Talk:Edward Bruce

Does the anonymous user have any reasons for their deletion of the bit about King Haakon? PatGallacher 22:05, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

I don't know, I wrote most of this article (except for a few parts) and that surprised me too.

- It seems like most of this article has been redone and shortened signiicantly! Why?

- Edward Bruce as a High King of Ireland is extremely questionable.

This article is appalling. Hope my revised version (comeing up next) helps to elucidate its subject and the issues in his life, especially concerning Ireland. Fergananim 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, The statement in "Invitation to the Throne" that most of the Irish lords accepted Edward's claim to the high kingship contradicts the view of the BBC History website which states that most of the Irish lords did not support his claim.

Secondly, the statement in the "Historical aftermath" section that after 1607 all subsequent Irish nationalist leaders favoured an independent Irish republic is dubious, as I am unaware of any Irish nationalist leader, between 1607 and the late eighteenth century, who favoured a republic . It is more accurate to say that subsequent Irish nationalist leaders favoured Jacobitism until the late eighteenth century.

Dogtooth (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have to say this page is a very poor contribution to the life of an important figure in the history of medieval Scotland and Ireland. The point about his marriage, to take one small example, is ludicrously funny, unintentionally so, I imagine. So, he 'may or may not' have been married prior to his death? From this I draw the inevitable inference that he could have been married after his death. On a more serious point, there is virtually no analysis of his military career-and political importance-in Scotland prior to his arrival in Ireland. I intend to rewrite the whole page, unless someone else beats me to it. Rcpaterson 23:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree, the content on his supposed marriages is confused and apparently not based on good sources. I propose to reduce content about his family life to his one illegitimate son who I think is reasonably documented, can anyone improve this? PatGallacher (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

This page indicates that after his death, Edward was quartered and his body dispersed throughout Ireland with his head being sent to Edward II of England. Further along the page, it is noted that his body is buried in Faughart. Which is it? I have stood at that graveside; is he under that capstone or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokersgiddygrin (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Out of curiosity when he crowned himself High King of Ireland was he actually able to exert any real control over the country, like Brian Boru or was he just the last in a long line up of self declared High Kings who were never able to achieve any significant political or military power in Ireland?

Hugh O'Neill declared himself High King.

I think it would be a nice note to include in the article the irony of inviting Edward the Bruce to invade Ireland and attack the Anglo-Normans and then declaring him High-King of Ireland especially when he himself was of Norman descent. Essentially they just hope to replace the Anglo-Normans with a Scoto-Norman. Mabuska (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, Edward's maternal grandfather Niall was probably the daughter of Niall Ruadh Ó'Neill, brother of the king of Tir Eoghain and aspirant to the high-kingship. Aside from that, Edward was probably fostered among the Ó'Neill as a child, and his family, though of Norman origin in terms of agnatic prejudice, were highly Gaelicized. We have a fault of seeing families as only representative of the line of the father's father's father['s and so on], but biologically Edward had as much "blood" from Fergus of Galloway and Áed in Macáem Tóinlesc as from Robert I de Brus, all great-great-great grandfathers. Doesn't mean it went that way culturally, but it's something to ponder on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the image in the infobox should depict the subject of the article. This view stems at least partially from MOS:LEADIMAGE, which says: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...." An image of a tombstone does not represent or specifically illustrate the topic because the topic is a person, not a grave or a death. And then: "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." But eh, the article has much bigger problems than this. Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply