Talk:1471

Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia

Even the somehow dubious udallaw.com agrees with that simple fact (see their #6) before it starts speculating Whether this is or was ‘legal’ and within the spirit or word of the impignoration is debateable. Islandhopper 19:03, 1 November 2007 (MDT)

Sorry, friend. The date is 1472.

The Act of Parliament is dated 20 May 1471 [Scots Acts 1471, c.4]. The 1471 entry in the timeline here refers to that act only, neither to the forerunning order of the Scottish Privy Council dated Feb 1471 nor to the amendment refering to the transfer of the bishopric from the jurisdiction of Nidaros to that of St Andrews nor anything else you might wish to discuss. Instead of mocking, please, show a more suitable proof than Scots Acts 1471, c.4 that the act is dated 1472. Islandhopper 08:41, 2 November 2007 (MDT)

Not mocking, friend, just trying to get at the facts. The act annexing Orkney and Shetland to the crown is dated 20 February /1472/. (The record states 1471, but at that point the year didn't start on 1 January.) The Privy Council doesn't have anything to do with it. All this will be available online shortly, when the Acts of the Scottish Parliament project comes to fruition. Meanwhile, have a look at Thomas Thomson's edition of the Acts, vol. ii, page 102. I wonder if what you have in mind is the charter of confirtmation under the great seal of Queen Margaret's dowry? It is dated 13 May 1471, but has nothing to do with the annexation. Let's get this right!

Care to explain how the year not beginning on January 1st has anything to do with anything? Surely any change to securing it to that date made later than the 1470's only affects the years after that change was made. Prior to any such securing of the date the year is whatever people knew it as as it unfolded at the time, regardless which day of the 365/366 a "new" one occured.

Ghostrider 12:54, 2 November 2007 (MDT)

Is this calendar being discussed the one that Foula uses???? Where Yule & New Year are at differnet times,, but only by a few days. If that is the case then something that happened in May would still be in the same year, wouldn't it???
Sorry, I'm only a simple person, and this looks like a complete load of trowism to me.
Robbie 13:04, 2 November 2007 (MDT)

Until 1600 in Scotland new year's day fell on 25 March. So 20 February 1471 in a contemporary record is 'our' 20 February 1472. You may not like this, guys (altho' why I know not), but it is a fact! See http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/051228.asp

The date in dispute is May 20th.

Ghostrider 13:52, 2 November 2007 (MDT)

Have to agree with Ghostrider here.
If Act of parliament was dated 20th May, then that is still in the same year, no matter when the New Year started, as long as it was before 20th May.
Just to clarify a point though... If New year was on 25th March, then surely a February date would be in the previous year, not the following one.
Or is this just argument for the sake of argument.
Robbie 14:00, 2 November 2007 (MDT)

The facts are: the Act was passed on 20 February 1471 = 1472. Have a look at Thomson's Acts of the parliaments of Scotland vol. 2. But, hey, if you lads want it to be 20 May 1471, why not! As a matter of interest, though, why not 1475?

@Anon,
You are perfectly right: The year 1471 started in full accordance with the specific Scot's counting of the years on 25 March ... that is exactly what the NAS example shows ... 19th March would be the year before ... 20 May would be the same year that started on 25 March ...;-)
Nevertheless: In addition to that you are claiming here that allmost exactly two month later (in May the same year (1471) which had started on 25 March) these stupid Scottish court beaurocrats signed their documents "May 1471" just for fun because two months later that same and only two months old 1471 had switched to 1472 ... ;-)
Anyway, I'm neither a Shetlander nor a Scot nor a British, so you may sort it the way you want, but in general I don't trust a publication from 1844 when an actual revision is forthcoming soon ... ;-)
BDW and just for feeding trolls: There is many a date before 1600 in the timeline. Don't worry, be happy - check them individually and if neccessary do correct them according to "your" Scottish calender ... :-D RCAHMS, Historic Scotland and others might be thankfull ... ;-) ... never mind, but it might be more successful than establishing a new theory that the annexation happened in 1475 ... ;-) Islandhopper 16:52, 2 November 2007 (MDT)

I never kent trows aet years,,,, I aye windered whit ta feed da peerie buggers.. ;-) Thanks fur tellin me dat Islandhopper.  :-) Dir bust be plenty o maet fur him somewhaur upö wir shaeves dan. ;-)
Da neest nicht I meet een a'll tell him ta try 2007BC,,, a'd laek ta see an entry fur dat year. :-))))
Robbie 17:12, 2 November 2007 (MDT)