Talk:Lord of the Isles

Lords and Islands
I've made a number of changes here to correct some fairly major errors. In general, I have to say that this article offers a very poor account of a major topic in Scottish history, and really deserves a systematic rewrite. Can I also suggest to people writing on aspects of Scottish history to look beyond the pages of John Prebble. Whatever his merits as an author he is far from being the most reliable guide on the subject.

Anyway, here are the amendments.

LORDS OF THE ISLES. First and foremost, it has to be stressed that there were only ever four men who were draped in the title of Dominus Insularum-Lord of the Isles. In succesion they were John Macdonald of Islay-also known as Good John of Islay-who first assumed the title in 1336; his son Donald; his son Alexander; and his son John, second of that name and last de jure Lord of the Isles. The title revived briefly-and unofficially-during the early years of Mary Queen of Scots, when Donald Dubh, the illegitimate grandson of the last Lord, attempted to regain his lost inheritance. His death brought the direct line from Good John of Islay to an end.

ARRAN AND ANTRIM. There is no evidence whatsoever that Arran was granted to-or under the authority of- any of the island chiefs. At a very early date the island was to fall within the territorial orbit of the High Stewards. Antrim was NEVER, at any point in its history, part of the Lordship of the Isles. Parts of northern Antrim, those areas around the Glens, were to become part of the patrimony of the Macdonalds of Dunyveg in Islay, one of the prominent families to emerge from the ruins of the Lordship of the Isles.
 * Part of Antrim was claimed by the Lordship of the Isles - Rathlin Island (notice i say CLAIMED not WAS). I can't remember exactly which member of the family it was, but it took a royal decree to declare Rathlin Island as part of Ireland and not part of the Lordship of the Isles. Mabuska (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

3MAGNUS BARELEGS Magnus did not 'bully' (where did that come from?) Edgar into ceeding the Isles to Norway, for-as I have said elsewhere-he could not give what he did not have. For many years before Magnus appeared in the west the exact political status of the Isles had been unclear-though they were in a loose sense under the authority of the Kings of Norway, not the Kings of Scotland. The treaty of 1098 was intended to introduce a clear line of demarcation, the Isles to Magnus and the Mainland to Edgar. This offered clear benefits to Edgar, for his authority in mainland Argyllshire was still very uncertain, and the treaty with Magnus at least offered the promise that there would be no more Norse incursions.

SOMERLED Somerled never took-or was awarded-the title of Rex Insularum, a neologism invented-one assumes- by a visitor to these pages. He was known by his contemporaries and kinsmen as ri Innse Gall-King of the Hebrides.

I can make no sense at all to the pseudo-scientific gibberish about DNA; and to say that 500000 people (yes, that's right!) are descended from Somerled is a statement I would have thought would challenge even the most gullible mind. Clearly not.

DOWNFALL. This section-which should be the core of the whole piece-is the weakest of all, saying virtually nothing about the Lords of the Isles. Also the information on the final demise of the Lordship was mired in error. Edward IV failed to act on the Treaty of Westminster not because of the 'outbreak' of the Wars of the Roses (the first phase of which had largely ended by 1462), but because he never took the treaty seriously in the first place. For him it was never more than a bargaining token, intended to end Scottish support for the House of Lancaster. John's treason was not 'discovered' in 1493: it was revealed by Edward himself in 1476. Although John was finally pardoned by James III, he lost control of the earldom of Ross-outwith Skye-, Kintyre and Knapdale. His title was no longer to be assumed independently, being awarded from this point forward, in the full feudal sense, by the Scottish crown. It was continuing political disorders in the Isles-and John's inability to deal with them-that led to the forfieture of 1493. It wasn't until 1540 that the title Lord of the Isles was formally reserved to the crown by James V. Rcpaterson 01:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rcpaterson, there is a good deal of evidence which suggests that the kings of Alba did control much of the isles before Edgar. This is what Bower says (I assume Fordun does too), and what the Scandinavian sources say. Domnall Bán's association with the isles is further evidence of this, as is the Dunkeld bishopric (associated with Iona, Inchcolm and the cult of Columba), and the burial of Alba's kings on Iona. Another piece of evidence is Suibne mac Cináeda, king of the Gall-Gaidheal, whose death date and patronymic make him a likely brother of King Máel Coluim II. Cumulatively, this is pretty good evidence. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that interesting information, but I do not think that it undercuts my challenge to the absurd contention that Edgar was 'bullied' out of the Isles by Magnus. If we go back to the ninth century it is clear that the kings of Alba had an involvement in and interest over the Isles; but that changed with the steady advance of of the Norsemen. Some residual interest may have remained, as you point out, but the focus for Malcolm III and his successors moved away from the west and the old kingdom of Dal Riada towards the east and the English border. It was only really at the time of Alexander II and Alexander III that they began to look back to the west, puting behind the English adventures of David I and William the Lion. The point is that at the time of Magnus and Somerled the Hebrides were part of a Norse/Gaelic polity, which had very little to do with the Kingdom of Scotland in a direct political sense. Somerled was only able to assume the title ri Innse gall precisely because political sovereignty and authority was so nebulous. In my own researches on the Lords of the Isles I never came across any evidence of Scots control of the Isles at the time of the treaty of 1098. Bishoprics are different-they can cross political boundries. I know from old that Bower has to be treated with a degree of caution. I thought I had read all of the Scandanavian sources also, but I would be pleased for any more specific references you may have. Rcpaterson 05:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I cant comment upon the scientific veracity of the statement made regarding the number of people descended from Somerled but the fact that it has been given coverage in major broadsheets - there was a specific article on it within the last year i recall - along with the same research which established Genghis Khan as having the most living descendants probably makes it a little bit more valid than "pseudo-scientific giberish" for the gullible mind. siarach 07:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Article dealing with the DNA revealations can be found here and repeated here. siarach 09:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mea Culpa: in the dim mists of the summer of 2004 I added a bit of history to what was previously a very brief summary of the Scottish title of nobility. The errors then arose from my (mis)interpretation of the websites I cited and the old copy of Prebble which was to hand: having lately acquired the rather newer Scotland A New History by Michael Lynch 1991 I'd hope this is a little more reliable, but obviously far from authoritative. The bullying by Magnus was cited "(according to Prebble)" as a note of scepticism which appears well justified. The Rex Insularum probably came from a website: Prebble only says he was "called Regulus of Argyll". The fact that my misunderstandings are being corrected by scholars of history is excellent: a minor point it that while the changes appear fully credible, it would be helpful to add more suitable References to that section, perhaps replacing Prebble's old tome, and if possible revising the External links to lead to more accurate accounts. ..dave souza, talk 08:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Rex Insularum I agree with Dave above that this title was probably lifted from a website. I googled it and hits from various websites associated with or dealing with Clan Donald are prominent though i do seem to recall coming across it in some book or other as well. But regardless if its a nonsense, as indeed it seems to be, its a nonsense and best done away with. siarach 09:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dominus Insularum
I've now started to expand this article to include a clearer account both of the emergence of the Lordship of the Isles as a political entity, and of the four men who held the title and their changing relationship with the kingdom of Scotland. It should take a day or two to complete. Rcpaterson 02:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Finished, barring minor corrections. Rcpaterson 03:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://clanmckerrell.50free.net/rulers.htm (archive)
 * In Lord of the Isles on 2007-06-24 14:43:32, 404 Not Found
 * In Lord of the Isles on 2007-07-11 12:35:15, 404 Not Found

The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version:. -- Stwalkerbot 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger
Off-hand I can't see the point myself. Lord of Islay is a rather weak stub at present, but presumably it could be expanded. Ben  Mac  Dui  12:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems
This article has been evaluated as part of an ongoing contributor copyright investigation. While it seems to be clear of issues prior to these diffs, I'm sorry to say that at that point text was introduced which had been previously published in The Lords of the Isles.

For a couple of examples, the article contains the following:

The book says, pp. 23-24:

It contains the following:

The book says, p. 30:

I find matches from other passages, too.

Unfortunately, Paterson's publisher has not approved the use of this text.

We have the option of reverting the article to this version, which seems clean, following which content contributed by other users can be restored if it does not interact with text from this contributor in such a way as to create an unauthorized derivative work (since the copyright problem versions will probably be deleted, it's important to attribute in edit summary, such as "content contributed by User:Example "). The article can also be completely rewritten. The article is being blanked and listed at the copyright problems board to give contributors an opportunity to determine how best to proceed. It will be revisited by an administrator after about a week to see what further steps may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably easiest to go back to Angus's version of 21.7.06 and add back some of the changes that avoid the copyvios. A lot of effort would be wasted, but I have none of the reference works quoted. I am busy right now and may not re-appear here for a few days. Ben   Mac  Dui  08:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, revert so we at least have a stub that we can work off. I'll trust your knowledge of the source to remove the sections in question. Good catch! Akerbeltz (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My knowledge of the source is somewhat limited, I'm afraid, to what is viewable at Amazon books preview. We remove contributions by the specific author, who is prolific and was operating in good faith. I have restored the presumably clean content and also salvaged some of the later additions that I could see did not intersect with Paterson's text. After the listing, the intervening edits may be deleted as the chance of inadvertent resurrection of some of this content is quite high. Your assistance here is much appreciated. I hate seeing this material lost. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Personal communication" as reference
I take it we can't use "personal communication" as references here (note 3 of the current version) - but I'm mentioning it here before I replace it with a cn. Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly - see WP:RS. There is nothing wrong with a "personal communication" as such provided it is both reliable and published, but this isn't quite in that category. It might after all simply be a letter from person A to person B stated this as fact without any corroboration. I suggest removing the edit unless it can be backed up. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

list of title holders
shouldn't there be a list of people with the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.44.209 (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)