From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
What exactley does the following statement mean: "He has traditionally been counted as a king of Scotland, although modern historiography counts kings in his time as kings of the Picts"? Srnec 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- It means the same as the discussion "first king of Scots ?" at Kenneth I of Scotland, but I've removed it because it isn't necessary to repeat the argument here. As the Giric of Scotland page explains, there is more than one piece of evidence for "King Girich". I hope this one makes clear how little evidence there is for "King Eochaid" and how shaky that evidence is. I did a little "popular opinion" test just now, and I see that Eochaid, while still mentioned in the text and appearing in the dubious pdf family tree, is no longer listed as a king here (www.royal.gov.uk) (check the drop down list box). So far as I can tell, Archie Duncan has had the last word. I suppose the next opinion we'll get will be that of Alex Woolf, when From Pictland to Alba is published next year, unless there's a paper in the works somewhere, or unless I missed something in a journal somewhere, which is likely enough as I don't have access to any relevant journals.
- The dating of the solar eclipse to June 885, which rather spoils the 889 end of reign date, I don't recall where that came from. Looking at the NASA lists, there were no other total eclipses which appeared to be relevant. There was a partial eclipse in April 889 which would allow the 889 date to be retained, but that would be for the footnotes, if there were any. The article inevitably contains my spin, but no original research. The only dubious point is the commonly made, but unverified, claim that Niall Glúndub married Eochaid's daughter. Had that been restricted to genealogy websites, I wouldn't have included it. However, I found a mention of it on the Scottish Place-Name Society site, so in it went. It would be nice to know its origins. Please let me know if there's anything else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This history can be quite confusing: especially for those not completely unfamiliar with it, but far from well-read in it. If he is usually (or traditionally) called "king of Scotland" in English, this should be there alongside a short clarification stating that the title did not then exist and he was actually a "king of the Picts" if king at all. Just the two cents of someone trying to understand this. Srnec 20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
