... Óláfsdóttir, {hypothetical} - Daughter of Olaf the Black - sorting

Sounds good. I happened to connect two Mauds. Realised it might be wrong.

I found the merge that joined the two (February 2016). We now have:

- Wife of Óttarr Snaekollson the hypothetical wife of Otttar
- Matilda / Maude of Isle of Man {doubtful} the Maghild/Maud who came to Trondheim and (maybe) married Torlack Schenk.

I MPed the second so that they won't be merged together again.

I'm going to leave the Gunn legend for Justin Durand to sort out, and just try to not get it re-linked to the Skancke stories. But do we have sources to quote for Magnhild / Maud?

Torlack Skenck has now 3 wifes with the same name and 4 sons, 3 with one of them, 1 with the second and none with the third. All of this has to be done something with and Sources need to be checked.

It's also strange with all the sons named Torleifsson or Torleivsson when the father's firstname is Torlack. Are we sure this is two different spellings of the same name?

Remi Trygve Pedersen yes. One of the wives (the one with 1 son) was caused by me unmerging a probably-correct merge (they were likely based on the same theory, whether or not the theory was true). I'm waiting for some sources to pop up before I go merge them back together - the only source I remember for Torlack Skenck from the other discussion didn't mention wife or children, and I can't find a source for the sentence "Maud took the law books from the Isle of Man to Trondheim".

My source list is the links at https://wiki.geni.com/index.php/Skancke_and_the_Isle_of_Man

this sentence, from the "About me", sounds like it's taken from somewhere. It doesn't fit with the normal tenor of genealogical speculation.

År 1292 flyttade prinsessan Maud (Matilda) de flesta av de gamla laghandlingarna från Isle of Man till Trondheim i Norge, där de senare förstördes vid en brand. (Källa: May Teistevoll/J. Johnson)

Google finner det meste.... rootsweb cite:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1999-08/...

This message is the best response, and has some real references:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1999-08/...

Stewart Baldwin is a good genealogical researcher, so he should be listened to.

The first paragraph Eric Thompson is a Reference to a G.V.C Young book, who is the same person promoting the Skanke from Man theory. It should really be disregarded.

The pages mentioned in James Gill's book should be investigated more and compared to other sources.

Remi Trygve Pedersen : would it not be wise to check out both J Johnsons work from 1811 and James Gills work from 1866 before you disregard G.V.C. Youngs work, as these three persons have been appointed to the same office at the Isle of Man, with access to the same governmental archives ?
Apart from your political view on these sources, that is.

Stein Aage Sørvig do you have a reference for J. Johnson being Attorney-General of Man? All I have on these two is the Rootsweb discussoin, but I've added the info from there into https://wiki.geni.com/index.php/Skancke_and_the_Isle_of_Man

I don't think J. Johnson was Attorney General of Man. He does not appear on a list of Attorneys General:

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

He did, however, write about Manx jurisprudence:

https://books.google.com/books?id=q60uAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontco...

I'll get to Gill / Gell in a bit, but first look at Johnson's book.

He gives quite a fanciful history, typical of the time, that includes a mythical king Cratilinth in 277 (page 1), and Mannan Maclear, brother of Fergus II, in the 5th century (page 5), and the conquest of the island by King Arthur (page 6).

About Maud or Matilda he says, "The paucity of Manks [Manx] history throws only a faint gleam of light on the first legislators of this country, for the ancient records were removed to Drontheim in Norway by Maude or Matilda, a princess of the ancient race, in the year 1292, and were afterwards destroyed by fire ; what few remained in the island were carried away by the illustrious Countess of Derby . . . ." (page 5)

Nothing about why she carried them away.

He says about Macon, a 10th century ruler, "from him the ancient bearing of the island was was a ship in her ruff sables, with this inscription "Rex Manniae et insularum." (page 8) He notices the later arms in a footnote on the same page, and attributes his information on the older arms to Sir Henry Spelman citing William Camden.

Later he talks about the transfer of the island to the Montacute family: "Owing to the destruction of records, we have no account of the laws by the Manks' [Manx] princes during the Norwegian and Scottish dynasties. History merely informs us, that Alexander the Third, King of Scotland, having conquered the island, Mary Waldeboef, the last of the great family of Goddard Crownan, claimed the protection of the King of England, and offered to do homage for the Isle of Man ; but was answered, that "she must claim it of the King of Scotland, who then held it." John, her grandson, sued again for his right in parliament ; but Edward the First said (as by the record), "He might prosecute his title before the Justices of the King's Bench ; let it be heard there, and let justice be done." Afterwards, her grand-daughter Mary, went to England with her deeds and charters, and threw herself at the feet of Edward the Third. The king not only afforded the Manks princess his generous protection, but gave her in marriage to her kinsman, Sir William Montacute ..." (pages 10-11).

The source for much of this material seems to be Edmund Gibson's 1695 edition of William Camden's Britannia.

Notice the two parallel stories, both set in 1292. Maude or Matilda, described only as "a princess of the ancient race" went with her deeds and charters to the king of Norway. At the same time, Mary, described as a granddaughter of another Mary who was "the last of the great family of Goddard Crownan" went with her deeds and charters to the king of England.

Two different women? Or two different versions of the same story?

Justin : I think you are closing in on this now. You must also remember from earlier in the thread of Hallstein Torleivsson, a claim was made from one called Aufreca, I think that was in 1293.
First, the stories about the norwegian claims after 1275 is solely about women, they could not inherit the thrown, only claim it for their kin. Second, the stories are expressing those of the losing parties, as no succes was made in the claims. Third, the claimants went to the king that would be able protect their position if the claim was successful, Isle of man was an easy target for an invader in medieval times.
It is plausible that all three claims were made, but the claim towards the norwegian king would be that of a different kind, because of the kings settlement with king Alexander of Scotland.

Closing in, maybe, but I'm still not seeing any contemporary evidence that this woman who supposedly went to Norway married into the Schanke family.

Returning now to Gill.

> You may also want to look at section 3 of 'The Supposed True Chronicle of the Isle of Man' reprinted in volume 1 (the only volume) of 'An Abstract of the Laws, Customs, and Ordinances of the Isle of Man' edited by James Gill (Attorney-General of the Isle of Man), Manx Society, publications volume 12, 1866.

The citation should be to John Parr as compiler and James Gell (not Gill) as editor:

https://archive.org/stream/abstractoflawscu00gelliala#page/n7/mode/2up

The chronicle is terse:

"§3 Insomuch that the last named Reginald had no son, but one daughter named Mary, to whom the right descended, which Mary was Queen of Mann and Countess of Straherne ; who taking with her all her Charters and Deeds of the Land of Mann fled to the King of England, Edward the first, in the twentieth year of his reign, being in St. John's Town in Scotland, otherwise called Perth, A.D. 1292.

"§4 For Alexander, King of Scots, arrived at Roynaldsway, and took possession of the land of Mann, against whom the said Mary did complain before the King of England."

"§5 In the 33rd year of the King's reign, at the Parliament at Westminster, a request was exhibited by John Waldebyst [Waldeboef], claiming the Isle of Man with the Islands adjoining, in right of Mary his wife, and the answer was made them that they should claim it before the King of Scots, who as then held the same Isles, thus she dying the suit, the right descended to William her son, and from the said William to John his son and heir."

https://archive.org/stream/abstractoflawscu00gelliala#page/n25/mode...

The notes by Gell begin on p. 9. He says "The original Chronicle from which the foregoing is stated to be a copy, is supposed to be that in the Rolls Office prefixed to the old copies of the Statute Book. The Chronicle in the Rolls Office has been continued by successive Clerks of the Rolls until the Revestment of 1765. I have given the Chronicle in the complete form in which it is in the Rolls Office."

There are extensive notes, some of which discuss errors in the Chronicle and some of which include translations of supporting documents. For our purposes probably the most interesting is Note 5 on pp. 17-18. It discusses the Chronicle's mistake about the pedigree of John Waldeboef. Mary was his grandmother not his wife. It also discusses the claim of Affrica or Aufrica, which emerged between Mary's claim in 1292 and her grandson's claim in 1304.

No other claimants are mentioned, nor is there any story about a Maud or Matilda going to Norway.

"No other claimants are mentioned, nor is there any story about a Maud or Matilda going to Norway." Isn't that often natural, if someone wants to inherit something, why include rivals? When my mothers father died, my mother weren't mentioned at all, thus got nothing, and this behavior is nothing new or strange at all.

This isn't a history of one claimant. It's an account of all competing claimants of whom there is any record known to the compiler.

http://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Gunne-Family-Tree-47
I think this is the right Ottar (Gunne), son of Snaekoll Gunnisson and an unknown mother.
More:
http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:The_Clan_Gunn
Remi Trygve Pedersen Disagree the following:
https://www.geni.com/list?focus_id=6000000040447480271&group=im...
Thorleif (Torleiv) Haraldsen (or NN) was alive about 1280, and he was married with Magnhild (Maud). Their child was Hallstein Thorleifsson.
His children was: Nikolaus (Nils), Thord, Lodin and Botolf.
The descendant's of Botolf and of Nicolaus stayed in Norway except a son Mikkel (Nilsson), who went to Denmark. The other known sons of Nicolaus were Gudbrand, Olaf, Lafrans. In Norway the they stand / describe themselves as Skanke, Schanke, and in Denmark it was the birth of Barfod, Barfoed, Barefort, Barfoth.
This is how it look from my chair.
Hi from Inge

http://www.roskildehistorie.dk/stamtavler//////adel/Atholl/Orkney_g...

Moving now to Joseph Train, An Historical and Statistical Account of the Isle of Man (1845). It took me awhile to find this reference. Once I did, I realized I've seen it before.

https://books.google.com/books?id=E_09AAAAcAAJ&pg=PR3&lpg=P...

Train doubts any documents were taken to Norway:

"Other misfortunes are said to have befallen the archives of the Island at a subsequent period. Reginald, who was slain by the knight Ivar, A.D. 1249, left a daughter named Mary, who, to escape the troubles in Man which followed the death of her father, was secretly conveyed by her friends to England, "with all the public deeds and charters of the Island." (citing Seacome's History of the House of Stanley (1741), p. 535) By another author, it is stated that the most ancient records of the Island were removed in 1292 to Drontheim, once the capital of Norway, by Maude, a princess of the ancient race, where they were subsequently destroyed by fire, and that what records remained in the Island at the commencement of the civil wars, were carried away by Charlotte, countess of Derby." (citing Johnstone's Jurisprudence of the Isle of Man (1811), p. 5)

"In confirmation of the records of the Island having been carried away to Norway, Waldron adds, that a Mr. Stevenson, an eminent merchant of Dublin, offered the bishop of Drontheim a large sum of money for these documents, with a view to presenting them to the inhabitants of the Isle of Man ; but the bishop would not part with them on any terms. (citing Waldron's Description of the Isle of Man (1731), p.96) If the ancient charters and records of the kingdom of the Isles, of which Man was the capital, were kept at Iona, as asserted by Dr. Jamieson (citing Jamieson's Historical Account of the Ancient Culdees, cap. xiv), and were conveyed from thence to Aberdeen, about the year 1500, in order to be examined by Hector Boetius, the celebrated Scottish historian, they consequently could not have been carried away by the princess Maude in 1292, or by the Norwegians, who were finally expelled from the Isles upwards of two centuries before the time mentioned by Dr. Jamieson. We are left, therefore, in doubt as to any such documents ever having been deposited at Drontheim." (Train, pp. iii-iv)

Train goes on to argue there was probably little to carry away because "The great proprietors of the Western Highlands of Scotland, and of the Out-Isles, enjoyed their lands allodially under their Gaelic customs, until David II, in order to secure their allegiance, obliged them to take charters from him." (Train, pp. iv-v)

In other words the first written deeds and charters ever to exist probably dated from the period 1329-1371, not early enough to have been carried away by either of these women.

Finally, Train offers some interesting arguments about the unreliability of the Chronicle of the Kings of Man published by William Camden in 1586. (Train, pp. v-vii) Not so relevant right now but I anticipate that someone will pick up the argument later and try to convince us about the general reliability of these old sources.

Inge, the genealogy of Clan Gunn has undergone considerable revision in the past generation. It's now obvious that many of the early genealogies were wrong. You can see a more modern version here: https://www.geni.com/people/Snaekollr-Eiríksson/6000000003828029628

So it seems that the evidence is good enough for two women:

- Maud of Man {weakly sourced}, citing the records noted above
- NN Wife of Torlack Schenk, with an "about me" that states that a theory has been put forward that she was identical to Maud of Man, and thereby caused Torlack to adopt the triskelion sigil.

I'm not sure who I should credit with the theory for the last one - did G. V. C. Young actually advance this theory explicitly, or did he stick with "Torlack must be related, since he's using the triskelion"?

It was G.V.C. Young's theory, as far as I can tell. And he made it explicitly. At least that's the way I read Eric Thompson's message on Gen-Medieval:

May Teistevoll (mteistev@online.no) wrote on Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:12:53
+0200:

> According to G.V.C. Young, the writer of "The History of the
> Isle of Man under the Norse" and "The three legs to to
> Scandinavia" there seems to have been a third candidate
> for the Manx throne in 1292, namely, a Princess Maude
> (or Matilda) who is stated by J. Johnson to have gone to
> Nidaros (Norway) in 1292, taking with her a considerable
> number of Manx documents, in order to persue her claim
> to the throne of Man.

Maude is described as a sister of King Magnus III and as wife of Torleif, son of Harald Godreson, on page 190 of the first of those books. See also the chart on page 203.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1999-08/...

I don't know whether the theory originated with Young, but I've been hammering away at the searches and haven't found any earlier evidence of it.

I've been intrigued by Train's statement that "a Mr. Stevenson, an eminent merchant of Dublin, offered the bishop of Drontheim a large sum of money for these documents, with a view to presenting them to the inhabitants of the Isle of Man ; but the bishop would not part with them on any terms."

He cites Waldron, so I looked at Waldron. Train says it's on page 96 in the 1731 edition, but all I can find is the 1865 edition where it's on page 3:

"The courts of Judicature are also kept here, and what records of the Island are yet remaining: but the greatest part of them, in troublesome times, were carried away by the Norwegians, and deposited among the archives of the Bishops of Drunton [Drontheim, Trondheim] (10) in Norway, where they still remain; tho' a few years since, Mr. Stevenson, an eminent, worthy, and learned merchant of Dublin, offered the then Bishop of Drunton a considerable sum of money for the purchase of them, designing to restore and present them to the Island, but the Bishop of Drunton would not part with them on any. terms."

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/manxsoc/msvol11/p01.htm

Notice there is no mention of Maude. The records were carried away by Norwegians, generic Norwegians. It looks like Maude's story was unknown to Waldron in 1731 but known or invented before 1811 when it was reported by Johnson.

The 1865 edition of Waldron was edited by William Harrison, Esq., Member of the House of Keys. His notes are quite good. He says:

" Records taken to Drontheim."—There appears to be nothing known with any degree of certainty respecting the fate of the early archives of the Isle of Man. It is a matter of great doubt if there ever existed any earlier written records of the Island than what are at present known. It has been stated they were burnt in a fire which partially consumed the Bishop's Palace at Drontheim, but the late Sir. James Burman informed me he could learn nothing respecting them when making enquiry on the subject at Drontheim. A facsimile of the oldest indenture preserved in Castle Rushen, 1417, is given in the third volume of the Manx Society's publications, 1860."

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/manxsoc/msvol11/notes1.htm

To summarize:

1. Maude, mentioned by Johnson 1811, Train 1845

2. Records carried away, mentioned by Waldron 1731, Johnson 1811, Seacomb 1821, doubted by Train 1845

3. Records destroyed by a fire, contradicted by Waldron 1731, mentioned by Johnson 1811, contradicted by Seacomb 1821, doubted by Train 1845, contradicted by Harrison 1865

4. Records recently extent, mentioned by Waldron 1731, Seacomb 1821, Train 1845

5. No knowledge of any records from inquiries at Trondheim, mentioned by Harrison 1865

So the purported fire would have been one that took down parts of the archbishop's palace between 1731 and 1865. There were large fires in Trondheim in 1841 and 1842, but Erkebispegården didn't burn then - it had, however, burned in 1708. But it was being used by the Army; it's unlikely there were archives there at that time - so where the purported archives would have been kept is a complete mystery to me.

(Today the city archives are stored in an U-boat bunker from WWII - thickest walls in the city, and quite well protected against fire.)