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

Justin Swanstrom wrote : "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."

Is this a problem ? In an historical analysis it would rather become evidence of origin for the noble man who is using the triskelion in Norway ? I wonder where this misunderstanding has originated ?

In the years 1265 to 1275 the Norwegian nobility remained at Isle of Man together with the norwegian bishop who were named by the archbishop of Nidaros (Trondheim). This was according to the treaty between the king of Norway and the Scottish king in 1266, wich is preserved and an open source for anyone who bothers to study it. The treaty granted the Norwegian nobles security for life and property under the Scottish king.

After the rebellion in 1275 in wich the norwegians participated against the Scottish king, the norwegian nobles left the Isle of man, but the rule of the norwegian bishops at Isle of Man named by the archbishop in Nidaros continued well into the 14th Century
.
This sociopolitical frame on Isle of man is very scimilar to that of Jämtland at the same period, where the archbishop of Uppsala named the bishop in Jämtland under the Norwegian kings.

At this time there must have been uncertanity with regards to the future reign on Isle of Man. The treaty of 1266 involves an amount of money as payment and yearly lease to the Norwegian king. It is evidence that this was not paid for by the Scottish king. A situation could arise on a dispute if the treaty was not honoured.

In my opinion the Norwegian nobilitys use of the name Skanke (Shanks) (Torlack Sckenk, first used in 1295) corresponds to the newly established coat of arms at Isle of man in the last third of the thirteenth century. Their interest would be to take positions if Isle og Man should come under Norwegian rule again.

In my opinion the arguments I have seen so far against this connection between Isle of Man and Torlack Sckenk are not of the same weight.

It's a circular argument.

There is no evidence the Manx coat of arms is this old, but you think it was because the Skanke used it.

There is no evidence the Skanke family is descended from the kings of Mann, but you think they were because they used the same coat of arms.

I'm not buying it.

But again. An old sword marked with the "tre cassyn", attributed to Olaf the Black, (Olof Gudrödsson) who according to the tradition wore it when he became king of Sudrey 1226. "The Manx Sword"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_State_(Isle_of_Man)

Regarding old sword, if sword were important in it self and had a symbolic value they were often renewed with newer parts as they were torn down by the ravages of time, with the tragic result that over time, there remains very little of the original sword. Never the less, in this case it do fits as an indirect support to what Private believes.

There are important reason for the choice of the triskelion as a coat of arm.
1. The direct connection to Olaf the Black of Isle of Man.
2. Via his daughter Óláfsdóttir, symbolizing the power they held. ( Hence, there are no need for the claim that Torlack was son of Harald II of Mann, because they could just as easily have taken it from Olafs daughter).
3. If the state of affairs would change, the coat of arm would act as a reminder for Torlacks descendants.
4. It's the most plausible explanation. No other sources or indications exist that support that the family named Skanke, or their coat of arm have had any other origin.

So in my point of view, the detractors of this relationship between Olaf the black and the Skanke family in Scandinavia just stand here empty handed and apparently dismiss it just because without any good reason other than the lack of paper trail.

More circular reasoning.

The sword attributed to Olaf the Black was manufactured 200 years after he died, according to your link.

Justin Durand

Regarding old sword, if sword were important in it self and had a symbolic value they were often renewed with newer parts as they were torn down by the ravages of time, with the tragic result that over time, there remains very little of the original sword.

What is being circular reasoning are your counterarguments, because you do not have any! No one have presented anything that contradicts that the Skanke in Scandinavia originated from the isle of Man, or another credible explanation for their coat of arm. Why?

Here you seriously seems to think or believe that the absence of contradicting evidence are enough to dismiss the connection between them, explain that!

Sure, but this is just latching on to an old sword and claiming an older history without any other evidence.

If the sword was remade in the 15th century, wouldn't it be the blade that was re-shaped? But it's the pommel that has the coat of arms on it, and it's the pommel that would be the first thing to replace, and the pommel that is most clearly 15th century.

As I understand it, the whole sword has been remade in segments, who says that anything from the original sword are left? They can date the oldest parts, but yet again, it doesn't prove anything.

I had a similar discussion once about an old boat, it had successively been renewed to such a degree that there actually were no parts at all left from the original boat, still, they had the stomach to claim that the boat were in an original state. ; )

I see it as following, one, there probably never going to be any proof for the lineage, or evidence for disapproval of it. Therefor, regarding all in whole, it's plausible that their lineage goes to that island, and so long nothing contradict it at all, it should be clearly stated in the profile and reattached.

Two, If at the other hand, something against all odds would indeed turn up, then it can always be rearranged according to whatever new source says. It's not the end of the world to have a plausible line presented, and as long as there seems to be just as many for as against, I would rather free and have it, then just precipitate it.

Too begin with, Why are there two wives when it ought to be just one?
Magnhild (Maud) Olofsdatter and ... Óláfsdóttir
Could this two be merged without raising hell?
Matilda / Maude of Isle of Man {doubtful} Wife of Óttarr Snaekollson

There is an old joke in America -- This is my grandfather's shovel. My father replaced the handle and I replaced the blade ;)

Have you ever watched someone re-furbish an old sword? It's a fascinating process. It will make you wish you had become a blacksmith.

The main point is that the sword isn't proof about the Manx coat of arms. It can't be. The sword we see if far too late.

Here's how I see this problem. It could be true. It's not impossible. There's no proof. Without proof it's just an interesting theory. There's no shame in believing it if you want to believe it, but there's not enough evidence to say even that it is the most likely scenario.

I don't see any problem with merging the two wives, but we will also need to disconnect her from her supposed father.

The joke was fun, I heard it before thou, but the rest? It makes no sense because in my mind, in this certain case, the lack of evidence that point this family in any other direction, the fact that no one else what I know about, have ever tried to set up another line, are in it self a sort of indirect confirmation that support this very idea about just this line.

I'm not asking people to assume more things or things than needed to explain anything, but with all cards laid on the table it actually show a very, and in my and some others eyes, highly plausible lineage.

And what about this for comparison, in the about me of this profile Wife of Óttarr Snaekollson
"Óttarr Snaekollsson might have married a daughter of Óláfr Guðrøðsson of Man. Such a marriage would explain why Óláfr had a grandson named Gunni, born about 1250. It would also be one explanation for the traditional kinship between the Gunns and MacLeods."

Got me thinking of the proverb, "You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" There seem to be a hypocritical veil over much here.

That quote is highly significant, because it is from a competing tradition about what happened to the heirs of Olaf the Black.

The whole problem is very complex. The MacLeods claim to be the heirs of Olaf the Black. The Gunns claim to be descended from a younger son of the same family.

Modern scholarship favors the idea that both traditions are distorted. I would have to look up the details but the general idea is that the Gunn ancestor was a different Olaf, the MacLeods probably inherited their possessions in the Hebrides through the female line, and It's not certain that Óttarr Snaekollsson was a real person.

You can read about part of the problem here:
http://www.clanmacleod.org/genealogy/macleod-genealogy-research/the...

What you should be seeing here is that the whole area is highly speculative. You might think it's significant the no other ancestry has ever been suggested for the Skanke but in fact that's the usual case for Scandinavian families at this period. This period is the Great Chasm. It's very rare for even the greatest families to trace back any further.

I understand Justin and know some of the problematic, but i am open for solutions. Oral tradition, what value can we put in it, could they all be right, some of them, and what is absolutely wrong, that are what we should focus on.

I have understanding for locking down some profiles, if, someone want to hook on a known fake line. If there are two or more just as equally good candidates from different families and it's impossible to know which one is the right one, and finally, if someone are doing repeatedly sabotage. But I have no understanding if someone just lock a profile because the paper trail are not fully present when there exist other consideration that we can elaborate with.

By the side, here's a man that lived much later, he has nothing to do with this thread, but I feel that I need to repeat one thing, a name, cut in stone or not, are not cut in stone in real life. ; )

Althusius, Johannes 1557-1638

Andere Namen

Althaus, Johann
Althusen, Johannes
Althusen, Johann
Althus, Joannes
Althaus, Johannes
Althus, Johann
Althusius, Joannes
Althusius, Johann
Alphusius, Johannes
Althus, Johannes
Althaus, Joannes
Althusen, Joannes
Althusius, Ioannes
Altusio, Juan
Althusius, Johannes

You can see that you have a very different idea than most Geni users. You want to include lines that could be true. There is always some disagreement, but most users say either they want only lines that are definitely true or lines that are probably true.

That's the reason for the disagreement here. It's not a problem if you want to believe this connection, but it is a very serious problem if you want to force everyone on Geni to agree with you.

Justin Swanstrøm : These arguments like "very different idea than most Geni users" are actually proving your ignorance : I doubt that you have the oversight you are pretending to have regarding what ideas most Geni users have in their heads ?

The same way is our and Harald Tveit Alvestrands ignorance of the topic in this thread : the speaking coat of arms of the noble Skankes and their origin. The speaking coat of arms means that the surname and the coat of arms is expressing the same heritage. To be a Skanke means that you are entitled to use the coat of arms and vice versa.

In a logical way, everything could be questioned, but lack of DNA evidence does not mean that connections should be falsified on Geni.

You are ignorant to the work and findings of late professors in history. You fail to name one contemporary professor in history who is argumenting against the late proffessors findings.

By ignorance, the world was considered flat until the middle ages: I cant see it, then it doesnt exist.

Private you still haven't named a professor that supports your argument. G.V. C. Young was not a professor.

The "speaking coat of arms" means that there's a shank in the coat of arms and a shank in the name. That's all it means. It doesn't bind either the name or the coat of arms to a heritage.

Repeating an argument does not make it stronger.

Sharon Doubell again I would like to make you pay attention to this problem. You are the curator of Wife of Óttarr Snaekollson and since you are the curator we need you insight and input in this problem. Is Wife of Óttarr Snaekollson the same person as Matilda / Maude of Isle of Man {doubtful} and was she in a companionship (married) to Torlack Skenck. We would also like your input on the 4 children mentioned.

Remi,

I would welcome Sharon's input but I suspect this is one of the profiles she took over from me.

I spent several years absorbed in the problem of MacLeod and Gunn origins because there is an idea among some of my Swedish cousins that the Svanströms were originally Scots, perhaps Gunns but maybe Sinclairs or perhaps even MacSwans (a branch of the MacLeods). I doubt that, but it's been an interesting research project nevertheless.

Without even reviewing my notes I can tell you that the hypothetical Olaf's daughter who might have married the possibly fictitious Óttarr Snaekollson is not the same hypothetical Olaf's daughter who married the real Torlack Skenck. Two different and partially competing theories. Probably on Geni just someone's bad merge.

There is a suggestion that Torlack's wife might have had a name that starts with M (perhaps Magnhild, almost certainly NOT Maud), but I don't remember where I saw that. On Geni, it is just more of the attempt to translate theory into fact.

I thought about fixing this several times but I've wanted to wait until we can have a discussion about it. Maybe we're at that point, maybe not.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand, I suspect that you have a problem with your perception of words or it could be that you are plaged with the same ignorance as Justin Swanstrøm here ?

You are quoting my argument against me, and I have in this tread made efforts in explaining to you arguing curators that the connections between the Skankes are made by professor PA Munch in Oslo in the nineteenth century, while interpreting the regests and other medieval documents gained from the state of Denmark after 1814. Most of the remarks on the digitalized regests are made by him as an authorative historian.

In the middle of the 20th century professor Ahnlund in Jämtland confirmed the connections on the basis of medieval documents form the norse regime in Jämtland. Professor Ahnlund is an authorative historian.

I can not see that you have any authorative sources for your point of view ?

Stein Aage, I suggest you take a break from the discussion. Your personal attacks are escalating in a way that is likely to get you suspended from Geni. Deep breath, my friend, and try to stay focused on the actual arguments.

Torleiv NN

This profile, here named only Torleiv NN by Remi, points out one of the problems by having to rigid curators, blocking every effort to set up plausible lines because they act like judge, jury and executioner all in one. The profile are locked down, no discussion at all visible before this was done. Remi Trygve Pedersen could you please at least have the good manor to put this text below, in the about me section, or would that also offend you to much?

" Historikeren Barney Young på Isle of Man vil ha det til at Halstein var sønn av Torleif Haraldsson og Magnhild, datter av Godred Magnusson, d 1275, konge av Suderøyene 1265-66. Han begrunner det med at ættevåpnet til denne ætten stammer fra kongehuset på Isle of Man, som førte et tilsvarende våpen. Young har også laget en hypotetisk stamtavle som viser Halstein Torleifssons ætt som opphav til de øvrige Skankeættene i Norden" .

Source
The three legs go to Scandinavia", og "Fra Skanke-slektens historie", Isle of Man 1986

Private as I have said before, you should take your discussion over to where the norwegians proffesional historians are, like this one where this problem is discussed: http://www.genealogi.no/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=175 Lars Løberg is one if the most knowledgable genealogical medeival historians active with the Isle of Man vs. Schancke problem of today. And the one you need to persuade is him and his fellow historians, not us genealogists on Geni that are only repeating what he and his fellow historians are saying.

So, Private you should take your arguments over to this Norweigan Medeival discussion forum, where you are able to discuss this problem with those alot more knowledgeable about this problem than both Justin, Harald, Ulf and I am. All of us are able to participate, watch, and understand what is said in this forum. If you don't want to use Marjo's discussion, you are free to start your own. That forum is the one you will get your most knowledgable answers in, and that is where you should discuss your problem, because you won't get any further here on Geni.

If you like to start a kne one, her is the starting point: http://www.genealogi.no/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=5

Private User no I won't, because that is already written in the About me of Hallstein Torleivsson

Remi Trygve Pedersen Could you consider to resign as a curator?

I believe that this site has no need for one rulers who block profiles without clearly declaring their grounds for such decision. I have not seen what you have based your decision on, I have not seen any facts presented by you that are without doubt in favor for your single exclusive decision, either have I seen any signs at all, that you in terms of knowledge are in the position to make such decision, other than the fact that you're a curator here on Geni and thereby can do it.

What really made you take that decision?

There actually do exist some curators here on Geni with extremely large knowledge gaps and sometimes I wonder what's the point with them are? If they are questioned the response are prefabricated, "Yeah, "if it don't suit you, feel free to quit", but, shouldn't it be the reverse, if a curator don't meet the standard, his ability to work as a curator gets revoked?

Yes, I know that it's a voluntarily work, I also know that you're understaffed in relation to the needs, etc, but anyway, do you get my point? You do have the power to block profiles and users, but, in the name of justice, get Geni to implement the ability to rate your work and if someone gets a very low score, reduce that curators options according to it, after a while, the result should be in favor for the right sort of curators doing the right things for the right causes on right and valid grounds, instead of a curator defending his act by suggesting them to turn to experts in order to find out the reasons for your blocked profile.

Ulf, if you feel that any curator is abusing their power you can report them to Geni. As simple as that.

In the meantime, Remi has done what every curator is expected to do, which is to prevent vandalism of the tree.

There is no proof here. It is a tradition, nothing more. Everywhere we turn, we see the evidence just isn't there. This is exactly what curators are supposed to block. Remi is doing his job.

"In the meantime, Remi has done what every curator is expected to do, which is to prevent vandalism of the tree." Excuse me, preventing vandalism? Isn't that an overstatement with no ground at all?
You did set up Óttarr Snaekollson as a husband to Óláfsdóttir based on assumptions, shall we see that too as an act of vandalism?

I have seen a lot example of other solutions when there are any doubts in the line, be careful, not proven, fictitious, parents not proven, etc, and any of this variants would have been just as acceptable without calling it a tree vandalism, if Remi had chosen to do that, I'm fully sure that you and everybody else here, would have supported him just as well.

That's what I was pointing too earlier when I used the word hypocrite. The amount of arbitrariness regarding some profiles, are obvious, and in this case, overwhelmingly. You want us to sit down quit like nice puppies and obey the master, or with another parable, you curators act like parents in one unified front against the disobedient kids, the public,
we are inferior, second-rate, should just shut up and swallow what ever.

I have seen a lot of user that leaves this site just because of such treatment, one single person against a unified army acting in a way that suggests they have some secret knowledge or awareness at the upper hand, when in fact, in a lot of cases, just are an effect of the rules here.

When I earlier got blocked, for the rearrange of a certain profile so it reflected the sources and was in line accordance to the chronology, apropos, no one has changed what I did since then, I learnt that not even the CS bothered about what's right or wrong, they stand just as unified with the curators, no matter if the curator never in the real life, would have any chance at all to get hired as a curator because of proven insufficient knowledge, but I did point out, that in the length, this are actually bad for business, the eager to overprotect bad decisions, instead of dealing with it in a more mature way.

So, with that said, yes, there are no genuine proof, but there are enough circumstantial background that point in only that direction, there are nothing that points in any other direction, so I agree with the historian Barney Young in this case, finally, we should be able to ventilate our thoughts, and not act as North Korea are the idealistic state.

Ulf, I can see your frustration. Maybe it will help you to hear how your argument sounds to me.

There is a tradition. You believe it. Modern experts reject it. No one can prove it is impossible, so you think anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

It's not much of an argument.

I can tell you the line will not change on Geni until you find new information. Have you tried to convince the experts Remi told you about? I don't see that you have. You keep circling back to one or two professors who agree with you but you ignore all the experts who don't.

You might think "vandalism" is too strong a word, but I don't know another way of making it clear to you that you do not have the right to force your opinion on others.

You do, however, have the right to express your opinion. You are doing that here, at great length.

"you do not have the right to force your opinion on others"

But by blocking that profile in specific, that's actually exactly what Remi have done, forced one opinion on us all. And no, I rarely call people idiots unless it's a private conversation between four eyes, but I can call someone incompetent if they act like they are. How people individually perceive written text are at the other hand sometimes a mystery in it self.