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

Justin, I am now convinced that you are an expert in the invention of false genealogies and fictive relationships in the middle ages.

You do not convince me of your professionality, though. You are acusing me of misunderstandings, but is it not the other way around ? It could be because your field of science is not adequately limited yet.

Do you really believe that you or anyone of us amateurs on geni is overseeing all evidence regarding the geneaology of historical people ?
Who would have better oversight than professors in history ? You ? In this case three consecentual professors from three different countries have linked these historical people. This is based on the coat of arms, the surname and oral tradition in Jämtland.

Roger de Robelin, who is the opponent to the traditional perception, has an unproven theory that the Skankefamily came from Germany. His evidence is no better than that of the traditionals, his basis is also the coat of arms.

Let us say that in the meantime a serious doubt about the cutting of the links occur, what would be your methods to correct them ?

I have filed a complaint on Remi Trygve Pedersen at Geni before ths thread have started.

Harald, Jämtland was not Swedish nor Norwegian until Gustav Vasa. The "Jämtamot" practiced their own lawsystem that were excepted from Magnus lagabøters landslov, and the norwegian kings named Jämtland "østre riket", a governal system very much like that of Isle of Man under the norwegian kings. Some circumstantial evidence of the links here as well..

You must also take under consideration that the Skankes property at Hov in Häckås still remains in the Skankes family today. Oral traditions that follows a farms history should be considered of greater value than other.

Dont you see that the "judgment" in this case is based on lack of knowledge?

Remi Trygve Pedersens only basis for the cutting of the links is that he has an perception that the links are based solely on the similarity of arms. Do you agree with me that his conclusion is ignorant ?

Stein,

There is enough reasonable doubt that this is more accurately stated as a theory rather than a fact. That's the entire argument in one simple statement.

I've described the kinds of evidence that could reasonably exist to it would take to shift the balance. You've ignored that.

Justin, I have commented your before in this thread :
1. the proof of Torlack Sckencks coat of arms is in his surname : no one has ever argued this before.
2. It is proven that Hallstein Torleivsson took the name tradition in Norway as he became an official in Norway. To use the surname "Skanke" would not be according to the name tradition in Norway.
3. In the transcript of the regest 790, professor P. A. Munch is noting the uncertanity of the letters transcribed as "Torlack Sckenk". As Ulf has shown in this thread, there is quite small difference in writing between the norse names "Thorleifr" and "Thorleikr" so the mixup is plausible. If we take on the premise that the surname "Sckenk" describes Hallstein Torleivssons coat of arms, and there are no other contemporary use of the coat of arms in Norway, the line is proven.

There is always a possibility that Torlack is related to Hallstein other than as father and son, but that is less likely in my opinion, as their rank is very high.

P. A. Munch notes in the transcript of the regest 790 that the name Thorlack Schenck cannot be correct. My understanding of this note is that he cannot fit the name Torlack Sckenck in a norwegian name tradition. But if the person is connected to a nametradition from the British isles, it would probably fit. It is my understanding that P. A. Munch himself as the first historian, later connects Torlack with HT.

Private wrote "Who would have better oversight than professors in history ? You ? In this case three consecentual professors from three different countries have linked these historical people." The answer being historians living later than these people you are mentioning with access to more sources. And working with what those 3 persons found and the new sources available to them, they have come to a different conclusion than what those 3 persons you are mentioning did. This is fairly common, that later historians, working with the information printed by earlier historians and using new information available to them, come to new conclusions. And that is what todays norwegian historians have done.

If you want to argue their position, Sten Åge, then you have to involve yourself in their discussionforums, like http://www.genealogi.no/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=5 which is a norwegian forum spesifically made to discuss families in the middle ages.

As I have told you before, I rely on what these historians have found, which is reflected in Hallsteins profile. If you want to dispute this information, I'm not the correct recipient, but the historians working with this problem of today are. So, again, please take your discussion over to the forum for middle ages and ask your questions there.

1) Please link to the coat of arms to Torlack Schenck, where is the source?
2) Please link to a source that proves that Hallstein Torleivsson used the name Schanke.
3) No, you are wrong. That there are no mentioning of contemporary use of the coat of arms doesn't mean that there wasn't one. That Thorleifr and Thorleikr could be a plausible mixup doesn't make it a proof that Torlack is spelling variant of one of these names, nor is Sckenk proven to be a different spelling of Schanke.

A lot of the writings of P. A. Munch has been proven incorrect by later historians, so his writings are untrustworthy, and you really shouldn't relay on them.

Remi, I rest my case : you demand sources , but offer none for your theory. I feel that you are arguing for arguments sake.

As my opinion about Remi Trygve Pedersens actions is known, i would like an honest opinion about these sources from one of the other curators in this thread.
Are there any grounds for caracterizing these geneaological links as fairytales ? Those among you that have done so in the past, would reconsider.
To shift the balance, as you put it Justin, the sources 1 to 3 above are adequate. In my opinion, the sole purpose of the connection between the surname and the coat of arms have been to identify the geneaological links between persons.

Stein,

I see a problem here with understanding how to draw conclusions from genealogy and historical research.

Remi does not have a theory. Remi has an opinion about a theory. Remi does not need to offer evidence. The burden of proof is on you. You need to offer evidence, then let other people decide whether you have proved your theory.

It is not a debate between two sides, one in favor and one against. We don't line up all the reasons something could be true and then wait for the side to find sources to show it is not true. It is always enough if the people who doubt something can show their doubt is reasonable.

That's the way historical research works. Same as in science.

Remi is doing exactly what a good genealogist / historian should do. He is pointing out that the majority of modern experts do not accept your theory. That should be enough to end the discussion until new evidence emerges.

Continuing my thoughts...

Stein, it's my personal opinion the theory Hallstein Torleivsson was son of Torlack Schanke is quite reasonable, but the theory Torlack Schanke was son of Harald Gudrodsson of Mann is not so reasonable.

That's not the same as saying I think the theory has been proven. It seems very clear it has not been proven. It cannot be proven from the existing evidence.

1. I agree that Torlack Schanke's name is evidence (but not proof) his coat of arms had legs on it, However, I don't agree that must have been the same as Hallstein's, that he got it from the isle of Mann, or that it was unique in Norway. In fact, your point that Jãmtland was its own world argues against that.

2. I strongly disagree that adopting a name from a coat of arms is not part of the Norwegian tradition. If Torlack did it, his son could have done it.

3. I think it is reasonable that Torlack could be a mistake for Torleiv, but I do not agree that "possible" is the same thing as "proven".

In the final analysis, what you are able to show is that your theory is plausible and reasonable. However, the other side is able to show places where there is a very reasonable doubt.

Now, I want to go back to something Johan Lindqvist said about different methods.

This is not different methods. It's about just one method.

To understand why I say that, it might be helpful to understand a little about the history of doing European genealogy, because it has changed over time.

1. Before about 1700, genealogy was mostly about recording oral traditions. There was a lot of invention and fakery for political reasons.

2. Between about 1700 and 1900, genealogy was mostly about collecting different versions and trying to reconcile them. If someone ever wrote it, they thought it was true.

3. Between about 1900 and World War II, genealogy entered a period where primary sources were the only thing that mattered. If it wasn't written at the time of the event they didn't think it could be true.

4. After World War II, genealogy started to come into line with the way historians work. Something doesn't have to be written in primary sources to be true, but if the evidence is circumstantial it has to be good enough to overcome doubts that it might mean something else.

In this discussion, it looks like everyone agrees that we do genealogy the modern way (#4). The disagreement is about whether it is possible to read the circumstantial evidence a different way.

Justin, there is no evidence that Torlack Skenck ever was called Schanke.

The oldest source I have found, from 1651, still names him Skenck: "Norrigia illustrata, eller Norriges med sine underliggende Lande oc Øer kort oc sandfærdige Beskriffvelse : Hvor udi loffvis oc berømmis det Riges Herlighed, fremfarne Kongers Mact, Stridbarhed oc Mandelighed, Adel oc Kæmpers Dristighed, Sande Religion oc Gudfryctighed" by bookprinter Jens Lauridsen Wolf: http://www.nb.no/nbsok/nb/dba919576fcf6c6a8a47e8913ff20fff?index=2#69 as Regesta Norvegica does nr. 790: http://www.nb.no/nbsok/nb/0b1a3a5b6c48189980b11d79be44acd0?index=1#289 (Sorry, only available for Norwegian IP-addresses) His name is written Torlack Skenck.

So I feel there is not enough evidence to call him Schanke when his name is allways written in the known sources as Skenck. If this profile should reflect Torlack Skenck that is mentioned in 1295, we need to show how his name as it is written in the sources and not how we think his name should be written. Skenck is a fact, Schanke is a theory. So his name should show what the sources show, the rest should be in his About me.

Torlack Skenck
http://www.nb.no/nbsok/nb/dba919576fcf6c6a8a47e8913ff20fff?index=2#69

I also noted the frequent using of "søn" instead of "son", it's clearly a work of it's time. ; )

Remi, I'd be fine with that. I did some light clean up to remove to worst of it. I didn't try to fix it all. It was supposed to be a gentle nudge to you to finish up ;)

Ulf, why are linking to the same page as I am with no new information?

I have already said that the source is written in 1651 by Jens Lauridsen Wolf and the ending -søn was the common way of writing the endings of patronyms at this time as it was 400 years earlier. The ending -son was almost never used in Denmark-Norway, as it was in Sweden. In the 18th century the patronymic ending slowly changed from -søn to -sen in Denmark-Norway, so the ending -son hardly matters at all when using Danish and Norwegian sources.

And on top of that, it has nothing to do with Torlack Skenck since there is no patronym in his name.

Another thing I have a problem with is the lack of mentioning in the sources of the ridder (knight) Torlack Skenck (or spelling variants) between when he supposedly moved from Isle of Man in 1275 to when he is mentioned as a guarantor of the treaty of ceasefire Sept. 25th 1295 in Hindsgavl, Denmark. If he was a ridder during these 20 years, why is there no more sources mentioning him?

The same goes for Hallstein Torleivsson. He shows up out of nothing as a ridder in 1303. He is supposedly born in 1272, he should ofcource be mentioned several times before 1303 if he was a son of a ridder living in Norway since 1275. He is around 30 years old in 1303, that is plenty of time to get mentioned in the sources as a grown up person.

Any theories shedding any light on these two problems would be welcome!

Justin, I have now changed the name to what the sources show.

So, how are we about proving Torlack Skenck's partners? Sharon Doubell I'm involving you in this discussion since you are the curator of Wife of Óttarr Snaekollson do you have any inputs?

Maybe we need to have two different profiles here, one of Torlack Skenck and one of the husband of Olafsdottir.

And was this Olafsdottir firstname Magnhild? What does the most primary sources say?

Remi, be careful about the lack of mention. That's a problem that cuts two ways ;)

Torlack was a great man in 1295. Why are there no earlier sources for him? There just aren't. And why no earlier sources for Hallstein? Nothing.

There are hundreds of apparently prominent medieval people who are mentioned once, then disappear forever. Even some of the greatest men in their kingdom. If there were sources, they haven't survived.

"Ulf, why are linking to the same page as I am with no new information?"
Because you don't get it, if the language previous the reformation were different, and if the difference were bigger the further back we go, then the way of spelling would reflect not only where it is written, but also by whom and most of all, when.
One example,
Anund Borgarssön (newer way)
Anunder Borgharsson (older way)
Margrete Brynjulfsdatter (newer way)
Margretta Bryniulfs dotter (older way)

At a certain point there would be room for both way of writing, and depending of the writer we could have different way to spell certain vocal sound, if an english talking man would write down Torlack,by just hearing, he would write the ending just as in "luck", are you lucky enough to get this?

"Any theories shedding any light on these two problems would be welcome!"
Your second question, this you ought to know, the sociopolitical situation in Scandinavia were not open for anyone to get into the top positions in the society, it was reserved to the one who already had power and wealth, and surely you did now that even back then the rich sent some of their sons on studies down in Europe, some could study for 10 or 15 years without any problems, so that when they finally returned they were learned men.

Under this time of studies, they would not leave any bigger footprints in their home countries and if they died abroad, they probably wouldn't even become a footnote in our history, unless the university had their name and origin noted down, and that were preserved.

Before we take any action about ... ... Óláfsdóttir, I urge you to read and consider the profile for her other "husband" Óttarr Snaekollson, supposed 3rd chief of Clan Gunn.

I have been thinking about the problem of the legendary Gunn genealogy throughout this discussion of Hallstein Torleivsson. The stories are very similar.

The Gunns claimed to be descendants from Gunni, a son of Olaf the Black, king of Mann. That claim seems to be spurious, but Snaekollr Eiríksson was among the heirs of the earls of Orkney. He fled to Norway and apparently never returned, but the Gunn family claimed descent from him. In the earliest version we know, Óttarr was a great grandson of Olaf the Black. In the corrected, modern version he was possibly married to a daughter of Olaf.

The idea that a daughter of Olaf the Black just happened to marry both Óttarr Snaekollson and Torlack Skenck shows how much effort has been put into creating a convenient fiction.

Justin, I still find it peculiar. King Eirik II Magnusson was 12 years old when he became king after Magnus VI Lagabøte in 1280. And his legal guardians ruled until he became of age in 1282. Eirik was a weak ruler and didn't parcipitate much in the ruling of the country. Instead there was a "King's Council" comprising of the nobility and his officials. King Eirik had to major problemareas: The Church and The Foreign Policy, both were basicly handled by the Council. So to do this work he needed quite a few people in "the Council" of nobility and officials. In this context, I find i strange that Torlack Skenck is only mentioned once, and that only in an important thing as the ceasefire with the danish king, which implies that the guarantors would be of the most trusted people he had. In my opinion he should have been mentioned alot more often since he is such an important person as being one of the guarantors of the ceasefire in 1295.

Remi, there are a thousand arguments just like that in medieval history. I don't disagree that it's odd, but there can never be a way to figure out what was going on.

In similar cases, the theories are all over the board. Maybe he was present when he wasn't usually. Maybe he was acting as a proxy or substitute for someone else who would have signed normally. Maybe he had made a recent, important marriage or alliance that brought him within the inner circle. Maybe his position was borderline, so that he wasn't normally important enough to sign but they brought him in to make the numbers look good.

On and on. If someone could guess a reason, someone probably has.

This is copied from an official Source at the Isle of Man :

The Isle of Man became a Viking outpost/kingdom from circa AD 700 to AD 900. The Norse Kingdom of Mann and the Isles was created by Godred Crovan in 1079. Norway's King Magnus VI ceded the isles to Scotland in 1266, as dictated in the Treaty of Perth. The Isle of Man came under English control in the 14th century and to the British Crown in 1765.

The Island arguably has the oldest continuous parliament in the world, the Tynwald, nominally founded in 979 AD (both the Icelandic parliament and the Faroese parliament are older, but they were abolished between 1800 - 1845, and 1816 - 1852 respectively). The annual ceremonial meeting at Tynwald Hill, on Tynwald Day in July, continues the celebration of the Island's national day. The main purpose of the occasion is to read the titles and to give a brief description of the new laws which have been enacted by the Tynwald Court during the previous year.

For centuries, the Island's symbol has been the ancient Triskelion: three bent legs, each with a spur, joined at the thigh. The Triskelion does not appear to have an official definition — Government publications, currency, flags, the tourist authority and others all use different variants. Most, but not all, preserve rotational symmetry. Some run clockwise, others anticlockwise. Some have the uppermost thigh at 12:00, others at 11:30 or 10:00, etc. Some have the knee bent at 90°, some at 60°, some at closer to 120°. Also the degree of ornamentation of the leg wear and spur vary considerably.

The three legs relate directly to the island's motto — Quocunque Jeceris Stabit, which translates to Whithersoever you throw it, it will stand. Interpretations of the motto often stress stability and robustness in the Manx character. Many schools on the island have adapted the motto to promote perseverance and hard work.

Variations on the Triskelion are still in use on the coats of arms belonging to the different branches of the ancient Norwegian noble family that ruled Mann up until the 13th century. This particular version belongs to the Skancke branch of the Skanke family. The name stems from skank, the Norwegian version of the word shank. The Norse royal family of Man stayed on the island for some years after the death of Magnus III and the beginning of Scottish rule. The family's emigration only came after the a final attempt on the Manx' part at restoring the old Sudreyar dynasty in the 1275 uprising against the Scots. This revolt failed disastrously, ending in the deaths of hundreds of rebels, including the last Norse King of Man, Godred Magnusson when the Manx suffered defeat in the decisive Battle of Ronaldsway, near Castletown. When the Norse-Manx royals arrived in Norway they took service as nobles of the Norwegian king, quickly becoming knights, landlords, and clergy under the Norwegian Crown.

Private - do you have a citation for that?
It seems likely to be the same source as some of the ones mentioned earlier in the thread, but "always cite sources".

Det er nok tatt fra Wikipedia :

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man

Det samme blir sitert av universiteter som underviser om de britiske øyer, feks :

http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/i/Isle_of_Man.html

Det samme i fullwiki :

http://www.thefullwiki.org/Isle_of_Man

Barfodforeningens fremstilling med kilder :

http://barfod-barfoed.dk/stamtavle1/forhistorien/

1 is a wiki, and doesn't cite this part (and doubts the Skanke theory).
2 is a 404 :-(
3 is a wiki I don't know (but has no citation).
4 cites this source, among others: "G.V.C.Young: The three legs go to Scandinavia, Isle of Man 1983." This is the same author as cited in the very first entry on this discussion: George Vaughan Chichester Young, O.B.E.

Remi said of Young in the fifth entry of this discussion: "Second problem, Barney Young or G. V. C Young, was never a professor. Here is his obituary where you all can read that he was a Manx's goverment's legislative draughtsman. http://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/sep/19/obituaries.readersobitu... His writing's has no foundation in primary sources and both norwegian and swedish historians and genealogists do not rely on his writings, nor does the most knowledgeable genealogist on the Schancke family, Roger de Robelin, who rejects the relationship to Isle og Man on the pages 10, 12 and 384 in his book about the Skanke-family."

So all we can say for certain is that mr. Young supports the theory, but we still don't have sources for what evidence mr. Young relies on.

I guess that's full circle.

It's hard to escape the problem that the earliest evidence of the Manx coat of arms dates from the period after thHe Norse rulers. We touched on this problem earlier.

Members of the Crovan dynasty didn't use the triskelion. They used a ship. In fact, it was part of the theory of Sir Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk (1919-1985) that when the ship appears in Scottish coat of arms in the Hebrides it indicates that the family is descended from branches of the Yngling dynasty (including the Crovan dynasty), .

In fact, many experts think the adoption of the triskelion as the symbol of Man is connected with the overthrow of the Crovan dynasty. New rulers, new coat of arms.

Rather than go back and find the citations I posted earlier in this thread, I'll just copy paste the article from English Wikipedia:

The coat of arms an augmented form of the traditional arms associated with the island.[1] It is unknown when the triskeles was originally adopted as a symbol in a Manx context.[3] It appears associated with the island in several late thirteenth-century armorials such as: Camden Roll, Herald's Roll, Segar's Roll, Walford's Roll, and Wijnbergen Roll (all which date within the last three decades of the century).[4][note 1] Just before this period in history, the island formed part of the Kingdom of the Isles, ruled by the Crovan dynasty. The last member of this ruling family died in 1265 without a legitimate heir. The island then passed into the possession of Alexander III, King of Scotland (died 1286). In 1266, sovereignty of the Isle of Man and the Hebrides was formally transferred from the Norwegian Crown to the Scottish Crown.
There is no evidence that the Crovan dynasty utilised the triskeles as a heraldic device. Instead, members of this family are known to have born ships and lions on their seals.[9] Although it is possible that the origin of the Manx triskeles lies in a symbol depicted upon the coinage of their tenth-century Viking antecessors on the island,[10] this particular knotted device is dissimilar to the Manx triskeles, and the nearly three-century gap between its use and the appearance of the Manx triskeles suggests that there is no connection between the symbols.[11]
The appearance of the triskeles in the last third of the thirteenth century may well be connected with the aforesaid regime change on the island. The symbol is otherwise closely associated with Sicily, and is attested there as early as the seventh century BC.[12] In 1250, Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, died after having ruled this island for fifty-two years.[13] Four years later, the papal legate invested the Sicilian kingship in Edmund (died 1296), the young son of Henry III, King of England (died 1272),[14] and for about ten years afterwards Edmund was styled "King of Sicily".[15] Alexander III's wife, Margaret (died 1275), was a daughter of Henry.[16] This familial connection between the English and Scottish royal families could account for the introduction of the triskeles as a symbol of the Isle of Man. If so, it could well have been adopted as a means to reinforce the regime change on the island.[17] Although there is no evidence that the triskeles was used on Sicily itself in the thirteenth century, there is architectural evidence of its use in Austria at this time. Such evidence is almost certainly associated with Frederick himself, and almost certainly stems from his Sicilian connections.[18]

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