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

> I must ask if you have been listening to much to the candidates for the presidential election in the states ?

Stein Aage, if you want to engage in personal attacks it would be funnier if you accused me of smoking weed, since I live in one of the two states where it's legal.

However, in general you ought to avoid those lines of argument so I don't have to suspend you. Tell me I'm an idiot if you like, but be more subtle about it ;)

Do you have any proof whatsoever that Munch really made all these mistakes you accuse him of ? If you take on to be an investigator, checking up your own hypothesis will be your first amendment. I really think that you have not passed this level so far.

So the traditional historical theory is what we build on. You have an hypothesis regarding false genealogy in these lines.

In my book professor Munchs primary source are the regents, and still is. The regests stating a possible nobleman with a shank in his coat of arms as early as 1292 (Torlack Skenck). The regests from Norway was not well kept in Denmark, so many seals were missing (much better in Sweden), that is the fact with Torlack Sckenck.

You feel that any official use of the seal (ship) of Manx kings (norwegian) from before the treaty in Perth could not act as a liability to the relationship between Norway and Scotland after the treaty. This is an very difficult allegation to make, specially since these seals were symbols of norwegian reign on The Isle of Man. War was made between kings on lesser grounds, and if you are familiar with the circumstances that led to the treaty I think you should reconsider, as the treaty was made in wartime between Norway and Scotland.

The triskelion on the other hand, would not be connected directly to the norwegian king in the years after the treaty.

I have no doubt that you are willing to misuse your "power" as curator to suspend me. I must say that the behaviour from some of Genis´ curators is not encouraging any further activity anyway.

Stein Aage,

I think you still have it backwards. I'm not the one with the theory, you are. You believe (along with Munch) that Hallstein Torleivsson was a member of the Manx royal family and that the proof is his coat of arms.

You keep claiming Munch knew this, saw that, considered something else. I'm doing nothing more than relying on your statements. Those statements make him look like both a fool and a magician, although of course I reserve judgment on that.

I'm suggesting this academic historian was aware of the Barford pedigree. I wouldn't have thought that would be an issue, but now you are saying you want proof that a historian was familiar with sources that were both relevant and easily available to him. If you really believe he didn't know his sources, say so now.

Earlier you were saying of course he knew about the seals with ships because he worked with the Regesta. Now you say that many those seals have fallen off. Anyone who has worked with medieval documents could guess most of the seals are probably missing, because that's the case all across Europe.

My point here is that you're going for the easy and convenient arguments, perhaps without thinking about the picture you're painting of sloppy research. I think you want to go back and re-consider what you think Munch knew and did not know.

If you believe Munch had proof, and not just a theory, you could settle the debate very easily. If Munch published his evidence, then you should be able to cite it. Just quote the part where Munch says that Regesta number (whatever) shows Torleif's genealogy.

If Munch was an historian and didn't cite his sources, then it was just his theory, not a proven fact.

(You already know you can't be suspended for disagreeing with someone, only for making personal attacks or vandalism, so I think your comment must just be a bit of drama to make us all laugh.)

Stein Aage wrote here: https://www.geni.com/discussions/153760?msg=1107895 and I am aware that the hard facts are scarce, but that does not make the requirements for a relationship to be true any less. Reliable sources are still needed.

And, yes I do agree that I throw out the conclusions of the professional historians that wrote their genealogies about the Skanke family a hundred years ago, but I disagree that these genealogies are undisputed. They are disputed by a lot of todays Norwegian professional historians and genealogists.

You also wrote that the first documentet use of the triskelion at the Isle of Man is from 1280 and that is well into the Scottish rule. Then it is illogical that any of the defeated Norsemen would adopt the Coat of Arms of the one they lost the island to, and the Coat of Arms which was made by the one the Norwegian king, Magnus Lagabøte, ceded the Isle of Man to. It would also be illogical that the Norse noblemen leaving Isle of Man because of the loss of 1275 would use the Coat of Arms that their adversary Alexander III introduced as the Isle of Man's Coat of Arms. And even believing that Magnus Lagabøte or his sons Eirik II Magnusson and Haakon V Magnusson would accept the use of the Coat of Arms introduced by Alexander III of Scotland to Isle of Man after the loss of the island, as Coat of Arms of a Norwegian noble family with roots from Isle of Man, is to me practical impossible. It would be a lot more logical for the Norwegian noble men with royal Isle of Man ancestry, to use a variant of the Coat of Arms of the Crovan Dynasty instead of adopting the new one introduced by the victor and new ruler of Isle of Man, King of Scotland Alexander III, even though Alexander's granddaughter and Eirik II Magnusson's daughter Margrethe ruled Scotland from 1286 to 1290. So I think the origin of the three legs in the Coat of Arms of Hallstein and his possible father and possible son Nils must be found somewhere else than Isle of Man.

Ulf Ingvar, you are advocating that the possible daughter of Olaf, sometimes her firstname are guessed to be Magnhild or Maud, could be the one Torleif/Torlack and his possible son Hallstein, are taking their Coat of Arms from, but why would her Coat of Arms be the one introduced in 1266/1275 by Alexander III, when her ancestry used a ships/several ships in their Coat of Arms? Please explain that to me.

Harald Olafson, Harald Óláfsson, king of Man used this Coat of Arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Olafsson#/media/File:Haakon4.jpg according to one of the most primary sources we have of the Coat of Arms the Crovan dynasty used (late 13th Century, and if you want to see the primary document yourself, you can see it at http://dms.stanford.edu/ ( you need to make an account to log in) and the document is a digital copy from Parker Library on the web, with reference here: https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/actions/manuscript_description_l... and the page you need to look up in the document and at Stanford is 217v.

Thank you very much, both Justin and Remi, for coming to terms with your actual position with regards to the sources. We all agree now that both of you, and in addition Harald are dissidents from the traditional historical theory that these connection most likely are correct.

It is important to understand the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis. A scientific theory meets the burden og proof to qualify as an authorative opinion. On the same issue there can be one or several theories, and some of them can make other theories impossible. This is normal and a part of scientific work in general. This is what make science progress.

A hypothesis on the other hand is a non-scientific theory, a thought (or question) wich occurs in the beginning of all scientific work and forms the basis on wich a theory can be made. You will not find one professional scientist arguing that a hypothesis is more correct than a scientific theory.

It is important for me to know if you three persons are aware of these differences, because I suspect that you are imposing that you are in support of a scientific theory with regards to these connections. If you are I would like to know where this theory is written down, and who has made it. I think all interested readers are wondering about this.

If you agree with me that your standing point is somewhere between a hypothesis and a scientific theory, you are in fact still working on a hypothesis. I must immediately inform you that you are falsifying historical status for these connections when changing the traditional opinion based on scientific theory om these connections on Geni.

Remi and Justin, it is important to understand the situation at The Isle of Man after the treaty in 1266.
Foremost, the highest position at Isle of Man was "king". In the annals the norwegian king is titled "Lord king", today we would have titled them vice-king and king, respectively. All nobles were titled knights or sons/daughters of the king. There were no feudal titles, such as barons, dukes and so on.
In reality there were three parties directly involved by the treaty, that was the Scottish king and the Norwegian king who made the treaty, but in addition the family of the king of Isle of Man, who did not participate in the negotiations.

It is a historical fact that the reigning king of the Isle of Man sought support from the king of Scotland, the English king and the Norwegian king, depending on the actual situation and that this was a problem for the norwegian kings, threatening their sovereignity.

The king of Isle of Man took care of his own interests, and it is not difficult to understand that the treaty in 1266 was not in the interest of the family of the king of The Isle of Man.

The rebellion 9 years later was made with the kings family in the midst of it, and the oral tradition at The Isle of Man states that the triskelion is a symbol of independence. That is independence from both the norwegian king who gave them up and the scottish king that exploited them with strict taxes and mercyless behavior.

So, the triskelion is neither norwegian nor scottish, ask any manxman today and you will probably get the same answer.

Stein Aage, I don't have any hypothesis, scientific theory or any other theory as to where the coat of arms of Hallstein Torleifsson originated from, nor about his ancestry or descendants. And according to a lot of the historians of today, there doesn't excist any publication today that is like what you call a scientific theory stating anything reliable about Hallstein's family-relations.

There are only hypotheses and guesswork, but no scientific theories, and that includes the work of Munch, Ahnlund, Bull and others since the work they did so long ago is seen as obsolete by historians of today.

In my personal opinion, I think the one coming closest to having a scientific theory and the one doing the best job writing about the Skanke-family is Roger de Robelin in his book "Skanke-ätten" where all of these persons are mentioned but where there is doubt about a relationship between persons, this doubt is clearly shown. There are wrong conclusions, wrong relationships and undocumentet relations in this book to. It's only to bad that a lot of those publishing relationships and familytrees in the Skanke family and using this book, leave out the doubts and connects persons where Roger de Robelin has no connection.

But I don't have a theory or hypothesis, I'm just trying to explain to you that what you think must be correct since some historians wrote it down a hundred yeas ago, isn't seen as correct anymore by their academic peers of today.

I don't think the common manxman of today will know the real history behind how Isle of Man got it's Coat of Arms or who gave it to them. The same as the common Norwegian won't know the history behind how Norway got their Coat of Arms.

Remi, you could not be more wrong as this is in fact a scientific field, we have scientific theories and I can not help wondering that you as curator make such errors with regard to the sources. By disregarding all scientific work done, you impose as a real ignorant.

Of course the work of Munch, Bull and Ahnlund holds scientific quality, even to day. That was their job and their reputation depended on it. You can not choose to stand outside tehse parameters of science, they will be present forever. So what you have is a hypothesis that the traditional scientific theory is wrong.

The institue for medieval studies at the university of Oslo has been drabbed by scandals in the past years though, involving a sacked professor. I wonder if any of this has influenced the scientific work done, but I hope not.

I have consulted Roger de Robelin my self about this issue, and he confirmed that his hypothesis have no better sources than the expression in the coat of arms, not even a oral tradition. I can give you his contact information and you can consult him yourself, if you like.

"Remi, you could not be more wrong as this is in fact a scientific field, we have scientific theories and I can not help wondering that you as curator make such errors with regard to the sources. By disregarding all scientific work done, you impose as a real ignorant."

And here you show how wrong you are, not knowing what the historians of today think of the work these historians did for over hundred years ago. The work Munch, Ahnlund, Bull and other historians did that time was correct work for how they saw the work should be done at that time. But today we think differently and their work is not seen as reliable anymore using the standards of today. And this is the thing you need to understand and grasp. Thinking that the hundred year old work they did will hold scientific value with todays standards and that they will do so forever is as wrong as it ever will be. Just ask any historian of today!

I urge you to name your sources. Which historian today will disregard Munch, Bull and Ahnlund ? I am not satisfied with a general descriptions like "any historian today".

Any opinions from amateur historians, historians that are not specialists or have done no scientific work on these connections, would not be of the same value, don´t you agree ?

If you cant name any sources for your opinion, it is quite uninteresting what your meaning is. Your cutting of the lines without any grounds will prove real abusive behavior from your side and I will leave it to the Geni team to decide what to do with you.

Stein Aage,

I don't want to turn this discussion into a college lecture, but you have some very wrong ideas about History as an academic discipline.

The ideas you are talking about belong to a field called Historiography. Basically, Historiography is the "history of history". It deals with the different ways throughout history that people have understood what history means, as well as how to research and write about it, and what is important and what isn't.

You think History is a science. That is an idea from 150 years ago, when historians thought the academic study of History could be "modernized" so History would have the firm foundation that sciences like biology and chemistry have.

Even 100 years ago it was becoming clear that History is not a science in the same way biology and chemistry are.

History has an epistemological limitation the other sciences do not. The word "epistemology" means what we know, how we know it, and the limitations on our human knowledge.

Unlike other scientists, Historians cannot define their field by using the scientific method of verifiable and repeatable empirical testing of hypotheses. For example, they cannot repeat historical events to see if they turn out the same way. They are limited to analyzing what is already written and what can be inferred from those writings and from other data.

Historians also have to recognize that written texts are an imperfect source. None of them can ever tell the whole story. Further, other texts might not have survived, and the texts that have survived might be biased and might have been falsified.

In other words, the data gathered and used by historians is not at all like the data gathered and used by the sciences.

So then, your idea of theories and hypotheses is fundamentally irrelevant. Modern historiography is primarily narrative and analytical rather than experimental ("scientific"). When an historian writes about their research and conclusions they are entering a dialog with other historians. They are not announcing a final truth.

The dialog occurs over long periods of time. Those other historians might accept or reject (or ignore) the analysis. In many ways, modern historians is like a jury in a court of law. That's why you see so often see someone say "the majority opinion is this" or "a strong minority believe that".

Stein Aage,

You have said you care a great deal about authority, so I will add that every graduate student in History today is required to take at least one class in Historiography. At least that's true of reputable universities.

I've taken several, won an award for one of my papers, and helped grade papers in other classes.

You say:

> Which historian today will disregard Munch, Bull and Ahnlund ? I am not satisfied with a general descriptions like "any historian today".

This stuff is so common and ordinary for modern historians that I think you do not understand how odd this sounds.

Any physicist today would believe gravity is what makes the apple fall from the tree. Munch is the historians' equivalent of a physicist who lived before gravity was discovered. He lived in a time before the epistemological problems of history were understood by historians. His work is simply irrelevant.

Remi is spot on when he says, "the work they did so long ago is seen as obsolete by historians of today."

Everything I've said above is an effort to explain to you why that's true.

A modern analysis of the same problem would start with the original sources, not with the work of earlier historians. Their opinions have zero authority.

For anyone who is interested in the subject of Historiography, here are some good, basic articles from the City University of New York:

Historiography
http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/critical/historiography....

Historiographic Essays
http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/assignments/historiograp...

Secondary Sources
http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/sources/secondary.html

Evaluating Contradictory Data and Claims
http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/critical/contradictory.html

This whole website (Writing on History) is worth exploring for the basic ideas it presents.

Which historian today will disregard Munch, Bull and Ahnlund ? None will disregard them completly but they will disregard some of their conclusions, their national attitude (which was common at their time) and therefore also some of their work.

On the top of my head I would mention Grethe Authén Blom (dr. philos. and professor in history at Norges lærerhøgskole), Knut Helle (professor in medieval history at the University of Bergen), Lars Løberg (cand. philol. in history), Eric Gunnes (dr. philos. and professor in history at the University of Oslo), Narve Bjørgo (professor in history at both the University of Tromsø and the University of Bergen), and last but not least Sverre Bagge (dr. philos. and professor in history at the University of Bergen, and the chairman of the Center for Medeival Studies at the University of Bergen).

And if you doubt anything of what I say you can contact now professor emeritus in history Sverre Bagge and ask him yourself what he thinks about the validity of the nationalists Munch and Ahnlund and the marxist Bull in todays historical way of thinking and historiography.

At the same time, please ask him what his views are on the subject of the Skanke claim of ancestry from Isle of Man.

Remi,

Erik Gunnes died in 1999, has he written anything on these connections ?
Knut Helle is born in 1930, has he written anything on these connections ?
Narve Bjørgo is born 1936, has he written anything on these connections ?
Sverre Bagge is born 1942, has he written anything on these connections ?
Grethe Authén Blom died in 2004, has she written anything on these connections ?

Justin, thank you for lecturing about the modern form of historical studies. To me it seems as there is no real difference between the traditional school and what you define as the modern school. It all comes down to interpretation of the available sources.

I am not quite sure that you grasp the fact that no trustworthy historian ever disputed these connections in writing. Remi concludes on Geni, but offers no real sources to contradict the traditional conclusions.

As I wrote before, No One has has what I know of made an effort to try to prove this Skanke family originated from some other noble family with similar coat of arms from any other places than Isle of Man, I'm sure that if someone had tried it we would have been able to read about it, somewhere.

Historians are by default opponents to other historians and furthermore, defamation of others would likely be their only common ground, so give me names on two modern historian who fully agree with each other in any topic... subject...field of study.

Stein Aage, yes all of them has wriiten how they look upon the historians from the nationalistic era and all of them has mentioned how they look upon Munch and Bull in their work. Just start reading some of their articles and books and you will find it yourself.

You asked me which historians today will disregard Munch, Bull and Ahnlund, and I have named a few. Just read their work.

You can also read the views of dr. philol. Jo Rune Ugulen here (in Norwegian): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/no.fritid.slektsforsking.et...

His area of expertise is the middle ages.

Private User you write "No One has has what I know of made an effort to try to prove this Skanke family originated from some other noble family".

AFAIK they are all saying "there isn't enough evidence to build a credible theory".

> it seems as there is no real difference between the traditional school and what you define as the modern school.

That's why you are struggling here. To historians there is a big difference.

> It all comes down to interpretation of the available sources.

No. It is not just the interpretation that's different. It's the way historians handle the sources.

Before about 1900 historians assumed the sources could be interpreted at face value. So that's what they did. Then there was a period of questioning and debate. By about World War II most historians understood that sources need to be put into context as part of the analysis. It is not something earlier historians did, so it changed everything.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of myths across Europe just like this Skanke story. Before about 1800 historians and genealogists thought, "The coat of arms of this man is the same or similar to the coat of arms of that family, so there must be a relationship." It is one of the most common types of genealogical myth.

When historians started looking at those stories critically, the stories started falling apart. Most of them are now known to be false. They turned out to be inventions from the period about 1500 to 1700. It is very rare to find one that can be proved by modern standards.

This was part of a "sea change" in the way historians look at sources.

In English genealogy this shift is exemplified by men like Horace Round (1854-1928) and Oswald Barron (1868-1939). Probably you have someone similar in Norway. Barron founded and edited an academic devoted to debunking these old myths.

One of the most famous articles of this type was Round's "Our English Hapsburgs: A Great Delusion" (1901). The Feilding family (earls of Denbigh) claimed descent from a Habsburg count who supposedly moved to England from Switzerland. Because of that descent, they claimed to be counts of the Holy Roman Empire and they used the Imperial eagle as a supporter for their coat of arms.

The issue wasn't that the coats of arms were the same, but there were many apparently authentic sources that supported the myth. Round demolished the myth and its sources by approaching the sources critically and by using other, more reliable sources:

After the article was published, peerage books continued for several years to show the Feilding descent from the Habsburgs for several years, then quietly dropped it.

You can read Round's article here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=-MZsAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA216&lpg...

Remi, I must say that you are still not able to quote any sources for your opinion. I am not interested in historians general opinion about eachother, I want to now if they have studied the sources and made an effort to underbuild their opinion ?

The link shows an opinion in a email from Ugulen sent to a private person, quoting that the historian have not heard of any sources for Hallsteins genealogy until 1303. He misses Torlack Sckenck in 1292, who is most likely to be Torleiv Haraldsson ?

Justin, you are pointing at general examples of false genealogies in feudal Europe, and I dont think it is relevant, as long as the Skankes are not feudal ?

There are no titles or economy in play here, thus there would be nothing gained from establishing a false genealogy in the Skanke case ? Do you see the difference here ?

Remi is naming professor Nils Ahnlund from Sweden a Nationalist by his confirming of norwegian genealogy in Jämtland. That must be todays largest miss ?

> Historians are by default opponents to other historians and furthermore, defamation of others would likely be their only common ground, so give me names on two modern historian who fully agree with each other in any topic... subject...field of study.

This idea seems very strange to me. Why do you think that, Ulf?

If you are a professor, you want to get published and you want other historians to cite your book or article when they write their books and articles. Historians look for things they can write about that no one else has written about in the same way and that everyone else will like and agree with.

Most historians agree with most other historians most of the time.

I thought I might use Constance Bouchard's book Those of My Blood: Constructing Noble Family in Medieval Francia (2001) or Eleanor Searle's book Predatory Kinship and the Creation of Norman Power (1988) as examples. Both books are very highly regarded.

But when I Googled them, I found a better example -- Helle Vogt's book The Function of Kinship in Medieval Nordic Legislation (2010). He cites both Bouchard and Searle, as well as many other historians who have done pioneering work in this area. And, he says very clearly that what he is doing is extending the research.

He says, for example, "But by asking new questions, my dissertation provided new answers and allowed greater insight into the subject."

And: "This book contributes to the international discussion of medieval laws and legislation by conveying a more nuanced depiction of Scandinavia as part of a body of research on medieval legal history."

This describes exactly what it is modern historians try to do.

> There are no titles or economy in play here, thus there would be nothing gained from establishing a false genealogy in the Skanke case ? Do you see the difference here ?

Stein Aage, You have missed the point. There is no difference. The problem is about how to handle old sources. (And, let's be clear -- there was nothing to be gained by the Feildings either, except prestige. Under English law they could not use a foreign title unless they got permission from the Crown.)

You said you did not see any difference in the way of doing history between the time of Munch and today. I gave you a detailed explanation and a famous example. Now you are shifting your argument again, without seeing that there is a very big difference in approach.

The basic problem here is that in Munch's time the idea that a coat of arms could prove a relationship was accepted by historians. Nowadays, that idea seems extraordinarily naive.

You will not get anywhere with your argument until you accept the fundamental idea that standards of proof have changed.

< I am not interested in historians general opinion about eachother> but, Stein Aage that is exactly what you asked about. when you said: <Which historian today will disregard Munch, Bull and Ahnlund ?>, so I just answered your question. That you didn't like the answer is not my problem.

That the historian Ugulen hasn't heard about any sources for Hallstein's until 1303 should really give you a clue to what the problem is. And he probably don't misses Torlack at all, he just don't think there are any connection between Torlack and Hallstein or Torlack and Isle of Man, and he is correct because there are no sources that show any such connections.

And you will never see any professional genealogist or historian writing any articles about the ancestry of Karl and Önd Pederson, the familyrelations of Hallstein Torleivson or Torlack Skenck. And the reason being that at the moment there aren't any sources to Write such articles on. And there we are.

I know I won't make you believe anything else than what you do, but please stop spreading these uncertain rellationships since they will and are allready going viral, and all of us, including both you and Ulf, would like to have a correct ancestry, wouldn't you, or would you prefer uncertainties and fantasies?

> And you will never see any professional genealogist or historian writing any articles about the ancestry of Karl and Önd Pederson, the familyrelations of Hallstein Torleivson or Torlack Skenck. And the reason being that at the moment there aren't any sources to Write such articles on. And there we are.

This reminds me of a little story from my undergraduate days, 40 years ago. I had a History of Medieval Spain class. I did my final paper on something like "Matrimonial Strategies of the Kings of Aragon in the 12th Century." I got an "A" but the professor wrote "This is genealogy, not history. You need more. Come see me."

I didn't go see him, but the next semester I started dating his daughter so I ended up having many discussions with him.

His point was this -- Historians in general have no interest in the vanity of modern people who claim illustrious ancestry. Nor does it matter who was related to whom back then, unless it has a practical bearing on more important issues.

For example, it matters very little to historians whether Harald Gille was really an illegitimate son of Magnus Barefoot. The truth is unknown and probably unknowable. What matters to historians is that Harald Gille made the claim, some people believed it or pretended to believe it, and lots of interesting stuff happened as a result.

Historians can write about Harald Gille's claim without getting sucked into the problem of whether it is true. Individual historians might venture an opinion one way or another, but they aren't going waste a lot of time arguing with each other about it. They all understand it's just an opinion. It can never be anything more. None of them are going to say their opinion can be proved so everyone who disagrees is wrong. They all agree on the basic point, which is that the claim is "not implausible". And, they leave it there.

This is the reason you won't find modern historians writing about the Skanke claim. Nothing interesting comes from it. There are no wars, no rebellions, no mysterious indemnity payments, nothing that would be a publishable academic article. You can't get much excitement among your peers if your only point is that some guy back in the 1800s was wrong about something that happened back in the 1200s. Your peers already know that with just a glance.

That's the kind of thing for undergraduate students, genealogists, and history buffs to argue about ;)

The Barfod-pedigree mentioned, is published in the book "Barfod-sagaen" from 1992.
The pedigree is made by Svend Gaute Barfoth and is a copy of a earlier pedigree from 1830, which supposedly is based on notes belonging to pastor Ifvar Barfoth (1686 - 1743) Ifvar Barfoths pedigree is supposed to be from around 1658-1743. (Would be interesting to know where his notes are now..)

http://www.skankeforeningen.no/index.php/artikler/41-skanker-og-bar...