Talk:Auld Alliance

Big hoohah, you might say, and you are welcome to. I don't care, this is what it is all about. The products of great minds being trodden on by the freakish hordes of Proprietorship and Propriety.

Wikipedia:Talk:Auld Alliance

A Franco-Scottish alliance.

I've made several small amendments the eliminate a number of misconceptions. These are as follows:

1. The Auld Alliance- a term worn smooth by time-refers to the various treaty arrangements between France and Scotland, dating from 1295. The inclusion of Norway is wrong and misleading.

2. It came to an end in 1560 with the Treaty of Edinburgh (correctly highlighted further on in the body of the article), not in 1746. French support for the Jacobite claim to the British crown was created under specific political circumstances which had nothing at all to do with the ancient treaty arrangements between France and Scotland.

3. The alliance dates to the reign of John Balliol, not William the Lion.

On a general point I have serious doubts about the Auld Alliance being the first such arrangement between nations. Alliances, both offensive and defensive, between nations and city states date back to classical times. (Having no response to this point, I have now removed it because it is erroneously misleading.)

Rcpaterson 20:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Supplement to the above

Unfortunately, my attempts to iron out some of the inaccuracies and misconceptions in this piece on the Auld Alliance are being subject to what I have to consider as deliberate sabotage, with continual reversions with no explanation given. I would have thought that the above points would have been justification enough for my editing, but apparently they are not. I thought also that those who used and edited these Wikipedia items were simply interested in factual accuracy; but clearly this is not the case. It is becoming ever more obvious to me that issues of personal vanity, blind preconceptions and simple malevolence are all at work. I am not descending into a childish game of tit-for-tat, so I myself will make no further reversions. I will however amplify the above points for those of you who have a genuine interest in the simple facts.

The Auld Alliance is the popular name given to a series of treaties for mutual defence between France and Scotland. The first such treaty was concluded in 1295, during the reign of King John of Scotland and Philip IV of France. The alliance was renewed in 1326 and at several points threafter. It is quite meaningless to raise earlier connections between France and Scotland in this context, just as it is to suggest a spurious extension of the alliance to the times of the Jacobites. William the Lion had ambitions to extend his rule to Northumberland, and became involved in a multi-party squabble with Henry II of England, which also involved France and Henry's own sons. There was no formal alliance between the contending parties.

The inclusion of Norway in the Auld Alliance is simply wrong; I can not make it any clearer than that; and I personally find the references to Norse Sagas and the colonisation of Normandy bafflingly incomprehensible. By the time that the Scots began to use the word 'Auld'-old-in relation to their alliance with the French all former connections with Norway had been long forgotten.

The alliance came to an end with the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560. By that time Protestant Scotland saw Catholic-and imperialist-France as a far greater threat to her liberty than Protestant England. The termination of the treaty is recognised in the body of the article, in clear contradiction to the nonsense about the Jacobites trotted out in the introduction.

Those of you with even the most superfical knowledge of diplomatic history will understand that the claim that the Franco-Scottish alliance was the first arrangement of its kind is patently ludicrous. Alliances, both offensive and defensive, between nations and city states, have an ancient provenance.

If anyone requires any further information on the above points I will do my best to answer. But please accept my advice to treat this innacurate, badly written and superficial article with considerble care. Rcpaterson 01:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Dubious claims

I've removed the external link Auld Food which seems strong on soup recipes but dodgy on history. The claim that the Auld Alliance "had its beginnings with a treaty between Scotland and France signed by William the Lion in 1165" implies he must have been gey nippy, as William I of Scotland states he only became king on 9 December of that year, and was crowned on 24 December. That article makes no mention of a treaty with France, but does associate him with the Treaty of Falaise, which suggests a twisted joke. I've also removed other dubious claims (see above) which will have to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability with supporting Reliable sources if they are to be included. ...dave souza, talk 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC) [edit] Auld and New

I've just started a wholesale rewrite of this article, with the aim of exploring the highs and lows of the Anglo-French alliance in the course of its history. The existing page is both patchy and inaccurate, providing little real explanation of what the alliance was about. In reference to some of the points made above I also hope to clarify the question of 'mutual citizenship.' The short answer is that there was no citizenship because such a concept did not exist at the time. The rights extended were purely concerned with the ability to own, inherit and dispose of property, much like the case of Robert Calvin after the Union of the Crowns. Anyway, give me a day or two. Rcpaterson 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to read what you've written so far, Raymond. I can hardly wait for the Next Exciting Installment! -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks! Rcpaterson 22:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This work is now close to completion. Unfortunately a small but interesting point concerning the Scottish author of the Chronicle of Pluscarden has twice been removed-without explanation-from the section dealing with the Scots in France by an anonymous IP user. I will repeat it here just in case of any further sabotage. From her appearance of Orleans in 1429 Joan of Arc was accompanied by a small band of Scots, soldiers and clerics. One of them, the anonymous author of Pluscarden, stayed with her right to the end, witnessing the martyrdom of the "wonderful girl"-his words-at Rouen in May 1431. Rcpaterson 22:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian?

Why do we care what this was called in Norwegian? Why does a Norwegian translation rate over any other language besides French, English and probably Scots Gaelic? Corvus cornixtalk 23:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Norway also were a part of the alliance, but I agree that someone more knowledgable should expand that part.Inge (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Inge, what's your source for Norway being part of this? What treaty, and how long did the alliance last? And where does the ludicrous translation "auld-alliansen" come from? Jon kare (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about this topic and as far as I remember and could see from the history I wasn't the one who added the Norwegian name. When one reads the Norwegian version of this article it becomes quite clear that Norway was a part of the alliance allthough it seems that the bond was stronger to Scotland than France. That article seems to be well referenced and uses the "ludicrous translation" as the article title. However as I am not very familiar with the topic I won't be the one to add more info to this article.Inge (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Norway was part of the alliance from the start, but in 1326 they didn't participate in the renewal of the alliance. Norway was also probably not strong enough to keep up with the alliance in practice, but this was never put to the test. So to conclude, Norway was only in theory part of the alliance, and only during its earliest years. -GabaG (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Headings

The headings on this page sound like they're from a history book. The headings should describe the text to follow, and shouldn't be some silly metaphors or alliteration. It begs the question, that if the headings have indeed been taken from a book, then what about the text itself? RevenDS (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The headings were provided by a published historian who rewrote this article for us. The reason that it sounds like a history book is that he writes history books. We are lucky that he contributed this well-written and entirely original article out of the goodness of his heart. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Style is a bit la-la novelised history to me - somewhere between Jean Plaidy and a 2nd form history text book (or a Key Stage 2 online learning resource, as it probably is these days). Bakewell (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)"

"Rcpaterson is an artist, and all the dry grasping of censoring Wiki ghouls will not bring him back whence he sensibly fled. I doubt there is anyone here who could finish one of his sentences. Speaking of which, if proving someone wrong is to your taste, or for some more wholesome reason, he left a sentence unfinished, see below. Anarchangel (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)"

Alliance in transition

-from Rcpaterson Talk- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auld_Alliance&diff=67356093&oldid=67345663 Numerous edits identify you as the author of most of Auld Alliance; this one in particular contains the first appearance of the cliffhanger: "In growing to manhood King James, fully aware just how treacherous and faithless Louis could be." Can't wait to hear what comes next! Anarchangel (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The Story So Far

.... What came next was a copyvio blanking of the page, and the sorry state of the article as it is now on WP. At least we have pictures. Anarchangel 03:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)