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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposals

It being indubitably the case that House of Dunkeld, House of Alpin and House of Moray (apparently there is no House of Strathclyde, although I though there was) are all rather content-free. Three solutions present themselves. More if someone else can come up with something. The status quo is not very satisfactory.

Simple: Merge all three articles into [Your choice of name here] (Kings of Alba ?). The lack of content can't readily be resolved. Perhaps List of Kings of Alba would be better, and split out the first half of the List of monarchs of Scotland article.
- Pro: Easy
- Con: ?

Complicated: Forget the anachronistic idea that dynasties have to be renamed ever so often. Create Cenél nGabráin and Cenél Loairn articles (part of the material is at the end of the redirects, part at Mormaer of Moray and elsewhere). Merge all relevant articles, stir and stand well back.
- Pro: Probably more realistic; it is, after all, the Genelaig Albanensium version, as recounted at every king-making until the death of Alexander III.
- Con: It may be better to leave this until later, to see what Oram, Woolf and Fraser say

A third alternative is just to delete the articles, which would be fine by me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recent article in the Scottish Historical Review reaffirms the stupidity of "Canmore dynasty", saying it is a product of 19th century "Teutonist" fancy. For me, I'd prefer Uí Crínaín and Uí Ailpín as dynasty names, but that ain't gonna happen. I too, though, would be happy to see these dynasyties deleted. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even more stupid if Archie Duncan's right about Canmore being attached to the wrong Máel Coluim. I'll see if anyone else has something to say before AFDing them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be deleted. Encyclopedia's task is to give infirmation about existing concepts, even if some think such concepts are misguided or useless. The fact is tha House of Dunkeld has ben referred to in publications. I have seen it on the pages of ES. How about trying to improve them, or alternatively, if one has nothing to contribute, to focus on other articles. Marrtel 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within the limits of WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOR, that would be correct. However, when we have experts on the subject (I don't know who wrote the SHR piece referred to, but other experts have weighed in in print to attack this concept, with no-one rushing to defend the idea) who say that it is a useless and inaccurate concept, largely derived from the irrelevant sources (outdated history, Stämmbücher) something is wrong. By keeping the article as is, and this one isn't so bad as some, House of Moray could win prizes for wrongness, we don't inform anyone, we misinform them. Continental ideas of dynasties are quite irrelevant to Scotland prior to the middle of the 12th century. Irrelevant though it is, tanistry is more relevant than Salic Laws and primogeniture. Let's not pretend that the status quo is an option, because it isn't. Having decided you don't fancy the deletionist solution, pick one of the other two options or propose something else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, tanistry resembles much the outcomes of agnatic seniority. And, both seem to be used in tribal-level societies with strong clannish formation. You know, we call the Piasts as dynasty - however we know that particularly in era when there existed parallel lines genealogically quite distant from each other, the outcome was like those of tanistry. Tanistry and resembling succession systems do NOT mean that a dynasty is not there; actually, the feeling and knowledge of belonging to ONE house is possibly stronger than in extended families where female-allowing primogenitural successions are used. One small weakness of "dunkeld"s being a House instead of a dynastical line is just that they applied basically primogeniture - but, they were tied with older traditions, as seen from grounds of claims in Great Cause (tanistry etc were not forgotten). Dynasties are not a continental idea, they are as valid to Gaelic successions as they are to other successions determined inside a family/kinship.
Moray possibly should be talked at its talkpage, but I guess that it however is easy to present a full bunch of text about their successions and rights they inherited and the "kingdom" they had as their base - a question however is whether such text is better as separate article or as a chapter in article about mormaership of moray. Usually readers however prefer a looong list of rulers as separate (appendix) and a textual account of a principality as a coherent reading. I would first like to see whether editors make an improved version of house of moray.
However, the merging of dunkeld to the corresponding part of Scottish history is, at least, not a good idea IMO. Eeek, am i surrounded by bloodthirsty deletionists... Marrtel 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moray

House of Moray actually is a promising place. You know, people can write all the knowledge about Cenel Loairn to that article (and above, you indicated that it would be a sufficient subject for an article). I just made some work there - the version after me begins "The so-called House of Moray is a historiographical and genealogical construct to illustrate the succession of rulers whose base was at the region of Moray and who ruled sometimes a larger kingdom. It is much the same as Cenél Loairn (although not necessarily exactly), an originally Celtic concept to express one of the two rivalling leader clans of early medieval Scotland (/Pictland/ Dalriada/ Alba). The so-called house of Loairn or of Moray was distantly related to the Scottish House of Alpin, its rival, and descended from King Loarn of Dalriada. Some of its members became the last kings of the Picts while three centuries later, two members succeeded to the Scottish throne ruling Scotland from 1040 until 1058. At the times when the rival held the throne, the Loairn leaders however usually had their effectively independent state of Moray, where a succession of kings (kinglets) or mormaers ruled. The Loairn succession followed quite loyally the rukes of tanistry, resulting in practice to outcomes where branches of the leaders' extended family rotated on the rulership, posibly keeping a balance between important branches (this is quite typical for tribal societies, where primogeniture is much less usual than agnatic seniority or turns on the throne). For example, MacBeth descended from one branch and his stepson Lulach from another. Not much nor convincing evidence survives that the House of Loairn followed in any way the postulated Pictish tradition of matrilineal succession. Rather, their succession seems to follow quite fully the Irish-Celtic tradition of agnatic clan."

Now I realize that quite soon, some of you will be there doing all sorts of nasty things, possibly even deleting important parts... I¨'ll look forward. Marrtel 19:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James IV & Gaelic

What good authority states that James IV spoke Gaelic? Gaelic was virtually gone from the entire Lowlands by 1300. Certainly the Lothians are described as largely Anglian by 1200. Sussexman 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mackie's History of Scotland and, less tellingly, Magnusson's Scotland: The Story of a Nation, among others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually from an Italian traveller who visited his court. Gaelic wasn't gone from the "Lowlands" by 1300, unless you mean by "Lowlands" the south-east, and there it was never actually spoken except by the elite. James IV's knowing Gaelic doesn't mean that Gaelic was the main court language, nor that it was James IV's first language, but it does mean it was important enough for him to need to use it - compare James VI, who didn't know it at all. You have to remember also before one goes bsing about how Scottish kings stopped knowing Gaelic after Alexander III (Robert I was a Gael in any case) that all the kings between Alexander III and James I had a Gaelic background - Balliols from Galloway, Bruces from Carrick, early Stewarts from Carrick and the Highlands, so why they wouldn't know Gaelic is quite beyond me, even if Gaelic was confined to the Highlands and Galloway-Carrick. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What staggeringly bad history. Robert 1st was a Bruce, born at Writtle, near Chelmsford, Essex, whose Anglo-Norman family had their principle seats in England (Skelton Castle). His father was buried at Holmecultram, Cumberland, England. The Balliols were also Anglo-Normans, again whose principal seats were in England (Barnard Castle). Indeed, when John Balliol lost the throne he retired to his family's estates in Normandy. The Stewards or, as they became known, Stewarts, were of Breton ancestry with a mixture of Norman thrown in. They had come north to Scotland from Oswestry. I would be extremely surprised if any of them had anything but a smattering of Gaelic, in order for them to get by with those parts of the kingdom where it was still spoken. Sussexman 12:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sorry, it's just too hard to get my history up to your lofty standards. Firstly, Bruce's birthplace is unknown, but it was more likely than not Turnberry in Carrick, deep in the western Gaidhealtachd. No historian thinks Robert I was born at Writtle, I suggest you buy some decent books on the topic. Robert was probably fostered in Argyll or (even Ireland) and his first historical appearance is witnessing a charter of Alasdair MacDomhnaill, Lord of Islay. Robert was the son of John, Lord of Annandale (an Anglo-Norman lord as you say) and the native heiress of Niall of Carrick, and from birth was intended to be a Gaelic lord to replace the old dynasty descended from Fergus of Galloway, so lumping him with his father is like regarding William the Conqueror as a Danish prince. Anyways, King John Balliol was also a Galwegian, and the son of Derborgaill ingen Ailín, "Lady of Galloway". Both Robert and John were half-Gaelic, half Scoto-Norman. The Balliols, Bruces and Stewarts through the male line all had ultimate origins in France, but this is not exactly relevant in the 13th and 14th century, is it? Ultimately, they were African, weren't they?! Well, I'm not going to be giving you history lessons, but you probably wouldn't be "be extremely surprised if any of them had anything but a smattering of Gaelic" if you actually knew what you were talking about. No offense intended. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"By the late thirteenth century, for instance, the Stewarts not only held Renfrew and parts of Ayrshire, but also controlled Bute and much of Kintyre; from being a bastion of Anglo-Norman influence against the chieftains of the west coast they had become Highland chiefs themselves ..." (Barrell, Medieval Scotland, p. 31).

"Over time the Bruces developed associations with the native Gaelic aristocracy. Robert Bruce the sixth, father of the future king, married the daughter of the last Gaelic earl of Carrick. Marjory, the mother of Robert I, was therefore a scion of Gaelic rather than Anglo-Norman aristocracy. The family may have adopted some Gaelic social customs. In particular, the children may have been fostered in the households of Gaelic aristocrats for training in the social graces. Barbour mentions Robert's foster brother; another source suggests that Edward Bruce was also fostered with a Gaelic lord." (McNamee, Wars of the Bruces, p.4).

And so on. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissect problems

Galgacus seems to have something against some parts of the following: "The center of the kingdom moved towards Lowlands. Towns were formally established first time in Scotland, starting a new societal aspect. These kings were fundamentally Gaelic though evolving towards English Norman culture. Their descent from Gaelic rulers in male line was a bulwark of their legitimacy, through which they succeeded in having much of the population change some of the customs. Noteworthy however is that the quarters providing future ancestry to the royal line were mostly Norman, French and English. Gaelic families got their children to wed only in royal sidelines (such as Balliol and Bruce). The knowledge of Gaelic language apparently decreased generation from generation." As I do not know what precisely are GHalgacide problems re thse, here below Galga<cus could hopefully explain objections point by point. Marrtel 00:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The center of the kingdom moved towards Lowlands.

Towns were formally established first time in Scotland, starting a new societal aspect.

These kings were fundamentally Gaelic though evolving towards English Norman culture.

Their descent from Gaelic rulers in male line was a bulwark of their legitimacy, through which they succeeded in having much of the population change some of the customs.

Noteworthy however is that the quarters providing future ancestry to the royal line were mostly Norman, French and English.

Gaelic families got their children to wed only in royal sidelines (such as Balliol and Bruce).

The knowledge of Gaelic language apparently decreased generation from generation.

Great, more time of mine being taken up. OK:

The center of the kingdom moved towards Lowlands. - Lowlands is a meaningless concept is this era. Even using the modern concept, the Kingdom was always centered on the Lowlands, and the "capital" had always been located there, at Scone (ceremonial and place of most charters issued was Scone, both before the Dunkeld dynasty, and right up to the Stewarts).

Gaelic families got their children to wed only in royal sidelines (such as Balliol and Bruce). - this sentence appears to be meaningless.

The knowledge of Gaelic language apparently decreased generation from generation. - No evidence for this. "Apparently"? According to what evidence? No source says that either the kings or the people had knowledge of Gaelic decrease over time. And why would you want to open such a complex, controversial and obscure topic in an article like this? Do you think you are sufficiently knowledgeable about this topic to distinguish baseless assertion from evidence-based argument, and bring new light on this topic to wikipedians?

Noteworthy however is that the quarters providing future ancestry to the royal line were mostly Norman, French and English. - Not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean, but Normans are French and shouldn't be distinguished from them.

Is this enough? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to edit wikipedia, moreover you have chosen to revert contributions of others. That means your time is expected to "be taken up" for reasonable explanations. Answers to following are yet lacking:

"Towns were formally established first time in Scotland, starting a new societal aspect."

"These kings were fundamentally Gaelic though evolving towards English Norman culture."

"Their descent from Gaelic rulers in male line was a bulwark of their legitimacy, through which they succeeded in having much of the population change some of the customs."

Number one gets covered in Scotland in the High Middle Ages, where it's relevant. Number two is wrong. You may be looking for the term Scotto-Norman (rather than Anglo-Norman), again covered in the article on Scotland in the High Middle Ages. Number three appears to be attributing a policy to a group of people, whereas the "House of Dunkeld" had no policies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and besides, by explanations are already enough to justify the removal of the paragraph. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]