KINGS AND KINGSHIP (Medieval Ireland)

Medieval Ireland was marked by the existence of dozens of kingdoms, each ruled by a king who in the early medieval period was technically the highest nobleman in the tuath. Most kings were subject to over kings, who were the policy-makers of the time. They based their authority over other lords and kings on ties of blood relationship and alliance. The integrity of such alliances partially depended on the power and personal qualities of the over king. The ruling kindreds of the Irish kingdoms were often caught between the forces of internal division and outward stability. The rule of inheritance and succession stimulated competition among relatives and expansion by the kindred’s branches. Yet it also gave the kindred as a whole a measure of stability and flexibility, as the kindred hardly ever died out in the male line. Several royal dynasties remained in control of an area for many centuries.

Historical Roots

The historical roots of Irish kingship are still debated. It has been argued that pagan sacral kings, who ruled over tribes, were replaced by aristocratic kings, who ruled over kindreds in the period of the coming of Christianity and the rise of expansionist dynasties. The most ancient collective names are those only found in the plural (such as Laigin and Ulaid), and names ending in -r(a)ige, from -rigion (kingdom), such as Ciarraige and Osraige. These are held to express a tribal feeling, since they are connected to matters such as human characteristics, totem animals, or deities. Yet such "tribes" may well have been ruled by certain families, as they were among the continental Celts in the first centuries b.c. and a.d. This impression is sustained by names ending in the collective -ne (such as Conaill(n)e, Conmaicne), or containing the element moccu (seed) or the related formula (MAQ(Q)I) MUCOI found on ogam-stones. These names appear in connection with a personal name, either an ancestral deity or a human forefather. They may point to the existence of aristocratic families within small communities, at least from the fifth century b.c. onward. The rise of the aristocracy is difficult to date, but its development may have caused the demise of sacral kingship, as it did in ancient Greece and Rome. The ideology of sacral kingship remained a feature in the exercise of aristocratic kingship in the medieval period. A sacral king was regarded as the mediator between the kingdom and the supernatural world. This bond was forged by a sacred marriage between the king and the goddess of the territory, who was thus rejuvenated. A good king enjoyed divine favor; a bad king risked divine wrath by tempests, diseases, and criminal offspring. Hence it was expected that he ruled wisely, did not break the "ruler’s truth" (fir flaithemon) or his "taboos" (gessi), and remained unblemished. Aspects of sacral kingship were continued in the medieval period in inauguration rituals and in political ideology, where they were appropriately Christianized and applied to all secular and ecclesiastical rulers.


Ireland circa 1100.

Ireland circa 1100.

Royal Duties

At around the eighth century there were probably over one hundred territories that were ruled by a ri tuaithe (king of a people or territory). Although the title ri means literally "king," the holder was essentially the highest nobleman of the tuath. He held the main nobility of the tuath in clientship; they owed him tribute and support in exchange for protection and representation. Together with the bishop and the master-poet, the king had the highest status in the territory. A person’s status was expressed by his honor price, which determined his legal rights and entitlements. This hierarchical aspect of early Irish society was balanced by an egalitarian approach to responsibilities. Anyone who neglected to fulfill his duties or acted contrary to his status risked losing his honor price if he did not make amends. Serious or structural abuse could incur permanent loss of honor price, and hence loss of authority. A king’s power was thus not absolute, but sensitive to his public behavior and deeds. It followed that any responsible position had to be filled by the most suitable person. Hence the nobility and royal kindred chose the candidate who was considered best qualified to carry out the royal functions. These functions included representing the people in external matters, such as dealing with other kings in times of war and peace, and maintaining internal order, including acting as judge in serious matters. As a leader of the people, the king hosted a yearly assembly (oenach), had a council (airecht; later oireacht) with members of the secular and ecclesiastical elite, and conferred with other kings at a meeting (dal). He had a number of servitors to support him in his office, such as a steward, messenger, judge, and champion.

Succession

According to theory, the headship of a royal or noble kindred was due the most suitable person in regard to descent, age, and abilities. When the head of a kindred died, and he had no other near relatives, his oldest son succeeded him. The land of the father was divided among his legitimate sons in equal shares. The oldest son received the extra share that was attached to the headship of the kindred, and had the right to represent his brothers in external affairs. After him, the other sons succeeded according to age. The oldest son was normally considered the most experienced candidate, as long as he was the son of a betrothed wife or concubine, and fit to take the burden of lordship in regard to his physical, mental, economic and political qualifications. If not, a more suitable junior candidate could be chosen instead. If two candidates were equally qualified, they would have to cast lots. In practice, such matters were often resolved by internal struggle or by negotiation, by which a senior candidate could relinquish his claims in exchange for certain privileges. No candidate had an absolute right to the succession, not even the tanaise rig. Daughters had no permanent right to kin-land, and heiresses could not pass on kin-land to their offspring. Hence, outsiders could not take the headship of a family that had died out in the male line by marrying an heiress, as became common in medieval Europe. When a lineage died out, their land reverted to their male next-of-kin. This catered to stability within the Irish dynasties in the long run, but division of the kin-land and collateral succession often resulted in temporary fragmentation of the kindred’s assets and political power.

Dynastic Kingship

In theory, the descendants of the sons of a lord alternated in the headship of the kindred, as long as they were duly qualified. In practice, those who—for whatever reason—were passed over for the succession were often unable to attract sufficient clients to maintain noble status for several generations. Their descendants became commoners and clients of their more fortunate relatives. This fate could be avoided by joining the ranks of the poets or clerics, or by competing successfully for power. In order to relieve internal pressure and extend the domination of the kindred, a ruler could install brothers or sons as rulers over neighboring client-peoples. The new noble or royal branches thus created remained part of the same kindred, and nominally subject to an over king as their common head. The over kingship was often contested by the leaders of the most powerful branches of the kindred, and this often led to destructive succession struggles. An over king who was disobeyed raided the territory of his errant subkings, in order to drive off their cattle as tribute or to take their hostages as guarantees for future obedience. Internal warfare could weaken the kindred as a whole, with the succession erratically being taken by this branch or that. Usually, one or two branches came out on top and subjugated all others. Yet within a few generations the winning branch would itself be split up into rival lineages, and the whole cycle would start anew. This process remained typical for Irish dynastic kingship until the end of the Gaelic order in the decades around 1600.

Over Kingships

The importance of blood relationship for claims of submission and tribute is reflected in the Irish political nomenclature. The ruling dynasties are all named after a legendary or historical ancestor, whose name is preceded by a term expressing kinship, such as Corco (seed), Dal (division), Clann (children), Cenel (kindred), Sil (seed), and Uf (grandsons or descendants). All those who recognized the same ancestor were politically tied together. Certain dynasties were, by mutual consent or a procured relationship, held to be related. This is reflected in the Old-Irish word cairdes, which means "kinship" and by extension, "friendship." A powerful over king could claim that others were his relatives, and thus claim authority over them. Genealogical bonds expressed political bonds, hence the importance of the recording of genealogy in the medieval sources. The law tracts of around 700 recognize a hierarchy of kings of a tuath, kings of several tuatha, and the provincial kings. The provincial king ruled not only a powerful dynasty but also a defined territory that he habitually dominated, named a coiced (literally "fifth"). A king of Ireland only existed on a theoretical basis, as no dynasty had been able to rule Ireland permanently.

Political Structure

Already before the eighth century the over kingships had begun to dissolve the tuath as the basic sociopolitical unit. Most of the Irish petty kings were subject to an over king, and many were hardly independent rulers. The power of the over kings over their dynasties and neighboring kings increased in time, and about a dozen were of major consequence. The Uf Neill ruled in Mide, Brega, and The North (In Tuasceirt); the Uf Briuin and Uf Fhiachrach in Connacht; the Uf Meic Uais and Uf Chremthainn in Airgialla; the Dal Fiatach and Dal nAraidi in Ulster; the Uf Dunlainge and Uf Chennselaig in Leinster; and the Eoganachta in Munster. Until the tenth century the over kings of the Uf Neill and the Eoganachta dominated Ireland, and claimed suzerainty over Leth Cuinn and Leth Moga, respectively. This division of Ireland is named after Conn Cetchatach, the legendary forefather of the Connachta, Uf Neill, and Airgialla, and his alleged contemporary Mug Nuadat, ancestor of the Eoganachta. The kings of Tara came to overpower the kings of Ulster and Leinster as well. Hence Mael-Muru Othna (d. 887) attaches the Laigin and Ulaid (Dal Fiatach) to those who shared a common ancestor with the Uf Neill in his poem on the Irish invasion myth. A few kings of Tara, from Mael-Sechnaill I (ruled 846-862) onward, took hostages of the kings of Cashel and claimed to be kings of Ireland. Internal rivalry and losses against the Vikings were among the factors by which the Eoganachta and Uf Neill fell apart in the tenth century.

Later Developments

The career of Brian Boru (d. 1014) marked the end of the domination of the Eoganachta and Uf Neill. This gave other dynasties the opportunity to rise to power. Notable kings were now given the honorary title "high king" (ard-ri), a term subsequently used to denote the kings of Tara of old. This gave rise to the anachronistic notion of a high kingship of Ireland. In the new political order that ensued the leading families were Mac Murchada (Uf Chennselaig) in Leinster, Mac Carthaig (Eoganacht Caisil) in Desmond, Ua Briain (Dal Cais) in Thomond, Ua Conchobair (Uf Briuin Ai) in Connacht, Ua Ruairc (Uf Briuin Breifne) in the northern Midlands, and Ua Domnaill (Cenel Conaill), Ua Neill, and Mac Lochlainn (Cenel nEogain) in the North. Apart from Mac Lochlainn, they remained powerful from around 1150 to 1600, which testifies to the resilience of the main Irish dynasties. These families also had the tendency to extend their domination by planting branches on neighboring territories. After the Anglo-Norman invasion there was an increasing development toward the exercise of lordship among feudal lines, but on the whole Gaelic tendencies persevered. These included the donation of tuarastal and the impositions of coshering and coyne and livery. Internal rivalry, raiding, hostage-taking, and fluctuations in alliances and power remained characteristic for the Gaelic lordships. This hampered the implementation of the English sur-render-and-regrant policy in the decades around 1600, by which the Irish kings and lords were recreated as English earls and barons, with the promise to follow English law and custom. In the end, the Irish royal families died out, lost power, or their chiefs went abroad, and few managed to keep up their noble stature.

Next post:

Previous post: