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

We were talking about the coat of arms before, heraldry of the skanckes etc..

Is this of any value? I dont know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armorial_Wijnbergen#/media/File:Armor...

"The coat of arms attributed to the King of Mann depicted by the late thirteenth-century Armorial Wijnbergen.[note 2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clann_Ruaidhr%C3%AD

Maybe silly from me. Ofcourse you have seen it. .

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

Good stuff but it's hard to interpret because this is the early period of heraldry and a lot of information has been lost.

There are disputes about the details, but the general outline is that heraldry originated in the period 1120 to 1150, probably among the Anglo-Normans, then spread to the rest of Europe.

It took two or three generations for the rules of inheritance to settle. For example, whether coats of arms belong to the family, or whether they are attached to the estate or the surname. There are early cases where men used the surname and arms of their mother's family, or used one but not the other. There are also cases where men adopted new arms when they acquired a new property, and cases where they adopted new arms for no apparent reason. So, it's hard to say that it means something specific in this early period when someone uses a specific coat of arms.

The earliest surviving rolls of arms date from about 1240 or 1250, and many of them are 1265 or later.

The earliest instance of the Norwegian royal coat of arms is the Wijnbergen roll (about 1265-1285). That is also the earliest instance of the Manx coat of arms. The earliest instance of a non-royal Norwegian coat of arms is the seal of Basse Gudthormson (1286).

As you read these dates, remember the Treaty of Perth, when Norway surrendered Man to Scotland, was in 1266.

Also remember that Godred Crovan who died in 1095 used a ship on his seal. His son Olaf used a ship on his seal in 1134. Ranald, Lord of the Isles, a grandson of Godred Crovan through his mother, used a ship on his seal about 1175. King Harald I of Man used a ship on his seal in 1245 and 1246. Angus McDonald, Lord of the Isles and grandson of Ranald used a ship on his seal in 1292.

It looks like the Scots adopted a new coat of arms for Man, then those new arms were spread around Europe in different rolls of arms. But, there are very few earlier rolls of arms, so it's possible the arms are earlier (although probably not before 1245), except that the known heraldry of the kings of Man does not have any of them using legs.

1245 seal of King Harald I
http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/manxsoc/msvol05/fp1.htm

1246 seal of King Harald I
http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/manxsoc/msvol05/fp2.htm

From at least 500 people in Scandinavia have used images of e.g. animals in a way that reminds of family symbols, but the only remains are found carved in stones, but the lion were represent already at that time and for at least one family in Skåne they continued to bear it several 100 years later in their coat of arm, so regarding the origin of specific symbols I guess the new thing is the introduction of paper...

Then, beside this, we have the tattoos, some of the markings might very well also have been used only within certain family's, just like some gangs do even today, just some thoughts. ; )

Tribal totems, but apparently not family totems.

It's funny to notice the Crovan dynasty used a ship, not an animal or other totem. Some of the older authorities think it might have been because they claimed descent from the Frey-born kings at Uppsala.

In old 18th and 19th century genealogies it's common to see the claim that the McLeods are the only family in Europe that can prove a male-line descent from the royal line of Uppsala.

In one of his books Sir Iain Moncrieffe had a frontspiece showing the Scottish families that use a ship ("galley") in their coats of arms and how he thought they were descended from the same family.

I think the best argument for the Skanke family being related to the Manx royal family but using the legs in their coat of arms would be that there was a break and they "forgot" their original coat of arms. But then, if any of the ideas about the ship are true, it would be truly astounding that they also forgot they are descended from Frey ;)

Justin, I saw an unusual connection in Geni (forgive me but it is all I have for discussion sake) that shows the Skanke connection to the old kings of Uppsala was actually through marriage, particularly, Jens Karlsson's wife Catherina Wibjornsdotter so it does not go back to Hallsteinsson.
This is all I got but what the heck, it is a shot. I think I just spent $449 on a DNA test that will tell me I am descended from Swedes via Norway and shifting borders....it will really mess up the Son's of Norway celebrations if so...LOL
https://www.geni.com/c/a29029c6c4f90190d52a8d930de3c9efbaafdb87
From Subject Received Size Categories
Geni We found your relationship to Fjolnir Yngvi-Freysson,

Just found that path stopping well before Nils Hallsteinsson

If anyone is interested in Moncrieffe's ideas on the ship arms, here's a sample:

Donald J. Macdonald, Clan Donald (1978), pp. 35-36
https://books.google.com/books?id=iAjgWe0cSdQC&pg=PA35&dq=m...

I see that the Norwegian royal coat of arms portrayed in the Wijnbergen roll is portrayed with the axe. This means that the Wijnbergen roll which this coat of arms is portrayed must have been made after 1280, since the axe was added to the lion by king Eirik II Magnusson (or his guardianship) after 1280.

And since the Manx coat of arms are portrayed two drawings to the right, this is probably drawn after 1280 to.

A questuon could be if the coat of arms really was attributed to the king of mann (even if it was late, like you say Remi.) as it says. Maybe they write like that in an assumption.

My personal impression of the triskelion is that it symbolized earth, heaven and hell, the circle of life so to say and the running between them, and yes, that would due even long before the introduction of Christianity. A strong symbol that I think would have been used in sacred rites, therefore surviving and adopted into later beliefs as a family totem alongside all the other animals and signs, which in turns obviously first must have been taken by the rulers, the first so called kings. The one legged is just a part of it, lost two legs, so it explains itself, lost right to the throne.

The other variants from Germany has another story, not as strong, they mean just that they were servants, by foot or by horse to the rulers and we should know the difference between it, because the first one tells us one great story, the last one gives us an occupation and they have nothing to do with each other.

Andrew, your idea makes a lot of sense. One of the most common problems in genealogy traditions is that a line through a woman gets shifted to being a line through her husband. That's particularly true of oral traditions. It would be no surprise if that happened here.

There is a book that describes my father's family, the Howerys, as "an old Wyoming ranching family". I always laugh when I read that. The Howerys married into old ranching families so we all have that kind of ancestry, but it's not through the Howerys.

The Skankes could be the same.

Remi, the Wijnbergen Roll is dated to about 1265–1270 for Part 1, and about 1270–1285 or 1288 for Part 2. Norway is toward the end, so the dating works but just barely.

I think (but am not sure) the Wijnbergen Roll is the document that dates the change to the Norwegian arms, and Norwegian arms are part of uncertainty about the date of the roll ;)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Armorial_Wijnbe...

King Magnus Lagabøte (1238-1280) has two documents with sigils that has survived till today. The one from 1265 has no axe in the lions hands, the one from 1278 isn't good enough to show tha hands of the lion, but one could surmise that the king never changed his sigil after having used one.

The one from 1265 is shown here: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Lagab%C3%B8te#/media/File:Magn...

The one from 1278 can be seen in Thorkelin's Diplomatarium Arna-Magnæanum II, page 81.

The next one we have is from 1283 and belongs to king Eirik II Magnusson, the original is mentioned in Dipl. Norv II-20 and can be seen here: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norges_riksv%C3%A5pen#/media/File:Kon...

So, I think you see what I'm saying. The change in the Norwegian arms has to be after 1265 (and probably after 1278, and probably after 1280), and has to be before 1283. So just based on the Norwegian arms this part of the Wijnbergen Roll has to be after 1265, probably after 1278, probably after 1280, and perhaps after 1283.

Then, there are similar arguments about the other arms that appear on the same page. Taking them all together, the date of the 2nd part of the roll is thought to be 1270–1285 or 1288. The reasoning forms a tight little web. Someone can disagree with one piece, but there's too much information to allow a widely different date.

"During the Middle Ages, the Isle of Man a bishop's seat was subject to the Norwegian archdiocese in Trondheim.."

I didnt know this atleast.. Anyways, i just mentioned it.

"Detail from the Hedin Cross, which dates from about the time of Gofraid Méránach's dynasty. The dynasty's strength lay in the power of their fleets of galleys.[7] The galley was the early symbol of the dynasty, before the triskelion.[8][note 3]"

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

The seal of Gofraid Méránach was said to have contained a galley; so did the seal of his great-grandson Amlaíb Dub (d. 1237), and Amlaíb Dub's son, Aralt.[8]

Kermode 1915-16: p. 60.

Does anyone know the sources to Mikkel Barfod and Olav Nilsson Skancke´s marriages to a certain McRory-family?

Which could be Clann Ruaidhrí under Somhairle?

If so, the are even more indices that the Skancke has Norse–Gael ties.. ?

Or even this lad:

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

More about Clann Ruaidhrí:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubhghall_mac_Ruaidhr%C3%AD

A very interesting question. It's been in the background throughout this discussion.

Somerled (Somhairle) married a daughter of King Olaf Godredsson. His descendants ended up becoming Kings, and later Lords of the Isles. Somerled's descendants split into several different families,, including the MacDonalds, the McRorys, and others. When the Scottish kings finally broke the power of the MacDonalds in 1493 they took the title "Lord of the Isles" for the heir to the Scottish throne. It's one of Prince Charles' titles.

The MacDonald claim was contested by the MacLeods, who claimed to be the male-line heirs of Man and the Isles. The two families essentially split the old kingdom between themselves, along with the MacLeans who inherited a part from the MacDonalds.

Well, if so, doesnt it mean that the "Skancke-family" whenever they got their name, and whatever symbol they used and what time, that they have roots in different Norse-Gael aristocracy?

And here some other clips, dont know the value, but indicator of that Norse-Gael families went back and forth between West Scotland area and Norway from time to time. Even intermarriying and stayed in Norway..?

"Although Dubhghall is last recorded resisting the encroachment of Scottish overlordship, the Scots succeeded in wrenching control of the Isles from the Norwegians in 1266. Dubhghall may have died in exile in Norway, where his son, Eiríkr, was an active baron."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubhghall_mac_Ruaidhr%C3%AD

Alignment with the Norwegian Crown
Repercussions from the Scottish Crown

"Whatever the case, Magnús Óláfsson,[85] Dubhghall, and Eóghan were back in Scandinavia in 1253,[86] as Hákonar saga Hákonarsonar reveals that the latter two took part in the Norwegians' royal campaign against the Danish Crown.[87] By 1255, however, Eóghan was reconciled with the Scottish Crown.[88] The fact that Dubhghall was later regarded as king in Scandinavian sources could indicate that Hákon's original award of the title to Eóghan in 1248 was reversed upon the restoration of Eóghan's Scottish lordship.[89]"

Here is a link to Óspakr-Hákon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93spakr-H%C3%A1kon

Interesting story of this Norse-Gael guy.

further down one can read:

"Óspakr's name—although Scandinavian—is not evidence against a familial connection with the Meic Somairle, as Somairle himself bore a Gaelicised form of a Scandinavian name.[26] Nevertheless, there is also a possibility that Óspakr's name is a Scandinavianised form of the Gaelic Gilla Esbuig.[27][note 2] Although the patronym accorded to Óspakr by the thirteenth–fourteenth-century Chronicle of Mann—"Husbac filium Owmundi"—ostensibly identifies his father as a man named Ǫgmundr"

Ogmundr - Where do I recognise that name. Ah yes, it is on the Roskildehistorie maps that is not certain ofcourse, and certainly not the Bolt family. But, the Ogmund name appears and they intermarry the Skunckos..

Another Bolt- tree where they also intermarry Norse - gay families..

http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Ogmundsen-Family-Tree-1

Absolutely. There has never been any question that it's possible and plausible the Skanke family has connections to Scotland. The only argument is whether there's any proof.

Maybe the Skancke-family - took the name from the symbol of Mann - as it was then(later). And was a family that intermarried the different branches of South and North Hebrides aswell as the ancestors of Somhairle. As you say Justin - one of the claims that Prince Charles had.
And they did this to perhaps re-claim The Hebrides..

Yes, the proofs. But first we perhaps should gather some incentives and indicies. From there one could better find.. ?

That has been the point through the whole discussion. Find some actual proof, not just theories, and all will be well ;)

Yes. I know. But we have to line up or list the theories.. and find new ones. Think big, outside the box. Create a mind-map. You know, like the criminal investigators.

And proof is also a thing one can debate, what is it. Opinion? We dont have to have that discussion now.