Talk:Patrick II, Earl of Dunbar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within medieval Scottish studies. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Confusion?
The text says: "Patrick II was one of the leading figures during the minority of Alexander III of Scotland" How can this be, if Patrick II died in 1248 and Alexander II of Scotland died in 1249? I think that statement applies to Patrick III (ie. 6th Earl Dunbar).Gwinva 16:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see you've changed it here to Alexander II. My hesitation stemmed from whether that was what was meant, or if the statement belonged on the Patrick III, Earl of Dunbar page. I must say, I am easily confused, as different sources use different numbering! See that talk page for further queries! Gwinva 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with dates
It is stated in the text that he died in 1248 at the siege of Damietta; I wanted to follow that link to find out which Crusade the siege took place to change the Crusader category; I discovered that the siege took place in 1218, not 1248; so is there another source which can verify his correct death date? If he really died at the siege and it occurred in 1218, the death category should be 1218 and the associated information about his Earldom should change as well; (btw, I am not very knowledgable about Scottish history, just trying to improve the articles).--FeanorStar7 12:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously we need to check that and make whatever amendments are necessary. I will see what I can find out. David Lauder 13:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1248/9 is correct. It was the Seventh Crusade. David Lauder 13:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- The siege took place according to the wiki article in 1249 (different siege, this one was during the Seventh Crusade). I've got several sources saying 1248 as death date; since they all cite Matthew Paris, I presume this is from an error or misreading there. But I can check it out. BTW, David, hate to be on your wrong side again, but if you wanna use the highly anachronistic and confusing "nth Earl of X" system, you have to make sure it's correct. Patrick II was only the "5th Earl" of the earldom of Lothian/Dunbar/March ... he can only be 6th if Gospatric, Earl of Northumbria is counted, which he usually is for naming purposes, but not on the numbered list of earls for the earldom of Lothian/Dunbar/March. This is just one of a number of reasons for avoiding this cumbersome anachronistic system. It's even worse when you (as you have) use it for earls/mormaers benorth the Forth, where their number simply isn't known. I see on David III Strathbogie, titular Earl of Atholl, you've styled him "11th Earl of Atholl"; this is simply untenable under any system, since firstly he is the 12th known Earl of Atholl, and the point at which the Atholl "line" began is also not known to anyone today, perhaps the 10th century but who knows. Such styles were made up in the period you love and extended into the past in imitation of the peerage of their own day; it has no historical reality in this period. Name + numeral, if any style was used, was the only one of those styles. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well I would regard Douglas Richardson as a better scholar on genealogical matters than either me or you and he is a modern 21st century scholar and an indefatigable researcher. I don't wish to get bogged down into pointless arguments about which earls were 4th 5th or 6th, but numbering them has been accepted for centuries and it does help immensely when we have up to half a dozen in a row with the same Christian names. The system which some seem to be adopting on Wikipedia of calling them Patrick I and Patrick II seems to me to be even more wrong and confusing, and a system not found anywhere else. David Lauder 14:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- David, there is only so much I can do unless you are actually prepared to research. Yes, the numbering you use is used, but no, it is not the only one. I've got three books calling him "5th Earl", none calling him "6th" (which I assume some books do), and three calling him Patrick II. The latter is the only one that avoids confusion. And it has nothing to do with bad genealogical research. "Nth Earl of X" simply was not used until centuries later. It was simply a convention adopted by historians in the early modern period in imitation of the peerage styles of their own day. It works normally, but does not if 1) you don't have agreement when the numbering starts (which you don't here) or 2) you don't have knowledge of where the numbering ought to start. I really don't see how a reasonable person can disagree with me here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- As to Douglas Richardson, he is just following genealogical convention clearly hasn't thought about it too much. I also presuem he doesn't know about Dubdon of Atholl, since only specialists of 10th century Scotland are likely to know about him. It's no insult to Douglas Richardson; I'm sure if I pointed all this out to him he'd agree I was correct. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- David, there is only so much I can do unless you are actually prepared to research. Yes, the numbering you use is used, but no, it is not the only one. I've got three books calling him "5th Earl", none calling him "6th" (which I assume some books do), and three calling him Patrick II. The latter is the only one that avoids confusion. And it has nothing to do with bad genealogical research. "Nth Earl of X" simply was not used until centuries later. It was simply a convention adopted by historians in the early modern period in imitation of the peerage styles of their own day. It works normally, but does not if 1) you don't have agreement when the numbering starts (which you don't here) or 2) you don't have knowledge of where the numbering ought to start. I really don't see how a reasonable person can disagree with me here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well I would regard Douglas Richardson as a better scholar on genealogical matters than either me or you and he is a modern 21st century scholar and an indefatigable researcher. I don't wish to get bogged down into pointless arguments about which earls were 4th 5th or 6th, but numbering them has been accepted for centuries and it does help immensely when we have up to half a dozen in a row with the same Christian names. The system which some seem to be adopting on Wikipedia of calling them Patrick I and Patrick II seems to me to be even more wrong and confusing, and a system not found anywhere else. David Lauder 14:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- The siege took place according to the wiki article in 1249 (different siege, this one was during the Seventh Crusade). I've got several sources saying 1248 as death date; since they all cite Matthew Paris, I presume this is from an error or misreading there. But I can check it out. BTW, David, hate to be on your wrong side again, but if you wanna use the highly anachronistic and confusing "nth Earl of X" system, you have to make sure it's correct. Patrick II was only the "5th Earl" of the earldom of Lothian/Dunbar/March ... he can only be 6th if Gospatric, Earl of Northumbria is counted, which he usually is for naming purposes, but not on the numbered list of earls for the earldom of Lothian/Dunbar/March. This is just one of a number of reasons for avoiding this cumbersome anachronistic system. It's even worse when you (as you have) use it for earls/mormaers benorth the Forth, where their number simply isn't known. I see on David III Strathbogie, titular Earl of Atholl, you've styled him "11th Earl of Atholl"; this is simply untenable under any system, since firstly he is the 12th known Earl of Atholl, and the point at which the Atholl "line" began is also not known to anyone today, perhaps the 10th century but who knows. Such styles were made up in the period you love and extended into the past in imitation of the peerage of their own day; it has no historical reality in this period. Name + numeral, if any style was used, was the only one of those styles. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
