Talk:House of Dunkeld

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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to defend the idea) who say that it is a useless and inaccurate concept, largely derived from the irrelevant sources (outdated history, Stämmbücher) something is wrong.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)
thread_title: Proposals

message: 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)
thread_title: Moray

message: I have a book in my possession which in June 1899 was in the possession of the Bishop of St.Andrews. It is entitled Scottish Kings - A Revised Chronology of Scottish History 1005 - 1625 by Sir Archibald Dunbar, Bt., Edinburgh, 1899. It is dedicated to Queen Victoria "by permission", and is one of the more thorough and accepted works on the genealogy of Scottish Monarchs and their families. On page 127 it cites Robert 1st as being "born at Writtle, near Chelmsford, Essex, 11th July 1274". He cites Fordun's Annals, page 60 as one source. I know Caroline Bingham supported the Tunberry theory (and thats all it is) but she was more of a historical story-teller than a historian.  Sussexman 15:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking Skene's translation of Fordun (pp.299-300): Chapter 60 of the annals indeed has the meeting of his parents (near Turnberry) and the birth of the Bruce: feast of St. Benedict 1274; but it does not have a location. Footnotes should not be trusted beyond their bearing weight. Septentrionalis 17:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The birth of Robert I is in the Gesta Annalia, c. 60, but that doesn't say where he was born. According to Ronald McNair Scott's book, the 1906 edition of Dunbar's work says Turnberry, but 1899 and 1906 are a very long time ago. The public Oxford DNB says of his birth, "probably at Turnberry Castle in Ayrshire." The best place to check would be Barrow's biography of Bruce. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Complete Peerage also says Writtle, under Carrick and Brus; but the volumes in question are from 1913. For what it is worth, the 1994 Corrections do not amend. Septentrionalis 16:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Turnberry is likely because of its importance to the Earldom of Carrick. At any rate, Writtle is a little loopy, the kinda thing perpetuated by 19th century amateur historians. His birthplace is simply unknown, and any claim about it as fact is simply a lie, as there is no direct proof of any location. The only technique I can think of to locate his birth is following the appearance of his mother in sources. Simply, unless you can show otherwise, it has to be assumed that it was Carrick, because she was the native Countess of the province and spent all but a negligable part of her life in that province. I don't see why it matters in any case; where one leaves the womb, although important to modern government bureaucracies, is irrelevant in all other circumstances. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barrow, and Caroline Bingham, say "probably Turnberry". She notes, but disbelieves, a local tradition for Lochmaben; and conjectures he was fostered there. (Ronald Scott is sure it was Turnberry; but that is a remarkably sentimental book.) I agree it doesn't much matter, especially here. Septentrionalis 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth of The Bruce

message: Would it not be appropriate to give the Gaelic rendering of the name for the members before David I? Was it not David that encouraged the Anglization of the court and lowlands? So, pre-1124 (Start of David's reign) Dùn Chailleann, post 1124 as Dunkeld?68.0.43.251 (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would imply an authenticity to the name it doesn't have. "House of Dunkeld" is a complete modern concoction. At any rate, the Anglicization you talk about was probably incidental to what was intended by the changes David and his successors made, e.g. to keep themselves safe against their southern neighbours, to enrich themselves and to follow religious fashions the wealth and power of their neighbours made more prestigious. Most of this happened in the south-east, which was already English in language, and the linguistic state in the rest of Scotland probably didn't significantly begin to alter until the reign of Alexander II. I very much doubt David knew less Gaelic that his predecessors btw, though probably Malcolm IV and William were more estranged initially. Anyway, we don't change linguistic forms for dynasty names because between each monarch because may or may not have known less of one language than another. That makes no sense to me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dùn Chailleann 

message: 1. The article says "The first king of this new dynasty was Malcolm III of Scotland" but lists Duncan I as the first in the list of kings. Something is not adding up. Even the list of Scottish monarchs lists Duncan I as the first king in 1034.
2. The blue bar with the kings is upside down and inconsistent with the list next to itself. It's annoying. First comes first. 
ICE77 (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies