Talk:Treaty of York

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire C‑class Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Treaty of York is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 25, 2017 and September 25, 2021.

Cumbria? Rheged?[edit]

I am thinking maybe the link to Cumbria should be to Rheged. Laurel Bush 16:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Replaced stub with an article[edit]

The previous stub incorrectly claimed that this treaty set the border between England and Scotland in 1237. Removed the "importance" setting in the banners because they were likely set to "mid" on the assumption that this article was relevant to the Anglo-Scottish border.

Most of the content that talks about Matthew Paris belongs elsewhere, as it distracts from the article's topic; probably should go into the Alexander II article. I think I got sidetracked a bit tracking down the origin of the story that one occasionally comes across, saying that Alexander II had acted boorishly towards the legate; looks like Paris was that origin. Notuncurious (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most important single event in Scottish History[edit]

The King of the Scots got 'given' or rather was 'granted' (to be held as a feudal subject of the English King, his brother in law in fact) a huge swathe of nothern England and its English inhabitants, an England whose borders back then ran up to the Firth of Forth.

The consequences were profound, since almost from then on 'Scotland' which had previously been a Highland-based Gaelic-speaking kingdom of the Scots became ethnically, linguistically and culturally a second or parallel English Kingdom - one with an ever declining Gaelic 'Scots' component in the Highlands.

The Gaelic word sassenach by the way means 'saxon' and originally meant the Anglo-saxons or English of the kingdom of Bernicia, people who ever since the 6th century had inhabited (and in effect still do inhabit) what are now the Scottish lowlands (prev part of Northumberland i.e England). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.12 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction on border issue[edit]

Anglo-Scottish border and the reference there (an official UK web site) says that this treaty *did* establish a border. The claim here that the treaty did *not* establish a border is currently unreferenced. Further research is necessary to resolve the conflict. Linking to the full text of the treaty would be helpful, though I couldn't find a copy online. -- Beland (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies on the text of the treaty (English translation), which is cited and can be found online (citation number 3 in the article - follow the link to the pages of interest, and read through it). The UK website you mention, which is cited in the Anglo-Scottish border article and unabashedly titled "Scotland Conquered", makes an assertion and cites no sources for the assertion. A reputable source quoting the text of the treaty is surely preferable to an unsourced interpretation.

I've seen the assertion that the 1237 treaty established the border between the kingdoms in a number of places, and apparently it has come to be a part of "common knowledge". However, that is not what the treaty then said, nor what it did (it looks like a document settling feudal interests between two people, with ramifications for the territories/laws beneath those two people). If modern interpretation holds that this amounts to a "settlement" of the border, then so be it ... but let's call it an interpretation, and put the note in the Anglo-Scottish border article. On its face, the Treaty of York did not do that. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Notuncurious: Sorry, what URL were you looking at to see the text of the treaty? I looked at citation number 3 for both articles but neither seemed to be the right place. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland: - Hello Beland, I'm not sure how we're mixed up, but in this article it is in-line citation number 3, immediately above the article text that states the terms; the full citation is under "Notes", number 3, by Charles Truman Wyckoff with a link to the section of his book and titled "The Reign of Alexander II" ... click on the blue link and you go right to the page of interest (ie, [1]). Let me know if there is still a problem in seeing the text. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Notuncurious:: My reading of the treaty is that the King of Scotland ceded to the King of England sovereignty over three counties in dispute, in return for various concessions and some real estate rights with some extraterritoriality applying. Given that the boundaries of Cumberland and Northumberland (named as two of the three counties being ceded) completely determine the modern border (other than Berwick), it does indeed seem that this affirmed a territorial boundary between the kingdoms, where previously there was a border dispute. The BBC agrees with The National Archives that the treaty does establish the boundary: [2]. Wikipedia generally needs to follow secondary sources and not do our own interpretation, so if you believe this is an incorrect interpretation, I would ask if there are any secondary sources to support that. -- Beland (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]