Talk:Lothian

Untitled
Lyonesse? Not so sure, Lyonesse is a kind of Celtic Atlantis. --MacRusgail 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thoroughly Anglo-Saxon throughout Scottish history? Really?
From the Edinburgh page "The origin of the city's name is understood to come from the Brythonic Din Eidyn (Fort of Eidyn) from the time when it was a Gododdin hillfort." This seems to contradict the statement on this page that "[lothian is the] only part of the nation to have been thoroughly Anglo-Saxon throughout Scottish history". It can't have been always Anglo-Saxon if it was one Brythonic. Can someone reseach this detail further and correct it? Rincewind42 10:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lothian was Anglo-Saxon prior to it being conquered by the Scots and became a part of Kingdom of Scotland and has thus indeed always been Anglo-Saxon with regard to Scottish history. Do not confuse geographical North Britain, which is now referred to as Scotland with regard to all periods of history simply because that is the contemporary name of the region, with the Scottish state which did not come into existence until founded by the aforementioned Scots during the latter stages of the first millenium. siarach 11:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a rather convoluted argument and goes against the common understanding of the term "Scottish History". It also goes against the use of the term "Scottish History" as used in many other pages of the wikipedia. For example the History of Scotland page begins with "The history of Scotland begins around 10,000 years before the present day..." Or do you want them to edit that to "The history of Northern Britain, the area which later became known as Scotland, begins around 10,000 years before the present day..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rincewind42 (talk • contribs)


 * Shrugs* I thought the context in which the reference was made was clear enough. Ive changed the relevant bit in the article to refer to the Kingdom of Scotland rather than the more ambiguous Scottish history. siarach 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Shrugging isn't going to let you off the hook on this one. This whole section is so POV I can't quite actually believe it. Is this what Wikipedia has become? At one point it says "Indeed the earliest surviving use of the name "Engla land" (England) is in a version of Bede, in reference to Abercorn in West Lothian." - Abercorn may have indeed been controlled by the English from AD 678 to AD 685 under Bishop Trumwin, and Bede might have mentioned "Engla land" in the passing, but that doesn't make Abercorn English, or even an Anglo Saxon settlement never mind being part of "Engla land", however much you want to twist the truth to your POV. According to Bede, the Picts defeated them at the Battle of Dunnichen in AD 685, and Trumwin retreated south to Whitby (strange that he did not retreat to the nearest Anglo Saxon settlement in Lothian). I'd be really interested to see that list of Anglo Saxon settlements in Lothian alluded to in the article. Can anyone provide such a list?--62.249.233.80 (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Scotland (843-1707 CE) annexed Lothian in 1018 CE, as mentioned earlier in the article. This means that for 175 years out of the total of the 864 years that the Kingdom of Scotland existed, Lothian was controlled by Anglo Saxons, as it had been since at least 643 CE when Oswald defeated Cadwallon. But being controlled by Anglo Saxons does not necessarily mean that everyone in Lothian spoke Anglo Saxon. No one doubts the fact that Lothian was never really a Gaelic speaking area, but there is little evidence to suggest that Anglo Saxon was spoken all over Lothian in the whole period between 843 and 1018 CE. That is such a sweeping generalisation. If Anglo Saxon was spoken all over Lothian, then where are all the Anglo Saxon settlements? I have removed this paragraph due to lack of evidence and citations. --81.132.170.63 (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's helpful if the Saxons are left out of the equation, since they were south of the Humber; and referring to the language as English rather than Anglo-Saxon helps avoid confusion. Evidence of Anglian settlements in Lothian is preserved in place names, e.g. Tyninghame, but they are very much in the minority. Kim Traynor | Talk 10:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by Saxons being south of the Humber Kim. The Anglo Saxon Kingdom of Bernicia in what only much later became the 'Scottish' lowlands was founded in the 7th century. It subsequently became the northern part of the Anglo Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria which stretched from the Humber north to the Firth of Forth. The later Danish invasion of Eastern England led to these 'Scottish' Anglo Saxons being temporarily cut off from the southern Anglo Saxons Kingdoms such as Mercia and Wessex by the intervening Danelaw. In the following period this nothern part of 'Angle-land' came under the control of the Scots Kings, though exactly how and what circumstances is obscure (that very obscurity however has not prevented a good deal of imagination and speculation being applied to the question). The Scots Gaelic word 'Sassenach' by the way originally referred not to the English of the later 'England' but rather to these 'Saxons' of lowland 'Scotland' - to them still an 'Angle-land'. (I should perhaps add that they were mainly Saxons rather than Angles, but seemingly often called Anglo-saxons to distinguish then from the other continental Saxons). Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.6.150 (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think some confusion arises from labelling the English collectively "Anglo-Saxon". Yoking Angles and Saxons together provides a convenient over-arching term for the English as a whole, but the original Saxon settlements were below the Humber (Essex, Wessex, Sussex), whereas the Angles' area of settlement was "East Anglia" and north of it. Strictly speaking, Bernicia and Northumbria were Anglian, not Saxon kingdoms. Lowland Scots are originally Angles, not Saxons (which may account for an enduring north-south cultural divide!). Given the later overlay of Normanisation in "Anglo-Saxon" England, I suppose you'd have to go to the West country to meet Harold's genuine Saxons. They're the ones who until quite recently liked to pull the fox-hunting Norman aristocracy off their horses! My gut feeling is that I'm a Scotticised Angle (=Scottish), not a Normanised Saxon (=southern English). Kim Traynor | Talk 12:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Northumbria is wrong it is North Humbria, that is the land north of the Humber. Hengist changed it's name tomake it one word withe out two "H", Vortigern was very angry when he learned how he had been cheated by Hengist. But he was beginning to be rather afraid of him, so he said nothing, but allowed them to build their fortress. It was called Thong Castle, and stood not far from Lincoln, at a place now called Caistor. just as he done with the Hide of a bull, He was like that.  https://ztevetevans.wordpress.com/tag/thong-castle/ 89.243.184.186 (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Four years more investigation and I agree with you Kim. Bernicia was a kingdom of the Angles and not Saxons or Anglo-Saxons. The Saxons only arrived in large numbers (as refugees) after 1066, and later during the Davidian Revolution. Following the Norman Conquest of Scotland headed by King David large numbers of southern English folk were moved north by Scotland's new Norman French aristocracy. It's fair to describe Lowland Scots as being Anglo-Saxon from that time on. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.244.230 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How to pronounce this "Lothian"? Should a pronunciation be added in the articles on local places? Consider differences between Anglian places (even those are sometimes named in a non-English way, sometimes with modernly adapted pronunciation - sometimes not) — and those in other places of Great Britain: rivers, towns, counties, etc... Josh, linguist (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thaks, Mutt. Josh, linguist (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification sought re Edgar's granting of Lothian to the King of Scots
"Edgar King of the English granted Laudian to the King of Scots in 973 on condition that he come to court whenever the English king, or his successors wore his crown." Can anyone explain to me what this sentence means? To whom does the "his" refer? As I'm not an expert on the period, I need help in understanding the context in which the statement was first made. The information is unsourced, but we're given to believe that this fact relating to events in the 10th century comes from a 13thC English chronicler. Am I the only person to regard this as suspicious? Kim Traynor | Talk 21:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

All 'political' history written long after the event should be treated with great caution. Two sources however are as follows. Cassandra.

The anonymously authored 'De Obsessione Dunelmi' poses a conundrum. It says that Eadwulf 'Cudel' brother of Uhtred the Earl of Northumbria was:

"Apprehensive that the Scots would revenge upon himself the slaughter which his brother [i.e. Uhtred] had inflicted upon them [following the siege of Durham in 1018]... yielded up to them the whole of Lothian, to soothe them and procure a peace; and hence it is that Lothian became added to the kingdom of Scotland."

The problem being that King Edgar is reported by Roger of Wendover writing c.1200 to have granted Lothian (the land between the rivers Tweed and Forth) to Kenneth II (Malcolm II's father) in 975 (N.B. Not AD 973 as is so often mis-quoted).

According to the translation from Latin of Roger of Wendover's Flowers of History:

AD 974: " In the same year king Eadgar the Pacific, coming to the city of Legions (Chester), received the oath of fealty from eight tributary kings, to wit, Rinoth king of Scots, Malcolm king of the Cumbrians, Maco king of Mona And numerous isles, Dusual king of Demetia, Siferthand Huwal kings of Wales, James king of Galwallia, and Jukil king of Westmoreland"

and

AD 975: "He gave him [Kindred King of Scots], moreover, the whole of the district called Laudian (Lothian) in the native tongue, on this condition, that every year, on particular festivals, when the king and his successors wore the crown, he should come to court and celebrate the festival with the other princes of the realm. The king gave him besides many mansions on the road, that he and his successors might find entertainment in going to the feast, and returning ; and these houses continued to belong to the kings of Scotland, until the times of king Henry the second." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.12.92 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Superb. Thanks for that excellent explanation. So the 'his' refers to Edgar wearing his crown while others, including the Scottish king, pay him homage. Maybe the main text should be changed to "whenever he or his successors held court", if that amounts to the same thing? Kim Traynor | Talk 14:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Lothian Burn photo...
...contains what appears to be an abandoned shopping cart, other litter, and a heron that may or may not be artificial. Is this really representative of the stream? 71.219.214.9 (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well it is the "dark and muddy" stream after all! You're quite right though, I've found a better picture. Zacwill  ( talk ) 16:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"Greater Lothian"?
The uncited stating of Lothian's extent to be "all of southern Scotland below Forth-Clyde Valley (sic): the jurisdiction of the Justiciar of Lothian" claims a considerably larger area than conventionally denoted, in my experience. Despite requests to discuss, per WP:BRD you have not engaged at the talk page and have today restored the material. The Justiciar article, which you have also edited, apparently gives some level of support to the view, in the context of that office, but, without access to the refs cited there I'm unsure whether they even support this. I suspect that this usage of Lothian is at best peculiar to that office, or not even intended to denote that the full extent of the jurisdiction is to be classed as a whole as Lothian: cf. e.g. Archdiocese of St Andrews. The source you cite at your talk page, in the January 2020 section does not support your contention without the considerable WP:OR/WP:SYNTH you are applying (along with the copious abuse, the worst of it redacted by an admin). Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You are being abusive here by your persistent bullying.
 * I have engaged on my talk page and have attempted to engage here too.
 * I have put forwards clear-cut evidence of the accuracy these changes which has been deliberately ignored. So others know; this is to be found here: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZmIYAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=justiciar+of+lothian+forth+clyde&source=bl&ots=_eC49hlwWR&sig=ACfU3U3q2-YWO64XIuBBcFJYbjElaQEHZg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi99OWKt4DnAhXe63MBHUoLBqIQ6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=justiciar%20of%20lothian%20forth%20clyde&f=false
 * The link includes this quote: "This distinction continued several ages, and has not indeed altogether disappeared at the present day. Thus we are told, in the reign of Alexander, there was a Justiciar of *Scotland* & a Justiciar of *Lothian*. The limits of Scotland, in the 12th century, were still the Firths of Clyde & Forth. In Renfrewshire there is a proverb, *out* of Scotland into *Largs*; the Clyde being the southern boundary. In early ages, whoever crossed the Firth, and landed on the opposite shore, went out of Scotland into Largs." (Largs being a prominent Port in Lothian; a common arrival point for people arriving in Lothian from Scotland)
 * The suspicions have already been decisively proven wrong by the information I linked; it most certainly does support my position as others reading will quickly realise.
 * These actions obscuring the truth about Lothian/Gododdin are suspicious and can be proven to threaten the sanctity of the Common Law systems across the Celtic Isles.
 * "The Justiciars of Lothian were responsible for the administration of royal justice in the province of Lothian, a much larger area than the modern Lothian, covering Scotland south of the Forth and Clyde, outwith Galloway, which had its own Justiciar of Galloway and the lands north of the River Forth and River Clyde by the Justiciar of Scotia." - Justiciar of Lothian page.
 * "A similar office was formed in Scotland, though there were usually two or three: the Justiciar of Scotia, the Justiciar of Lothian and, in the 13th century, the Justiciar of Galloway." - Justiciar page.
 * Since the Justiciar of Lothian is considerably older than the 13th century; this again indicates "the province of Lothian" was originally all of southern Scotland below Forth-Clyde Valley. What is left of Lothian/Gododdin in Brigantia is the last part of the Principality of the Cumbrians/Cymry held by the Scoto-British coalition (see Leges inter Brettos et Scottos).
 * These attempts to conceal the existence of the Principality of the Cumbrians will fail in the long run.
 * 203.142.136.254 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You need sources which specifically state what you say, not another rambling rag-bag of facts, claims and novel interpretations of "evidence" which "indicates" things it does not in fact say, to advance your theory. Also, Wikipedia is not a source for itself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not "my theory" because sources which specifically state the edit's claimed extent of Greater-Lothian have been put forwards and there has been no contrary evidence put forwards against it; instead what has been conjectured against the evidence on the table has been your theory as exemplified by the phrases used: "in my experience", "I'm unsure" & "I suspect". 203.142.136.254 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It is the person that is making the WP:BOLD claim, you, that needs to provide evidence for it; it is not for anyone else to have to disprove it. Your source does not state, specifically or otherwise, that "Lothian referred to a Province encompassing all of southern Scotland below Forth-Clyde Valley (sic)", it just indicates that Lothian, amongst other places, was not at the time regarded as Scotland. Stop warring to insert this unsupported claim. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have provided the evidence stating specifically that--albeit paraphrased. The position being made against the evidence (in the comment above) is "the Fallacy Fallacy". I have provided proof that the claim is supported; the only war being waged here is the one being waged against greater Lothian by this persistent vandalism and harassment. Cease and desist! Admission was made above that the evidence provided says Lothian is outside of Scotland: however there has been no acknowledgement of the specification made in evidence provided that Lothian covered to the Forth-Clyde Valley when it says precisely this as quoted above.203.142.136.254 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Paraphrased"... Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I blocked the IP for 2 weeks, but then found that they had gone to another talk page to attack you for a June 2018 post. Now blocked for 3 months. Doug Weller  talk 17:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hadn't spotted that; odd thing to do. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m sure I can’t be the only person to be puzzled by the above exchanges. It’s perfectly well attested to that historically ‘Scotland’ (lit. ‘the land of the Scots’) referred only to the lands north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, whilst to the south of them lay Galloway (aka ‘Cumbria’) and Lothian. It seems to be an argument merely about ‘most of’ vs ‘all of’ – and ‘southern’ vs ‘south-eastern’. The best wording would be: “Historically, the term Lothian referred to a province encompassing most of what is now southern Scotland. Here are a couple of refs. There are plenty more. https://archive.org/stream/politicaldictio03kniggoog/politicaldictio03kniggoog_djvu.txt POLITICAL DICTIONARY 1846 JUSTICIAR OF SCOTLAND. The earliest individual in this high office which extant records name seems to be Geoffrey de Maleville or Melville, temp, K. Malc. IV [1153-1165] The term “Scotland” was then less extensive in its application than at present: it designated properly speaking, not the whole territory of the realm, but that part only which lay north of the Forth, or Scots sea, as it was called ; and accordingly, contemporary with Maleville there was another justiciar, David Olifard, justiciar of Lothian [1165-1170], that is to say, the territory south of the Forth, excepting the district of Galloway, which had long its own peculiar laws and customs. About the middle of the thirteenth century, however, Galloway too had its justiciar, so at this time there were three justiciars in the realm of Scotland— a justiciar of Galloway, a justiciar of Lothian, and a justiciar of Scotland strictly so called. And https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZmIYAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=justiciar+of+lothian+forth+clyde&source=bl&ots=_eC49hlwWR&sig=ACfU3U3q2-YWO64XIuBBcFJYbjElaQEHZg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi99OWKt4DnAhXe63MBHUoLBqIQ6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=justiciar%2520of%2520lothian%2520forth%2520clyde&f=false The British Critic and Quarterly Theological Review Vol XIII 1833 page 154 … in the reign of Alexander there was a Justicar of Scotland and a Justicar of Lothian. The limits of Scotland in the twelfth century were still the Firths of Clyde and Forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulboy1960 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As late as 1091, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle describes how the Scottish king, Malcolm, "went with his army out of Scotland into Lothian in England". Lothian was clearly regarded by the English chronicler who wrote this account as having been part of England at the time.

AD 1091 "... Melcolm gehyrde þæt hine man mid fyrde secean wolde. He for mid his fyrde ut of Scotlande into Loðene on Englaland & þær abad." ( ref. the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle manuscript E).

For the benefit of those who don’t read Old English:

Malcolm heard that they wanted to seek him with an army. He went with his army out of Scotland into Lothian in England and there abode.

This was Malcolm III, aka Malcolm Canmore, who was married to St Margaret of Scotland, previously Margaret of Wessex. Malcolm preferred a weak Anglo Saxon king for a southern neighbour rather than a strong Norman king. He had therefore previously supported Edgar the Ætheling for the English throne. Edgar was Malcolm’s brother in law, ie Margaret’s brother. Edgar was the “rightful heir” in the sense that he had the backing of the Witenaġemot so he and his sister were kidnapped by William the Conqueror in 1067 and sent to Normandy. They were returned to England in 1068 and fled north, first to Northumbria, which was outside William’s control, and from there to Fife where Margaret sought Malcolm’s protection, so he married her.

By 1091 there was infighting in Normandy between William the Conqueror’s sons over their various inheritances so Malcolm saw an opportunity to invade England as William II (Rufus) was abroad. William Rufus returned to England with his army. Malcolm initially withdrew to Fife but then, as the AS Chron reports above in 1091, Malcolm heard that they wanted to seek him with an army. He went with his army out of Scotland into Lothian in England and there abode.

Edith, Malcolm and Margaret’s daughter, married Henry I of England in 1100. Her name was too English for the Anglo Normans to cope with so they made her change it to Matilda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulboy1960 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am at an absolute loss to understand what, within the lengthy rambling post above, I am supposed to be gleaning. After the first sentence having the word "Lothian" in it, the remainder appears to be utterly, if typically for you, irrelevant. It says not the merest thing in regard to the actual point in contention, your assertion that, save Galloway, the whole of Scotland to the south of the Forth-Clyde was Lothian. What's more your three month ban applies to you as an individual, not to that IP alone. Desist. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

What you are supposed to glean is that in 1091 at least, Lothian was considered by the English to be part of England both politically and militarily and that Malcolm III invaded Lothian (in England) from Scotland with his Scottish army. Is that plain enough speaking for you? I am also at an absolute loss, in my case as to what you mean by a three month ban. I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia (although not to using it) and I had expected that editors might be required to treat each other with a modicum of respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulboy1960 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The matter of Lothian then being English or otherwise is neither in dispute or even discussion. Nothing is said regarding your claim of Lothian's supposed extent. The supplementary material - everything in your previous post apart from the first sentence - is utterly superfluous. Why did you put it there? Is it a clumsy copy-and-paste with accidental and considerable additions? To what end are you furnishing us with "Edgar was Malcolm’s brother in law, ie Margaret’s brother", "Edith, Malcolm and Margaret’s daughter, married Henry I..."? This however is typical of the long, rambling and off-topic nature of the earlier posts in this thread. The points raised and examples given similarly do not pertain to your actual contention and the ones from before today are identical to ones by your IP postings. The idiolect is the same. Please offer the modicum of respect that I don't have a zip running up the back of my head. I was not aware that, under your brand new, single-purpose, logged-in identity, that you were seriously attempting to pass yourself off as a different editor. WP:QUACK. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it was Jonathan Swift who said "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into" so, if you persist in conflating my identity with that of some other person who has obviously deeply wounded you in the past, I can't stop you, so I won't bother to try. I certainly shan't bother to edit Wikipedia in the future as it's clearly a pointless exercise if your bigotry is typical of the editing panel as a whole.Soulboy1960 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Mutt; that person you accused of being me simply wasn't me at all; he was merely somebody who happened to agree with what I was saying. You never provided any real evidence for your claim of him being the same person as me. I have no connection to 1960; I can verify that I was born in 1990s. I have no interest in Soul Music either [not that I'm judging Soulboy1960 for it]. How else can I prove he's a different person? I'll go to any length, within reason, to do so. People&#39;s Deputy (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * People&#39;s Deputy - You know that this discussion took place just shy of two years ago, right? It's pointless to respond to such an old discussion, albeit without notifying Mutt Lunker properly (which I have done). ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that; I have no idea how to properly notify a user. I'll have to learn how to do that. Cheers mate! People&#39;s Deputy (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)