Hallstein Torleivsson - The connection between the deposed king of Isle of Man and the noble Skanke family i Norway, Sweden and Denmark

Just so this is clear: What Stein Aage claims as the oldest evidence of the Skanckes' coat of arms is this: https://www.geni.com/photo/view/6000000000236700393?album_type=phot... - taken from the profile of https://www.geni.com/people/Önd-Pedersen-Skanke/6000000000236700393 - and it has one leg.

1. First documented use of the triskelion at the Isle of Man is 1280 AD, the symbol expresses independence according to oral tradition at the Isle of Man. This is coincidental with the rebellion in 1275 AD in wich the Norwegians participated and is well documented.

2. Hallstein Torleivsson used the triskelion latest 1302 AD and his son Nils Hallsteinsson used the triskelion latest 1348.

3. The use of the symbol for independence on the Isle of Man by Norwegian nobility from the family of the late Norwegian vice kings could very well be regarded as an insult/threat to the reigning king at the Isle of Man. It is plausible that the Norwegian king would not allow it, demanding a transformation of the coat of arms at one point. One leg would be the lesser transformation, and would not pose as a symbol of the struggle for independence at the Isle og Man.

4. The name Skanke (danish) means "Shanks", pointing at multiple legs in the coat of arms. The official language used in Jämtland after 1380 AD was danish, not swedish.

5. After the conviction of Nils in 1348, Kristina and Nils lost their land at Frøsøn to the Norwegian king. Kristina inherited land further south, at Hov in Häckås, where the most important church along the pilgrims way to the cathedral in Trondheim was, and still is. The Skanke family still resides here, and the oral tradition about Isle of Man is clear.

6. The Skanke family controlled Jämtland for hundreds of years thereafter, and held the highest ranking posisition for many generations. There are no other genealogical line in this area in medeaval times that even comes close to this family. Their wealth and their status at the Norwegian kings court must have an origin, and there is to my knowledge no other explanation than the traditional.

All interesting points, Stein Aage, but still only theories, and the fact still remains that Peder/Peter, the father of Önd and Karl is still unknown. Traditional oral stories doesn't give us any more facts, and it is hard facts that is needed.

Remi, I must remind you that you are in a field of science where hard facts are scarce.

Do you agree that you are throwing out undesputed conclusions of authorative historians as fairytales ?

Ja Stein, det är svårt att bortse från det mest troliga, men oavsett om en hel släktgrupp tillsammans kommer fram till det, så finns det alltid enstaka kritiker, jag ser det svårt att övertyga dessa vad som än framläggs.
http://barfod-barfoed.dk/stamtavle1/forhistorien/

I roskildehistorie anger du i varje fall att de "kanske" kom från Isle of Man.
http://www.roskildehistorie.dk/stamtavler/adel/Skanke/Hekaas.htm

Did we agree on where the earliest preserved case of someone writing down "The Skancke family descended from the Kings of Man" occurs?

20th century? 19th century? 18th century? Before?

In one other case I remember on Geni, we were able to pin such an "oral tradition" down to a specific author writing the theory in a specific book in a specific year. I think it would be valuable to know when the story was first written down.

(I have acknowledged that nothing will make Stein Aage abandon his theory, or make Remi accept it based on the evidence presented so far. So I'm trying to see what more information we can add about the theory.)

Harald,

The earliest mention I was able to find for the Manx origin legend is a reference that says it comes from the Barford pedigree, recorded some time between 1660-1743:
https://www.geni.com/discussions/153760?msg=1080803

If reported accurately, the pedigree said Hallsten Torleifsson was son of Torleif and Maud/Magnhild.
http://www.espell.se/saga/p3ce4e375.html

In this website, Hallsten Torleifson had the same coat of arms on his seal as King Magnus, his mother's brother.

However, none of this is recorded in the Chronicle of the Isle Man, Every citation I can find goes back only to G.V.C. Young, an amateur historian writing between 1981 and 2001.

The coat of arms of the old kings of Man was a ship. The new dynasty adopted the three legs after 1270.

https://www.geni.com/discussions/153760?msg=1080428

If the Skanke family had been descended from the kings of Man they would have used a ship in their coat of arms, not three legs.

This is an obscure point. It would not have been easy for someone to find out until the modern era. That makes it look like someone who did not know made the wrong connection by assuming the coat of arms was evidence.

In other words, we can actually see the myth being created through a mistake.

There's a lot of historical evidence that noble men have taken their mothers side of arms of coat, so what do you say about that Justin?

Yes, there is. Particularly in the early days. Men often took their mother's name and coat of arms when they inherited lands from her side of the family.

Do you see that as significant here?

Yes, if they believed that their mothers side was more important to honor.

This branch. Wife of Óttarr Snaekollson

And yes, there has also been documented cases that some men actually took their wife's coat of arms as well.

Yes, but it's hard to see how that proves the paternal descent of the Skanke family from the old kings of Man.

Maybe you remember that I have my mother's surname and coat of arms ;)

I have read some of the counterarguments in this thread, and they are very weak, one of them especially pointing to the fact that several other different families had carried the one legged shield or seal, but not doing any sort of analyses to each and one of them and the reason for just them to have it.

If that would have been done they should been able to rule out the vast majority of the others "single one legged" families, as I tried to do with some of them. To just say that many others had that image in their coat of arms, becomes thus a very week counterargument and in the light of historical development, the Skanke family preexist the vast majority of down Europe later imported nobility's in that area of which none of them with similar coat of arms seems to have had anything to do with the Skanke family, it's ruled out, no one have even tried to connect them as forefathers to Skanke, because that is impossible and only if it weren't so, that shield resemble argument could have had some sort of weight in this case.

The burden of proof -- as always in history and genealogy -- is on the person making the claim. You are advancing a theory created from circumstantial evidence. The case is already very weak. Without affirmative evidence, you need to meet or overcome every objection. It doesn't work to just say you personally think those arguments are "weak".

For example, to overcome the problem of the coat of arms, you need evidence or at least some reason to believe the Manx royal family used a coat of arms with a leg.

Justin : The connection - not the claim - is made by professors in medieval history, Peter Andreas Munch, Oslo, the later Edvard Bull, Oslo and Nils Ahnlund, Stockholm. CVC Youngs findings are based upon these authorative historians´ work, historians who have had acces to the primary sources. There have been no authorative dispute with regards to these connections later.

It is actually Munch that has made the comments in the regests from Norway, he was the first professor to get a position at the new university in Oslo, receiving the norwegian documents from Denmarks archives to study.

By disregarding this, you are actually falsifying the historical status of these connections.

One of the interesting things to me is that this whole idea of the Skanke family being descended from the kings of Man follows the exact pattern of thousands of European genealogies that have been rejected.

The 17th and 18th centuries were a time when genealogies were being invented. Someone writes something down. Then, some historian writing before World War II copies it and spreads it further. (Or some genealogist copies it.) It spreads and becomes an "oral tradition".

But, it turns out there is no proof. Maybe the person who wrote it made it up, or jumped to conclusions, or didn't have all the facts,

Every historian and most genealogists know how very common this pattern is. Historians even learn about it in college. It's a classic problem, and the Skanke legend is a perfect example of it. That doesn't mean it isn't true just this once, but it does mean it's very suspicious.

Stein Aage,

I was hoping you would say that again so I would have a chance to go deeper into it.

This is the way I see the legend evolving.

1. There is a Barford pedigree, recorded some time between 1660-1743 that makes the claim in an early form. According to modern historians this pedigree would be automatically suspect because it comes from a period when genealogies are being invented.

2. Peter Munch (1810-1863) picks it up. He is a professional historian and a specialist in this period of history, but he is working at a time when historians were not at all critical of sources. The whole idea that genealogical sources have to examined critically is an idea that started in England a generation later -- Oswald Barron (1868-1939).

3. Edvard Bull (1881-1932) and Nils Ahnlund (1889-1957) both picked up Munch's ideas, and repeated them. But, the real work in source and using source contextually didn't really start until after World War II at the Sorbonne, and didn't really mature until the 1970s. (By the way, Edvard Bull is a relative of mine.)

4. G.V.C. Young (1921- ) picked up the idea and spread it further in his English writing about the Isle of Man.

You are making a very horrible mistake about historical writing and proof when you say "By disregarding this, you are actually falsifying the historical status of these connections" .

No modern historian would accept Munch's ideas without going back and re-working the same sources. Same for Ahnlund and Bull. They are too early -- way too early -- to be respectable now. Rejecting them is not falsifying. Rejecting them is the only way to get a good answer based on modern critical methods.

It is also common that historians and genealogists living later uses the writings made by earlier historians, and all 3 of the named historians were active for at least 80 years ago and earlier. So there have been plenty of time for later historians to confirm the theories of Munch, Ahnlund and Bull, and no such confirmation has been fortcoming, instead some of todays historians are instead saying that they don't believe the findings of these 3 historians are correct when it comes to the Skanke family. And this is also fairly common when theories are buildt without reliable sources to confirm the theories. So until new sources are found, and in this case that is doubtful, we will not know for sure who this Peder was that was the father of Önd and Karl, and we are still 3 generations below Hallstein, so we don't even know if there is a kinship between Hallstein and the Pederson brothers.

Here is the problem with the coat of arms idea.

I wrote a little about the Manx arms here: https://www.geni.com/discussions/153760?msg=1080797

British historians have known since at least the 1600s that the old kings of Man used a ship on their coat of arms. But these references are buried in obscure texts. It would not have been easy for Munch to know about them, even if he made a trip to England to look for sources.

I have no doubt that Munch used all the sources available to him. He translated and published the Chronicle of the Isle of Man in 1860. But he missed this important part of the background.

From what I can see, he also ignored the important point that the MacDonalds and MacLeods actually inherited the rest of the old king's territories in the Hebrides, apparently because they had a real descent from the old kings.

He was undoubtedly a good historian, but he was typical of his time. He had a theory. It seemed like a good theory but he was missing a key piece of the evidence.

Remi, you are right.

I think it might be relevant here that one of the modern experts, David Sellar in Scotland, rejects the MacLeod claim, which is similar to the the Skanke claim. I wrote about that here:
https://www.geni.com/discussions/153760?msg=1080775

Sellar pointed out that the MacLeod family did not put forward a claim in 1275, and that they did not use any of the old dynastic names.

New work is being published all the time. It corrects and supplements older work. For example, it doesn't seem to have been widely known until 2000 (RJA Wilson, On the Trail of the Triskeles) that the old Manx kings did not use the triskelion. We can't blame Munch for something he didn't know, but if any modern historian made the same mistake after Wilson published they would be a fool.

The history of that ....olavsdottir profile looks suspicious to me. In particular these merges:

Magnhild ble slått sammen med ... Óláfsdóttir av Remi Trygve Pedersen.
Magnhild Olafsdatter ble slått sammen med ... Óláfsdóttir av Stein Aage Sørvig.
Magnhild Olofsdatter, Princess of Mann and the Isles ble slått sammen med ... Óláfsdóttir av Stein Aage Sørvig.

The profile looks as if it has sources naming her Magnhild, but no such sources are named in the text. She's also married to two men - which I find suspicious unless documented.

But Remi and Justin have alredy been involved here, and they're not afraid to undo incorrect mergers.

What should we do about her?

Justin, you are just whirling into your own suspiscion. I understand that you are very interested in false genealogies in medieval Europe, and for that reason I find your statement a bit political ?
If you bothered to read my last comment in the tread, it is a fact that Munch studied the primary sources, norwegian regests from before 1380.
Of course professor Munch new of the heraldics of the manx kings. The regests from the Sudreyar and Isles are still kept at the University of Oslo (regesta Sodorensa, they are not yet digitalized). On every regest from Man there would be a seal with the kings coat of arms with a ship on it.
Munch would also know that the triskelion was a symbol from the Isle of Man that originated after the treaty of Perth in 1266. This is the main element in these connections, and is confirmed by Bull and Ahnlund! You say that Bull and Ahnlund just copied Munch, that is a severe unprofessional allegation.
You continue to falsify the historical status of these connections, this must be a problematic issue for you as you take upon yourself to reveal false genealogies made by others. Be careful my friend, as you dont seem to be on any solid grounds.

The main problem with Jsutin, Harald and Remis counterarguments in this thread is that there are no real professional dispute against the late professors findings - no disregard towards the mentioned persons intended.

I would gladly review my position if an authorative historian is able to contradict the connection, so far I have seen none such.

I think that this holds the bearing argument for the broader part of the members of the Skanke and Barfod associations in Norway, Sweden and Denmark and same wise on the Isle of Man.

Stein Aage,

Do you see how peculiar that argument is? You say that Munch knew the old kings of Man use a ship and not a triskelion, but he argued the Skanke family were their descendants, and his proof was -- ta da! They used a triskelion just like the kings of Man.

You are making Munch look like a fool.

Then now you say you will not trust any historical evidence or arguments unless they are presented by a professional historian. I think you will have to wait a long time for that.

At the very beginning of this thread Remi pointed you to a forum where you can see the doubt by professional historians. I wouldn't look for an article any time soon. No one nowadays is going to make an academic reputation by writing articles about an old genealogical fable.

It's actually funny to read all the things some of you say, Haralds complaint about the funny looking Magnhild, who by the all means should only be one profile, but since Remi refuses that path, he had to invent another profile... funny indeed.

Justin argument are somewhat also fun, it's like someone states that a proffessor can't be a professor because before that he was just a lecturer, and before that he was a student, and before that he was just a preschooler, and a preschooler can't be a professor, that we all know.

The thing about old genealogy are that it was almost always never written down in the purpose of being an explicit genealogy table, so someone almost later had to recollect all the pieces and put them together in a puzzle work, and for almost every specific family, someone had to be the first one laying that puzzle. By time some pieces has to be reinvented because of all the lost original sources, and here within lies the cause for all doubts, could that be true or not?

I would say that in most cases talking about medieval time, we find assumptions in almost every line, without major exception! I draw the line when it comes to proven or revealed commissioned works, to state that clear, fakes!

Can you prove that Munch or anyone of those others claiming this Isle of Man line as likely had such a purpose, of actually deliberately making a fake line?

Justin, I am beginning to think that you are simplifying quite complex issues, I must ask if you have been listening to much to the candidates for the presidential election in the states ?
If a norwegian noble should use a viking ship as an official seal on the Isle of Man after the treaty of Perth (1266 AD) where the norwegian king settled with the scottish king, then the norwegian noble would compromise his own king !
I think that is not likely at all, and that is why you will not find use of the triskelion before 1266.

Stein Aage, that's an excellent example of why modern historians treat sources critically. There are many ways for personal opinion to come into the analysis.

Here, you think the Skanke family could use legs in their coat of arms but not the ship. It seems just as obvious to me that if the king were going to be compromised he would be compromised whether they used either the legs or the ship. It is not any safer to use the new arms adopted by the "enemy" than to continue the old arms. And it might be safer to use the old ship arms because many Scottish families continued to use them to show their descent from the old kings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymphad

I think you will object that this is why the Skanke family used only one leg instead of all three. But then that is a different coat of arms so it weakens the argument that there is a connection. And, if they wanted a difference, they could have used a ship with three masts instead of just one, or they could have used different colors.

< deliberately making a fake line

Of course not. Read what I wrote. Munch made a mistake because he did not use his sources critically. He lived in a time when historians thought if some old source said something it must be true. Just like people today who copy genealogies from the Internet and think it has to be true because it's on the Internet and nothing on the Internet is ever wrong ;)

Munch probably knew about the Barfod pedigree from 200 years earlier, and he thought it was reliable. But the person who created the Barford pedigree either accepted an oral tradition that was wrong or they saw the similarity in the coats of arms and had an inspiration.

That was a period when noble families were actively inventing genealogies, based on leaps just like that. They thought they were doing research, but by our modern standards it was all just guessing.

Down in Vienna the Emperor was starting to worry that his traditional genealogy, invented a few hundred years earlier, might be wrong. He was paying genealogists to look for old sources to verify it. They were finding interesting stuff, but they didn't use their sources critically so all they succeeded in doing was to give him a new but still fake genealogy.

Up in Scandinavia they weren't yet as sophisticated as that. The Barfods probably didn't send scholars out to live in England and Scotland for a couple of years and comb all the surviving charter collections. They just took what they had at hand -- a general similarity of their coat of arms to the current arms of Man, and the plausibility of a Norwegian family having ties to Scotland and Man.