coexisted with it for two hundred years (1035-1230), with personal unions some of the time, and separate kings at others. If not for that, it would be perfectly practicable, I think. john k (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the North German Confederation was just a polite way of describing the territories Prussia conquered in the 1866 war. 'Germany' was in no real sense a federation under the Hohenzollern - it was Prussian expansionism, pure and simple, and no other German state, whether in or out of the confederation/empire had any say in the matter - consider the King of Saxony bursting into tears on the eve of the Franco-Prussian war because Bismarck refused to listen to him, or the Prussian interference in Brunswick to prevent it being inherited by the King of Hanover. The claim that the German Empire was in any sense a truly federal system won't hold up, I'm afraid. It wasn't. There has, unlike in the case of Scotland, never been any doubt that, for all the claims that it was a revival of the Imperial title that had fallen vacant in 1806, it was in reality Prussia writ large. MichaelSanders15:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not. Prussia was the (polite and impolite) way of describing the territories Prussia conquered in the 1866 war - the old Prussia+Schleswig-Holstein, Hanover, Hesse-Kassel, Nassau, and Frankfurt. The North German Confederation was the new enlarged Prussia plus a bunch of small states - Saxony, the Saxon Duchies, the Mecklenburg, Brunswick, Oldenburg, and so forth. You are conflating the de facto situation - Prussia utterly dominated the North German Confederation - with the de jure one - the North German Confederation, and the Empire after it, was a Confederation of which Prussia was a member state. To say that Prussia was the German Empire is simply wrong - Prussia was a member state of the German Empire which maintained a distinct identity. German/Prussian dualism between 1871 and 1933 was a real thing, and had meaning. I am not disputing the rather obvious fact that Prussia dominated the German Empire. Nobody would dispute that. What I am disputing is your claim that the German Empire is the same state as Prussia. This is simply false - Prussia continued to exist within the German Empire, and this distinction had real meaning, even if the distinction doesn't mean that Baden was genuinely independent after 1871. Beyond that, this is so incredibly beside the point - this is an argument about constitutional niceties and realities of power in a period about which we have copious information. The issue of the evolution of medieval kingdoms about which the sources are incredibly sparse is a lot more comlicated, and arguing about nineteenth century Germany isn't really going to help us. john k (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Fine then we'll agree to differ there). The point is here that it is an unacceptable degree of editorialising to list the Pictish and Scottish monarchs together when this is never done, particularly since the claim that the state is the same is both disputable and of dubious relevance, since such lists are compiled according to common conventions rather than misleading applications of precision. MichaelSanders15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, surely the claim that the "Scottish" monarchs from Kenneth I to Giric and Eochaid were actually Pictish monarchs is something which is done? john k (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Michael, why you expect assertions about the historgraphy to be taken seriously when you've already openly admitted you don't know much about the topic, but I see you now have the Oxford Companion to Scottish History (congrats on getting a book about Scottish history btw!). Now it doesn't have a king list, but its 5 page genealogies of Scotland's rulers, you'll notice, start with the "Dynasty of Uurguist" (father of Oengus I), so even you must know it is done. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between genealogy and monarchical succession. The Capetians would naturally appear in any work on Edward III because he had a genealogical connection with them, they'd still be separated as monarchs. MichaelSanders16:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, for the sake of the history of the region. You get the Merovingians referenced in works about France, that doesn't mean anyone calls them "Kings of France". MichaelSanders17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, seriously? Clovis was traditionally considered the first King of France in exactly the same way that Kenneth McAlpin has been considered the first king of Scotland. john k (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a bad parallel? Seems the same in both cases, one dynasty took over from another, both are traditionally represented as being separate and on either side of a water-shed even though it wasn't necessarily actually the case. The only difference is that Francia/France has the Carolingians thrown in as well, who straddle both sides of the divide and consequently are commonly chucked into both. Oh wait...that seems to be the same as the Scots. MichaelSanders17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which was why I said they should be on both lists, since they are referred to both as "King of Scots/Alba" and "King of the Picts". Whereas James VI and Drest-of-the-Hundred-Battles never turn up on a list together (James VI and Fergus Mor, on the other hand, is at least heard of outside wikipedia. There'd be more historiographical support for listing the Gaelic kings the Kings of Scots claimed continuity with in the same list as the Kings of Scots than for claiming that the Picts were crypto-Scots. MichaelSanders16:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Pictish monarchs are never called Kings of Scotland. They are never listed in continuity with the Kings of Scotland. The Scottish kings were commonly listed in common with the Kings of Dalriada, from whom they claimed descent - even as late as 1651, Charles II had the traditional ancestry reading to Fergus Mor read out. Whereas, there is no reason to list the Pictish and Scottish kings together.
Now Deacon's apparent problem is that he believes Pictland was the state that became Scotland, and therefore that it is ahistorical to list the two separately. Yet he supports the "traditional Kings of the Picts" and "traditional kings of the Scots" break in this template which reinforces the impression that the two are separate institutions (perhaps along the lines of a template of "English and Scottish monarchs), and leads those who have not reads Deacon's objections to be baffled as to why the two are listed together. What would make far more sense would be a separate Pictish template listing all those recorded as actually being called "King of the Picts", leading down to Donald II. Thus, the reader would see that men such as Kenneth MacAlpin and his immediate successors are known as both "King of the Picts" and "King of Scots", and either seek to learn more, or simply not be surprised if ever seeing a casual reference to Kenneth as being "King of the Picts". Meanwhile, the Scottish template would begin as traditional with MacAlpin. Two templates together would be far more versatile, because the strange situation of Kenneth &c could be indicated, the overlap shown, without us using this template in its current form, which simultaneously fabricates a history of a continuous "Scotland" and confirms the idea Deacon objects to, of Kenneth as first King of Scots. MichaelSanders09:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol ... fabricates. Anyways, just thought you might like this Old Irish poem (perhaps written for the king in question)
Good the day when Óengus took Alba,
hilly Alba with its strong chiefs;
he brought battle to palisaded towns,
with feet, with hands, with broad shields
It prolly refers to Oengus I, though it could refer to Oengus II, but no matter, they're both Pictish kings. But ... Alba ... oops ... Alba ... what does that mean? Pictland ... Scotland .... Britain .... how can we decide ... (computer voice) must fit anachronistic terminology at expense of historical understanding ... must .... must. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a poem that says Oengus took 'Alba', either meaning Britain, in which case, what's your point, or Scotland, in which case that indicates that 'Alba' definitely existed in the time of MacAlpin which you dispute...am I supposed to be convinced by this? MichaelSanders16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? The King of the Picts conquered Scotland...even though he'd been dead a few years? What do you expect a reference to a Pictish king taking Alba in a time when 'Alba' was not, supposedly, used to refer to the Kingdom of the Alpins, to prove? MichaelSanders17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm ... precisely the opposite of what you believe and have spent so much time making assertions on. Alba is Pictland, and now for all its little relevance, Pictland is not Scotland in modern English, but Alba is. Just thought it'd interest you. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're claiming on the basis of a poem that "Alba" existed in the time of Oengus I/II? And I'm not supposed to take this as an attempt to portray the Picts as proto-Scots? MichaelSanders17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Alba is used. The poem's there for you to read. The idea that Alba wasn't used like that until the 9th cent. is partially based on the Kenneth myth ... somewhat circular. There's a horde of references to Pictland as Alba which purport to date from earlier. This is just a FYI point btw. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And 'Francia' is used of (a part of) Gaul prior to 843, doesn't mean we can term it 'France' or claim it is the same state. Continuity of name usage does not always mean continuity of a state...just ask Augustus, 'Princeps of the Roman Republic'. MichaelSanders17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hunting though for any decent argument that there was no continuity in state, or evidence that any contemporary historian still thinks Kenneth MacAlpin created a "new state" ... however that could ever be proved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The modern study of early medieval Scotland really began with W.F. Skene's Celtic Scotland: A History of Ancient Alban [3 vols; 1876-1880]... he has cast a long shadow over the subject and is well worth revisiting. Among modern works, pride of place is probably held by A.A.M. Duncan's Scotland: the Making of the Kingdom from 1975. This book covers the whole period from the Romans to 1286 and necessarily covers some subjects more briefly than it might otherwise have done. It also came out just before the great leap forward in the criticism of early Celtic sources which occurred in the late 1970s and 1980s. The first text book of Scottish history to benefit from this revolution was Alfred Smyth's Warlords and Holy Men. This is an exciting book which stimulated a generation of students and scholars but it is also something of a curate's egg, Smyth pursuing his own interests, on the one hand, and under-researching other areas. To some extent this is a danger for all history books and will doubtless be a criticism of the present volume. Mention should also be made of Ben Hudson's Kings of Celtic Scotland ... ." (Woolf, "Guide to Further Reading", Pictland to Alba, pp. 353–356 at p. 353). Angus McLellan(Talk)19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woolf again. Why am I not surprised? Wikipedia does not exist purely to extol the virtues of Alex Woolf. We do actually need to use more than one source, and more than one historian. Imagine if Carolingian history was written purely based on what Janet Nelson had to say...I shudder. MichaelSanders19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation suggested Skene, Duncan, Smyth and Hudson for starters. I haven't read Skene, and a quick read-through of Kings of Celtic Scotland left me extremely puzzled, perhaps even incredulous, so I'll be grateful for your insights. Did you get to read Herbert's paper yet? Angus McLellan(Talk)20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't; I'll look it up on Jstor over the weekend. As for the others referenced...I was under the impression that Skene was the originator of the revolution of Scottish history, and that he favoured the nuanced view of making what the primary sources say about Kenneth agree with the lack of mention in the Irish annals of any major upheaval at the time that would be expected from a genocidal 'conquest'. And the quote suggests that Duncan held to those views, which were still in full force in the 70s. I'll try to find Skene, but if Skene is recommended, shouldn't we use him? MichaelSanders20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skene wrote Celtic Scotland 130 years ago towards the end of his writing life. He's the equivalent of all those Victorian medievalists like Stubbs, Kemble, Round, &c. Lots of good ideas, yes, but overtaken by a great deal of research since and not safely used in the raw as the stuff of encyclopedia articles. As for Archie Duncan, he says this in Kingship of the Scots (2002), following mentions of invasions and MacAlpin's Treason, &c: "Recent scholars, however, have offered an alternative view reducing the catastrophic nature of Cinaed's accession by emphasising the usage of annalists, presumably contemporary, wherein kings from 842 to 878 are 'king of the Picts' and only in 900 is Domnall II at his death 'king of Alba'. This does not tell us how Cinaed became king, but it does suggest a continuity which is more believable than the slaughter legend, especially if Alba is indeed a Pictish name." (at p. 9). Regarding Str1977's comment below, whether one takes Kenneth to be a Gaelic king from some nameless Dál Riatan kingdom, or to be a Pictish or Gaelic underking or mormaer in Argyll, makes no difference. Bannerman and Smyth, for example, take later Pictish kings to be Dál Riatan in any case (descended from Áed Find's brother), while Broun, Clancy, et al, have Dál Riata subject to Pictland in the early ninth century. Kenneth doesn't - can't - "unite" the Picts and Scots because they have already been forcibly "united" by Pictish kings, perhaps themselves of Dál Riatan origin, perhaps not, off and on for a century before. Angus McLellan(Talk)21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For once I agree with Sanders. There should one template for Pictish Kings, one for Scottish Kings. If necessary, the two can be displayed next to each other but this here creates a false continuity, as Kenneth merged two lines of Kings to coninue as Scotland. Str1977(talk)21:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the whole point, so far as I can gather, that Angus and Deacon are making is that more recent scholarship suggests that the idea that Kenneth merged two lines of Kings to continue as Scotland is entirely unfounded. The contemporary evidence suggests, instead, a continuity from the earlier kings of the Picts, through Kenneth and his successors, to Donald II and Constantine II and their successors. Right? john k (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I must admit that such controversies were unknown to me and that my knowledge of the whole subject is not that deep. Therefore I will bow out from the discussion. Str1977(talk)00:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to me to be the gist of Archie Duncan's comment quoted above: "... it does suggest a continuity which is more believable ...". Having said that, it's hard to imagine that Drest (I) son of Erp, he who won a hundred battles (that might remind us of Conn of the Hundred Battles, legendary ancestor of the Uí Néill, but that can only be coincidence surely), if he existed, had anything in common with kings after the collapse of Northumbrian power in the north. Angus McLellan(Talk)22:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And doesn't Drest son of Erp just remind one of Fergus son of Erc (the P-Q thingie ;) )? Prolly Bridei, son of Beli is the first Pictish monarch to resemble a later Scottish king in territorial extent. It may be argued at some stage in the future ... I'm not sure ... that many of the earlier kings come from king lists of the northern and southern Picts being conflated. Whether that will happen or no, Galam Cennalath is the first historical Pictish king; there's an argument by Fraser on the VSC ("Adomnán, Cumméne Ailbe and the Picts") that argues or implies that Columba originally targeted the southern Picts, but when the VSC was rewritten, the north got more emphasis because at the time it dominated northern Britain. The most important thing to understand about this period is that the vast majority of the literature for pre-Viking Britain comes from a small number of sources written in the late 7th/early 8th century. What counted then, counted forever so to speak. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All rather a mess, then. Perhaps it would be best just not to have any template at all? What good do they do, anyway, that a succession box and a link to a list article cannot? john k (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In their favour they take up little more space than succession boxes, are no more visually intrusive, don't invite undue precision regarding dates, or an excess of detail on titles and dynasties. One could ask the same question of monarch infoboxes, sidebar dynastic templates, ahnentafels, and succession boxes too. All the information should be in the article text. But ooh! shiny! chrome makes Wikipedia look professional. After all, real encyclopedias are chock full of completely uninformative "it was all we could find" pictures and standardised layout summary boxes. Ah, wait a minute ... A template is an easy way to get an idea of where ruler X fits in the scheme of things. Other than that, I can't think of any resounding arguments in their favour, but the same is true of all the other chrome I mentioned, so my view could be rather on the extreme side. I'd have no problem with a general purge of template frippery, but why start here? Angus McLellan(Talk)00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this page is anything to go by, they take up far more time than they're worth. I personally find them most useful as an editor, the ease of navigation they offer. They also of course pretty it up, though like Angus implied these things don't always help get across the finer historical points. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just say, in response to Angus's question, that the reason to start here is that we're having a hard time coming up with a particularly good way to do this particular template. I might alternately suggest a template starting from Donald II. john k (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irish assistance (another rather arbitrary section break)
Well, like you say, on and off - Dal Riata had broken away from Pictland several times, the latest certain being Aed Find in 778; the evidence of the Irish sending help to the Dalriatans in the 830s would indicate that they were certainly not 'united' with the Picts, and this is borne out by the later claim that Kenneth was King of Dal Riata only from c.839-843 before becoming king of the Picts - which would accord with the defeat of the Picts by the Danes in 839, which would have weakened them (thus the Scandic settlements in the later 9th century...the Picts and Scots being too weakened to do much about it). Even if the later Pictish kings were Dalriadans, the two peoples were not united. Whereas, there is no reason to suppose that either party broke away from their allegiance to the kings following MacAlpin's ascension, however that came about. MichaelSanders21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Irish assistance" is likely fake. The good Professor O Corráin told me so: "That guy is not genuine. See my review of Bannerman's Dal Riata in Celtica 13 (1980) 177-78." I don't think Celtica is available online anywhere. Woolf's paper, which says the same thing at greater length, is linked from Gofraid mac Fergusa. Clan Donald rewriting history? Surely not. Angus McLellan(Talk)22:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Angus, you daren't mention Gofraid mac Fergusa ... we all know Woolf is a nutter. Sanders, here's a quote from another POV-pushing ORer, Dauvit Broun, (Scottish independence, p. 72), taking about the MacAlpin myth:
"The only part of this narrative, however, which has been found in a source capable of passing the basic test of acceptability as a witness to what may or may not have happened in this period, is that there was a kings of the Picts who was called Cinaed son of Ailpin at his death in 858 ... The particular problem with the oft-repeated view of Cinaed as 'uniting Picts and Scots' is not simply that it is unsupported by any surviving evidence, but that it runs counter to what is found in the Irish chronicles."
He may be as crazy as that POV-pusher Woolf, but you have to recognise that both have had works put through printing presses and receive salaries from senior British universities. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Political POV
To claim that the Scots - foreign invaders from Ireland - have any right to the Pictish heritage is just as insulting as claiming that the English - foreign invaders from Jutland - have any right to the British heritage. TharkunColl (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know. It's almost as bad as claiming those Normans have right to the English heritage, like all those OR POV-pushers on wikipedia do. dnehhhhhprqqqmaqahhnahh as the Picts would say! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Template should be split into Template: Pictish monarchs & Template: Scottish monarchs. The Picts were the only predecessors to the Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been nice to ahve starteed this discussion befoer you made your edits however I think you'll find that most people can quite easily understand that there is a link there. If you don't want to do that change the band colours to a lighter shade of the colours already being used. Electrobe (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in that article about tamplates and I'm allowed to accuse people of vandalism if I beleive thay are. If we werent allowed to accuse anyone of vandalism then we wouldn't ever be allowed to revert any vandalism no matter what the vandalism ws. Electrobe (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split the Template
This Template needs to be split into Template:Pictish monarchs & Template:Scottish monarchs. The Picts weren't the only predecessors to the Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Please at least make reference to the previous extensive discussion. Kenneth MacAlpin and his successors were Pictish monarchs who are styled Scottish monarchs only by a modern convention that has now disappeared in scholarship. They called themselves "king of Alba", which meant then "king of Pictland" but now means "king of Scotland", and so on. This has already been very extensively discussed, it didn't come about randomly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is based on a misunderstanding. The Scottish kingdom c. 900 is not a composite kingdom, it is just the Picts. Neither Dalriada, Strathclyde, Galloway, or the English south-east form part of the kingdom until the mid-11th century, and the kingdom does not change its name on account of this. This is what happens in England, not what happens in Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider the Picts as the sole predecessors of Kenneth's? at least 're-name' the Template to Tempalte: Scottish monarchs. Notice we don't have the Pictish & Scottish monarchs articles 'merged'. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are convenient and the problems can be explained in text. They can't in the template, and there is simply nothing to be gained in the template from forcing an artificial split. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would imply a contradiction, which there isn't. Please ask yourself GoodDay what the benefits of such a split would be. You seem to be assuming there's some other reason why splitting is beneficial, but you haven't communicated why splitting them would make this encyclopedia better. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This follows arguments made that the Scots are the direct successors to the Picts. I've created a new template, Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs, which attempts to place English, Scottish and British monarchs in one easily navigatable template, reflecting the continuity between English and Scottish monarchs and the current Royal Family. Right now, the template isn't in use, and doesn't include any Picts. It does however include Anglo-Saxon monachs, from Alfred the Great onwards. Would it be acceptable to place the Picts in the new template, and make this template a redirect to the new larger template? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you guys have got two much time on your hands. I suppose this is a response to the push to have English and British monarchs in the same template. I think this carries it too far. What about Northumbrian monarchs, Gwynedd monarchs, and so on? I think the UK has one core predecessor state, England. It has lots of non-core predecessor states, of which Scotland is but one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are adequately distinguishing between technicality and reality. For modern times we give technicalities weight as they are important in our society, but when it's that far back we tend to see them as they are. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't want to get into a big dicussion about the nature of the creation of the United Kingdom. But unlike, say, Northumbria, Scotland has a strong national identity, which exists today. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and while I respect revisionist history, the average person takes the Act of Union at face value. Above all, a template should be inclusive. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to go along with Deacons argument. It is rather far fetched in the extreme to say that a king of the Picts was a predecessor of the British Monarchy. Jack forbes (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictish monarchs werer predecessors to the Scottish monarchs. Scottish monarchs were predecessors to the British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irregardless of the how continuity thing, which I'm not a big fan of, it's just useful to have them all in one place. A user looking at this template on Wikipedia would find it easy to navigate from Picts to Scots, and Scots to British. I'm going to be away by the way, for a few days. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
