Talk:Earl of Orkney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Should Duke of Orkney even be listed here? It doesn't have any tie to the earldom, as far as I know. Mackensen 00:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the Duke is connected to the earldom as I understand . . . he was created Duke instead of Earl but it was the same earldom, after all.

I created the entry on the Earldom of Orkney and added some information on the Scottish earls there which more or less mirrors the same information here but I don't see that the two entries really should be merged.--Mike 08:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Sinclairs held the Orkneys as a fief of Norway and not from Scotland as this article claims. Fornadan (t) 19:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Property

What lands did the earls of the 3rd creation originally possess? --Anglius 02:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Scottish" versus "Norse"

Why is Harald Maddadsson labelled among the Norse earls, when his father was in fact the Gaelic Mormaer of Atholl? Aren't dynasties normally regarded as ending through a male line? Surely the Scottish part should begin with him, no? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but was he alligned with the Norwegian or the Scottish king? If he was alligned with the Norwegian king maybe that could explain it. Inge 16:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We should not give any respect to old patriarchal notion of a family ending with extinction of males. Which of the following is more Norse: a boy born of Norse father and a Gaelic mother, given a Gaelic first name, fostered in Highlands and speaking Gaelic as his preferred language. Or a boy born of a Gaelic father and Norse mother, receiving a Norse first name, brought up by that Norse mother in the court of the Gaelic father, speaking both languages, the boy ultimately succeeding his maternal uncle in Norse-speaking possessions and settling to live in that Norse community. ? Finlandais 14:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether one is regarded as Norse earl or Scottish earl, is, in my opinion, dependent upon whether the overlordship (technically granting the earldom) is king of Norway or king of Scots. Finlandais 14:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian or Norse

If we know the jarl of Orkney was Norwegian or a vassal of the King of Norway why not say so? The word Norse is equally Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, Faroese, and the people of the isles currently under Scottish control. To use it interchangeably with Norwegian will only increase confusion. Inge 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The earldom was unquestionaly "Norwegian" from 1195 onwards, since the Norwegian king appointed officials and interfered in the local government. Earlier than that the bonds were more nominal and mostly restricted to tribute. Wether the earls were ethnically Norwegian is rather dubious since they intermarred with the Gaelic nobility almost from the beginning. AFAIK Henry Sinclair was the first earl who spoke Scottish and the Sinclairs also abaondoned Norn as the administrative language. Fornadan (t) 18:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no such language as "Scottish". I think you mean that the Sinclairs where the first Earls who spoke Lowland Scots, which is probably correct, as Harald Maddadsson, the Anguses and Strathearns came from a Gaelic background, and that language until the 16th century was referred to by the exonyn "Scottish". Anyways, the Orkney earldom is a Norse lordship which predates Harald Finehair, so is much more safely described as "Norse" than "Norwegian". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I see. Maybe it is best to keep the use of Norse in the first sentence. However I do want to correct you if the impression is that before the formal formation of the states the peoples of Norway, Sweden and Denmark were one entity called Norse. The notions of a separate Norwegian, Swedish (including/excluding the Geats) and Danish people existed before the formation of the states. So to automatically shift from Norse to Norwegian in 872 might not be correct. Inge 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I won't dispute this for the mo, but I'd be interested to know what your evidence is. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian ethnicity was clearly distinct of that of Danish and Swedish already very early, possibly already two thousand years ago, as the original language of Norwegians (of Trondelag, Bergen and so forth) is of Western Scandinavian, whereas Swedish, Danish and so forth are Eastern Scandinavian. Most of the people to come to Orkneys were Weestern Scandinavians, which also is basis of Faroese and Icelandic languages. Only much later, under danish dominion, Norwegian language got its almost eastern-S. features of today. There may have originally been just some Eastern-Scandinavian dialects in the Vigen region of Norway, but presumably nowhere more west or north in Norway's area. Today Swedes and Danes have great difficulties to get any grasp in Icelandic, Faroese, AND old Norse texts, whereas Swedes and Danes understand each others' written language rather well, as they also understand current Norwegian written language(s). It is not clever to imply that Norn or Norse in Orkney islands had very much to do with Danish and Swedish. It had all to do with the medieval Norwegian (which has since almost vanished). Medieval Denmark and Sweden were generally separate, I presume for other reasons than language barrier. Finlandais 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander de l'Ard

He seems to have become Earl of Orkney in 1375. The book I use as source further states that this was to be restricted to one year, but doesn't mention Orkney again until Sinclair's grant. The charter can be found online here [1], but I'm no good in reading Old Norwegian

[edit] Merge discussion

It seems to me that having two very similar articles can only be confusing for readers and may well lead to some info being duplicated or missed. I strongly propose a merge.Abtract 19:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree ... but some more looking into the details would be helpful (sorry for my humble English, me is German as my Orcadian folks would like to say ... ;-)
why do you disagree?Abtract 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at the different parts of the "Norse Earldom of Orkney", please. Thorfin the Mighty (noone would question his being "Norse", already was a "Scottish Earl" when granted with Caithness on his birth by his grandfather Malcolm II. On the other hand the agreed lineage of Norse Earls died out with the last "Sinclair Earl of Orkney" (long after Shetland was taken out of the earldom and put under direct controle of the Norwegian crown) and the following "interregnum" under management of "Scottish tacksmen / Norwegian Sysselman etc." like the Balfours and Belledens before the (now no longer Norse) Earldom was reinstalled for Robert Stewart, 1st Earl (Scotland) of Orkney. There is a lot of rubbish in the internet, but royalty.gov.uk has it quite clearly up to modern standards of research when talking about "Norse Earls of Orkney" and "Earls of Orkney" ... 172.173.164.187 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry I don't understand what relevance this has to the merge discussionAbtract 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Earl of Orkney should be a list of earls with some explanatory material. Earldom of Orkney is about the Norse earldom. A discussion of shearings and udal law and the presence of thing-names in Shetland and their absence in Orkney would be fine in Earldom of Orkney, but quite out of place in Earl of Orkney. It's been pointed out that the various Viking-Age articles (Kings of Dublin, Earldom of Orkney, Uí Imaír, Kings of Man and the Isles, etc, etc) need to be rolled up and reorganised, so eventually Earldom of Orkney could be merged into Viking Age in North Britain and Ireland, Viking Scotland, or whatever the article might be called when it eventually gets written. That's my thoughts anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I like your thoughtsAbtract 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there are good arguments against the merge so I am quite happy to remove my suggestion.Abtract 23:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)