Sunny Side Down...

[Skeddan]

Freggyragh, I think your suggestion that the triskellion commemorates the battle of Largs is an interesting one, and an excellent suggestion. However:

 

i) the “Scottish takeover” in 1266, and the Treaty of Perth 1266 only transferred suzerainty over the Kingdom on Mann and the Isles to Scotland – it did not transfer sovereignty itself. (Suzerainty and Sovereignty are different).

 

ii) other than this, the only “Scottish takeover” was in 1313, when it was held briefly by Robert Bruce – there was no effective control as may be seen by the Mandeville expedition. For the rest of the time after 1275 until 1405 sovereignty was in either direct or indirect custody of the King of England. (I do know about the ‘Battle of Ronaldsway’ in 1275, but you should note this was led by de Vesci, look at his relationship with Edward I, consider the strategic importance of IoM in relation to Wales and Galloway, and Edward I’s ambitions. To cut a very long story short, Ronaldsway was a ‘false flag’ operation which put IoM under effective English control, firstly indirectly under Richard Óg de Burgh, 2nd Earl of Ulster (uncle and next of kin of Princess Aufreca, daughter and heir of Godred VI), and then directly under the English Crown by transfer of the wardship (with Edward I also using this in his undermining of John Balliol). The wardship of the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles was then granted, entrusted, transferred and sold to various people - until finally sovereignty was claimed by Stanley in 1405/6 - in right of his wife Isabel Lathom by virtue of her being heir to Godred Crovan – with Henry IV conceding to this claim. As I say, it’s a long story, and the legal technicalities are complex as are the historical details needed to unravel this - but the ‘Scottish takeover’ has more to do with an uninformed or misinformed understanding of what happened than historical reality).

 

iii) though not fatal to the notion, you might consider that teh arms show plate armour, which was I think somewhat later than the 13th Century. Provided one allows that in earliest form the triskellion did not show plate armour, but the military leggings of the time which subsequently was adapted, this might be answered. I’d think though it might be possible evidence for it being introduced much later. I’d suggest that while in custody the arms would not have been changed, and that this would more likely suggest this was introduced as the arms of state in the fifteenth century (1405 to as late as 1490).

 

In short, I don’t find the “Scottish commemoration” convincing (though I don’t expect these brief notes will persuade you to accept my reservations about this being related to a “Scottish takeover”). Quite honestly I don’t know how or why the Triskellion came to be adopted. Other possibilities are that it is connected with the Kingdom of Sicily (a lengthy and very tenuous argument could be made for this). Maybe it came to be adopted because this motif was on what came to be used as the sword of state. It could well be related to the Scandinavian use of this, as Frances has touched upon, or could be an adaptation of a Celtic sunwheel. It may be the one thing that stuck from Robert Bruce’s brief foray in 1313 (perhaps with the sword, and perhaps symbolising the three kingdoms of Mann, Scotland and Ireland). All that said, I would not completely discount your suggestion since it is possible this was adopted in relation to Scottish suzerainty acquired in 1266. (perhaps with the motto suggesting ‘Whoever has suzerainty, the sovereignty stands’). With the Battle of Largs links you suggest, a canting pun of this kind would not be entirely implausible, but it is possible that the three legs also, at the same time, symbolises suzerainty which has gone in turn to be under Norway, Scotland and England. (with possible pun on English sovereignty acquired by Edward Longshanks to go with the Lags/leg pun).

 

While I have nothing to go on, and could only hazard a very tentative guess about this, I would be inclined to think that this was adopted in very early 15th century, shortly after Stanley obtained the sovereignty in 1405-6, and the rationale for this was a multiplicity of reasons – including some which may have been touched on above. I don’t know of any earlier representation of the three legs as arms of state (are there?) and the dating of this sword would therefore seem to be significant to such questions. I haven’t researched that topic, and all I’ve read about this is what is given at:

 

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/history/sword.htm

 

 

Freggyragh, out of interest, what are your thoughts on which way the triskellion ought to be for it to be running sunwise?

 

 

I take the point that the idea of an ‘abatement’ might seem a bit Dan Brown, but the heraldry does have a ‘language’ of rules and codes. The rules determining how arms are quartered might also seem a bit Dan Brown in the same way. If the UK did not legitimately acquire sovereignty over IoM in 1765, it would be improper for the ‘arms’ of the UK Administration to be shown without an abatement. Admittedly such an abatement is normally done by a reversal which turns the arms upside down, but in the case of the triskellion this would not really do much, hence a reversal of direction would be the proper way to show this being ‘sunny side down’. As I’ve already harped on about, it can be shown that the UK did not acquire legal title to the sovereignty in 1765 (or subsequently), and from this time the arms are ‘reversed’ from what they formerly were (as for example in the John Speed map), and have been ‘fixed’ in this ever since. You should also bear in mind that heralds are not partisan, but in some respects are akin to being judicial officers in matters of law of nations. You might also consider how it might be a bit amiss to reverse the direction given what this might signify, and that heralds are mindful of such matters and would be unlikely to do this ‘on a whim’ or without good reason. Heraldry is certainly a bit arcane and esoteric, but it doesn’t mean that its rules are not relevant when considering questions about a coat of arms.

[Freggyragh]

Well, the Largs connection is only a suggestion - Largs itself is interesting as there is no obvious topographic explanation for the name. The battle and result was, I'm prepared to admit, probably not as significant as I might like to think.

 

Chief support for Bruce's brother Edward in Ireland came from the Neill clan (Kneale). Bruce's stated aim in Ireland was to unite the Gaels - 'nostra nacio'. It is recorded that most of his army were Gaels from Ayreshire, Argyll and the Western Isles. Is it possible that names like Kennish (Mac Innes), Kissack (Mac Issac), Mac Gil Mhuire / Morrison (Mylvoirrey / Morrison), Teare (Mac an tSaor / Macintyre), Callister (Mac Allister), Kneale (Mac Neill), Gawne (Mac a Ghobhainn / MacGowan) Mylrea (Mac Gil Rea), which are all common enough in the Western Isles, date from the failure of Edward Bruce's campaign in Dundalk - are they remnants of a failed Army that was put together to unite the three legs of Gaeldom; Scottish, Manx and Irish? Hmmm interesting.

 

I'm not an historian, or an expert on Scandinavian or Celtic symbolism - so I can only give you my idea as to what is running sunwise - I would say that the foot should be to the right of the knee - in other words, the foot is forward. I just looked at a 10p piece - and I find that it is running in the opposite direction to how I picture the symbol in my mind's eye. I am interested in your theory as to why this should be, but I think I would need a bit more understanding of heraldry and how it is applied before I would be persuaded that the reason for the reversal held any significance other than that a designer recasted a mold, or something like that. This might seem dumb to you, but what is a 'herald' and does a herald work independently of the state?

[Frances]

see www.manxnotebook.com/history/legs.htm - according to the refs Segar's Roll of c.1280 provides an illustration of three legs in chain mail, running clockwise, joined at a triangle (Rey de Man - Gules three mailed legs argent conjoined at the thigh). Predates Bruce + the Stanleys

The sword of state is later than most early writers thought + postdates this - the next earliest representation is thought to be on Maughold cross

[Freggyragh]

So, Frances, what do you make of the 'Norse Legs' suggestion? And is your idea of clockwise the same as ours?

[Frances]

not sure - the 'legs' I presume refer to the peninsular section of land - Kintyre ? - can't quite see why Largs is so named - was this ever part of Kingdom of the Isles.

 

Whether it arose from the 3 powers contending (or at times played off against each other) I'm also not sure - there have been several attempts to explain it but none seem very convinving to me.

 

the image at www.manxnotebook.com/history/arch/4rpt/fig09.jpg (maughold cross - later as has spurs) is to me running clockwise

[Skeddan]

Frances you are absolutely right about the Segar's Roll - silly me - it completely slipped my mind. There is also in the Wijnbergen Roll (a website with a repro of sorts is here http://perso.modulonet.fr/~briantimms/wijnbergen/wnrois.htm ). It also appears in the Walford Roll and Camden Roll - with Magnus, King of Man listed in these. Magnus died in 1265, and Battle of Largs was in Oct 1263. Frances you say the Segar Roll shows this running clockwise - is this because you have seen this or is it taking from what is said in the description in the link you give? The page linked to itself has the legs running towards the right. Where is this from? I haven't seen the Segar Roll, but if the same as Wignbergen Roll, then it would probably also be running towards the right. If Segar Roll is different that would be interesting.

 

Anyhow, since Magnus died before treaty of Perth 1266, this shows that triskellion was not introduced by the Scots - whatever interpretation one takes.

 

It seems very possible that maybe the Scandanavian link mentioned by Frances is relevant - perhaps Magnus adopted the triskellion to shore up his Norse credentials at a time when seeking support in relation to events that led to the Battle of Largs. (That is a blind guess). There are some other reasons too perhaps given dynamics of the time, but that's something might return to.

 

Do we know Largs was called this before the battle? Might it have got the name being 'where the Norse legged it'? Or perhaps the place got called this once the battle had become known as the 'Battle of the Norse Legs'?

[Frances]

Segars roll I think I took on trust - if I had had acess to a picture at the time I put the page together I'm sure I would have included it - will dig out my copy of the latest paper on the 3-legs which may have a picture.

 

pp214 et seq of McDonalds's new book refer to the 'convention' of Manx Kings receiving knighthood from the English King from middle 13th c - knights need some arms thus the 3-legs may well date from either Haraldr 1247 or Magnus 1256 knightings but there does not appear to be any dated ref earlier that the two rolls of c1270 and c.1280.

[Freggyragh]

Frances, I don't think the 'Legs' can refer to Kintyre - (Ceann Tire / Kione Çheerey - 'The head / end of the land / territory'), because Kintyre is not visible from Largs. It is a funny idea though, because if Kintyre is is one leg, and the Ayreshire coast is the other, then the Isle of Bute (Eilean Bhòid / Ellan Woid - 'Isle of Penis') lies in between! Unfortunately, the Cumbraes, Arran, Islay and Jura all spoil such a simple picture.

 

I should point out that the Gaelic for 'An Leargaidh Ghallda' is usually translated as 'The Norse Slopes'. I obviously disagree with this. Leargaigh exists in quite a few Manx placenames too - Lhergy Frissel and Lhergy Cripperty for example. These slopes are quite steep, and are obvious topographic features. There is nothing like this at Largs (just been on Google Earth!).

 

The Manx 'lurgey' (learga) for leg is not used in modern Scottish Gaelic. The usual Gaelic word for leg is 'cos', (Manx - 'cass'). 'Lurgey' is a Norse loanword - which the likes of O Rahilly would have taken a very dim view off. The 'An' part of the name is the definite article singular, but I have seen it written as 'Na Leargaidh Ghallda' too - 'Na' can be the definite article plural. And, as Skeddan noticed, the Scots 'Largs' is not a mllion miles from the English 'Legs'.

 

Anyway - I am only musing on the placename, I don't know when the name dates from. I remember reading something about Turgesius' Norse army arriving at Largs after their expulsion from Ireland in the 9th C, but I imagine the source for that is The Annals or Ulster, which was compiled much later.

 

The Wijnbergen Roll link shows the legs how I imagine them to be 'correct'.

 

Interestingly enough, there is another ancient island kingdom that had a very similar national flag. It was formally annexed by its powerful neighbour in the latter half of the 19th C. Any ideas?

[staaue]

I've always understood the triskele as an ancient symbol which had many uses and meanings (mostly spiritual/religious). Symbolically extremely powerful to any Gaul, rotational direction denoted peace or war, good or bad etc. The flag in my home (with the silly armor legs on it) is a meaning of our roots and the importance of the triskele symbol to our ancestors. IMO The flag is never hung or flown (in my household) on Tynwald day or other special days in the Manks calendar, as this would denote a confusing signal (meaningless by todays standard) of war and peace at the same time; the flag is pinned to a wall with the triskele in a positive clockwise direction. Whether the triskele is Manks or not is not really that important (to me), I think it was the pagans who used it and weren't they everywhere in Europe.??

 

I also think of the old custom (which we no longer do, sadly.) of rolling the fiery wheel down the sides of barrule as symbolic of the fight between baal and darkness. Maybe someone could explain better than me, but the paradox of seeing both sides is in relation to the fight, is by definition the nature of the beast - it's a fight!!!

 

I always chuckle at Manks flags, they are a contradiction to us and should really be viewed in a transparent manner. on a coin = good as there is only one way to view it, on the front of a building is also good, as there is only one way to view it. But, the triskele should not really be viewed on anything transparent like glass (windows) or on material that shows the pattern on the other side when held up...

 

Ok, maybe a little daft to some of you, but there's my opinion.

 

So do we think that the direction was a naive oversight, or a very clever message from people that knew the knowledge ;)

 

Sicily

[Skeddan]

pp214 et seq of McDonalds's new book refer to the 'convention' of Manx Kings receiving knighthood from the English King from middle 13th c - knights need some arms thus the 3-legs may well date from either Haraldr 1247 or Magnus 1256 knightings but there does not appear to be any dated ref earlier that the two rolls of c1270 and c.1280.

 

Frances – these are Royal Arms or ‘Arms of Dominion’ as can be seen from the rolls where these appear with other Arms of Dominion, and they are explicitly referred to as the “Armes of the Eile of Man” by Edward IV. They have nothing to do with knightings or paternal arms. There is also the opinion of the Clarencieux King of Arms that clearly shows that these are Arms of Dominion, and here the King of Arms refers to these as arms of the Island, arms of the Isle of Man, and arms of a Kingdom. (Kings and Kingdoms had more need of arms than knights).

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/ma...ol04/v1p117.htm

 

BTW Knights originally did not have to have arms – and would not have had them until these had been ‘achieved’ – by some military exploit (but also perhaps by rescuing damsels, slaying dragons, and the like). It wasn’t until abt. 1400 that they became necessary for tournaments, and at this early stage (mid 13th C), the principles of the achievement of arms by a knight would still have been current.

 

catch is that the Norse kings had a ship as their seal with the 3-legs not found prior to the Scottish takeover.

 

The image on a seal, whether a personal seal or seal of state is nothing to do with the arms. You can for example see the various seals of state of Elizabeth I, none of which are anything like the Royal Arms of England. Just because it was used for a seal, there is no reason then to assume the ship was originally used as the Arms of Dominion and that the triskelion replaced it at a later date.

 

So far I see no reason to suppose the arms were altered from what might have been originally adopted. The triskelion would not be inappropriate, and might well have been adopted in the first instance, particularly given the use of the triskelion in Norse, Gaelic and Celtic cultures (as seen on old Celtic Iberian coins etc.) The only alternative arms I know of are the military arms – a pentagon as described in The Turke and Sir Gawain, but these do not seem to be Arms of Dominion. Hence unless there is reason to think otherwise, it is reasonable to assume these were the arms originally adopted.

 

It’s a shame there aren’t any armorial rolls from earlier than mid-late 13th century which might help date this with more certainty. However the fact there aren’t any earlier surviving refs to these arms does not mean they should be dated to originate from this time – any more than any other Arms of Dominion which have no earlier surviving refs than in such rolls, such as the Icelandic. It is simply the case that it took some 80-100 years for the increasingly widespread adoption of arms to cumulate into some formal recording of these in armorial rolls.

 

There is a webpage on the arms of Iceland which said the custom of adopting coats of arms was adopted in Scandinavia in 1150-1200. This corresponds with when arms were being adopted in general. Given what is said here about Iceland, I would tentatively posit that the arms might well have been the original ones adopted in the mid-late 12th century.

 

http://eng.forsaetisraduneyti.is/state-sym...f-arms/history/

[Frances]

I'll bow to your better knowledge of early Heraldry (hope that is not floating on a cloud of gas!) - I've scanned in a few more of the plates from Oswald (manxsoc vol 5) which illustrate various early representations of the 3-legs - direction of rotation seems to me to be arbitrary. There is a chapter by Oswald that I might add in next day or so, though a lot seems to be very speculative and he admits that there is little documentary evidence to go on.

 

Re the ship - there are no 3-leg representations on any of the memorials at Iona though the ship motto is found on several, probably not conclusive but maybe indicative that the 3-legs arose after the inner Hebrides were separated from Mann & the Isles (that said the ship symbol is only found scratched on one Manx cross and the 3-legs on none). There are some illustrations of the Scotish Lords who quarter the 3-legs, as one also includes the motto which I'm confident was dreamt up in Dublin to go with the Murray coinage (mid 17th C) then I suspect at least one of these is a very late claim indeed.

 

There was apparently a pre-Stanley use of the 3-legs on a seal as seen by Dr Oliver in London and illustrated by Oswald

 

Would not Haraldr or Magnus not need arms (of dominion) for any pagentry connected with their visits to London

[Skeddan]

Would not Haraldr or Magnus not need arms (of dominion) for any pagentry connected with their visits to London

 

They would have needed Arms of Dominion not only for visits to London, but also visits to Norway and general use, much like a national flag is used - not only for ceremonial occasions and pageants. The Arms of Dominion of Iceland etc. were not adopted only for such purposes as you suggest, and likewise I think visits to London would not have been the main reason for the adoption of Arms of Dominion - which is the oldest form of heraldic arms.

 

BTW, I have only a minimal knowledge of heraldry, and that only for historical understanding and interest, but one can find most of the info in publications like Handbook of Heraldry, and other books (some of which can be found in Google Books) Arms of Dominion ref

 

I may very easily have overlooked something which might argue against the triskele being the original Arms of Dominion adopted in 1150-1200 when it was becoming the norm to have such arms. Is there any reason you know of for supposing these were introduced at a later date than 12th C other than absence of evidence before the Armorial Rolls?

 

BTW if Scotland had obtained sovereignty by conquest (rather than just suzerainity) then the arms one would expect after a 'Scottish takeover' would be the Arms of Scotland. Alternatively one would expect to find the original Arms of the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles retained and quartered in the Scottish Royal Arms.

[Frances]

Skeddan if Scotland had obtained suzerainity after Largs (by payment of 4000 marks (in 4 instalments + annual payment 100marks) then as James was also King of Scotland then would his grant to William Stanley not be legitimate no matter how the English had acquired the Island ?

[Skeddan]

if Scotland had obtained suzerainity after Largs (by payment of 4000 marks (in 4 instalments + annual payment 100marks) then as James was also King of Scotland then would his grant to William Stanley not be legitimate no matter how the English had acquired the Island ?

 

Frances, I'm not sure I understand the question. Does this help? --

 

- Suzerainity and sovereignty are different.

 

- Suzerainity transferred from Scotland to England at time of Edward I (a bit of a complex story and of no great issue here).

 

- Neither Scotland or England acquired sovereignty of IoM at any time. However IoM sovereignty was held in 'custody' by Kings of England from aft. 1275 to 1405. The custody is in the nature of wardship, or an estate of inheritance being taken into the king's hands pending a rightful heir coming forwarding and obtaining their livery of seisin. It's held in a kind of trust as it were, but doesn't belong to them, but is held for a beneficiary. Like wardship this involved usufructury rights. Rights of wardship could also be granted and even bought and sold - as by Scrope, but would always be subject to a claim by an heir. Eventually it was claimed by Sir John Stanley as heir in right of his wife, Isabel Lathom, and thus sovereignty was settled on the Stanleys as rightful heirs of Godred Crovan, bringing English custodianship to an end. Suzerainity remained with the King of England.

 

- James I / VI confirmed the sovereignty to William Stanley. This was a complex arrangement involving the co-heiresses of Ferdinando quitclaiming their rights etc. etc. with ultimate effect of sovereignty passing to William Stanley. This was legitimate. (I've never questioned the legitimacy of this and don't dispute this being legitimate, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested otherwise). IoM remained under suzerainity of King of England, and has done from Edward I to present day. There was no transfer of suzerainity by James I.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

You might ask why would suzerainity be of any value to Scotland? The issue for them was having a kind of 'Cuba' in their backyard - somewhere under Norwegian suzerainity on its doorstep which was itself a naval power and which might provide a staging post to launch an attack. (remember Norway was seen as one of the major threats to Scotland). I've not thought about it before, but don't think Norway came into conflict with Scotland ever again after Treaty of Perth (??).

 

 

BTW I am not against IoM returning to being under the suzerainity of the UK in the manner that it was prior to 1765. This meant that UK was responsible for defence, Manks had status as British subjects, there was discretionary right of appeal to Privy Council, and at the same time IoM had full status as a sovereign nation state, full autonomy (other than not being an enemy of the UK), there was no right of Westminster Parliament to impose legislation, and IoM had full control of its territorial waters and all things thereto appertaining and belonging - all at a cost of 2 falcons once in a while. This was a really good deal - certainly much more favourable to IoM than today's arrangements, and much better than a 'complete break' from UK. (It also wouldn't effect relationship with EU, effect right to have British Passport as well, etc.).

[Freggyragh]

The suzerainity deal seems good to me too Skeddan - particularly as I once tried to get the full right UK passport and was turned down (couldn't provide proof of five years continual residence in the UK, and subsequently been refused employment in the EU on that basis. A few questions - If, as is likely, Scotland seperates from England, do you think suzerainity would belong to England or Scotland? And, is there any need for suzerainty to the UK, when in reality suzerainity is held by the EU?