What if Mael Snechtai had come to the throne of Scotland?

Mael Snechtai was the son of Lulach who was King of Scotland from 1057-58 and was himself stepston of Macbeth.

What I am wondering is what if Mael had come to the throne in 1078 through defeating his cousin Malcolm III in battle?

If Mael had come to the throne, is it reasonable to suppose he would've married one of Donald Ban's (OTL Donald III) to wine support of the man, and then later killed off his competing rivals in the canmore Dynasty?

And furthermore would this have prevented the spread of norman ideals in Scotland and maintained the gaelic tradition?
 
Well, the Scottish kingship may retain for a time more of its Celtic characteristics, that's true, namely its divisiveness, and maybe its submission to England (that's obvious since Kenneth II) : technical submission, but given the importance of the symbolism, it's not going to be forgotten that easily.

As for the divisiveness, not only Stratchclyde would remain an independent part of Scotland, and in this case maybe more leaning to English sphere of influence, but the victory of the Mormaer would be the victory of particularisms.

But Macbeth's reign point out that he was already looking for southern influences : maybe not only England but continental : his pilgrimage at Rome, receiving Normans from Wessex court, etc.

So while Scotland would be more divided structurally, not only trough great entities as Cumbria or Fortriu, but as well on its nobility, you may see Anglo-Norman influence still appearing (assuming William stills win, but the PoD isn't going to influence much on this).

It may means no Davidian Revolution, but something slower, more fragmented, more akin (partially, as Scotland is still more unified) to what existed in Wales or even Ireland at this time. On the other hand, northern Scotland may prove being less influenced in a first time, efficiently strengthening a North-South divide already began by Northumbrians (but that is still less important that it would become in the late XIth century)

(I'm largely using Michel Duchien's work there, so I may have things wrong)
 
Well, the Scottish kingship may retain for a time more of its Celtic characteristics, that's true, namely its divisiveness, and maybe its submission to England (that's obvious since Kenneth II) : technical submission, but given the importance of the symbolism, it's not going to be forgotten that easily.

As for the divisiveness, not only Stratchclyde would remain an independent part of Scotland, and in this case maybe more leaning to English sphere of influence, but the victory of the Mormaer would be the victory of particularisms.

But Macbeth's reign point out that he was already looking for southern influences : maybe not only England but continental : his pilgrimage at Rome, receiving Normans from Wessex court, etc.

So while Scotland would be more divided structurally, not only trough great entities as Cumbria or Fortriu, but as well on its nobility, you may see Anglo-Norman influence still appearing (assuming William stills win, but the PoD isn't going to influence much on this).

It may means no Davidian Revolution, but something slower, more fragmented, more akin (partially, as Scotland is still more unified) to what existed in Wales or even Ireland at this time. On the other hand, northern Scotland may prove being less influenced in a first time, efficiently strengthening a North-South divide already began by Northumbrians (but that is still less important that it would become in the late XIth century)

(I'm largely using Michel Duchien's work there, so I may have things wrong)

Ookay interesting, what makes you think Strathclyde would remain independent? Do you not think that Mael would look to bring it into the fold through war or marriage?
 
What makes you think Strathclyde would remain independent?
I don't think it would *remain* independent, but would be less tied with Scotland, and maybe more to England (even moreso if Anglo-Saxons takes back Lothian)

Mostly trough the political links between Dunkeld and Strathclyde, but apparently there's a arguments about these being the result of confusion between two persons. (Again, sorry, I've only limited sources at hand on this region)

If Dunkeld links with Strathclyde (Duncan and Malcolm III being king of Cumbrians with familial ties, as an apanage of sort) are exact, it could mean for the region to, while being still in the Scottish sphere of influence for a time, drifting away towards Anglo-Saxon Britain as it did in the early part of the XIth century already.

If these ties aren't historical, though...Strathclyde being more or less tied with Dunkeld trough Arpin familial ties, it's possible something could play there as well, but less obviously so, if it does.
Would Dunkeld be able to hold on the principality, thanks to Northumbrian help, as a consolation prize? That's possible, but I'd think that the kings of Strathclyde would be still less "comfortable" with Moray/Fortriu Scotland, which could mean a more important focus on southern Scotland (and, subsequently, on them), making Dunkeld takeover of Strathclyde more or less useless. (What could be fun would be seeing them as "kings" of Lothian in the case of a partial reconquest, but I digress).

Do you not think that Mael would look to bring it into the fold through war or marriage?
That's possible, but another civil war (critically with Dunkeld being backed by Northumbrians) would have weakened a bit Moray/Fortriu possibilities, IMO.

Would clans be willing to undergo a war to strengthen formal suzerainity on behalf of a king that hold not only Moray but high-kingship?
After all, it would be the risk to undergo a defeat as Duncan's had against Northumbrians for Strathclyde with similar consequence after that Anglo-Saxons placed Malcom of Strathclye (which should be, then, differenciated from Malcom III of Scotland) back on charge.

It's more or less why I still think that Strathclyde would be more English-leaning in a first time : it could change, though, depending on Anglo-Saxons capacity to maintain their presence there.

Eventually, I think we'd need someone more knowledgable about Northern England and Scotland in the XIth century to be sure about it.
 
I don't think it would *remain* independent, but would be less tied with Scotland, and maybe more to England (even moreso if Anglo-Saxons takes back Lothian)

Mostly trough the political links between Dunkeld and Strathclyde, but apparently there's a arguments about these being the result of confusion between two persons. (Again, sorry, I've only limited sources at hand on this region)

If Dunkeld links with Strathclyde (Duncan and Malcolm III being king of Cumbrians with familial ties, as an apanage of sort) are exact, it could mean for the region to, while being still in the Scottish sphere of influence for a time, drifting away towards Anglo-Saxon Britain as it did in the early part of the XIth century already.

If these ties aren't historical, though...Strathclyde being more or less tied with Dunkeld trough Arpin familial ties, it's possible something could play there as well, but less obviously so, if it does.
Would Dunkeld be able to hold on the principality, thanks to Northumbrian help, as a consolation prize? That's possible, but I'd think that the kings of Strathclyde would be still less "comfortable" with Moray/Fortriu Scotland, which could mean a more important focus on southern Scotland (and, subsequently, on them), making Dunkeld takeover of Strathclyde more or less useless. (What could be fun would be seeing them as "kings" of Lothian in the case of a partial reconquest, but I digress).


That's possible, but another civil war (critically with Dunkeld being backed by Northumbrians) would have weakened a bit Moray/Fortriu possibilities, IMO.

Would clans be willing to undergo a war to strengthen formal suzerainity on behalf of a king that hold not only Moray but high-kingship?
After all, it would be the risk to undergo a defeat as Duncan's had against Northumbrians for Strathclyde with similar consequence after that Anglo-Saxons placed Malcom of Strathclye (which should be, then, differenciated from Malcom III of Scotland) back on charge.

It's more or less why I still think that Strathclyde would be more English-leaning in a first time : it could change, though, depending on Anglo-Saxons capacity to maintain their presence there.

Eventually, I think we'd need someone more knowledgable about Northern England and Scotland in the XIth century to be sure about it.

Okay fairs. I do have other ideas where a son from Malcolm Iii first wife be it Donald or Malcolm comes to the throne following their brothers death. And one where the Bruce's are named kings of Scotland by Edward
 
Top