Talk:1469

Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit

Do we need to link years that has nothing with Shetland to do ?? like on this page... Well, maybe in future all years will be covered,,,but they will stay red a long time I think... , ;-) , Oddrun 09:23, 27 March 2007 (MDT)

The caption to the pic needs sorting - and it needs to be made clear that this is the marriage contract of 1468 concerning /Orkney/.

I know damn all about anything this old,, ;-) Perhaps Islandhopper can sort it ;-)
Robbie 13:38, 30 October 2007 (MDT)

Caption aside, the article has a link to the 'Shetland' page where the sorry saga of 1468/69 is explained, is it necessarily appropriate to duplicate much of the same info on the year page?

Ghostrider 14:23, 30 October 2007 (MDT)

Firtsly the note on the caption was right.

Secondly I tried to sort it out a little bit.

Thirdly I do think as long as we don't have a proper "History" category we should see to the text on the 1468/1469 pages as a kind of marker (we actually do have some more elaborated "markers" within the timeline and including pics which may be reworked when we do have more apropriate pages for such subjects). In case we will have a proper history text about that particular matter both entries in the timeline and the Shetland page may be shortened and linked to that forthcoming text. ;-) Islandhopper 16:37, 30 October 2007 (MDT)

I have tried to sort out 1468 and 1469. The author had been reading the works of John Mooney, whose conclusions have been set aside by historians such as Barbara Crawford and WPL Thomson.

@Anon
{quote}It is obvious that the royal rights were involved as well as ownership of land, and that the intention, until the islands might in future be redeemed, was that the King of Scots should enjoy exactly the same lands and rights as had previously been possessed by the crown of Denmark as successors to the Kings of Noway.{end of quote, see W.P.L. Thomson, p. 115, §3, first sentence}
More quotes for the rest of the former stub? No time for a nice debate at the moment but I would suggest to read Thomson and Crawford before speculating about their say. Islandhopper 18:32, 1 November 2007 (MDT)