Talk:1423

Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia

David Menzies didn't have a grant of Shetland - only of Orkney. John Sinclair had received a feudal grant of Shetland from the crown in 1418. I suggest this text be deleted. Any objections?

'Morula' is the source of this info, and a lot more from the same period. Personally I know nothing about this and don't know what Morula's source is, so I'd suggest holding on a moment and comparing their source with your's to try and decide which can be considered most credible. A short note on Morula's "Talk" page might be the way to go, asking what their source is and pointing out your information is different, might be the best way to go, as this could easily have slipped off the "most recent" lists before Morula's next visit and not be seen.

Ghostrider 12:56, 7 November 2007 (MST)

The key document about Menzies is the complaint about him by the inhabitants of Orkney of c.1426 (Diplomatarium Norvegicum vol. II p.514): http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/diplom_vise_tekst.prl?b=1823&s=n&str=Men%ies. Willie Thomson's New history of Orkney chapter 13 makes the situation crystal clear. (By the way, there will be an article on the subject by Steinar Imsen in the next issue of Medieval Scandinavia.) Menzies had no power in Shetland, and the Shetlopedia text is wrong.

Anon,
Please give this a day or two, so that Morula, who posted the info, or anybody else, can have a chance to comment before you make any changes.
I know nothing about this, but I would prefer if the person who posted the information at least has a chance to enter the debate.
This may sound silly to you, but we have always tried to debate differences before editing. That may just be a Shetland, 'laid back', way of doing things, but bear with us. ;-)
I have no doubt that your info is accurate. I'm just trying to eliminate any editing wars. ;-)
Anyway, if the info has been wrong for this long, a few more days won't hurt. :-)
Sorry for being a boring old fart :-)
Robbie 16:19, 7 November 2007 (MST)

All I know is that the matter was/is discussed for years. One reason might be that older Scottish "secondary" sources mostly - and if not stating otherwise - look at the Earldom of Orkney and the Lordship of Shetland as one entity. But there are lots of indications that both parts were treated seperately. BDW - With regard to the Menzie case the Orcadian "Willie Thomson" also in his older works refered to Orkney only not explicidly including Shetland as in Morulas quote on the article page. So at least a proper reference for that particular view would be helpful anyway ... ;-) BDW2 - Anon's link is broken - I only get an error message :-( Islandhopper 18:01, 7 November 2007 (MST)

Three sources: The Scottish Nation: Or, The Surnames, Families, Literature, Honours...by William Anderson, 1863; The Clans of The Highlands of Scotland, by Thomas Smibert, 1850; Scottish Highlanders, by Charles McKinnon, 1995. Another said that Menzies was appointed commissioner of Orkney and Shetland. There are others if you need more sourcing. Sorry if this is causing problems, I have been reading a lot of 19th century Shetland info and thought it was worth noting. Morula

The works that Morula cites aren't original sources. They arise from a belief that Orkney and Shetland 'must' have gone together. But, as I said, Shetland was granted to John Sinclair (son of Henry Sinclair) in 1418. Once again, though, if people would rather that Orkney and Shetland are conjoined in this entry, who am I to complain!!

That's what we have been trying to establish. Menzies was appointed commissioner or governor - functionally distinct from a laird. 10:26, 8 November 2007 (MST)

David Menzies' acknowledgment of his appointment as governor of Orkney is published in Diplomatarium Norv. vol 2 and (in translation) Clouston's Records of the earldom of Orkney (1914). It contains no reference to Shetland. My point about John Sinclair is that Orkney and Shetland were dealt with by the crown in entirely different ways. What do you reckon is a better source for these events: antiquarian books published in the 19th century, or the original document - which is easily available?

Can you assume the fact specific mention of Shetland is not included in any one document is proof positive that Shetland was not included, any more than you can assume that they were included due to the long standing belief and understanding that they 'must' have been? Seems to me that either one has as much chance as the other of being correct. On one hand do you take the original documents literally, or do you consider that given what has been accepted and practiced for probably as long as those documents have existed if not longer, that the "intent" and "spirit" behind the wording is not necessarily the literal. In a nutshell, in practice did a reference to the 'Earldom of Orkney' not mean a reference to the 'Earldom of Orkney and Lordship of Shetland', or whatever the exact wording was, it was just shortened as a result of human nature as happens with such long winded things.

A few things puzzle me, a feu holder is in plain terms more or less a lease holder, simply because John Sinclair had a lease on Shetland need not necessarily have had any effect on someone else becoming a Governor or Commissioner of Shetland, the two roles could have co-existed. Similarly, it seems somewhat unusual that if Orkney and Shetland were considered two seperate entities by the Norwegian crown, that at times when the Earldom was a joint one, that one of the co-holders was not just simply given Shetland and the other Orkney, this does not seem to have happened though. There are publications around which speak of one having Shetland and certain parts of Orkney, and the other having the remainder of Orkney.

Ghostrider 14:55, 8 November 2007 (MST)

In your final sentence you are mixing up the saga period and the late middle ages. If you want to understand Shetland and Orkney in late medieval times you must study Crawford, Thomson and Imsen, plus the original documents (in Records of the earldom of Orkney (1914) and Shetland Documents 1195-1579 (1999).

John Sinclair wasn't a laird, in the 17th century sense. He was a lord, with the heritable powers that involved: '[h]e will allow the men and inhabitants of that land to enjoy freely their ancient rights, customs and laws, and will defend them, causing no injury, violence or disturbance, as he would wish to escape the pains of felony, danger of oath-breaking and breach of faith.'

Finally, you have a curious view of evidence. You ask if one can be certain that Shetland wasn't included. Yet the entry for 1423 says that Shetland /was/ included - you don't seem to have been concerned about that!

I'm looking at the entire thing, and in doing so consider it perhaps wise to start from the beginning, the Earldom was established I am led to believe in the late 9th Century. The issue in question here occured during the early/mid 15th century when the islands were still a part of the Scandinavian realm. My take would be, seeing as a point of fact is in doubt, to establish as far as is practical just what the Earldom was set up as in the first place and then follow along it's timeline unearthing as many facts about it's evolution as possible until the year 1423 is reached, in such a way we might just get the closest to the truth of any. To simply descend on a certain date in history and try and deciper what a certain fact is, is unlikely to produce the full story, ignoring as it does the route and influences that took it there, and to try and work backwards from a later date is, to paraphrase a tag line seen on another site, to make the conclusion fit the evidence, rather than reach a conclusion from the evidence.

That's fine and well for Sinclair, but what's needed now to further the debate concerning himself and Menzies is to establish just what rights Menzies obtained along with the Governor/Commissioner role, to see if the two would have clashed or could have co-existed.

Concerning the 1423 entry, I was unaware it existed until this debate began, but having had it pointed out, and having learned from this debate that the facts are very far from clean cut, it does concern me to try and make it as accurate as possible, if it didn't I'd certainly not be here typing this.

I don't see the point though of deleting and/or amending an entry which is still a matter for debate, there's an equal chance of deleting the truth as of deleting an error. It would be hoped that a concensus of opinion could be reached among all interested parties on what should be done with such an entry, based on all the material and opinion offered up, but as Robbie made mention of earlier, there is also a liklihood for some things this old that definitive "facts" may prove impossible to ascertain and an entry will have to be constructed which explains the respective camps points of view and evidence/reasoning for believing as they do.

Ghostrider 16:17, 8 November 2007 (MST)

Sorry Anon ;-), when I do disagree again. John Sinclair was NOT as you said a "a lord, with the heritable powers", he only hold a "Len for Livstid" as the summary of the quoted paper from the Diplomatarium Norvegicum says it correctly ... a landed gentry, a life peer we might say, nothing else ... see DN 2 647 21 Septbr. 1418 Helsingborg on http://http://www.dokpro.uio.no/ . That's to say it is quite questionalble to call that 1418 paper a "feudal grant" without any comment and at least compared with the standard use of the expression "royal grant" for that time on the continent. It is nothing else but a "land deed" to someone (and that is absolutely in accordance with the practice of that time elsewhere) who was installed as a royal official: He got the rights over some lands - in this case the royal estate in Shetland - but there is no style, no title, no oath or confirmation of a given oath.

I agree that David and John have hold similar positions as officials, David for Orkney and John for Shetland but to my understanding it is not correct to simplify in such a way. To my understanding of the documents it is by far more correct to say that both David and John were royal officials with David probably less than a "govenor of Orkney" but being "Guardian to William" the rightful heir of the earldom and John being something like a syssleman of Shetland (although that style is not officially mentioned as on other documents of that time for the Norwegian home territories).

BDW - To refer to Thomson's "new" work is refering to a secondary source, too, a more recently one but not (eo ipso) neccessarily a more correct one. I personally don't see any reason for "blaming" Morula for "Morula cites aren't original sources" ... or do you understand the old original tongue of the documents or are you refering to and quoting from third parties understanding as well ???

As to the procedures I agree with Ghostrider. Islandhopper 16:56, 8 November 2007 (MST)

O Islandhopper! Do you really prefer 'The Scottish Nation: Or, The Surnames, Families, Literature, Honours...by William Anderson, 1863; The Clans of The Highlands of Scotland, by Thomas Smibert, 1850; Scottish Highlanders, by Charles McKinnon, 1995' to /the original acknowledgment of 1423/ (which you don't quote)and the translation in Clouston? If you or anyone else has the slightest evidence that DM was governor of Shetland, just come forward with it. Otherwise, I have to conclude that the aim is less the presentation of correct information, more the defence of what has been incautiously put on the site in the past ...

>>>O Islandhopper! ...<<<

O, Anon! Would you, please, read correctly!

It was me, who pointed to the fact that Morula's entry might go back to older (you prefer to say: outdated) sources ;-). (see 5th § from the top)

And again it was me who pointed to the fact (that's to say the original document) that Jon Sinclair hold a "Len for Livstid" and not "heritable powers" as you concluded defining as "powers" what are more likely his "duties" according to the quoted original document.

Thirdly I do not prefer the 19th century stuff - that is secondary literature as is Thomson, with the difference that Thomson gladly accepted and corrected known mistakes he had made in the past ;-)))

And finally but again: Instead of questioning my "slightest evidence that DM was governor of Shetland" and speculating about things which I have never said you should read, what I actually did say about the roles and positions of David and Jon. That might be discussed but I'm not going into further discussions about your assumtions on things which I have not said. Islandhopper 03:22, 9 November 2007 (MST)

Then, dear hopper, do you agree with me that the 1423 entry would bear changing? or would that stepn on somebody's toes?

I don't think that a proper correction would be regarded as "stepn on somebody's toes".

To me, personally spoken, DM always was "an Ordadian", a figure of Orkney history and I've never thought about his (possible) links with Shetland prior to this debate (and getting aware of the 1423 entry for the first time).

The way I would react - after I've checked the whole matter on my own - would be an attempt to show that Shetlopedia "is better than many others". Saying so I'm well aware that phrases similar to that of the existing entry i) were still used in printed stuff younger than McKinnon (1995) and ii) are still used on a great variaty of actual websites like electricscotland or the clan websites of the Menzies and the Sinclairs. I don't want to start a new discussion about the academic value of these websites but they are a) by far more frequented than Shetlopedia and b) of an exceptional influence as far as the image of Scottish history in the public is concerned (esp. among expats and their descendends in the US and Canada).

I hope you will see that my reaction is a one of Shetlopedia politics and not only based in facts. Therefore, I wouldn't simply wipe it out but making clear (incl. references) that it was a view of history based in the 19th century tradition and probably absolutely in accordance with the knowledge of those days; but then I would correct it saying that this view is ruled out by modern research (incl. giving proper references again) which is strictly based on the original documents (again with references because the DN is not known to a "normal/average" user.

That might create an extraordinary type of entry in the timeline section but I personally could live with that (no rule without exemption ;-) ). Furthermore it would block any further discussions because Shetlopedia has shown both views and made it clear what the actual state of art really is.

In addition to that I would suggest to create a corresponding timeline entry for John Sinclair linking back to this one thus making clear that Shetlopedia sticks to the best information possible. That all together is to my understanding a proper "pedia" reaction.

Despite that I would be careful with phrases like "feudal grants" or similar which might be misunderstood and combined with "feudal rights" or "feudal titles" - at least meself wouldn't like to see Shetlopedia quoted in such misunderstood contexts. Both DM & JS were royal officials - call them Foud as Aberdeen University does it with regard to MD or sysslemen or what so ever (havn't checked it in detail) - who got royal grants in return for their service to the crown; not more not less. Islandhopper 15:54, 9 November 2007 (MST)

Purely as a non-historian, I have found this debate fascinating, and damn it, I now want to read more on the subject ;-)
I find it very difficult to come to any conclusion as to which side if any is correct, although I am biased towards saying that both are correct within the 'time frame/context' of the publications referenced.
If we fall on either side of the debate, we will always have people who will argue that we are wrong.
Therefore to give the best possible balanced presentation of the available data, I agree with Islandhopper, that the article should contain reference to both arguments. And I would further agree, and suggest, that the timeline entry should be linked to detailed articles on Menzies and Sinclair.
The 'Timeline' when it was started was intended to give only basic information on points in history , and to carry links to pages with more detailed information on events and facts.
This is a case where this strategy would suit perfectly. Only problem is that somebody has to write the pages with the facts, and balanced opinions, based on references... Over to you scholars for that one ;-)
So now, let's try to draw the debate to a close and come up with an amicable solution to the presentation of the available data ;-)
Robbie 16:39, 9 November 2007 (MST)

As a matter of interest: if you guys read somewhere that David Menzie was a pierrot at Weymouth, would you be keen to add that to the entry too (in the interests of fairness)?

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and something which I despise in any person
Robbie 03:21, 10 November 2007 (MST)

Sarcasm is sometimes the only thing left ... The change that has been made to the 1423 page has actually made it worse. I give up! I leave the rewriting of shetland's history to the 'experts'.

I'm very curious as to how you conclude the change has made anything "worse"? It simply states that people have believed, and have been taught to believe, and it has been widely published, all for a very long time, that in matters such as this Orkney and Shetland, to quote yourself, 'must be' one entity. But, in this case at least, information has come to light which casts considerable doubt on what has been stated and published for so long, and the evidence seems to suggest that in this case at least, a spilt occured between the two geographical islands and the people/roles involved in similar duties.

The entry, as it stands, is simply a marker, in the fullness of time, as has been stated, ideally pages will be produced on both Menzies and Sinclair which contain the full story, from all sides, this marker then becoming simply a link to them.

This site, as I have said before, as I understand it, is intended to provide information on all things Shetland, in as accurate and comprehensive way as is possible. Therefor, it would make sense to me to include any and all information/facts which hold the slightest relevance to Shetland.

You cannot deny that it is fact that for several centuries, matters of this nature were believed by most people, and widely published to the same effect, that Orkney and Shetland were always treated as a single entity, because it 'must be', it is only relatively very recent research that has uncovered information otherwise. Does a bank of information such as this site, then not have a role to play in recording both what was believed to be "fact" for so long, and also recording what now appears to be the more accurate version of those facts.

The average visitor to this site is very likely going to already hold the belief that Orkney and Shetland has always been treated as a single unit in matters such as this, if this entry is deleted as you suggested, they are going to go on their merry way still believing both were a single unit in all such matters. However, if this entry is left, even as is, it informs that there is now significant doubt that this matter was one in which Orkney and Shetland was a single unit, and those with enough interest to care can, meantime, investigate further elsewhere for themselves. Once fuller entries for the issue are constructed, they'll get teh whole story here for themselves if they want to.

Granted this entry is only of very limited benefit as is, but at least it acknowledges and dates a certain event, and informs the reader the long-time status quo belief of how such matters were, is now in some doubt, which simply removing it does not do. This is a relatively young site, and one which is very much a work in progress, and there are countless entries equally as vague as this one, and also awaiting expansion. They are beginnings upon which fuller stories will in time be built, Rome was not built in a day.

I would compare your suggestion to remove the entry entirely, to a suggestion that any reference made anywhere to the fact that people for a very long time believed the world to be flat should be deleted, and also remove any mention of who and when first discovered it was actually round, simply because at the end of the day the "fact" it was flat was disproved. The need to retain a reference to Menzies, and who and what he was, stems from the fact that many people have held, and do hold the belief that the position he held covered both Orkney at Shetland, and that information has been widely published. To be comprehensive and accurate we need to state that he in his role was widely believed for a long time to have jurisdiction over Shetland equally as much as Orkney, but that recent research supports his role as being one for Orkney only. In that way regardless of what anyone who reads it already knows, or reads later elsewhere, they are fully informed of the current state of play, and will know that references they may meet in the future to Menzies having powers in Shetland are now very much in doubt.

Ghostrider 12:45, 10 November 2007 (MST)

Thank you Ghostrider, for your balanced and, as always, rational viewpoint.
With the fullness of time there is no doubt that all avenues of this part of history will be explored within Shetlopedia. And many of the vague facts recorded to date will be expanded properly to show all possible information on the facts, including I hope explanation of past held beliefs which I think are important to the full documentation of any historical event.
If history is only allowed to record a single fact, and not the full chain of doubts, questions, and debates leading to that fact, then history becomes a very single minded, dictatorial thing.
Debate, differences of opinion, and open revelation of all views in any case, is the difference between living in a free thinking society, and living under a dictatorship.
Robbie 13:30, 10 November 2007 (MST)

>>>Sarcasm is sometimes the only thing left ...<<<

@ Anon:

NO, Anon, that hasn't anything to do with sarcasm. That's simply trolling (see wikipedia for that, if you don't know the term).

i) You claimed the knowledge, so why not correcting the entry to the best of your knowledge but leaving it up to someone else ... just to complain about any attempt of correction???

ii) Refering to that stupid "a pierrot" thingy asked earlier: Defenitely NO - that's what admin functions are for: To ban and block trolls and to avoid vandalism of the site.

iii) You may have the knowledge but after the last two of your comments it is completely out of interest to me! I would have liked to discuss this and further matters with someone who might have more knowledge than I do have or others might have. In the end: I don't like to discuss with trolls and you do behave like a troll.

@all

I got rid of trolls. Therefore I've sent my version of a possible entry to some Scottish experts of Scottish medieval history to comment on this. Due to my personal circumstances it will take some time to add an unforceable version as outlined before. Shetlopedia is not depending on trolls questioning everything but not being able and/or willing to contribute in a positive way.

Just for documentation: We should not delete or clear this page although nothing really gets lost in a wiki based environment ... ;-)

End of debate as far as I'm concerned ... Islandhopper 15:57, 10 November 2007 (MST)

Thank you Islandhopper,
As far as I'm concerned the debate ended when Anon proved that enforcement of an argument was more important than analysis of available information.
I look forward to seeing what the experts you have asked for comment say. And I have no doubt that they will see the need to mention more than just a 'straight line' view of the subject. History this old is always going to have debate, so any content must reflect that continuing, ongoing debate.
Re. keeping this page.. Absolutely. It should be held up as an example of how Shetland has been plagued by Trows throughout it's history ;-)
I vote we not only archive it, but protect it ;-)
Robbie 17:25, 10 November 2007 (MST)