Talk:Scoto-Norman

Untitled
More rewriting of history. David Lauder (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This entire article is bogus and should be deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a bogus article at all. The term and concept is widely used, though for me "Anglo-Norman" is good enough in most cases. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a bogus article, and that's why historians don't use this term "Scoto-Norman". The Anglo-Norman culture coalesced with the Scottish Gaelic culture in Scotland, certainly. But to use a "Scoto-Norman" term to the obvious exclusion of the "Anglo" element is pseudohistorical and obviously political. The Angles had been settled in southern Scotland (the kingdoms of Northumbria and Bernicia) and controlled Edinburgh long before there even was an England.
 * King David I of Scotland, who had been an English baron, became King of Scotland in 1124. He is the one who brought the Anglo-Norman culture to the fore in Scotland, and established the royal burghs in Scotland. It was David I who began the "Normanization" of Scotland, or rather "Anglo-Normanization".
 * Malcolm III, who ruled Scotland during the Norman invasion of England, married Margaret of Wessex (sister of the Anglo-Saxon Edgar Aetheling) in 1070, and their line dominated the Scottish throne until David I took over. (As for Duncan II, the son of Malcolm III by his previous, Norwegian wife, he was raised in the Anglo-Norman court of King William I of England).
 * Prior to David I, the royal court would have been dominated by Scottish/Gaelic, and "Anglo-Scottish" elements. At no time can the royal court be said to have been exlusively "Scoto-Norman".
 * JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.154 (talk) 16:53, September 29, 2014‎ (UTC)


 * It's a tricky one. The Norman-decended aristocracy in the early centuries after 1066 described themslves as 'French'. But there was much intermarriage. 'Scots' at this time however meant specifically Gaelic-speaking Highlanders of the original Scot-land, whilst Lowlanders were (mostly) Anglo-Saxons who described themselves as English. So depending on his exact heritage a 'Norman' aristocrat living within the borders of what eventually became the Kingdom of Scotland (rather than the much smaller Scot-land) might be described as an Anglo-Norman or a Scoto-Norman, or perhaps both, or neither. The term 'Anglo-Norman' is often imprecise, whilst Scoto-Norman is potentially even more misleading. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.6.129 (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, pretty much totally with you all on this one. At the time the concept of Scot/Scottish or anything related the term referred exclusively to a culture language that was effectively viewed as and considered Irish. We did not have neat, fixed geographical terms for concepts like Scotland, England etc. in these times. Borders were fluid and nations were defined mainly by language by English as well as Irish and Welsh peoples. Perhaps this problem would not persist if we referred to Gaelic as Irish historically as we often refer to English as historically. Then people would realize that neither of these cultures/languages are particularly "Scottish" in the sense we imagine the term Scottish today.

So if there's practically nothing Gaelic/Irish about these monarchs other than their ability to converse in the language a number of their subjects spoke, then I think affixing any Scot term to them is ahistorical at best. I mean most of them were probably fluent in Latin as well, right? But they weren't Latin, obviously.