Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Rinty · Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject:

I think we shiould change the name of this thread by editing the 'for cool people' tongue-in-cheek reference to dave's name from it. I also think that, so as not to confuse it with the 'general banter' forum, it should be called 'general discussion' This would make it 'general discussion about scots history'.

I also think that I should edit the first post to say something like:

agentmancuso · Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject:

Go for it.
_________________
It's murder every week at Firhill.

schawaldowris · On A Journey (500 Miles) Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 43

Hi RW

May I take issue with you on two items on your previous post. You stated that Robert I "probably though of himself as Norman" and "his social position depended on his Norman heritage"

With regret we are unable to interview the subject in question, neverthless it is possible to gain some insight into his thoughts and motivations in light of his subsequent actions.

It has unfortunately become fashionable to see Bruce and his family as political opportunists with no regard for any one but themselves. The clear facts are, his pursuit of the Scots crown was fraught with danger. When he first set out on his quest there was no guarantee of success, in fact just the opposite. In many ways the odds were stacked against him. If he had wanted political success and greater wealth, an unswerving allegience to the throne of England, would have certainly been an easier path to follow. Yet he doggedly pursued his ambition to be king of Scots and in process engendered the hate and raised the bile of a Plantagenet Norman king. In process Eduard I declared him traitor and forfieted Bruces extensive estates in England. Is this a person who thinks of himself as Norman by defying a Norman king?

Then we have the matter of "his social position being dependant on his Norman background?

It will be recalled that "the Bruce" was earl of Carrick, one of the premier earls of Scotland, at the gift of his mother Marjorie, who was of Celtic descent. In similar vein John de Baliol received the Lordship of Galloway only because he married Devorgilla in her own right Countess of Galloway. Then we have John Comyn who married Isabel Countess of Buchan. In each case we have persons of Norman descent climbing the social ladder at the gift of their wives.

Of course it could be argued that the Celtic heiresses married men of Norman descent for political advantage. Yet certainly in the case of Devorgilla and Marjorie, history records they were infatuated with their husbands.

One final point, the lordship of Galloway was regarded as one of the lesser righ of Scotland. They certainly considered themselves to be Scots. It will be recalled that Alan of Galloway was Constable of Scotland and Gallwegians were in the van of the Scots army of David I defeated at the Neville's Cross. When the Constable died in 1234 despite having large estates in England and other lands in Ireland, his body was interred at Dundrennan in the land of his anscetors.

Mairead

You dont like John Knox because he was apparantly a self confessed woman hater! Wouldn't it be fascinating to know what his wife thought of him ?
_________________
Promtus et Fidelis

Runaway Weegie · Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject:

I've got no problems with a name change.

Your introductory paragraph seems quite fair. I'd like this thread to be about sharing knowledge.

Blackadder · Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject:

As the person who started the thread I reserve the right to change the name as I did with another thread I opened ... and consider it done!!!
_________________
Laird of Treverlen

schawaldowris · On A Journey (500 Miles) Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 43

Hi Rinty

I am in complete sympathy with your viewpoint. As Agent says "go for it."
We can question anothers argument without resorting to personal abuse or villification. As RW says we should share knowledge with one another. It is always better to listen than to lecture.
_________________
Promtus et Fidelis

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

Runaway Weegie · Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject:

I see what you're saying Schawaldowris. I agree, it's not possible to know with 100% accuracy what Bruce thought of his identity. If there is evidence that he thought of himself as a Scot and a Gael I'm happy to accept it. But I think we can agree that Bruce owed his position within Scottish society and the aristocracy of the day at least in part due to his Norman heritage. I certainly wouldn't claim he thought of himself as Norman and nothing else.

Although they had an important cultural influence, the Normans were a minor ethnic group in Scotland. The vast majority of the population were Gaelic speakers with a large Inglis speaking minority in the south. There were still a few Cumbric speakers around at this date too.

I'm not denying Bruce's Gaelic heritage. It may be more accurate to describe him as Normanised Gael, or a Gaelicised Norman. People like Robert Bruce illustrate the point I made above about how Scotland must have contained many people who were equally comfortable in two languages and cultures. He was probably Norman when it suited him, and a Gael when it suited him.

Edward 1 was a Norman king, but he wasn't King of the Normans and didn't claim that title. Bruce wouldn't have felt allegiance to an English king for Bruce's Scottish lands just because both Bruce and the English king were Normans. Other Normans in other parts of Europe didn't necessarily feel any allegiance to the English king either.

The reason I mentioned the Gallowegians was because they are often listed separately from the Scots as inhabitants of the kingdom of Scotland. It seems that the word "Scot" wasn't automatically taken to apply to Gallowegians. Of course their linguistic and cultural ties to other Gaelic speakers were obvious, but they seem to have had some sort of special status of their own.

There's an interesting difference between the title of the Scottish monarch in Latin, English and Gaelic. In Latin he was Rex Scottorum King of Scots, the exact same phrase used in English. In this early period, Scot was the usual word for Gaelic speaker, whether in Scotland or Ireland. However in Gaelic the King of Scots was Rí Alban - King of Alba. Not Rí nan Gaidheal which would be the exact translation of Rex Scottorum. I've only just realised this, and have no idea why there's such a difference. Any thoughts?

Jimbo · Our Scotland = 2nd Job! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 1086

Yes Rinty.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

William_Cleland · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:51 am Post subject:

mairead · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:34 am Post subject:

Shawaldowris,
No I don't find Knox obnoxious because of his woman hating thing, but because I think his reformation, or rather the manner in which he carried it out, caused a great deal of damage in Scotland and I think also that his vicious manner of preaching was inadvertently one of the factors which led to the death of Queen Mary Stewart.
My reason for thinking that way is that it was he, who to a great extent turned the people of Scotland against her.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

Rinty · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:04 am Post subject:

Turning the people of scotland against royalty is always, in my opinion, a positive effect.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

agentmancuso · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject:

Risto the Great · Finding Ma' Way Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 11

William_Cleland · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject:

Out of curiosity are you Risto Stefov the historian Greek nationalists are not too keen on? If so I've read some of your stuff and found it an interesting read. I think any Scottish victimhood pales into insignificance compared to recent Macedonian history. We did most of any damage inflicted to ourselves to help cash in on being a junior partner in the world's greatest empire. Your people obviously have had a very tough time of it courtesy of the Ottoman Empire, Greece and Serbia/Yugoslavia until Tito arrived on the scene.
_________________
No more boom and bust - Gordon Brown

Runaway Weegie · Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject:

smrt in Slavonic languages comes from the same Indoeuropean root as the Celtic name Smertae. It's a common inheritance in both language groups, so isn't evidence for a special connection between them within Indoeuropean.

The initial s is what Indoeuropean specialists call the s mobile because it shows up in some daughter languages but not others. It's believed the s- was an old prefix, although its meaning was lost by the time Indoeuropean broke up into its daughter languages. Some languages preserved the s- as a fossil, others didn't. Latin mortuus and English murder come from the same Indoeuropean root.

And as William said, the Macedonians certainly got the rough end of the stick. Balkan history is even more politicised than Scottish history.