Scots and Picts

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
David Webb

Scots and Picts

Legg inn av David Webb » 03 okt 2004 22:45:58

Dear all, does anyone understand the genealogical connection between the
Scottish and Pictish royal houses? Burke's Guide to the royal family says
that Kenneth MacAlpin's father Alpin was the son of Eochaid IV of Dalriada
and Fergusia, a Pictish princess who was also daughter of King Fergus of
Dalriada, uncle of Eochaid IV. But other Internet sites give a very
different account of Fergusia's origins. Can anyone clear this up?

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Scots and Picts

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 04 okt 2004 00:17:56

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:45:58 GMT, "David Webb"
<djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Dear all, does anyone understand the genealogical connection between the
Scottish and Pictish royal houses? Burke's Guide to the royal family says
that Kenneth MacAlpin's father Alpin was the son of Eochaid IV of Dalriada
and Fergusia, a Pictish princess who was also daughter of King Fergus of
Dalriada, uncle of Eochaid IV. But other Internet sites give a very
different account of Fergusia's origins. Can anyone clear this up?

Burke's <blank> is generally a poor source for medieval genealogy, and
Burke's Guide to the Royal Family is no exception to this, especially
for the early medieval monarchy. The existence of "Fergusia" (whose
name reeks of outright invention) is extremely unlikely, so it is
pointless to ask about her parentage. The late medieval sources who
supplied various Scottish or Dalriadan kings with Pictish wives
(several hundred years after the fact, and with phony-looking names)
in order to connect things up have no authority on this point, and the
early records say nothing about such connections. Various conjectural
genealogical tables have appeared in the genealogical literature which
hypothesize various links between Scottish and Pictish kings, but they
are nothing more than conjecture, despite the fact that some who copy
these tables turn them into "fact".

Stewart Baldwin

David Webb

Re: Scots and Picts

Legg inn av David Webb » 04 okt 2004 02:37:42

Thank you. I notice that in a posting in 1997 you said it was likely that
Conn of 100 battles - the supposed Irish ancestor of Kenneth MacAlpin -
never existed. Presumably you accept the Scottish Dalriada kings back to
Fergus Mor. How far do you think the preceding Irish lineage is historical?
Is there any consensus on this among scholars?




"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:vkt0m09g4tdpafld0mf153s471ccqfl605@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:45:58 GMT, "David Webb"
djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Dear all, does anyone understand the genealogical connection between the
Scottish and Pictish royal houses? Burke's Guide to the royal family says
that Kenneth MacAlpin's father Alpin was the son of Eochaid IV of
Dalriada
and Fergusia, a Pictish princess who was also daughter of King Fergus of
Dalriada, uncle of Eochaid IV. But other Internet sites give a very
different account of Fergusia's origins. Can anyone clear this up?

Burke's <blank> is generally a poor source for medieval genealogy, and
Burke's Guide to the Royal Family is no exception to this, especially
for the early medieval monarchy. The existence of "Fergusia" (whose
name reeks of outright invention) is extremely unlikely, so it is
pointless to ask about her parentage. The late medieval sources who
supplied various Scottish or Dalriadan kings with Pictish wives
(several hundred years after the fact, and with phony-looking names)
in order to connect things up have no authority on this point, and the
early records say nothing about such connections. Various conjectural
genealogical tables have appeared in the genealogical literature which
hypothesize various links between Scottish and Pictish kings, but they
are nothing more than conjecture, despite the fact that some who copy
these tables turn them into "fact".

Stewart Baldwin

Bronwen Edwards

Re: Scots and Picts

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 04 okt 2004 04:26:19

The motivation for these later inventions is greater than the usual
instances of linking conquering and conquered families. It is not
simply that Pictish wives (who happened to be princesses royal, acc.
to the stories) brought royal Pictish blood to the Scots but also that
they would have directly placed Scots on the Pictish Throne. The
succession was matrilineal and the Pictish king was the brother of the
princess royal. Although the husband of the princess royal would not
normally have become King of the Picts, it seems conceivable that the
Scots might have thought they could pull it off - if not at the time,
then later. The matrilineal factor was an added motive to do so.
Bronwen
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<vkt0m09g4tdpafld0mf153s471ccqfl605@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:45:58 GMT, "David Webb"
djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Dear all, does anyone understand the genealogical connection between the
Scottish and Pictish royal houses? Burke's Guide to the royal family says
that Kenneth MacAlpin's father Alpin was the son of Eochaid IV of Dalriada
and Fergusia, a Pictish princess who was also daughter of King Fergus of
Dalriada, uncle of Eochaid IV. But other Internet sites give a very
different account of Fergusia's origins. Can anyone clear this up?

Burke's <blank> is generally a poor source for medieval genealogy, and
Burke's Guide to the Royal Family is no exception to this, especially
for the early medieval monarchy. The existence of "Fergusia" (whose
name reeks of outright invention) is extremely unlikely, so it is
pointless to ask about her parentage. The late medieval sources who
supplied various Scottish or Dalriadan kings with Pictish wives
(several hundred years after the fact, and with phony-looking names)
in order to connect things up have no authority on this point, and the
early records say nothing about such connections. Various conjectural
genealogical tables have appeared in the genealogical literature which
hypothesize various links between Scottish and Pictish kings, but they
are nothing more than conjecture, despite the fact that some who copy
these tables turn them into "fact".

Stewart Baldwin

Betty Owen

Re: Scots and Picts

Legg inn av Betty Owen » 04 okt 2004 06:51:09

Bronwen,
Is it not a theory that the Picts might have been an Egalitarian society?
inherting through the princesses?

Betty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bronwen Edwards" <lostcooper@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Scots and Picts


The motivation for these later inventions is greater than the usual
instances of linking conquering and conquered families. It is not
simply that Pictish wives (who happened to be princesses royal, acc.
to the stories) brought royal Pictish blood to the Scots but also that
they would have directly placed Scots on the Pictish Throne. The
succession was matrilineal and the Pictish king was the brother of the
princess royal. Although the husband of the princess royal would not
normally have become King of the Picts, it seems conceivable that the
Scots might have thought they could pull it off - if not at the time,
then later. The matrilineal factor was an added motive to do so.
Bronwen
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<vkt0m09g4tdpafld0mf153s471ccqfl605@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:45:58 GMT, "David Webb"
djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Dear all, does anyone understand the genealogical connection between
the
Scottish and Pictish royal houses? Burke's Guide to the royal family
says
that Kenneth MacAlpin's father Alpin was the son of Eochaid IV of
Dalriada
and Fergusia, a Pictish princess who was also daughter of King Fergus
of
Dalriada, uncle of Eochaid IV. But other Internet sites give a very
different account of Fergusia's origins. Can anyone clear this up?

Burke's <blank> is generally a poor source for medieval genealogy, and
Burke's Guide to the Royal Family is no exception to this, especially
for the early medieval monarchy. The existence of "Fergusia" (whose
name reeks of outright invention) is extremely unlikely, so it is
pointless to ask about her parentage. The late medieval sources who
supplied various Scottish or Dalriadan kings with Pictish wives
(several hundred years after the fact, and with phony-looking names)
in order to connect things up have no authority on this point, and the
early records say nothing about such connections. Various conjectural
genealogical tables have appeared in the genealogical literature which
hypothesize various links between Scottish and Pictish kings, but they
are nothing more than conjecture, despite the fact that some who copy
these tables turn them into "fact".

Stewart Baldwin

Bronwen Edwards

Re: Scots and Picts

Legg inn av Bronwen Edwards » 04 okt 2004 09:29:07

winteros@wt.net ("Betty Owen") wrote in message news:<017f01c4a9bc$fa167ca0$c48077d8@owens>...
Bronwen,
Is it not a theory that the Picts might have been an Egalitarian society?
inherting through the princesses?

Betty


While it might be tempting to think of a matrilineal society as
egalitarian, this cannot be assumed to be so. Given the ethnic origin
of the Picts as evidenced by their language and the fact that they had
a monarchy in which a sovereign ruled, I would tend toward the thought
that they were not egalitarian. That said, there are examples of
societies that, at first glance, appear to be stratified or
patriarchal but that, with more intimate knowledge, are not. I think
of the Iroquois where a man is chief but the position of chieftainship
is owned by the women. The women further choose him from an eligible
pool and have the right to depose him as well. They are an egalitarian
society. Also my father's nation, Hopi, has male village chiefs (with
a few exceptions) but one has to understand what it *means* to be
chief in Hopi eyes and not impose European assumptions on it. Being
village chief means that you will not live as well as others because
you must make sure everyone has what they need and it means that you
may be pulled away from necessary activities like farming or weaving.
The women are too important to take that position and so control
things from behind. So maybe you're right - my questions on that have,
again, to do with the cultural context within which the Picts lived.
What evidence exists to suggest that they were egalitarian? Is it
possible that the King is the guy that drew the short stick and women
were too important to hold such a position? Bronwen

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Scots and Picts

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 okt 2004 21:35:21

David Webb wrote:
Dear all, does anyone understand the genealogical connection between the
Scottish and Pictish royal houses? Burke's Guide to the royal family says
that Kenneth MacAlpin's father Alpin was the son of Eochaid IV of Dalriada
and Fergusia, a Pictish princess who was also daughter of King Fergus of
Dalriada, uncle of Eochaid IV. But other Internet sites give a very
different account of Fergusia's origins. Can anyone clear this up?


As others have commneted, the various solutions seen on the internet and
in print are modern "hypotheses" (a polite way of saying a wild-@$$
guess) to justify/explain the fact that several members of the Dal RIada
royalty appear to have also been (based on kings lists) also kings of
the Picts, that one member of the Dal Riadan succession bore a name of
an earlier Pictish king, and that the succession of a grandson of
Kenneth follows the Pictish maternal pattern. All of these have been
used to suggest that in addition to politics and murder, genealogical
succession and intermarriage played a role in the union of the two
kingdoms. Then, since the answer "but we don't know exactly how" leave
people wanting, specific connections were hypothesized, and names invented.

(As long as we are at it, another thing to keep in mind is that the
Pictish royal genealogy is discontinuous - succession somehow involved
female connection to previous kings, but the kings lists did not record
anything but the name of the king and that of his father (usually a name
not otherwise appearing in the list). Likewise, these have been
reconstructed into entirely hypothetical trees, each differing from the
next, and with few exceptions without a single connection with the
slightest evidence to suggest them.)

taf

Jared Linn Olar

Re: Scots and Picts

Legg inn av Jared Linn Olar » 05 okt 2004 02:27:12

lostcooper@yahoo.com (Bronwen Edwards) wrote in message news:<54ca55f1.0410032329.397805cf@posting.google.com>...
winteros@wt.net ("Betty Owen") wrote in message news:<017f01c4a9bc$fa167ca0$c48077d8@owens>...
The women are too important to take that position and so control
things from behind.

Hmm, sounds pretty much like the universal experience of the human
race in all times and place. ;-)

Women "controlling things from behind" reminds me of the Old Testament
apocryphal book of Esdras, which has a folktale of men at the court of
King Darius having a battle of wits, trying to answer the question,
"Who is the strongest?" The winner of the contest is the man who
argues that women are the strongest, but Truth is victorious over all.

Jared Linn Olar

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»