{
  "created": "1770-01-01",
  "ident": "Sing-Mannanan-beg-Mac-Leirr",
  "name": "Sing Mannanan beg Mac Leirr.",
  "author": "Traditional, transcribed by J. Kelly",
  "englishName": "The Traditionary Ballad \u2014\u00A0Kelly Version",
  "notes": "Historical Notes (R. Teare): \r\nThe ballad begins with an account of pre-Christian times and the rule of the magical Mannanan Beg Mac y Leir, aka; the Irish Sea God Manann\u00E1n mac Lir. \r\nSaint Patrick, first mentioned in Verse 9 is said to have been born in the late fourth century and active as a missionary in the early to mid-fifth century. \r\nSaint Germanus, first mentioned in Verse 13, is said to have died in 474. \r\nSaint Maughold is first mentioned in Verse 17. \r\nSaint Maughold\u2019s death, mentioned in Verse 19 happened in 488. Bishop Lonan is mentioned as the next bishop, and in Verse 20 it says that the next two bishops were Conchan and then Mylrooney. Mylrooney is likely to have been the saint also known Marooney (Manx) Anglicised as Saint Runius. \r\nIn Verse 22 we have mention of the arrival of [Ree Gorree] \u2018King Godred Crovan\u2019, who seized control of Mann in 1079. \r\nIn Verse 24 the writer says that 13 kings of the Crovan dynasty followed Godred Crovan. These are likley: \r\nL\u01EBgma\u00F0r Gu\u00F0r\u00F8\u00F0arson, d. 1103,  \r\n\u00D3l\u00E1fr Gu\u00F0r\u00F8\u00F0arson, d. 1153,\r\nGu\u00F0r\u00F8\u00F0r \u00D3l\u00E1fsson, d. 1187\r\nSomairle mac Gilla Brigte, fled 1164.\r\nR\u01EBgnvaldr \u00D3l\u00E1fsson ,d. 1164 (temporarily usurped the throne from Gu\u00F0r\u00F8\u00F0r)\r\nR\u01EBgnvaldr Gu\u00F0r\u00F8\u00F0arson d. 1229 R\u01EBgnvaldr\r\n\u00D3l\u00E1fr Gu\u00F0r\u00F8\u00F0arson d. 1237 brother of \r\nGu\u00F0r\u00F8\u00F0r R\u01EBgnvaldsson d. 1231 (slain by \u00D3l\u00E1fr)\r\nHaraldr \u00D3l\u00E1fsson d. 1248\r\nR\u01EBgnvaldr \u00D3l\u00E1fsson d. 1249\r\nHaraldr Gu\u00F0r\u00F8\u00F0arson forced into exile 1250\r\nMagn\u00FAs \u00D3l\u00E1fsson d. 1265.\r\nGu\u00F0r\u00F8\u00F0r Magn\u00FAsson, either died or fled in 1275 (after declaring himself king in defiance of the terms of the Treaty of Perth).\r\nIn Verse 25 there is mention of the arrival of [quinney] and [quaile], for which R. L. Thompson suggests Irish [coinne] for which he offers the translation \u2018some sort of assembly, and [comhdh\u00E1il] which he gives as a precursor for [quaiyl] \u2018a court\u2019. [Quinney] is a Manx surname, evidently derived from Irish [Cuana] or [Coinne] (both sept names with Ulster origins), and [quaile] could be the Manx surname [Quayle], said to be derived from [Mac Ph\u00E1il]. \r\nVerse 27 mentions suzerainty of Mann passing to Alistair III of Scotland. This was a provision of the Treaty of Perth in 1266, (a consequence of Magn\u00FAs \u00D3l\u00E1fsson, King of Mann, having allied with Norway and therefore supporting the losing side at the Battle of Largs in 1263). \r\nThe 28th Verse mentions Alistair III wiping out the line of Godred Crovan, with the exception of one daughter, who goes to seek help from [Ree Goal]. \r\n     Thompson takes [Ree Goal] to mean \u2018The King of England\u2019. [Ree Houghsyn], a more obvious rendering of \u2018The King of England\u2019, appears in Verse 36, so it seems that we ought to consider another possibility for the meaning of [Goal], which is likely a cognate of Irish and Scottish Gaelic [Gall], meaning \u2018foreign\u2019, or \u2018non-Gael\u2019. As the word is the first element of [Gall-Go\u00EDdil ] \u2018Galloway\u2019, and the Crovan dynasty were indeed closely related to the Fergus dynasty of Galloway, and there was history of Galloway coming to the aid of warring factions in the complicated internecine fraternal Crovan power struggles. However, the Kingdom of Galloway had been absorbed into the Kingdom of Scotland by 1234. The last semi-independent ruler was Alan of Galloway. Claim to the title \u2018Lord of Galloway\u2019 (as well as substantial lands in Galloway) passed via his daughter Dervorguilla to John Balliol, b. 1249, who became King of Scotland in 1292.\r\n     Perhaps a stronger candidate for [Ree Goal] is \u2018The King of Wales\u2019 with [Ree Goal] derived from Anglo-Norman  [Rei de Galles]. Llywelyn ap Gryffudd managed to unify most of Wales under his rule during the 1260s and was recognised as \u2018Prince of Wales\u2019 by Henry III, King of England, in 1267, so that Llywelyn was in effect the King of Wales, although he had to pay substantial tribute fees to the Henry. Non-payment of the tribute was a precursor to the subjugation of Wales by Edward I of England and the death of Llywelyn at the Battle of Orewin Bridge in 1282.\r\nThe 29th Verse is not easily explained by historical evidence and maybe an amalgamation of two verses. It seems prima facie to begin with an address to the Scottish, or the Scottish king (Thomson suggest [O Albynee] is an archaic vocative], critising Alexander III\u2019s failure to stay or send a representative [haghter] to rule the Island, but the second half of the verse seems to mock the failed rebellion of Gu\u00F0r\u00F8\u00F0r Magn\u00FAsson, illegitimate son of Magn\u00FAs \u00D3l\u00E1fsson who declared himself King of Mann and was defeated by Alexander III\u2019s forces at the Battle of Ronaldsway, 1275.\r\nVerse 32 again complains that the Scottish King did not stay after defeating Gu\u00F0r\u00F8\u00F0r Magn\u00FAsson and then says that the Crovan dynasty daughter left to go to the King of England. \r\nVerse 36 seems to say that the King of England arranged for the survivng Crovan dynsaty daughter to be married to William Montagu, Earl of Salisbury (Montacu, Montacute, Montague, etc), who was granted the kingship of Mann by Edward III in 1333. There is no supporting evidence for this marriage. \r\nWithout mention of William Montagu\u2019s death in 1344 and succession of his son, also William (the ballad confuses father and son with the same name elsewhere in the text), Verses 37 and 38 mention the sale of the title of King of Mann to Richard Scrope on behalf of his son William Scrope, in 1393, and the execution of William Scope in 1399 (executed at Bristol Castle as a supporter of Richard II.)\r\nVerse 41 mentions Henry IV\u2019s gifting of the kingship from Henry IV of England to Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland in 1399. \r\nVerse 42 mentions the death of Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland at [Alsperee]. In both the printed edition of 1802 and Train\u2019s printed edition of 1845 the battle is [Sal\u2019sbury]. There is no Battle of Salisbury known to have occurred during this era. Thompson suggests that the writer confused Salisbury with Shrewsbury because the Montagu family were Earls of Salisbury. (John Montagu, who rebelled against Henry IV, was beheaded in 1400, and the title was not formally restored to the family until John\u2019s son Thomas was invested as Earl of Salisbury in 1421.) \r\n     The battle referred to must indeed be the Battle of Shrewsbury, where the Percy family were defeated and where John Stanley\u2019s support for Henry IV was crucial. The Percy family rebelled against King Henry IV in 1402. Henry \u2018Hotspur\u2019 Percy (not the Earl of Northumberland, but his son and heir) was killed at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403. This seems to be, as happens elsewhere in this ballad, another case of confusion between father and son of the same name, as Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland did not die until his army was defeated by the Sherriff of Yorkshire at the Battle of Bramham Moor, in 1408 \u2014 after Sir John Stanley had been made King of Mann. \r\n     Returning to the Battle of [Alsperree] (or [Sal\u2019sbury] in the 1802 printed version). Whilst Thomson is evidently correct in identifying the battle as the Battle of Shrewsbury, he is likely wrong in thinking that the writer confused \u2018Shrewsbury\u2019 with \u2018Salisbury\u2019. In fact, they are likely corruptions of \u2018Salopesberia\u2019, the name recorded for Shrewsbury in the Doomsday Book, or \u2018Salopsbury\u2019, or \u2018Slopesbury\u2019, which are both cited as older names for \u2018Shrewsbury\u2019 by Humphrey Llwyd in  \u2018Commentarioli Descriptionis Britannicae Fragmentum\u2019, published in 1572. Llwyd, in Latin, writes:\r\n\u0022Proximi his sunt Salopienses, quorum antiquissimia urbs Vricovi\u016B, postea ab Anglis Wrekecestre et contracte Wroxcestre tota Saxonica Saxonico bello concidatconcidit, \u00E0 cuius ruinius crica circa 4 milliaria distat Salopia primaria totius conventus urbs duobus pontibus \u0026 frere\u00E8 Sabrina circundata clara. H\u00E6c olim Pengwern.i. caput alneti dicebatur: regumque Powisi\u00E6 regia erat, unde defluxit nome\u0113 Anglicum Schreusbury, quamvis in vetustus vetustis diplomatibus Salopsbury et Slopesbury me leglisse me mini. Nostrates h\u0101c hodierno die Ymwythig appellitant.\u0022\r\n\r\nhttps://books.google.im/books?redir_esc=y\u0026id=IhY6AAAAcAAJ\u0026q=Salopsbury#v=snippet\u0026q=Salopsbury\u0026f=false\r\n\r\nTranslation : RT: \u0022Next to these are the Salopians, whose most ancient city, Vricovi\u016BVrico[n]ium, was afterwards called by the English Wrekecester, contracted to Wroxcester (Wroxeter), it fell completely during the Saxon War, and itsfrom whose ruins Salopia, are the main city of the whole county, is about 4 miles distant, from the main city in the area which isbeing almost bordered aroundsurrounded by the clear Sabrina (River Severn) with by two bridges the clear Sabrina (River Severn). This (city) was once called Pengwern, said to be thei.e. Alder Hill Headof Alder (or, Hill of King Alder),; and it was (in) the Kingdomthe royal seat of the Kings of Powys,  whence the English name of Schreusbury (Shrewsbury) descended, although in the old documents I read recall having read Salopsbury and Slopesbury. Today we (the Welsh) call it Ymwythig.\u0022\r\n\r\nSo, far from being the erroneous work of a composition written many years after the event, if [Alsperee] and [Sal\u2019sbury] are contracted, Manxified, forms of \u2018Salopsbury\u2019 / \u2018Slopesbury\u2019, an assumption which is supported by the historical facts, then these words, which were archiac even in 1575, in fact further support the argument that the ballad was composed around the year 1521.\r\nVerse 43 to 47 praise Sir John Stanley\u2019s prowess on the battlefield and mention that he is gifted the tenure of the kingship of Mann. Stanley fought at the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, and was wounded in the throat. Perhaps [nagh beagh ayn Glare], if it means \u2018wouldn\u2019t have speech in him\u2019 references this wound. The gifting of the title of King of Mann happened in 1405 after the confiscation of the title from Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland by Henry IV as a consequence of the Percy rebellion.\r\nVerse 48 says that the title has passed \u2018king after king\u2019 and many years of Stanley rule have passed. \r\nVerse 49 mentions the succession of the next John Stanley in 1414. \r\nVerse 50 mentions the succession of Thomas Derby in 1437.\r\nThe 51st Verse mentions the Manx raid on Kirkcudbright which happened year 1457. James II of Scotland resurrected a claim in to suzerainty over Mann in 1455 and invested his son as Lord of Mann. In 1456 an unsuccessful Scottish attack on Mann took place. In 1457 Thomas Stanley had the curtain wall protecting Peel Castle built, and sent his son Thomas to lead a punitive attack on Kirkcudbright. In 1459 Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, became the last King of Man, he died in 1504 and his successors styled themselves \u2018Lord of Mann\u2019. \r\nThe first three lines of Verse 53 seems to say that \u2018he came ashore at Ronaldsway in the month of May, 1507\u2019, from which we might conclude that something has been missed and we have moved on to Thomas Stanley, who was Lord of Mann 1504 \u2014 1521. This marks the third instance of same-name father / son confusion (see above under William Montague and Henry Percy). Thomson suggests an alternative theory, which is that the year 1507 is a mistake for 1457, in which case the character in question is Thomas Stanley who reigned as King of Man 1437-1459, or his son, Lord Thomas Stanley who reigned 1459 \u2013 1504. \r\nUnless there is further material missing it would seem from the third line of Verse 56 (\u2018when his flesh will be lying in the grave\u2019) that at the time of writing Thomas Stanley, Lord of Mann, has not yet been buried. If we assume that the purpose of the ballad, aside from keeping a historical record of the Island\u2019s history, was to eulogise and legitimize Stanley rule and in particular that of Thomas Stanley, 2nd Earl of Derby and 1st Lord of Man, then we may reasonably assume that the ballad dates from, or shortly before his death on the 23rd of May 1521. As Thomson argues, any later date of production would surely make mention of the 1594 \u2013 1607 succession suit, James Stanley\u2019s execution in 1651, William Christian\u2019s execution in 1663, or the succession of James Murray, Duke of Athol in 1736.",
  "Transcription": "R. Teare. Proofread; M. Wheeler.",
  "Translation": "N/A",
  "type": "Traditionary Ballad",
  "original": "Manx",
  "iMuseum": "MS 05072B",
  "source": "MS 05072B John Kelly C.1770"
}