Talk:Earl of Orkney

untitled
Should Duke of Orkney even be listed here? It doesn't have any tie to the earldom, as far as I know. Mackensen 00:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the Duke is connected to the earldom as I understand. . . he was created Duke instead of Earl but it was the same earldom, after all.

I created the entry on the Earldom of Orkney and added some information on the Scottish earls there which more or less mirrors the same information here but I don't see that the two entries really should be merged.--Mike 08:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Sinclairs held the Orkneys as a fief of Norway and not from Scotland as this article claims. Fornadan (t) 19:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Property
What lands did the earls of the 3rd creation originally possess? --Anglius 02:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Scottish" versus "Norse"
Why is Harald Maddadsson labelled among the Norse earls, when his father was in fact the Gaelic Mormaer of Atholl? Aren't dynasties normally regarded as ending through a male line? Surely the Scottish part should begin with him, no? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but was he alligned with the Norwegian or the Scottish king? If he was alligned with the Norwegian king maybe that could explain it. Inge 16:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We should not give any respect to old patriarchal notion of a family ending with extinction of males. Which of the following is more Norse: a boy born of Norse father and a Gaelic mother, given a Gaelic first name, fostered in Highlands and speaking Gaelic as his preferred language. Or a boy born of a Gaelic father and Norse mother, receiving a Norse first name, brought up by that Norse mother in the court of the Gaelic father, speaking both languages, the boy ultimately succeeding his maternal uncle in Norse-speaking possessions and settling to live in that Norse community. ? Finlandais 14:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether one is regarded as Norse earl or Scottish earl, is, in my opinion, dependent upon whether the overlordship (technically granting the earldom) is king of Norway or king of Scots. Finlandais 14:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian or Norse
If we know the jarl of Orkney was Norwegian or a vassal of the King of Norway why not say so? The word Norse is equally Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, Faroese, and the people of the isles currently under Scottish control. To use it interchangeably with Norwegian will only increase confusion. Inge 16:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The earldom was unquestionaly "Norwegian" from 1195 onwards, since the Norwegian king appointed officials and interfered in the local government. Earlier than that the bonds were more nominal and mostly restricted to tribute. Wether the earls were ethnically Norwegian is rather dubious since they intermarred with the Gaelic nobility almost from the beginning. AFAIK Henry Sinclair was the first earl who spoke Scottish and the Sinclairs also abaondoned Norn as the administrative language. Fornadan (t) 18:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no such language as "Scottish". I think you mean that the Sinclairs where the first Earls who spoke Lowland Scots, which is probably correct, as Harald Maddadsson, the Anguses and Strathearns came from a Gaelic background, and that language until the 16th century was referred to by the exonyn "Scottish". Anyways, the Orkney earldom is a Norse lordship which predates Harald Finehair, so is much more safely described as "Norse" than "Norwegian". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Maybe it is best to keep the use of Norse in the first sentence. However I do want to correct you if the impression is that before the formal formation of the states the peoples of Norway, Sweden and Denmark were one entity called Norse. The notions of a separate Norwegian, Swedish (including/excluding the Geats) and Danish people existed before the formation of the states. So to automatically shift from Norse to Norwegian in 872 might not be correct. Inge 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't dispute this for the mo, but I'd be interested to know what your evidence is. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian ethnicity was clearly distinct of that of Danish and Swedish already very early, possibly already two thousand years ago, as the original language of Norwegians (of Trondelag, Bergen and so forth) is of Western Scandinavian, whereas Swedish, Danish and so forth are Eastern Scandinavian. Most of the people to come to Orkneys were Weestern Scandinavians, which also is basis of Faroese and Icelandic languages. Only much later, under danish dominion, Norwegian language got its almost eastern-S. features of today. There may have originally been just some Eastern-Scandinavian dialects in the Vigen region of Norway, but presumably nowhere more west or north in Norway's area. Today Swedes and Danes have great difficulties to get any grasp in Icelandic, Faroese, AND old Norse texts, whereas Swedes and Danes understand each others' written language rather well, as they also understand current Norwegian written language(s). It is not clever to imply that Norn or Norse in Orkney islands had very much to do with Danish and Swedish. It had all to do with the medieval Norwegian (which has since almost vanished). Medieval Denmark and Sweden were generally separate, I presume for other reasons than language barrier. Finlandais 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexander de l'Ard
He seems to have become Earl of Orkney in 1375. The book I use as source further states that this was to be restricted to one year, but doesn't mention Orkney again until Sinclair's grant. The charter can be found online here, but I'm no good in reading Old Norwegian

Merge discussion
It seems to me that having two very similar articles can only be confusing for readers and may well lead to some info being duplicated or missed. I strongly propose a merge.Abtract 19:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree ... but some more looking into the details would be helpful (sorry for my humble English, me is German as my Orcadian folks would like to say ... ;-)
 * why do you disagree?Abtract 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the different parts of the "Norse Earldom of Orkney", please. Thorfin the Mighty (noone would question his being "Norse", already was a "Scottish Earl" when granted with Caithness on his birth by his grandfather Malcolm II. On the other hand the agreed lineage of Norse Earls died out with the last "Sinclair Earl of Orkney" (long after Shetland was taken out of the earldom and put under direct controle of the Norwegian crown) and the following "interregnum" under management of "Scottish tacksmen / Norwegian Sysselman etc." like the Balfours and Belledens before the (now no longer Norse) Earldom was reinstalled for Robert Stewart, 1st Earl (Scotland) of Orkney. There is a lot of rubbish in the internet, but royalty.gov.uk has it quite clearly up to modern standards of research when talking about "Norse Earls of Orkney" and "Earls of Orkney" ... 172.173.164.187 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I don't understand what relevance this has to the merge discussionAbtract 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Earl of Orkney should be a list of earls with some explanatory material. Earldom of Orkney is about the Norse earldom. A discussion of shearings and udal law and the presence of thing-names in Shetland and their absence in Orkney would be fine in Earldom of Orkney, but quite out of place in Earl of Orkney. It's been pointed out that the various Viking-Age articles (Kings of Dublin, Earldom of Orkney, Uí Imaír, Kings of Man and the Isles, etc, etc) need to be rolled up and reorganised, so eventually Earldom of Orkney could be merged into Viking Age in North Britain and Ireland, Viking Scotland, or whatever the article might be called when it eventually gets written. That's my thoughts anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I like your thoughtsAbtract 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there are good arguments against the merge so I am quite happy to remove my suggestion.Abtract 23:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Canadian
The present Earl lives in Canada but this seems to be the extent of the qualification for this page's being included in the Canadian peers category. I think his page belongs there but not this one. Safe to remove it then? Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Origins
I've dropped an essay into WikiProject Scottish Islands/Origins of the Uí Ímair and the Earls of Orkney and comments/edits are more than welcome. Some of the reasons it is not (yet) an article are explained on the talk page - I also think it needs some input from those much more familiar with the relevant periods of Norse and Irish history than I am. Ben  Mac  Dui  15:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dates
The dates in the list are essentially unsourced at present. I'm most interested in the early period, which is largely a matter of conjecture. Nonetheless a sourced date is better than a Wikipedian's guess. I am intending to compile a list here and see where it leads to. As the sources might be contradictory I don't see much point in amending the article list until some kind of clarity emerges.


 * Ragnvald Eysteinsson, Earl of Møre, fl. 865–890
 * Sigurd Eysteinsson (Sigurd the Mighty), to c. 874
 * Guthorm Sigurdsson, 874-875
 * Hallad Rognvaldsson, c. 891–c. 893
 * Torf-Einarr Rognvaldsson, d. 910
 * Arnkel Torf-Einarsson, jointly with Erlend and Thorfinn 910–954
 * Erlend Torf-Einarsson, jointly with Arnkel and Thorfinn 910–954
 * Thorfinn Torf-Einarsson (Thorfinn Skull-Splitter), jointly with Erlend and Arnkel 910–954, alone 954–963
 * Arnfinn Thorfinnsson c. 963–?
 * Havard Thorfinnsson, c. ?–?
 * Ljot Thorfinnsson, ?–c. 980
 * Hlodvir Thorfinnsson, c. 980–991
 * Sigurd Hlodvirsson (Sigurd the Stout), 991–1014
 * Sumarlidi Sigurdsson, jointly with Brusi and Einar, 1014–c. 1016
 * Brusi Sigurdsson, jointly with Einar, Sumarlidi and later with Thorfinn, 1014–c. 1031
 * Einar Sigurdsson (Einar Wry-mouth), with Brusi and Sumarlidi, 1014–1026
 * Thorfinn Sigurdsson (Thorfinn the Mighty), with Brusi and Rögnvald, 102?–104?, alone to c.1064
 * Rögnvald Brusason, with Thorfinn, c. 1037? –c. 1046

References

Notes

Footnotes

I have turned the above into a referenced table and hope to add it soon, replacing the existing list. Ben  Mac  Dui  17:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Heinrik Haraldsson
Heinrik Haraldsson is on this list but would seem to be bogus - he was apparently Earl of Ross. Ben  Mac  Dui  17:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Two similar articles, supporting rationale

 * Following copied here from talk page of User:Lobsterthermidor:

Hello. Could you please explain why you moved "Earldom of Orkney" to "Feudal Earldom of Orkney"?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it is a different topic to the similarly named article Earl of Orkney (another "Earldom of Orkney"), a much later title created in the Peerage of Scotland, which title is presently held by the Fitz-Maurice family. The present representative, so far as I understand it, of the feudal Earls of Orkney is Malcolm Sinclair, 20th Earl of Caithness, who in recognition of this, in his coat of arms quarters the arms of the ancient earldom of Orkney, the lymphad. There is likewise a difference between the feudal Earldom of Arran (at present claimed by a Swiss millionaire who owns land formerly forming the caput of the feudal barony) and the two titles Earl of Arran in the Peerage of Ireland, held by the Gore family, and in the Peerage of Scotland, the latter one at present held by the Duke of Hamilton.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC))
 * So you envisage an article devoted to the medieval earldom, and an article devoted to the peerage created in 1696? OK, but the article that you moved to "Feudal Earldom of Orkney" was about the medieval earldom and doesn't seem to have contained anything about this early modern creation.
 * I think you should move the article back to where it was, and then take the redirect "Feudal Earldom of Orkney" and create a standalone article for this early modern title. That's the simplest way to handle it. "Earldom of Orkney" about the medieval Viking/Norwegian/Scottish earldom, and "Feudal Earldom of Orkney" about the more modern title. As for "Earl of Orkney", its a glorified list that lists all those who bore the titles. The bulkiness of this list can be trimmed and siphoned off into these other two articles.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand it what is meant by the "Feudal Earldom of Orkney" is exactly what you have called the "medieval Viking/Norwegian/Scottish earldom", which stretches back to pre-history. It is the earldom which existed based on ownership or feudal tenure of land, namely the Orkney Isles, presumably. The "Peerage title" that you have referred to as the "early modern creation" and a "glorified list" would have been created by a monarch (if it followed similar rules to English usage) either by a writ to attend parliament or by letters patent, nothing to do with feudalism, the grantee need not have owned a square inch of land in Orkney. The "glorified list" seems to be the established wikipedia style for peerage titles. I'm going to paste a copy of this discussion to the talk pages of the two articles.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC))

Merger proposal
''It has been suggested that this page be merged with Earldom of Orkney. Proposed since February 2018.''

Earldom of Orkney simply duplicates the coverage of a large section of the Earl of Orkney at present. Several options exist including:
 * A straightforward merge of the Earldom article into this one - relatively simple to achieve but leaves us with one rather weak and inconsistently formatted article;
 * Merge and separate out the text and listings (for an example see Kingdom of the Isles and List of rulers of the Kingdom of the Isles). The latter would be a fair amount of effort but much of the information is in place at present.
 * Have three 'main articles' called e.g. 'Norse Earls of Orkney', 'Scottish Jarls of Orkney under the Norwegian Crown', 'Scottish Earls of Orkney' and one summary style 'Earl of Orkney'. Doable, but probably only necessary if a single article became overlong. The first named might only be duplicate of a better Orkneyinga Saga article (which I may produce eventually).

, who communicated about this issue in 2015. Ben  Mac  Dui  16:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * To me it seems natural to use "Earl of Orkney" as the place to list titleholders, and use "Earldom of Orkney" to present info of the Norwegian and Scottish earldoms. This is sort of how "King of Scotland" and "Kingdom of Scotland" work. That said, I don't see any problem in merging the two (or merging the two and splitting off a list).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me - I wasn't suggesting that the 'list-style' article be renamed. If the above was the result I'd suggest:
 * having the list of earls at "Earl of Orkney" in a more consistent style;
 * reducing the text at "Earl of..." as much as credible and merging any text not needed there with "Earldom of Orkney". Ben   Mac  Dui  11:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Having started this exercise I am tempted to suggest three articles: The logic of the two lists is that the first is a Norwegian title (albeit with some Scots holding it from 1230-1470), the second is a Scots title. A problem is the article titles for reasons I can elaborate on if they are not obvious. Ben  Mac  Dui  17:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Norse Earls of Orkney - a reasonably well researched and cited article as things stand.
 * Scots Earls of Orkney - an article with a single citation (which relates to the coat of arms in the infobox).
 * Earldom of Orkney - a history of the earldom. The Norse period is largely covered by Jarls' Saga and as far as I can see the third creation has very little connection with the actual history of Orkney and the article could comfortably focus on the period 1535-1614.

It's a classic Wikipedia problem to get caught up in the naming of articles when the blue links probably work pretty well from the readers' point of view. Nonetheless, here are some more thoughts.

Possibilities for the 9th century - 1472: Possibilities for post 1472:
 * Jarl of Orkney - An accurate name but my guess is that most people who are interested in this period will look for "Earl of..".
 * Norse Earls of Orkney - OKish but they were not really 'Norse' after 1320.
 * Earl of Orkney (Norwegian) - accurate but clumsy.
 * Earl of Orkney - OKish but see Jarl of Orkney
 * Scots Earls of Orkney - OKish but some Scottish Earls were in post, 1320s-1472.
 * Earl of Orkney (Scots) - accurate but clumsy. Also, this might leave 'Earl of Orkney' as a redirect or a dab, or a summary style article Ben   Mac  Dui  17:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing the modern aristocracy turned out to be fairly simple, so the above thinking aloud can probably be safely ignored. Ben  Mac  Dui  17:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)