Sovereign Shetland

Just to mix things up a bit more. It would seem that that there may be subtle differences in a Norwegian earldom and the extrapolated Scots equivalent, which is interesting, (differences too subtle for me to write confidently about at this ungodly hour).

Secondly, reign over Orkney (and Shetland) seems to have gone from earldom to dukedom and back again, which is interesting too.

Thirdly, and most interestingly, the current heir apparent earl is Oliver St John, Viscount Kirkwall. Now if he succeeded in asserting a Norwegian earldom, drawing from the continued application of Udal law to aspects of governance in the northern isles, then we might just have our new boss.

^^ Which is heading in to territory that I wish someone with Historical Document/Information access would actually research and inform the rest of us of.

Pre-1468 the Danish Crown held a form of "ownership", for want of a better term, over certain aspects of Orkney and Shetland. Before the debate or anything else can really begin and/or progress it needs to be established the exact nature and extent of the Shetland & Orkney "ownership" which Christian of Denmark inherited with the Danish throne, and what changes, if any were made to it during the period he held it.

As I see it common sense dictates that Christian of Denmark could not have given to James of Scotland what he did not possess, and neither could James of Scotland claim to have received what Christian of Denmark did not have to give. Once you have established what Christian of Denmark had to give, and thus the maximum James of Scotland could have received in 1469, you have a base line to work from, and can work out from there in a two pronged debate. One examining the validity of what Christian of Denmark originally pawned to James of Scotland progressing through history to reach where it is today, and the other to examine how anything and everything else the James of Scotland's successors claim today came to be in their possession, and the validity of their claim to it.

To get answers you have to go back to the beginning and start over, its as simple as that. The beginning as I see it was when Christian of Denmark ascended to the Danish throne and first got his hands on whatever form of "ownership" the Danish crown held over Orkney & Shetland.

Hill dismissed the suggestion of going back to pre-1468 as "not relevant", or words to that effect, when I asked him on another thread on the subject on here, so unless he's changed his mind since, we know his opinion on the matter. As far as I'm aware the other self-proclaimed "experts" on the subject who have gone public have made no comment on the relevance of the pre-1468 status quo in relation to how we came to be where we are today, their POV would be "interesting", at least.

^^ i doot the norse sagas are likely about the only written evidence dat old , but theres some kinda dismissive attitude towards them , which is more handy for one argument as opposed to the other hmmmm

I wish someone with Historical Document/Information access would actually research and inform the rest of us of.

unfortunately the man with unfettered access Brian Smith has his own political agenda being a scoty socialist, and they need the oil money to pay for all their grandiose schemes, after all hookers don't come cheap.

I wish someone with Historical Document/Information access would actually research and inform the rest of us of.

 

unfortunately the man with unfettered access Brian Smith has his own political agenda being a scoty socialist, and they need the oil money to pay for all their grandiose schemes, after all hookers don't come cheap.

At the risk of being ridiculed, I must object Skaterboy! I studied for an MA in Women's Studies (Yes, there is such a thing and it doesn't involve housework and ironing per se) at Ruskin College, Oxford. Now I had intended to do my MA in "Prostitution: Is it Work or Exploitation within the European Union", due to the fact that within certain EU member states it is legal, yet illegal in others. I thought I could draw on loads of different feminist theories (Marxism classes it as work whereas radical regards it as exploitation, etc.). Well, ill-health and a stint in hossie meant I never finished it so just have a PG Dip but ...

Hookers aren't cheap? Depends where you go, my friend. Granted, prices rose within the Leith area of Edinburgh during the approved and then disapproved by the Council scheme where the police and sex workers worked together and got rid of all the drug dealers and many women left being on the game, but even there the cost of their services were very low compared to the like of women working in the high class escort end of the market in, for example, London.

One wonders whether Captain Calamity has any views on whether to legalise prostitution on these fair shores within his manifesto? After all, the Green Party is for decriminalisation as were at one stage the Lib Dems - don't think the Tories ever were and labour regard all non-UK women participating within the sex industry as being victims of sex trafficking, regardless of whether they were or not.

I had assumed, probably like most Shetlanders, that Shetland was completely controlled from Norway and had nothing to do with Scotland until 1469. However it appears from what I have read that control may have been more ambiguous. Like the rest of you I am waiting for the experts to elucidate.

In one of my links above there is reference to a document

B. E. Crawford, ‘The earls of Orkney–Caithness and their relations with Norway and Scotland, 1158–1470’, PhD diss., U. St Andr., 1971

It doesn't appear to be available on the Internet. Does anyone know how to get it?

Ony wird fae da 'big event' daday? winder if mony folk took muckle notice ur no...

B. E. Crawford, ‘The earls of Orkney–Caithness and their relations with Norway and Scotland, 1158–1470’, PhD diss., U. St Andr., 1971

 

It doesn't appear to be available on the Internet. Does anyone know how to get it?

It is in the Shetland Library:

http://library.shetland.gov.uk/TalisPrism/browseResults.do?&expandedWorkID=0.3&browse_action=9057&rootRSetId=1295b049c6c00000&browse_RootRSetId=1295b049c6c00000&displayRowPath=0&pageSize=10&menuBarTag=search&displaySearchAsText=false&openRowPathSet=0:0

Ony wird fae da 'big event' daday?

He's got a big UHA bill style construction erected, at least it was there earlier in the afternoon.

^^ Oh right. It will likely make some of the news sites tomorrow or later on today I would think. Anybody know if the 'six others' he spoke of turned up?

....and the Cross webcam appears to be "down". This is almost becoming a habit when something takes place there.

A couple of questions.

Where were the police ? (I thought they had to attend all public gatherings).

Where was the traffic warden ? (CC's car was parked on the cross for several hours)

Was planning permission sought and obtained for yun hellish big poster?

Another question.

Who's our new Sovereign?

'Skaterboy' should do some reading. All the information he wants is in JH Ballantyne and B Smith eds., Shetland Documents 1195-1579, Lerwick 1999, and Shetland Documents 1580-1611, Lerwick 1994; in Barbara Crawford's thesis - copies in the Shetland Library and Shetland Archives; and in Gordon Donaldson's essay in the Stair Society Miscellany II (also in Archives).

The reading may be more arduous than writing without reading, but that's life old bean.

To take up Ghostrider's point: it is far better that historians (a) say what they think; ( say why they think it; and © say where they got their information. Stopping at (a) is no good.

^^ I'd have more faith and trust in it all if historians skipped (a) and (, and simply provided their sources along with ©. Then were willing to answer any and all questions on what they'd provided.

Providing a conclusion and why they have reached that conclusion, which either comes across to their audience as 2+2=5, or does not also explain satisfactorily why issues members within that audience believe are relevant, but have been ignored, explains and settles nothing. It only serves to heighten distrust in and suspicion of both the source(s) and the messenger(s).