The first? King of Scotland needs to be connected and bio written

Question

I just came across this profile and added as much as I could from the Irish side: It seems his father was Fergus and he had a brother named Talorgan but I could not find anything more

Could someone with a knowledge of Scotland sources pick up where I left off?

Comments

Talorgan was his son. Bridei was his brother

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridei_V

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talorgan_II

You've done an excellent job 

---

You may find more in

https://www.worldcat.org/title/picts-a-history/oclc/815670494?loc=

a lot of libraries have it

---

Richard has done a great job here, providing links to historical records that speak of this interesting early medieval notable.

I think he is really asking - ''Is there anyone out there willing to help write up profiles for the many early Scots/Irish/Pictish individuals to be found in WT ?''

---

The Pictish regal succession is a complex one. Whatever is written as a bio for Óengus mac Fergusa should include reference to contemporary scholarship including Alex Woolf and this compilation: Noble, Gordon, and Nicholas Evans. The King in the North: The Pictish Realms of Fortriu and Ce. Birlinn Ltd, 2019.

Answer 1

Just do a general search of the name there is lots of information on the internet about him.  You do realize that this is considered mythology, before known written history, just as Ireland during this time period.

Comments

There was plenty of written history in 500AD and on.  Even pre-CE there was written history.

Even before the script we recognise today, there was written history.  There were pictographs (a  form of writing), there was cuneiform, there was also Ogham (4th - 6th centuries, scholastic Ogham 6th - 9th centuries).

Just because something is not written in "western" script does not mean there was no written history.

---

Prior to written history means prior to all written history in any form. It is not the form of writing that makes it mythology it is that we do not have any confirming evidence that it occurred, which maybe archeological evidence, records from other cultures, etc.  In Scotland and Ireland the mythological era is usually spoken word history passed down from one generation to another without further evidence.  Good luck in your adventure.

---

Earliest writings in human history (found in the historical record so far!)

https://www.oldest.org/artliterature/writing/#:~:text=7%20Oldest%20Known%20Writing%20in%20the%20World%201,5%20Instructions%20of%20Shuruppak.%20...%20More%20items...%20

Earliest written record in Ireland:

https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=1702#:~:text=The%20Earliest%20Surviving%20Manuscript%20Written%20in%20Ireland%2C%20the,Copy%20Circa%20560%20CE%20to%20600%20CE%20Permalink

Since Wikitree is a genealogy site, where do you think the ancient Irish came from?

---

@ Lynn -- the person was born abt 691 AD/CE.  That's well within the period of "written history", not at all close to "prior to all written history".  There also seems to be enough evidence that the man existed, and not as a myth, even if we don't have (cannot have) primary source documents -- any more than we have of others in the same era..

---

I'm with you on this one, Melanie.

---

Carry on

---

As others have noted, Oengus mac Fergus (Hungust mc Uirguist), King of the Picts, was certainly not mythological or prehistoric. He is an undisputed, documented Pictish king, and academic historians of Scottish history have written quite a lot about the Pictish kings who reigned during this period.

As for whether or not Oengus/Hungust could be called "1st King of Scotland," that would be anachronistic. During this period the Scots of Dalriada and the Picts were still distinct kingdoms. Oengus was a Pictish king who siezed the throne of Dalriada -- it is not clear if Oengus was himself of Dalriadan royal blood or merely a conqueror. In any case, the union of Picts and Scots in a single kingdom (subsequently called Scotland) was not permanently achieved until the 800s A.D.

---

As you should all know there were no kings and queens in Scotland until the Britains took over, it is a clan society with chieftons and the first chief to unite Scotland was McAlpin.  So anyone looking for kings is not connected with Scotland but I will close now.  There were many chief for many different clans.

---

I'm afraid you've been misinformed. There certainly were kings in Scotland prior to Cinaeth mac Alpin (Kenneth MacAlpin). The rulers of Dalriada in Argyllshire were kings, not merely chiefs -- the Gaelic title was "ri" (king). Similarly, the Picts or Cruithnigh in Scotland were also ruled by kings. The medieval annals and other sources are filled with references to "kings" of the Picts and "kings" of "Alban" or of "Dalriada." I own several compilations of the medieval annals and chronicles, many of them contemporary primary sources, and they unanimously refer to the rulers of the Picts and Dalriadan Scots as kings, not chiefs.

Highland clans, with chiefs, were a later medieval phenomenon. The institution of clan chief arose after the union of the Picts and the Scots under a single king, and thus the various petty kings or subkings of the Picts and Scots were reduced to the status of mormaer or count or earl.

---

The word King is a Britain term, when king is used it is not done so by local clans.  If you wish to discuss this further contact me at my office.  I'm done with this discussion that has apparently left it's purpose.

Answer 2

Thank you for tackling the Irish side of this profile, Rich!  He is on my to-do list for Scotland 

Comments

Thanks for taking this on Amy. And thanks VERY much, Rich, for getting it started.