Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-02 > 1172612352

From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Kenneth MacAlpin, Rex Pictorum
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:39:12 -0000
References: <DMwDh.286$><u%xDh.17633$><ermp9d$g26$><><ermrn4$jdb$> <ermshu$hb4$><><><erqhlf$ehs$><><ersk02$j6d$><>

Ah, yes!

Cinaed mac Ailpin, Rex Pictorum...

One of my 34th Great-Grandfathers.

Died: circa 858.

The older form of his name is "Cinaed" rather than Kenneth.

AKA Cinaed mac Ailpin, King of the Scots and Picts.


From: "Stewart Baldwin" <>

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval

Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 12:16 AM

Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: King of Scots?

| On 28 Sep 2001 10:33:59 -0600, wrote:

| > That would depend on what time period you are dealing with.
| > Without having a text or citations to hand, what I think the actual
| > documents would support in a rough time-line would be:

| > 1. Kenneth [Cinaeth] mac Alpin,
| > King of the Scots and Picts ca 800-900

| He is only called that in later works. Contemporary sources refer to
| him (and his immediate successors through 878) as "rex Pictorum" (king
| of the Picts).

| > 2. Malcolm II mac Kenneth,
| > King of Alba ca 1000-1034

| > 3. Malcolm III 'Ceann-mor'
| > mac Duncan,
| > King of Scots [rex Scottorum]* ca 1058---->

| The Irish annals use the title r Alban (king of Alba) [or
| occasionally ardr Alban: overking of Alba] until at least the middle
| of the twelfth century. (I'm not sure about later, but I will check
| the Annals of Ulster when I get the chance.) The Anglo-Saxon
| Chronicle uses the title king (or cyng) of Scotland.

| According to the Handbook of British Chronology, the Great Seal of
| Scotland used the title "rex Scottorum" (king of the Scots) from the
| time of Alexander I to James II, and then "rex Scotorum" (omitting a
| letter) from James III. On the other hand, some Scottish kings used
| "rex Scotie" (king of Scotland) in their charters.

| So, if you consider the Latin of the Great Seal to be the determining
| factor, it would be king of the Scots from ca. 1100 on. However, the
| evidence of the vernacular chronicles (of which the Irish were
| speaking a language very close to the Scottish vernacular of the time,
| and the Anglo-Saxons were speaking Old English) certainly gives a
| clear cut case for "king of Scotland" from ca. 900 to ca. 1100, and
| perhaps even a little later.

| Stewart Baldwin

"The Highlander" <> wrote in message

> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:52:28 +0100, "Michael Kuettner"
> <> wrote:
>>"allan connochie" schrieb:
>>> "Michael Kuettner" wrote:
>>>>> But the European royal families were all interlinked. George I could
>>>>> trace family back through the Scottish line accurately to Kenneth
>>>>> MacAlpin the first Scotti to become King of the Picts in the 9thC. His
>>>>> mother was the daughter of Princess Elizabeth Stuart. Similarly he
>>>>> could trace the English line back through to the 1st millenium AD.
>>>> Could you point me towards some documents from the 9th. century signed
>>>> by MacAlpin ? When he was signing as "king of the Picts" ?
>>>> Sadly, my knowledge of old documents from the British Isles is rather
>>>> poor.
>>> I think you probably know that no such signed document exits. However in
>>> the early Chronicles he was described as a Pictish king and the land he
>>> reigned over was described as Pictavia. For example here is one quote
>>How early are those chronicles ?
>>A few hundred years after his reign, I guess.
>>> "He and his next three successors - in turn his brother Donald, and his
>>> two
>>> sons Constantine and Aed - were all called King of Picts when their
>>> deaths were recorded in the near contemporary Annal of
>>> Ulster....................from Scotland A New History by Michael Lynch"
>>Yabbut, with no contemporary documents or at least coins with "Rex pict"
>>on them, it looks like this claim is bogus.
>>Inventing a geneology was a custom in Europe since the times of the Romans
>>(Vergilius - Aeneas, eg).
>>Especially royal families were into that hobby: a shaky claim to the realm
>>or parts of it usually was one of the reasons.
>>> It was seemingly in the reign of Donald II right at the end of the 9thC
>>> when the Pictish kings started to be called "ri Alban" ie King of Alba.
>>Are there some coin finds with "Rex Pictorum" or "Ri pictorum"
>>or whatever else the title was ?
>>My point being :
>>Without any _contemporary_ evidence of MacAlpin really being the king of
>>the Picts, it's possible that it was a later "tall tale".
>>That was standard practice in Europe at that time (and earlier).
>>Michael Kuettner
> It doesn't seem so. All the evidence is that MacAlpin's mother was a
> Pictish high-born, and as the Picts maintained a matriarchal society,
> they accepted him as their king.

This thread: