The Earldom of Orkney, the Duchy of Schleswig and the Kalmar Union in 1434

ABSTRACT

In August 1434, Erik VII, king of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, confirmed William Sinclair as earl of Orkney, thus ending a decade-long dispute over the hereditary nature of that island fief. Although surviving sources pertaining to Orkney tell us little about Erik VII’s motives, historians have traditionally pointed to circumstances in and around the isles to explain the king’s acknowledgement of William’s claims. In this article, it is argued that the events must be interpreted in light of a concurrent dispute over counts of Holstein’s hereditary claims to the duchy of Schleswig, which were vigorously denied by Erik VII. It can be concluded that the latter dispute influenced the debate over Orkney by making the hereditary enfeoffment of William Sinclair a strategic impossibility for Erik VII, who could not acknowledge one claim without opening the door for another. The king’s acquiescence of William’s claim in 1434, we contend, reflected changing conditions in Schleswig, where the king was forced to recognize the counts’ hereditary rights. The contribution offers a new take on Orkney’s late-medieval development and encourages that island principality’s inclusion in pan-Scandinavian events.

KEYWORDS:

• Erik of Pomerania
• Schleswig
• Orkney
• Norway
• Denmark
• fief
• Kalmar Union

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. King Erik VII of Denmark is commonly referred to as Erik of Pomerania owing to his origins in that northeastern German principality. Born Bogusław, son of Duke Warcisław VII of Pomerania, he was selected by his great aunt, Margrete, to succeed her deceased son, King Oluf II of Denmark (Olav IV of Norway), and rechristened as Erik in allusion to Scandinavian traditions. For the sake of clarity, the following employs the Danish designation instead of the Norwegian (Erik III) or Swedish (Erik XIII). The same applies to his predecessor Oluf/Olav. On the accession of Erik VII in the Nordic realms see e.g. Etting, Margrete, 106–22, 145–56; Rock, Herrscherwechsel, 104–35; Christensen, Kalmarunionen, 110–71; and Larsson, Kalmarunionens tid, 43–90.

2. The most noteworthy account of the conflict over the duchy of Schleswig remains Erslev, Erik af Pommern. The conflict has recently received some attention in e.g. Hedemann, Danmark, and Neustadt, Kommunikation, who both mostly focused on diplomatic processes. Magnussen, Burgen, ch. 5 re-evaluated the role of castles during the conflict.

3. On the obligations, expenses of and effects on the Norwegian and Swedish realms, see Erslev, Erik af Pommern, 300–3, 320–21 and, with stronger emphasis on Norway, Taranger, Tidsrummet 1319–1442, 258–62; and Moseng et al., Norsk historie, 337–38.

4. On events in the summer of 1434 and the Swedish revolt in general, see e.g. Olesen, Rigsråd, 19–24; Carlsson, Senare Medeltiden, 240–93; Larsson, Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson; and Erslev, Erik af Pommern, 327–49. For details on the Vordingborg assembly in 1434, see Neustadt, Kommunikation, 367–86.

5. Also here there were revolts in 1436/37 and 1437/38, but unlike in Sweden, these did not lead to the immediate deposition of the king, see Hamre, Norsk historie, 107–18; Imsen, “Treriksunionen,” 359–66; Moseng et al., Norsk historie, 346–48. On revolts specifically, see e.g. Daae, “Bidrag”; Daae, “Nye Studier”; Storm, “Om Amund Sigurdsson Bolt”; Aldener, “Bidrag”; Kirkeby, Hallvard Gråtopp; Imsen, “Unionsregimente”; and Njåstad, “Grenser,” 105–19. On Erik VII’s ultimate deposition in Norway, most recently Rock, Herrscherwechsel, 188–91 with further literature.

6. DN, vol. 5, no. 646, but incorrectly dated 7 August. See also Imsen, “Treriksunionen,” 357–58. In its reply of 12 September, the Swedish council once more justified its action, see DN, vol. 5, no. 647. On the circumstances in Norway, see e.g. Daae, “Bidrag,” 62–67.

7. Cf. HR, vol. 2.1, no. 373; DN, vol. 23, no. 88. The quote is from the plica of DN, vol. 5, no. 645.

8. Erslev, Erik af Pommern, 283.

9. See Thomson, New History; Crawford, Northern Earldoms; and Grohse, Frontiers for a general consideration of the earldom.

10. For example, Olesen’s otherwise meticulous survey of the Danish council of the realm and Nordic royal policy, in which William Sinclair is referred to only once as recipient of a letter from the Norwegian council in 1446 (Olesen, Rigsråd, 347, referring to DN, vol. 7, no. 732). Although Sinclair’s enfeoffment is briefly mentioned in e.g. Hasund, Tidsrummet 1280 til omkring 1500, 290, it receives no noteworthy attention in other surveys of Norwegian history, e.g. Taranger, Tidsrummet 1319–1442; Hamre, Norsk historie; Imsen, “Treriksunionen”; Bjørkvik, Folketap og sammenbrud; and Moseng et al., Norsk historie. This is surprising as the enfeoffment receives considerable attention in Huitfeldt, Krønicke, 772–74.

11. DN, vol. 2, no. 691, and vol. 6, no. 423. For a discussion of these events see below.

12. The Lehnsrevers is preserved only as a vidimus issued between 1448 and 1463, which is currently housed at the Danish Archives in Copenhagen (NKR 3177-b). The charter is edited at NGL 2.1, no. 74 and translated into Danish in Huitfeldt, Krønicke, 772–74. It is unclear whether there was ever a feudal charter from Erik VII. It could have been lost a few years later or never been issued, see notes on the loss of charters by William Sinclair in 1443 (DN 20, no. 833) and the remarks further down in n. 78.

13. This applies only to a limited extent to Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 352–56, although she does not address the question of why it was feoffed in August 1434. On the influence of national historiography on research on Orkney most recently Grohse, Frontiers, 10–23.

14. Some studies mention, but do not elaborate on the motives for Sinclair’s eventual enfeoffment in 1434, e.g. Imsen, “Landet Orknøy,” 216; Clouston, History, 249; and Hay, Genealogie, 71–72.

15. Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 354–55, and Earls, 264.

16. Crawford, Earls, 276–78. The importance of James I’s intervention was also stressed in Crawford, “The Fifteenth-century ‘Genealogy of the Earls of Orkney’,” 171. See also Grohse, Frontiers, 104, for criticism of this assumption. Regarding the incorporation, see Crawford, “Pledging”; Smith, “When did Orkney and Shetland become part of Scotland”; Grohse, “The Lost Cause.”

17. Grohse, Frontiers, 103–6.

18. NGL, vol. 2.1, no. 74.

19. Imsen, “Landet Orknøy,” 218.

20. Bann. Misc., 63–85; DN, vol. 20, no. 833. The dating of the original Genealogy (or Diploma), which exists only in a Latin copy from the late-fifteenth century and a Scots translation from 1554, is uncertain. The editors Diplomatarium Norvegicum cited 1443 as a possible dating, although Crawford suggests that the surviving copy stems from the later part of the century, and that the original was ‘drawn up probably in the 1420s’, Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 63, 352–55. The Scots translation is cited here.

21. Bann. Misc., 68.

22. DN, vol. 2, no. 691: witnisbyrd horo han war borin til jærlsdømit i Orknø; cf. REO, 37; Imsen, “Country,” 28.

23. William was accompanied by his second cousin, Thomas Sinclair, as well as the archdeacon of Shetland and two servants. See Imsen, “Country,” 14–15; and Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 351.

24. DN, vol. 6, no. 423: ex illustri prosapia antiqua et nobili parentela ipse noster verus legittimus et naturaliter progenitus sit comes. See Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 351–52; Thomson, New History, 177–78; and Grohse, Frontiers, 213–14.

25. DN, vol. 2, no. 459. See Thomson, New History, 160–55; Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 334–40; and Wærdahl, Incorporation, 241–45.

26. Bann. Misc., 80, 82. He was also referred to as the second Sinclair earl of Orkney in the Scotichronicon (Fordun, Scotichronicon 2, lib. XV, cap. 32, 460: obiit etiam Henricus de Sancto-claro, hoc nomine comes Orcadiæ secundus). The reference to Shetland was perhaps a later addition to the Scottish translation from 1554, see Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 348 n. 59.

27. Bann. Misc., 68.

28. Crawford, Earldoms, 348–49.

29. DN, vol. 2, no. 459; cf. REO, 24: dominum nostrum regem heredes suos et successores libere redire debeat […] domini nostri regis heredum et successorum suorum super hoc requirere graciam beneplacitum et consensum. Cf. DN, vol. 2, no. 670, where the bishop of Orkney received the country on fief with the same condition that it would be returned to the monarchy upon termination of his tenure, and DN, vol. 2, no. 676, where David Menzies was to hold the earldom ‘as long as your [the monarchy’s] will and grace allows’ (swo lenge som theris wilie oc nathe tilsigher). The bishop received the fief with the castle in Kirkwall, constructed sometime around 1400, and was thus liable to the so-called ‘castle law’ (slotlouen; slottsloven), which demanded that castle fiefs revert to the monarchy upon the holder’s or the monarch’s death. See Grohse, Frontiers, 144 n. 44; Rosén, “Slottsloven”; and Christensen, Kalmarunionen, 181–84.

30. Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 349. The Genealogy (Bann. Misc., 82) notes that ‘at the last he decessit ondoutit erile of Orchadie and Schetland’. According to Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 348 n. 59, this suggests that doubts as to his status were only resolved soon before his death in 1420. The fact that the author emphasized the ‘undoubtedness’ of his claim may indicate that the monarchs in Scandinavia, Margrete and Erik VII, had stalled his appointment.

31. DN, vol. 2, no. 647; SD 20: per pii recordii genitorem meum et ceteros de cognacione mea meque.

32. Thomson, New History, 173. The charter alludes specifically to John’s father (genitorem), that being Henry I, but only vaguely to other ‘kinsmen’ (cognacione). If his brother, Henry (II), was earl of Orkney, it is strange that the king failed to mention him, see Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 349 n. 60.

33. Imsen, “Earldom,” 170.

34. DN 2, no. 459.

35. Hirdskråen, 82–83; cf. Ibid., 78–79.

36. Imsen, “Earldom,” 171. See also, Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 352.

37. Wærdahl, Incorporation, 244.

38. Ibid.

39. Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 317, describes this as ‘a real break in the earldom inheritance’. Although the previous line of Angus earls were also based in Scotland, this ‘break’ allowed advancement of a ‘different Scottish noble family, with a distant claim’, ibid. See also Thomson, New History, 150–52; and Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 317–20.

40. Bann. Misc., 78. See Thomson, New History, 150; and Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 319.

41. Barry, History, 406. This passage does not appear in the extant Latin text, and although it was included in the Scots translation, it was omitted from Bannatyne Miscellany’s edition. See Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 319 n. 145.

42. Thomson, New History, 150; and Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 319.

43. See Thomson, New History, 153–59; Wærdahl, Incorporation, 231–41; and Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 320–31.

44. Erengisle first appears as ‘earl of Orkney’ (jarl j Orknøyum) in 1353 (DN, vol. 2, no. 319). He lost his title for supporting an uprising against King Magnus VII in Sweden in 1356/57, but continued to style himself as earl until 1388, see Wærdahl, Incorporation, 231; Grohse, Frontiers, 98 n. 59; Bull, “Erengisle Sunesson,” 542–43; Tunberg, “Bååt, Erengisle Sunesson,” 49. It is noteworthy that the Genealogy (Bann. Misc., 80) does not refer to him as earl, but rather as ane knycht callit Hergisill, born in the partis of Swecia; the quhilk knycht com in the partis of Orchadie, and be law and resone of his wife josite ane part of the landis of Ochadie. This implies that for the author, he was a foreign estate holder, not a bona fide earl. See Grohse, Frontiers, 98.

45. DN, vol. 2, nos. 437–38. The Latin titles are mentioned in his enfeoffment charter from 30 June 1375, whereas the corresponding Norwegian titles høfwdzmann gøimara ok rettom syslomanne, appear in the king’s proclamation of that grant to the people of Orkney, issued on the same day. See Imsen, “Earldom,” 176; and Wærdahl, Incorporation, 233–36.

46. DN, vol. 2, no. 438: rette ok skælum han seghir sek at hafua till herradømit æder jærlsdømit.

47. Ibid. On the bishop’s struggle with the royal official, Håkon Jonsson, see Thomson, New History, 155–57; Wærdahl, Incorporation, 232–33; and Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 323–25.

48. Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 354.

49. Shetland was part of the earldom until King Sverrir confiscated it in 1195. See Thomson, New History, 121–22; Wærdahl, Incorporation, 71–84; Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 242–46. Imsen, “Earldom,” 164–65; and Imsen, Kongemakt, 36. See also Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 343–45.

50. Wærdahl, Incorporation, 83–84, maintains that royal officials had governed alongside earls since 1195 and wielded even greater power during abeyances. Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 245, contends that royal officials were normally ‘appointed to oversee […] royal estates’ and collect their king’s share of fines from the country, and that they only obtained great civic authority in the absence of earls.

51. DN, vol. 1, no. 404.

52. The earl put an end to the troublesome prelate in 1382 or 1383, see Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 340–42.

53. DN 2, nos. 657, 670. See Imsen, “Landet Orknøy”; Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 350; and Grohse, Frontiers, 165–67, 173–74.

54. DN 2, no. 676. See Thomson, New History, 174–77; Imsen, “Country,” 10; Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 350–51; and Grohse, Frontiers, 121–27. On Menzies background and arrival to Orkney, see Grohse, “Tutor Testamentary,” and “Fremmede,” 104–5.

55. The title earl had never been hereditary in Norway. However, that title and the old title of ‘baron’ (lenðrmaðr) represented the highest echelons of political power and were often reserved for members of the royal line or high nobility. King Håkon V abolished the titles in 1308 (DN 11, no. 6), making an exception only for the ‘the king’s sons and the earls of Orkney’ (vtan konungs sonum æinum ok iarlenum af Orkneyium). See Wærdahl, Incorporation, 162; and Grohse, Frontiers, 92–93.

56. Opsahl, “Del I,” 142–48.

57. Imsen, “Treriksunionen,” 330.

58. Opsahl, “Del I,” 142.

59. Imsen, “Unionsregimente,” 103–7, refers to the region as the ‘eye of the storm’ (stormsenteret) due the ‘feudalization’ and redistribution of estates in the area.

60. See e.g. Storm, “Om Amund Sigurdsson Bolt,” 104–6.

61. Opsahl, “Del I,” 157–58; and Njåstad, “Grenser,” 119.

62. Opsahl, “Del I,” 158. On Bolt, see Sollied, “Kildekritiske undersøkelser”; Njåstad, “Grenser,” 110–12.

63. Albrectsen, Fællesskabet, 168. See also Lerdam, Danske len; Olesen, “Erik af Pommerns stærke unionskongedømme,” 73; Larsson, Kalmarunionens tid, 149–50; Larsson, “Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson,” 83; Haug, Margrete, 274–85. A main contention was the marginalization of the high nobility with council seats. Lerdam, Danske len, 51, notes that ‘under Erik of Pomerania, the number of council noblemen in [Danish] fiefs was reduced due both to a three-fold increase of German fief-holders and the appointment of Danish fief-holders of the low nobility with no connection to the council’.

64. Clouston, History, 242.

65. According to Thomson, New History, 178, the people disapproved of Menzies because they held a ‘conservative and traditional view of how Orkney out to be governed’; ideally, there should be ‘an earl who paid due regard to the local gentry’. See also Imsen, “Country,” 11; Grohse, “Fremmede,” 100.

66. DN, vol. 6, no. 423.

67. Ibid.

68. Opsahl, “Del I,” 158–59.

69. Imsen, “Earldom,” 171–72.

70. The counts of Holstein gained possession of the ducal residence just outside Schleswig by way of lien in the summer of 1340 as part of the treaties of Spandau and Lübeck of May and June 1340, which prepared the homage of King Valdemar IV of Denmark. See DD 3.1, nos. 47–48 with Tägil, Valdemar Atterdag, 29–32.

71. Whether this implied the enfeoffment of the entire house or only the agnatic line is discussed in e.g. Albrectsen, Herredømmet, 61–70.

72. In the common parlance of the time, the term ‘ewig’ did not mean ‘endless’ (in the sense of in aeternam), but rather ‘a long time’, which was usually confined to an actor’s lifetime. See Jahnke, “Anomalie,” 66–67 for a discussion of the term in the context of the electoral charter of Ribe from 1460.

73. Detmar-Chronik von 1101–1395, 596, but also 589–90. (en to besittende unde eren kinderen to ewiger tid). Another account appears in Chronicon Holtzatiae, 95 from about 1448. The anonymous and rather unreliable author also asserts that Gerhard received totum ducatum Jutzie siue Schleswiccensem sibi et heredibis sui in pheudum (…) perpetue possidendum and does not mention any charter. On the feud’s afterlife in later sources, see Albrectsen, Herredømmet, 56–59 and Hedemann, Danmark, 39. On the participation of Norwegian prelates, see Haug, Margrete, 140.

74. This may be explained by the fact that Nikolaus‘ only daughter, Elisabeth, was married to Duke Albrecht IV of Mecklenburg, which could have brought the duchy under the house of Mecklenburg.

75. See e.g. Detmar-Chronik von 1101–1395, 596 n. 2.

76. Hedemann, Danmark, 39.

77. Hedemann, Danmark, 41–42; Hoffmann, Spätmittelalter, 220; Albrectsen, Herredømmet, 56; Linton, Margrete, 78–79, 166; and Erslev, Dronning Margrethe, 130–31, 464 n. 108. Etting, Margrete, 80–81 left this open to debate. There is also no written record of the homage paid to Margret by Gerhard II the following year, which is known only from a letter to the city of Lübeck: DD vol. 4.3, no. 242.

78. See e.g. DN, vol. 11, no. 110 § 28.

79. Even in the Holy Roman Empire, large-scale textualization did not occur until the late-fifteenth century. Prior to that time, charters served primarily to fix respective obligations, cf. Miller, “Lehnsbrief”. It is thus misleading that, as Linton, Margrete, 79 writes, the counts had to be satisfied only with the ‘pompøse, ydre ceremonier’, as this was the key element of the act. On the rituality and charters during enfeoffment, see Spieß, Lehnswesen, 22, 44–46, and “Kommunikationsformen,” 277–83; Krieger, Lehnshoheit, 100–8, 426–40.

80. Named after king Abel of Denmark, under whose sons the hereditary line of the dukes of Schleswig came into being.

81. On the history of the duchy of Schleswig until 1375: Albrectsen, “Abel-Geschlecht”; Poulsen, “Hertugdømmets dannelse”; Albrectsen, Herredømmet; Windmann, Schleswig; and Olrik, “Tidsrummet.”

82. Hoffmann, Spätmittelalter, 202–20; Albrectsen, Herredømmet, 69–70. Another reason could have been contested claims, as several princes claimed the right of succession for themselves, cf. ibid., 62; Jørgensen, “Synspunkter,” 239, 246. It may thus be worthwhile to address the largely neglected role of the duchess dowager (one exception being Jørgensen, “Synspunkter,” 242–44), who counted large parts of the duchy among her dowry.

83. Etting, Margrete, 82–105; Bøgh, Sejren, 167–82; and Erslev, Dronning Margrete, 135–50.

84. Bøgh, Sejren, 166–67, 278; On the relations between Holstein and Mecklenburg in the prior years, see Albrectsen, Herrredømmet, 50–53. Linton, Margrete, 79–80 further refers to the huge economic influence of the Holstein nobility in Sweden.

85. Detmar-Chronik von 1101–1395, 590.

86. This act has also only been handed down through later statements, cf. most recently Hedemann, Danmark, 42–45. On the treaty of Assens, see generally Albrectsen, Herredømmet, 70–91 and, more strongly emphasizing the agency of the counts, Hoffmann, Spätmittelalter, 223–25.

87. Hoffmann, Spätmittelalter, 228–29.

88. On the background of this royal strategy, see Hedemann, Danmark with further references.

89. Olesen, “Erich von Pommern,” 43.

90. The Hanseatic cities, among which Hamburg was a central ally of the Holstein counts, maintained close contacts with Norway via the kontor in Bergen as well as the small ‘factories’ in Oslo and Tønsberg. See e.g. Schreiner, Hanseatene; and Nedkvitne, German Hansa.

91. Magnussen, Burgen, 308, 314–15; and Erslev, Erik af Pommern, 263–67.

92. A similar situation occurred in 1439/40, when the council of the realm sought to placate domestic tensions by granting the duchy of Schleswig to count Adolf VIII of Holstein. See Olesen, Rigsråd, 129.

93. See for an overview, see Hedemann, Danmark, 245–48; Rock, Herrscherwechsel, 159–71; Christensen, Kalmarunionen, 214–28; Olesen, Rigsråd, 24–38; and Moseng et al., Norsk historie, 345–50.

94. ST, vol. 3, no. 464.

95. HR, vol. 2.1, no. 390. This letter, however, has only survived via a copial book from Vadstena, which is why it is unclear whether it was ever dispatched, see Hedemann, Danmark, 236.

96. HR, vol. 2.1, nos. 387, 424; and Kämmereirechnungen, 58–9, though labelled as dietam in Oppenra, which refers to more southerly town of Aabenraa.

97. Adolf’s elder brothers Heinrich IV and Gerhard VII died in 1427 and 1433 respectively, see Hoffmann, Spätmittelalter, 253–6.

98. On the significance of the treaty of 1423, see Hedemann, Danmark, 121–31, 208–22, 244–45.

99. ST, vol. 3, nos. 470–2; HR, vol. 2.1, no. 453. Generally on these events e.g. Hedemann, Danmark, 227–43; Neustadt, Kommunikation, 367–83; Olesen, Rigsråd, 19–31; and Erslev, Erik af Pommern, 340–49.

100. DN, vol. 23, no. 88.

101. NGL, vol. 2.1, no. 74. Thomas Sinclair was a second cousin to William Sinclair and his tutor after the death of Henry (II) in 1420, cf. Grohse, Frontier, 206–8, 241–43.

102. Crawford, Earldom, 355–56; and Grohse, Frontier, 241 n. 62. It became common practice in the fifteenth century to allow representation by lower-ranking vassals, cf. Spieß, “Kommunikationsformen,” 283.

103. The controversy apparently flared up again under Christoffer III, see Crawford, “Genealogy,” 171–72.

104. A deviation is the enfeoffment of count Adolf VIII by Christoffer III in 1440 (Privilegien, no. 2), see Olesen, “Hertug Adolf VIII,” 14–17.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ian Peter Grohse

Ian Peter Grohse is Associate Professor in Medieval History at the Department of Archeology, History, Religious Studies and Theology at UiT Norges arktiske universitet in Tromsø, Norway. He holds a PhD from Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet in Trondheim and a MA from the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. He has previously held research and teaching positions at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster and Høgskulen i Volda. Grohse specializes in Norwegian and North Atlantic history in the Central and Late Middle Ages.

Stefan Magnussen

Stefan Magnussen studied History and Political Science at Kiel University and Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario between 2008 and 2014. From 2014 to 2017 he was a PhD-Student at the interdisciplinary graduate school „Human Development in Landscapes“at Kiel University, where he worked on a research project on castles in southern Jutland, Denmark, completed in 2019. After having worked as a researcher at the Chair for Medieval History at Leipzig University from 2017 to 2021, he currently coordinates the transfer project „Burgenland Waterkant“at the Department of Regional History at Kiel University. His research focuses on questions of rule in the Duchy of Schleswig as well as the Kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, England and Scotland, with a particular focus on the castles and elites