Talk:List of Irish royal consorts

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Queens of Leinster

The queens consort of Leinster should be included.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making a list of queens of petty Irish kingdoms but then I stuck with the lack of informations.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies of Ireland

Do not remove the Ladies of Ireland? It was a legitimate title used by the consorts of the rulers of Ireland from 1171–1541. This articles title was originally List of Irish consorts meaning all Irish consorts included not just the Queens of Ireland. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about pretty much your own thing, an obsession with a title, so start a new article for all of that. DinDraithou (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All consorts are just spouses with titles and no power what so ever. You are comparing this list to the List of Irish monarchs. I'll leave the arguement about the Ladies of Ireland for another time. But why did you exclude Catherine Parr just because her husband was this quasi-official monarchs you speak of? Why would Europe need to recognize anything that the King of England did or the creation of a new kingdom and a new title? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Irish society was male dominated, women had their own wealth and were involved in governance. They could make their own deals and so on. The spouse of a lord or king, even if he might have two (a number did), was not an unpowerful person. Women could also be (court) judges, like we have today. Gaelic society is confusing though because descent from an ancestor, in the medieval period, only counted if it was male line. Also a woman still belonged to her father's family in a variety of ways. DinDraithou (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aerticle is clearly limited to monarchs. Despite the attempt of User:Queen Elizabeth II to sneak in "ruler" as well, the scope does not include "ruler". Many tyrants have ruled foreign lands, that does not make them monarchs of those lands. In the Lordship of Ireland period, no monarch reigned over the entire land, either Gaelic or English. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By what definition are the Lords of Ireland not Irish monarchs? Originally, when this article was created by me, the Lords of Ireland and Henry VIII and Edward VI were recognized as Monarchs of Ireland and their wife by extension Consorts of Ireland Catherine Parr was Queen consort of Ireland and 19 Queens of England who were also Ladies of Ireland and Isabel, Countess of Gloucester who was merely a titleless consort. What sources say these individual can't be monarchs? You two seem to believe that monarchy can only be rule by a king or an emperor. But "A monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is passed down to an individual (usually hereditary) known as a monarch ("single ruler")." Lordships, counties, duchies and principalities are also monarchies rule by monarchs. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying arguement are the Lords of Ireland monarchs and if Henry VIII was an Irish monarch. See Talk:List of Irish monarchs#Lords of Ireland and Talk:List of Irish monarchs#Henry VIII of England.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep restoring this nonsense I'll nominate the article for deletion. You probably don't know this, but these are widely considered garbage-type articles. They serve no purpose. DinDraithou (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to stop. Stop reverting and removing without any good reasons. I am greatly offended. All my edits are center on your so call "garbage-type articles". Just try to nominate it for deletion. This is my last revert because I don't want to break the 3 revert rule, but just please stop. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically these are children's-book type pieces which are misleading and unencyclopedic. They don't help anyone, except for maybe childlike adults. Articles with actual discussion help people who might matter. Start doing something else. When I get the chance I will ask about getting this either deleted or split up. DinDraithou (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks at Talk:List of Irish monarchs#Needless duplication of text apply equally here. In this case (apparently) the distinction between lords and kings doesn't matter, so all that's needed is to say "From 1177 to 1800 English or British consorts were also deemed to be Irish consorts", with appropriate links. Notwithstanding that I would agree with DinDraithou that the thing should just be deleted. Scolaire (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the merits in a list of the consorts of Ireland from Gaelic to British, however actual lists with wiki-links would work best to prevent duplication of data. Though obviously in the case of the red-linked Gaelic ones, the information can still be provided for them. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These comments by DinDraithou and Scolaire echo something I've thought for a while, and have prompted me to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of consorts of X, though there are many articles like this and the Irish one's not on there yet. Opera hat (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can this one be added, perhaps with a note? The AfD is less than 24 hours old. Scolaire (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be kept & re-named List of Irish consorts. Furthermore, the Kingdom of Ireland must not be treated as a province of the Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Great Britain. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Male consorts

This isn't my subject, but Mary's husband Philip was also a consort.Red Hurley (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No he was her co-monarch. He was King of Ireland.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

Much of this list is the same as List of English consorts and List of British consorts. After all the Lordship of Ireland was not really an all island state and both the Lordship and Kingdom of Ireland were subject to the English and then British Crowns, and after the union of Ireland with Great Britian part of the same Kingdom. So why is this only practiced for Northern Ireland? Tinynanorobots (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consort

I suggest that a separate page is created for the definition of 'consorts'. Such a page could explore the historical and regional differences associated with consorts such as ruling authority and inheritance and the like. This impacts not just Ireland but other regions and the present day as well as historically. JEM1406a (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Consort disambiguation page that links to Queen consort, Prince consort and the rarely used King consort and Princess consort. If you think those articles lack anything (all of them lack sources) you could edit them appropriately. Scolaire (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1800/1 Union and subsequent developments

The article currently says 'Between 1171 and 1541 the Kings of England were styled Lords of Ireland; for a list of their consorts, see List of English consorts from Isabella of Angoulême to Catherine Howard. The Crown of Ireland Act 1542 declared Henry VIII of England and his successors to be Kings of Ireland; for a list of their consorts, see List of English consorts from Catherine Parr onwards, and List of British consorts.' For completeness, I suggest that it should record the change which occurred in 1800/1, and continue something like 'and List of British consorts. That page also covers consorts after a Proclamation made under the Acts of Union 1800 made George III and his successors Kings of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, after a Proclamation made under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 changed the royal style to 'of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas King', and after a Proclamation made under the Royal Titles Act 1953 changed the royal style to 'of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen'.Alekksandr (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the Act of Union is different to that of anybody else who ever edited this or related pages. The assumption has always been that the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was monarch of Great Britain and monarch of Ireland. Hence List of British monarchs and List of British consorts. I'm not saying that your interpretaion is wrong, but you might want to run it past WikiProject Ireland first. Scolaire (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - are you saying that the assumption has been that: -

1. In 1707 the monarch of the Kingdom of England and the monarch of the Kingdom of Scotland ceased to be such and became monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain?

2. In 1800/1 the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the monarch of the Kingdom of Ireland did not cease to be such on becoming monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland?

IOW, the United Kingdom of Great Britain was an intermediate stage between (1) the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland and (2) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So whether you feel that the correct style is (1) the various original constituent kingdoms or (2) the final title, I suggest that 'monarch of [the United Kingdom of] Great Britain' is not the correct style. Alekksandr (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, I am not taking any position on this myself. I am merely pointing out that there exists on Wikipedia a List of British monarchs and a List of British consorts. They pick up from the lists of English and Scottish monarchs, both of which end in 1707, and continue to the present. List of monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland merely redirects to List of British monarchs. If you think this is wrong, the logical place to argue your case is the List of British monarchs talk page, or WikiProject United Kingdom. Arguing it here on a page that nobody looks at is pointless. Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - for completeness, I interpret the word 'British' as inter alia 'pertaining to the UKOGB' 'pertaining to the UKOGBAI' and 'pertaining to the UKOGBANI'. Ukogban, Ukogbaian and Ukogbanian do not have quite the same ring to them. I am not sure that, as you suggest, 'the assumption has always been that the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was monarch of Great Britain' i.e. that the position of monarch of GB survived the 1800/1 union. Alekksandr (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the lists, going up to the present day, proves that that was the assumption on Wikipedia. That's all I ever said. Scolaire (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]