Talk:Lord of the Isles

Lords and Islands.

I've made a number of changes here to correct some fairly major errors. In general, I have to say that this article offers a very poor account of a major topic in Scottish history, and really deserves a systematic rewrite. Can I also suggest to people writing on aspects of Scottish history to look beyond the pages of John Preeble. Whatever his merits as an author he is far from being the most reliable guide on the subject.

Anyway, here are the amendments.

LORDS OF THE ISLES. First and foremost, it has to be stressed that there were only ever four men who were draped in the title of Dominus Insularum-Lord of the Isles. In succesion they were John Macdonald of Islay-also known as Good John of Islay-who first assumed the title in 1336; his son Donald; his son Alexander; and his son John, second of that name and last de jure Lord of the Isles. The title revived briefly-and unofficially-during the early years of Mary Queen of Scots, when Donald Dubh, the illegitimate grandson of the last Lord, attempted to regain his lost inheritance. His death brought the direct line from Good John of Islay to an end.

ARRAN AND ANTRIM. There is no evidence whatsoever that Arran was granted to-or under the authority of- any of the island chiefs. At a very early date the island was to fall within the territorial orbit of the High Stewards. Antrim was NEVER, at any point in its history, part of the Lordship of the Isles. Parts of northern Antrim, those areas around the Glens, were to become part of the patrimony of the Macdonalds of Dunyveg in Islay, one of the prominent families to emerge from the ruins of the Lordship of the Isles.

MAGNUS BARELEGS

Magnus did not 'bully' (where did that come from?) Edgar into ceeding the Isles to Norway, for-as I have said elsewhere-he could not give what he did not have. For many years before Magnus appeared in the west the exact political status of the Isles had been unclear-though they at least in a nominal sense anyway were under the authority of the Kings of Norway, not the Kings of Scotland. The treaty of 1098 was intended to introduce a clear line of demarcation, the Isles to Magnus and the Mainland to Edgar. This offered clear benefits to Edgar, for his authority in mainland Argyllshire was still very uncetain, and the treaty with Magnus at least offered the promise that there would br no more Norse incursions.

SOMERLED Somerled never took-or was awarded-the title of Rex Insularum, a neologism invented-one assumes- by a visitor to these pages. He was known by his contemporaries and kinsmen as ri Innse Gall-King of the Hebrides.

I can make no sense at all to the pseudo-scientific gibberish about DNA; and to say that 500000 people (yes, that's right!) are descended from Somerled is a statement I would have thought would challenge even the most gullible mind. Clearly not.

DOWNFALL. This section-which should be the core of the whole piece-is the weakest of all, saying virtually nothing about the Lords of the Isles. Also the information on the final demise of the Lordship was mired in error. Edward IV did not fail to act on the Treaty of Westminster not because of the 'outbreak' of the Wars of the Roses (the first phase of which had largely ended by 1462), but because he never took the treaty seriously in the first place. For him it was never more than a bargaining token, intended to end Scottish support for the House of Lancaster. John's treason was not 'discovered' in 1493: it was revealed by Edward himself in 1476. Although John was finally pardoned by James III, he lost control of the earldom of Ross-outwith Skye-, Kintyre and Knapdale. His title was no longer to be assumed independently, being awarded from this point forward, in the full feudal sense, by the Scottish crown. It was continuing political disorders in the Isles-and John's inability to deal with them-that led to the forfieture of 1493. It wasn't until 1540 that the title Lord of the Isles was formally reserved to the crown by James V. Rcpaterson 01:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)