KINGS AND KINGSHIP
names ending in -r(a)ige, from -rigion(kingdom),
such as Cíarraige 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 continen-
tal Celts in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. This impres-
sion 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
centuryB.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 king-
ship 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” (fír 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.
Royal Duties
At around the eighth century there were probably over
one hundred territories that were ruled by a rí túaithe
(king of a people or territory). Although the title rí
means literally “king,” the holder was essentially the
highest nobleman of the túath. He held the main nobil-
ity of the túathin clientship; they owed him tribute
and support in exchange for protection and represen-
tation. Together with the bishop and the master-poet,
the king had the highest status in the territory. A per-
son’s status was expressed by his honor price, which
determined his legal rights and entitlements. This hier-
archical 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 func-
tions included representing the people in external mat-
ters, 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 (óenach),
had a council (airecht; later oireacht) with members
of the secular and ecclesiastical elite, and conferred
with other kings at a meeting (dál). 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 nor-
mally 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 tánaise
ríg. 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