Talk:House of Dunkeld

Could we have a reputable publication cited which refers to a 'House of Dunkeld' please? Sussexman 08:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

House-of-Dunkeld gets two hits on Google books, one of which says "a powerful royal dynasty which is called variously the Canmore Dynasty or the House of Dunkeld"; Canmore-Dynasty gets 12; Canmore-kings gets 5; House-of-Canmore gets 24. None are very popular with writers as Valois-Dynasty gives 348 hits, Rurikids 21, Piasts 597 and Liudolfings 97. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Angus, these dynasties are a joke. I particularly like the "Strathclyde" dynasty on the Pictish king lists. Some books use terms like "the Canmore" dynasty, basically because their authors like to start from Máel Coluim III, and don't give enough time to work out what went before. How on earth Máel Coluim III is a different dynasty from his father Donnchad I, but the latter is the same dynasty as Máel Coluim II is beyond me. Moderns make these things up; I'd so be for deleting the articles on these "dynasties"; they don't teach anything, but misinform muchly. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to say that 'House of Dunkeld' is invented rubbish and should be removed. Sussexman 09:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree to a degree with the first part; it's not rubbish, only a not very verifiable name-by-analogy. Duncan, Kingship of the Scots, p. 52 is flatly dismissive of the "House of Canmore" (so he'd like "House of Dunkeld" even less), and McDonald makes similar points on p. 3 of Outlaws of Medieval Scotland, and settles for "Canmore king", unhappily and with disclaimers. But, yes, it should be deleted. Had Scotland remained Gaelic-speaking for longer, as did Ireland, we probably would have an Uí-something name concocted by an archaicising late medieval historian. But there isn't one with any validity, unless someone can actually find a verifiable name to describe "kings to Alexander III" which two historians, at least, have said that there isn't.

However, that's a big can of worms, because if this goes, the others would need to go too. Well, except for the Bruces, Balliols and Stewarts, but even there House of Stuart seems a rather dubious franco-german mix, even if it generates many Google hits. And that's even more true of House of Bruce and House of Balliol. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, here is what two historians have to say.

• R. Andrew McDonald, in Outlaws of Medieval Scotland has "so-called 'Canmore-dynasty'" on p. ix; on p. 3 he writes

  It is difficult to know how to designate the descendants of Malcolm III and Margaret: though commonly known as the Canmore dynasty (see e.g. R. Oram, The Canmores: Kings & Queens of the Scots 1040–1290 (Stroud, 2002), the by-name is not attested in sources contemporary with Malcolm III. Some historians have preferred to use the term 'MacMalcolm' dynasty (e.g. M. Lynch, Scotland: A New History (London, revised ed. 1992), Ch. 6),and Gordon Donaldson has even utilised the rather unsatisfactory (because suggestive of matrilineal succession, as well as an undue Scandinavian influence) 'Margaretsons: Scottish Kings (London, 1967, repr. New York, 1992), 14. For the purposes of this study, the term 'Canmore dynasty' will be retained, while its limitations are acknowledged.

• Archie Duncan (The Kingship of the Scots, p. 53) is rather to the point

  One thing [the sources] do not give us is a generic name for these kings and their successors, and I ignore 'House of Canmore', 'Canmore dynasty', 'Mac Malcolms' and 'Margaretsons', unknown in the twelfth century of later.

  And to make his point, he calls that chapter "Maelcoluim's sons and grandson".

I'll see what else I can dig out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I was invited to leave an opinion here and I will do so. Firstly, the thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between an actual family name and a historical designator. The Plantagents of England had no family name, certainly not Plantagenet, which was originally a nickname for Geoffrey of Anjou. However, for convenience, they are designated by this dynastic name. Some genealogists use it as a surname, but that's really improper. The Dunkeld instance is similar. Canmore is really a nickname to describe one individual. Some like to use it as a dynastic name. While some comments above indicate that some see these dynasties as a joke, the dynasties were real in the sense that they were families who ruled in a form of hereditary kingship until being replaced by other families. The modern nomenclature may be a joke, but the actualities of the families, whether they had contemporary names or not, are not.

The reason, then, that scholars who do not like any of the candidates for this dynasty's name use them anyway is that they are useful. Dynasties often exhibit characteristics which distinguish there members from earlier and later ruling houses and often there are distinct dynastic ambitions, that is, the members of one dynasty have common goals despite their different lifetimes. A change of dynasty is often rocky, violent, consititutionally questionable, and unstable, whereas succession within a family is usually (more often than not in most families) without incident. For these reasons, and others unmentioned, the concept of dynasties exists in historiography where it did not in reality. Without the right words, historians would have trouble knowing what to write, thus, uncomfortably at times, they employ terms like Dunkeld and Plantagenet. So, in short, I'm in favour of keeping the various possible names of this dynasty (Canmore, Dunkeld, MacMalcolm) on this page for reference. The origin of each name should be explained (as should its modern invention and its relative prevalence among historians). Finally, the significance of the dynasty, that is, what makes it a coherent dynasty and what are the characteristics which distinguish its ruling members from earlier and later dynasties. Also, its rise to power and its fall and the causes of each should be mentioned so as to make it clear what the dynasty is and why some find it necessary to create a name for it: because the Dunkeld kings were basically thoroughly Gaelic in the male line; they were less independent of foreign domination, though their period is characterised by Viking control of the Hebrides and Caithness and instances of homage to the English king; they instigated the Normanisation of Scotland and they were of Lowlander or Strathclydian extraction, being also well related to the Norman and Norse royal families; and their period in Scottish history represents the arrival of Scotland on the European stage. Srnec 18:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You make some decent points. I'd take issue with this statement "their period in Scottish history represents the arrival of Scotland on the European stage". I assume by "European" you mean Frankish; well that's not true because continental monastaries in the 10th century were filled with Scottish monks (and by Scottish, I mean Scottish and not Irish), and guys like Rudolfus Glaber and Marianus Scotus devoted large chunks of their histories to kings such as Máel Coluim II and Mac Bethad. The 10th and 11th centuries saw a Scottish golden age that few historians seem to talk about, although Dumville is pushing for more literature. As for the Dunkeld kings being of the Gaelic line; yes, they wouldn't have been kings of the Gaels if they weren't, but after the coming of the Normans, almost every wife is French or English, so that by the 13th century, their no less French in actual descent than the King of France. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps their period in Scottish history represents the arrival of Scotland on the European stage is not stricly true. I was thinking of Ramón Menéndez Pidal's statement that the reign of Sancho the Great represents the "Europeanisation" of Spain. I was trying to use Europe in the same sense: feudal, influenced by Roman legal traditions, and, yes, "Frankish." Srnec 05:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What User Srnec is suggesting is that we create the House of Dunkeld (!) using some other analogies. This is surely wrong. Its very important to stick to facts. Why cannot this be, simply, the Royal House of Scotland, until the advent of the Bruce Dynasty, about which there is no dispute. I also at a loss when I read this mystery story about the 'House of Dunkeld' and the female rights. Errr, these must surely predate Canmore? I think this all needs proper tidying up, possibly by an expert in the field. But please, get rid of 'House of Dunkeld'. What nonsense. Sussexman 17:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Sussexman is confused. Tell me, please, how it is even possible to create a family in the past? I am suggesting no such thing. What I am suggesting is that the term House of Dunkeld need not be contemporaneous to be legitimate. I am also not advocating original research on Wikipedia, but some people have given references to scholarly usages of the dynastic names MacMalcolm, Margaretson, and House of Canmore. Read my above comments again. I am advocating nothing more than describing the facts. Srnec 16:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Let this be "House of Dunkeld". Other options are more horrible. Canmore as surname particularly. We cannot put this to Royal House of Scotland or like, because that designation belongs to diffeent houses in different eras. Actually, that could be a separate article, telling all and sundry about royal prerogatives and succession order in Scottish throne. I would not recommend something like "Native dynasty of Scotland" because soon people are asking "native? by whose standards", "what about pictish", "or Dalriada people", "weren't there earlier native houses?", "what Scotland? define Scotland." After all, the era in question seems to need a common denominator for its dynasty, and H of D has apparently been used - I know it is printed in Europäische Stammtafeln. Marrtel 13:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)