text:
Scottish clan

A Scottish clan (from Scottish Gaelic clann, literally 'children', more broadly 'kindred' ) is a kinship group among the Scottish people. Clans give a sense of shared heritage and descent to members, and in modern times have an official structure recognised by the Court of the Lord Lyon, which regulates Scottish heraldry and coats of arms. Most clans have their own tartan patterns, usually dating from the 19th century, which members may incorporate into kilts or other clothing.

The modern image of clans, each with their own tartan and specific land, was promulgated by the Scottish author Sir Walter Scott after influence by others. Historically, tartan designs were associated with Lowland and Highland districts whose weavers tended to produce cloth patterns favoured in those districts. By process of social evolution, it followed that the clans/families prominent in a particular district would wear the tartan of that district, and it was but a short step for that community to become identified by it.

Many clans have their own clan chief; those that do not are known as armigerous clans. Clans generally identify with geographical areas originally controlled by their founders, sometimes with an ancestral castle and clan gatherings, which form a regular part of the social scene. The most notable clan event of recent times was The Gathering 2009 in Edinburgh, which attracted at least 47,000 participants from around the world.

It is a common misconception that every person who bears a clan's name is a lineal descendant of the chiefs. Many clansmen, although not related to the chief, took the chief's surname as their own either to show solidarity or to obtain basic protection or for much needed sustenance. Most of the followers of the clan were tenants, who supplied labour to the clan leaders. Contrary to popular belief, the ordinary clansmen rarely had any blood tie of kinship with the clan chiefs, but they sometimes took the chief's surname as their own when surnames came into common use in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Thus, by the eighteenth century the myth had arisen that the whole clan was descended from one ancestor, perhaps relying on Scottish Gaelic clann originally having a primary sense of 'children' or 'offspring'.

About 30% of Scottish families are attached to a clan.

Clan membership
As noted above, the word clan is derived from the Gaelic word clann. However, the need for proved descent from a common ancestor related to the chiefly house is too restrictive. Clans developed a territory based on the native men who came to accept the authority of the dominant group in the vicinity. A clan also included a large group of loosely related septs – dependent families – all of whom looked to the clan chief as their head and their protector. According to the former Lord Lyon, Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, a clan is a community that is distinguished by heraldry and recognised by the Sovereign. Learney considered clans to be a "noble incorporation" because the arms borne by a clan chief are granted or otherwise recognised by the Lord Lyon as an officer of the Crown, thus conferring royal recognition to the entire clan. Clans with recognised chiefs are therefore considered a noble community under Scots law. A group without a chief recognised by the Sovereign, through the Lord Lyon, has no official standing under Scottish law. Claimants to the title of chief are expected to be recognised by the Lord Lyon as the rightful heir to the undifferenced arms of the ancestor of the clan of which the claimant seeks to be recognized as chief. A chief of a clan is the only person who is entitled to bear the undifferenced arms of the ancestral founder of the clan. The clan is considered to be the chief's heritable estate and the chief's Seal of Arms is the seal of the clan as a "noble corporation". Under Scots law, the chief is recognised as the head of the clan and serves as the lawful representative of the clan community.

Historically, a clan was made up of everyone who lived on the chief's territory, or on territory of those who owed allegiance to the said chief. Through time, with the constant changes of "clan boundaries", migration or regime changes, clans would be made up of large numbers of members who were unrelated and who bore different surnames. Often, those living on a chief's lands would, over time, adopt the clan surname. A chief could add to his clan by adopting other families, and also had the legal right to outlaw anyone from his clan, including members of his own family. Today, anyone who has the chief's surname is automatically considered to be a member of the chief's clan. Also, anyone who offers allegiance to a chief becomes a member of the chief's clan, unless the chief decides not to accept that person's allegiance.

Clan membership goes through the surname. Children who take their father's surname are part of their father's clan and their mother's. However, there have been several cases where a descendant through the maternal line has changed their surname in order to claim the chiefship of a clan, such as the late chief of the Clan MacLeod who was born John Wolridge-Gordon and changed his name to the maiden name of his maternal grandmother in order to claim the chiefship of the MacLeods. Today, clans may have lists of septs. Septs are surnames, families or clans that historically, currently or for whatever reason the chief chooses, are associated with that clan. There is no official list of clan septs, and the decision of what septs a clan has is left up to the clan itself. Confusingly, sept names can be shared by more than one clan, and it may be up to the individual to use his or her family history or genealogy to find the correct clan with which they are associated.

Several clan societies have been granted coats of arms. In such cases, these arms are differenced from the chief's, much like a clan armiger. Former Lord Lyon Thomas Innes of Learney stated that such societies, according to the Law of Arms, are considered an "indeterminate cadet".

Authority of the clans (the dùthchas and the oighreachd)
Scottish clanship contained two complementary but distinct concepts of heritage. These were firstly the collective heritage of the clan, known as their dùthchas, which was their prescriptive right to settle in the territories in which the chiefs and leading gentry of the clan customarily provided protection. This concept was where all clansmen recognised the personal authority of the chiefs and leading gentry as trustees for their clan. The second concept was the wider acceptance of the granting of charters by the Crown and other powerful land owners to the chiefs, chieftains and lairds which defined the estate settled by their clan. This was known as their oighreachd and gave a different emphasis to the clan chief's authority in that it gave the authority to the chiefs and leading gentry as landed proprietors, who owned the land in their own right, rather than just as trustees for the clan. From the beginning of Scottish clanship, the clan warrior elite, who were known as the ‘fine’, strove to be landowners as well as territorial war lords.

Clans, the law and the legal process
The concept of dùthchas mentioned above held precedence in the Middle Ages; however, by the early modern period the concept of oighreachd was favoured. This shift reflected the importance of Scots law in shaping the structure of clanship in that the fine were awarded charters and the continuity of heritable succession was secured. The heir to the chief was known as the tainistear and was usually the direct male heir. However, in some cases the direct heir was set aside for a more politically accomplished or belligerent relative. There were not many disputes over succession after the 16th century and, by the 17th century, the setting aside of the male heir was a rarity. This was governed and restricted by the law of Entail, which prevented estates from being divided up amongst female heirs and therefore also prevented the loss of clan territories.

The main legal process used within the clans to settle criminal and civil disputes was known as arbitration, in which the aggrieved and allegedly offending sides put their cases to a panel that was drawn from the leading gentry and was overseen by the clan chief. There was no appeal against the decision made by the panel, which was usually recorded in the local royal or burgh court.

Social ties
Fosterage and manrent were the most important forms of social bonding in the clans. In the case of fosterage, the chief's children would be brought up by a favored member of the leading clan gentry and in turn their children would be favored by members of the clan.

In the case of manrent, this was a bond contracted by the heads of families looking to the chief for territorial protection, though not living on the estates of the clan elite. These bonds were reinforced by calps, death duties paid to the chief as a mark of personal allegiance by the family when their head died, usually in the form of their best cow or horse. Although calps were banned by Parliament in 1617, manrent continued covertly to pay for protection.

The marriage alliance reinforced links with neighboring clans as well as with families within the territory of the clan. The marriage alliance was also a commercial contract involving the exchange of livestock, money, and land through payments in which the bride was known as the tocher and the groom was known as the dowry.

Clan Gatherings and Affiliations
Clan gatherings are a unique feature of Scottish clan culture, where members of a clan convene to celebrate their shared heritage, participate in Highland Games, and discuss clan business. These events serve as a focal point for clan members and help in preserving historical and cultural landmarks, as well as the natural environment of Scotland. Clan affiliations aren't solely based on ancestry; people with no Scottish lineage can also be affiliated with a clan, commonly known as "Clan Friends."

Clan management
Rents from those living within the clan estate were collected by the tacksmen. These lesser gentry acted as estate managers, allocating the runrig strips of land, lending seed-corn and tools and arranging the droving of cattle to the Lowlands for sale, taking a minor share of the payments made to the clan nobility, the fine. They had the important military role of mobilizing the Clan Host, both when required for warfare and more commonly as a large turnout of followers for weddings and funerals, and traditionally, in August, for hunts which included sports for the followers, the predecessors of the modern Highland games.

Clan disputes and disorder
Where the oighreachd (land owned by the clan elite or fine) did not match the common heritage of the dùthchas (the collective territory of the clan) this led to territorial disputes and warfare. The fine resented their clansmen paying rent to other landlords. Some clans used disputes to expand their territories. Most notably, the Clan Campbell and the Clan Mackenzie were prepared to play off territorial disputes within and among clans to expand their own land and influence. Feuding on the western seaboard was conducted with such intensity that the Clan MacLeod and the Clan MacDonald on the Isle of Skye were reputedly reduced to eating dogs and cats in the 1590s.

Feuding was further compounded by the involvement of Scottish clans in the wars between the Irish Gaels and the English Tudor monarchy in the 16th century. Within these clans, there evolved a military caste of members of the lesser gentry who were purely warriors and not managers, and who migrated seasonally to Ireland to fight as mercenaries.

There was heavy feuding between the clans during the civil wars of the 1640s; however, by this time, the chiefs and leading gentry preferred increasingly to settle local disputes by recourse to the law. After the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, the incidents of feuding between clans declined considerably. The last "clan" feud that led to a battle and which was not part of a civil war was the Battle of Mulroy, which took place on 4 August 1688.

Cattle raiding, known as "reiving", had been normal practice prior to the 17th century. It was also known as creach, where young men took livestock from neighbouring clans. By the 17th century, this had declined and most reiving was known as sprèidh, where smaller numbers of men raided the adjoining Lowlands and the livestock taken usually being recoverable on payment of tascal (information money) and guarantee of no prosecution. Some clans, such as the Clan MacFarlane and the Clan Farquharson, offered the Lowlanders protection against such raids, on terms not dissimilar to blackmail.

Lowland clans
An act of the Scottish Parliament of 1597 talks of the "Chiftanis and chieffis of all clannis ... duelland in the hielands or bordouris". It has been argued that this vague phrase describes Borders families as clans. The act goes on to list the various Lowland families, including the Maxwells, Johnstones, Carruthers, Turnbulls, and other famous Border Reivers' names. Further, Sir George MacKenzie of Rosehaugh, the Lord Advocate (Attorney General) writing in 1680, said: "By the term 'chief' we call the representative of the family from the word chef or head and in the Irish [Gaelic] with us the chief of the family is called the head of the clan". In summarizing this material, Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw Bt wrote: "So it can be seen that all along the words chief or head and clan or family are interchangeable. It is therefore quite correct to talk of the MacDonald family or the Stirling clan." The idea that Highlanders should be listed as clans while the Lowlanders should be termed as families was merely a 19th-century convention. Although Gaelic has been supplanted by English in the Scottish Lowlands for nearly six hundred years, it is acceptable to refer to Lowland families, such as the Douglases as "clans".

The Lowland Clan MacDuff are described specifically as a "clan" in legislation of the Scottish Parliament in 1384.

Origins

Many clans have often claimed mythological founders that reinforced their status and gave a romantic and glorified notion of their origins. Most powerful clans gave themselves origins based on Irish mythology. For example, there have been claims that the Clan Donald were descended from either Conn, a second-century king of Ulster, or Cuchulainn, the legendary hero of Ulster. Whilst their political enemies the Clan Campbell have claimed as their progenitor Diarmaid the Boar, who was rooted in the Fingalian or Fenian Cycle.

In contrast, the Clans Grant, Mackinnon and Gregor claimed ancestry from the Siol Alpin family, who descend from Alpin, father of Kenneth MacAlpin, who united the Scottish kingdom in 843. Only one confederation of clans, which included the Clan Sweeney, Clan Lamont, Clan MacLea, Clan MacLachlan and Clan MacNeill, can trace their ancestry back to the fifth century Niall of the Nine Hostages, High King of Ireland.

However, in reality, the progenitors of clans can rarely be authenticated further back than the 11th century, and a continuity of lineage in most cases cannot be found until the 13th or 14th centuries.

The emergence of clans had more to do with political turmoil than ethnicity. The Scottish Crown's conquest of Argyll and the Outer Hebrides from the Norsemen in the 13th century, which followed on from the pacification of the Mormaer of Moray and the northern rebellions of the 12th and 13th centuries, created the opportunity for war lords to impose their dominance over local families who accepted their protection. These warrior chiefs can largely be categorized as Celtic; however, their origins range from Gaelic to Norse-Gaelic and British. By the 14th century, there had been further influx of kindreds whose ethnicity ranged from Norman or Anglo-Norman and Flemish, such as the Clan Cameron, Clan Fraser, Clan Menzies, Clan Chisholm and Clan Grant.

During the Wars of Scottish Independence, feudal tenures were introduced by Robert the Bruce, to harness and control the prowess of clans by the award of charters for land in order to gain support in the national cause against the English. For example, the Clan MacDonald were elevated above the Clan MacDougall, two clans who shared a common descent from a great Norse-Gaelic warlord named Somerled of the 12th century. Clanship was thus not only a strong tie of local kinship but also of feudalism to the Scottish Crown. It is this feudal component, reinforced by Scots law, that separates Scottish clanship from the tribalism that was found in Ancient Europe or the one that is still found in the Middle East and among aboriginal groups in Australasia, Africa, and the Americas.

Civil wars and Jacobitism
During the 1638 to 1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, all sides were 'Royalist', in the sense of a shared belief monarchy was divinely inspired. The choice of whether to support Charles I, or the Covenanter government, was largely driven by disputes within the Scottish elite. In 1639, Covenanter politician Argyll, head of Clan Campbell, was given a commission of 'fire and sword', which he used to seize MacDonald territories in Lochaber, and those held by Clan Ogilvy in Angus. As a result, both clans supported Montrose's Royalist campaign of 1644–1645, in hopes of regaining them.

When Charles II regained the throne in 1660, the Rescissory Act 1661 restored bishops to the Church of Scotland. This was supported by many chiefs since it suited the hierarchical clan structure and encouraged obedience to authority. Both Charles and his brother James VII used Highland levies, known as the "Highland Host", to control Campbell-dominated areas in the South-West and suppress the 1685 Argyll's Rising. By 1680, it is estimated there were fewer than 16,000 Catholics in Scotland, confined to parts of the aristocracy and Gaelic-speaking clans in the Highlands and Islands.

When James was deposed in the November 1688 Glorious Revolution, choice of sides was largely opportunistic. The Presbyterian Macleans backed the Jacobites to regain territories in Mull lost to the Campbells in the 1670s; the Catholic Keppoch MacDonalds tried to sack the pro-Jacobite town of Inverness, and were bought off only after Dundee intervened.

Highland involvement in the Jacobite risings was the result of their remoteness, and the feudal clan system which required tenants to provide military service. Historian Frank McLynn identifies seven primary drivers in Jacobitism, support for the Stuarts being the least important; a large percentage of Jacobite support in 1745 Rising came from Lowlanders who opposed the 1707 Union, and members of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

In 1745, the majority of clan leaders advised Prince Charles to return to France, including MacDonald of Sleat and Norman MacLeod. By arriving without French military support, they felt Charles failed to keep his commitments, while it is also suggested Sleat and MacLeod were vulnerable to government sanctions due to their involvement in illegally selling tenants into indentured servitude.

Enough were persuaded, but the choice was rarely simple; Donald Cameron of Lochiel committed himself only after he was provided "security for the full value of his estate should the rising prove abortive," while MacLeod and Sleat helped Charles escape after Culloden.

Collapse of the clan system
In 1493, James IV confiscated the Lordship of the Isles from the MacDonalds. This destabilised the region, while links between the Scottish MacDonalds and Irish MacDonnells meant unrest in one country often spilled into the other. James VI took various measures to deal with the resulting instability, including the 1587 'Slaughter under trust' law, later used in the 1692 Glencoe Massacre. To prevent endemic feuding, it required disputes to be settled by the Crown, specifically murder committed in 'cold-blood', once articles of surrender had been agreed, or hospitality accepted. Its first recorded use was in 1588, when Lachlan Maclean was prosecuted for the murder of his new stepfather, John MacDonald, and 17 other members of the MacDonald wedding party.

Other measures had limited impact; imposing financial sureties on landowners for the good behaviour of their tenants often failed, as many were not regarded as the clan chief. The 1603 Union of the Crowns coincided with the end of the Anglo-Irish Nine Years' War, followed by land confiscations in 1608. Previously the most Gaelic part of Ireland, the Plantation of Ulster tried to ensure stability in Western Scotland by importing Scots and English Protestants. This process was often supported by the original owners; in 1607 Sir Randall MacDonnell settled 300 Presbyterian Scots families on his land in Antrim. This ended the Irish practice of using Highland gallowglass, or mercenaries.

The 1609 Statutes of Iona imposed a range of measures on clan chiefs, designed to integrate them into the Scottish landed classes. Whilst there is debate over their practical effect, they were an influential force on clan elites in the long term. The Statutes obliged clan chiefs to reside in Edinburgh for a large part of the year, and have their heirs educated in the English-speaking Lowlands. Lengthy periods in Edinburgh were costly. Since the Highlands were a largely non-cash economy, this meant they shifted towards commercial exploitation of their lands, rather than managing them as part of a social system. The costs of living away from their clan lands contributed to the chronic indebtedness that was increasingly common for Highland landowners, eventually leading to the sale of many of the great Highland estates in the late 18th and early 19th century.

During the 18th century, in an effort to increase the income from their estates, clan chiefs started to restrict the ability of tacksmen to sublet. This meant more of the rent paid by those actually farming the land went to the landowner. The result, though, was the removal of this layer of clan society. In a process that accelerated from the 1770s onward, by the early 19th century the tacksman had become a rare component of society. Historian T. M. Devine describes "the displacement of this class as one of the clearest demonstrations of the death of the old Gaelic society." Many tacksmen, as well as the wealthier farmers (who were tired of repeated rent increases) chose to emigrate. This could be taken as resistance to the changes in the Highland agricultural economy, as the introduction of agricultural improvement gave rise to the Highland clearances. The loss of this middle tier of Highland society represented not only a flight of capital from Gaeldom, but also a loss of entrepreneurial energy. The first major step in the clearances was the decision of the Dukes of Argyll to put tacks (or leases) of farms and townships up for auction. This began with Campbell property in Kintyre in the 1710s and spread after 1737 to all their holdings. This action as a commercial landlord, letting land to the highest bidder, was a clear breach of the principle of dùthchas.

The Jacobite rising of 1745 used to be described as the pivotal event in the demise in clanship. There is no doubt that the aftermath of the uprising saw savage punitive expeditions against clans that had supported the Jacobites, and legislative attempts to demolish clan culture. However, the emphasis of historians now is on the conversion of chiefs into landlords in a slow transition over a long period. The successive Jacobite rebellions, in the view of T.M. Devine, simply paused the process of change whilst the military aspects of clans regained temporary importance; the apparent surge in social change after the '45 was merely a process of catching up with the financial pressures that gave rise to landlordism. The various pieces of legislation that followed Culloden included the Heritable Jurisdictions Act which extinguished the right of chiefs to hold courts and transferred this role to the judiciary. The traditional loyalties of clansmen were probably unaffected by this. There is also doubt about any real effect from the banning of Highland dress (which was repealed in 1782 anyway).

The Highland Clearances saw further actions by clan chiefs to raise more money from their lands. In the first phase of clearance, when agricultural improvement was introduced, many of the peasant farmers were evicted and resettled in newly created crofting communities, usually in coastal areas. The small size of the crofts were intended to force the tenants to work in other industries, such as fishing or the kelp industry. With a shortage of work, the numbers of Highlanders who became seasonal migrants to the Lowlands increased. This gave an advantage in speaking English, as the "language of work". It was found that when the Gaelic Schools Society started teaching basic literacy in Gaelic in the early decades of the 19th century, there was an increase in literacy in English. This paradox may be explained by the annual report of the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge (SSPCK) in 1829, which stated: "so ignorant are the parents that it is difficult to convince them that it can be any benefit to their children to learn Gaelic, though they are all anxious ... to have them taught English".

The second phase of the Highland clearances affected overpopulated crofting communities which were no longer able to support themselves due to famine and/or collapse of the industries on which they relied. "Assisted passages" were provided to destitute tenants by landlords who found this cheaper than continued cycles of famine relief to those in substantial rent arrears. This applied particularly to the Western Highlands and the Hebrides. Many Highland estates were no longer owned by clan chiefs, but landlords of both the new and old type encouraged the emigration of destitute tenants to Canada and, later, to Australia. The clearances were followed by a period of even greater emigration, which continued (with a brief lull for the First World War) up to the start of the Great Depression.

Romantic memory
Most of the anti-clan legislation was repealed by the end of the eighteenth century as the Jacobite threat subsided, with the Dress Act restricting kilt wearing being repealed in 1782. There was soon a process of the rehabilitation of highland culture. By the nineteenth century, tartan had largely been abandoned by the ordinary people of the region, although preserved in the Highland regiments in the British army, which poor highlanders joined in large numbers until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. The international craze for tartan, and for idealising a romanticised Highlands, was set off by the Ossian cycle published by James Macpherson (1736–96). Macpherson claimed to have found poetry written by the ancient bard Ossian, and published translations that acquired international popularity. Highland aristocrats set up Highland Societies in Edinburgh (1784) and other centres including London (1788). The image of the romantic highlands was further popularised by the works of Walter Scott. His "staging" of the royal visit of King George IV to Scotland in 1822 and the King's wearing of tartan, resulted in a massive upsurge in demand for kilts and tartans that could not be met by the Scottish linen industry. The designation of individual clan tartans was largely defined in this period and they became a major symbol of Scottish identity. This "Highlandism", by which all of Scotland was identified with the culture of the Highlands, was cemented by Queen Victoria's interest in the country, her adoption of Balmoral Castle as a major royal retreat from and her interest in "tartenry".

Clan symbols
The revival of interest, and demand for clan ancestry, has led to the production of lists and maps covering the whole of Scotland giving clan names and showing territories, sometimes with the appropriate tartans. While some lists and clan maps confine their area to the Highlands, others also show Lowland clans or families. Territorial areas and allegiances changed over time, and there are also differing decisions on which (smaller) clans and families should be omitted (some alternative online sources are listed in the External links section below).

This list of clans contains clans registered with the Lord Lyon Court. The Lord Lyon Court defines a clan or family as a legally recognised group, but does not differentiate between families and clans as it recognises both terms as being interchangeable. Clans or families thought to have had a chief in the past but not currently recognised by the Lord Lyon are listed at armigerous clans.

Tartan

Tartans were traditionally associated with the Highland Clans and following the end of the Dress Act of 1746 banning tartans from being worn by men and boys, "district then clan tartans" have been an important part of Scottish clans. Almost all Scottish clans have more than one tartan attributed to their surname. Although there are no rules on who can or cannot wear a particular tartan, and it is possible for anyone to create a tartan and name it almost any name they wish, the only person with the authority to make a clan's tartan "official" is the chief. In some cases, following such recognition from the clan chief, the clan tartan is recorded and registered by the Lord Lyon. Once approved by the Lord Lyon, after recommendation by the Advisory Committee on Tartan, the clan tartan is then recorded in the Lyon Court Books. In at least one instance a clan tartan appears in the heraldry of a clan chief and the Lord Lyon considers it to be the "proper" tartan of the clan.

Originally, there appears to have been no association of tartans with specific clans; instead, highland tartans were produced to various designs by local weavers and any identification was purely regional, but the idea of a clan-specific tartan gained currency in the late 18th century and in 1815 the Highland Society of London began the naming of clan-specific tartans. Many clan tartans derive from a 19th-century hoax known as the Vestiarium Scoticum. The Vestiarium was composed by the "Sobieski Stuarts", who passed it off as a reproduction of an ancient manuscript of clan tartans. It has since been proven a forgery, but despite this, the designs are still highly regarded and they continue to serve their purpose to identify the clan in question.

Crest badge

A sign of allegiance to the clan chief is the wearing of a crest badge. The crest badge suitable for a clansman or clanswoman consists of the chief's heraldic crest encircled with a strap and buckle and which contains the chief's heraldic motto or slogan. Although it is common to speak of "clan crests", there is no such thing. In Scotland (and indeed all of UK) only individuals, clans, possess a heraldic coat of arms. Even though any clansmen and clanswomen may purchase crest badges and wear them to show their allegiance to his or her clan, the heraldic crest and motto always belong to the chief alone. In principle, these badges should only be used with the permission of the clan chief; and the Lyon Court has intervened in cases where permission has been withheld. Scottish crest badges, much like clan-specific tartans, do not have a long history, and owe much to Victorian era romanticism, having only been worn on the bonnet since the 19th century. The concept of a clan badge or form of identification may have some validity, as it is commonly stated that the original markers were merely specific plants worn in bonnets or hung from a pole or spear.

Clan badge

Clan badges are another means of showing one's allegiance to a Scottish clan. These badges, sometimes called plant badges, consist of a sprig of a particular plant. They are usually worn in a bonnet behind the Scottish crest badge; they can also be attached at the shoulder of a lady's tartan sash, or be tied to a pole and used as a standard. Clans which are connected historically, or that occupied lands in the same general area, may share the same clan badge. According to popular lore, clan badges were used by Scottish clans as a form of identification in battle. However, the badges attributed to clans today can be completely unsuitable for even modern clan gatherings. Clan badges are commonly referred to as the original clan symbol. However, Thomas Innes of Learney claimed the heraldic flags of clan chiefs would have been the earliest means of identifying Scottish clans in battle or at large gatherings.

title: Scottish clan


text:
House of Stuart

The House of Stuart, originally spelled Stewart, was a royal house of Scotland, England, Ireland and later Great Britain. The family name comes from the office of High Steward of Scotland, which had been held by the family progenitor Walter fitz Alan (c. 1150). The name Stewart and variations had become established as a family name by the time of his grandson Walter Stewart. The first monarch of the Stewart line was Robert II, whose male-line descendants were kings and queens in Scotland from 1371, and of England, Ireland and Great Britain from 1603, until 1714. Mary, Queen of Scots (r. 1542–1567), was brought up in France where she adopted the French spelling of the name Stuart.

In 1503, James IV married Margaret Tudor, thus linking the reigning royal houses of Scotland and England. Margaret's niece, Elizabeth I of England died without issue in 1603, and James IV's and Margaret's great-grandson James VI of Scotland acceded to the thrones of England and Ireland as James I in the Union of the Crowns. The Stuarts were monarchs of Britain and Ireland and its growing empire until the death of Queen Anne in 1714, except for the period of the Commonwealth between 1649 and 1660.

In total, nine Stewart/Stuart monarchs ruled Scotland alone from 1371 until 1603, the last of whom was James VI, before his accession in England. Two Stuart queens ruled the isles following the Glorious Revolution in 1688: Mary II and Anne. Both were the Protestant daughters of James VII and II by his first wife Anne Hyde and the great-grandchildren of James VI and I. Their father had converted to Catholicism and his new wife gave birth to a son in 1688, who was to be brought up as a Roman Catholic; so James was deposed by Parliament in 1689, in favour of his daughters. However, neither daughter had any children who survived to adulthood, so the crown passed to the House of Hanover on the death of Queen Anne in 1714 under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Act of Security 1704. The House of Hanover had become linked to the House of Stuart through the line of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia.

After the loss of the throne, the descendants of James VII and II continued for several generations to attempt to reclaim the Scottish and English (and later British) throne as the rightful heirs, their supporters being known as Jacobites. Since the early 19th century, when the James II direct line failed, there have been no active claimants from the Stuart family. The current Jacobite heir to the claims of the historical Stuart monarchs is a distant cousin Franz, Duke of Bavaria, of the House of Wittelsbach. The senior living member of the royal Stewart family, descended in a legitimate male line from Robert II of Scotland, is Andrew Richard Charles Stuart, 9th Earl Castle Stewart.

Background
The ancestral origins of the Stuart family are obscure—their probable ancestry is traced back to Alan FitzFlaad, a Breton who went to England not long after the Norman conquest. Alan had been the hereditary steward of the Bishop of Dol in the Duchy of Brittany; Alan had a good relationship with Henry I of England who awarded him with lands in Shropshire. The FitzAlan family quickly established themselves as a prominent Anglo-Norman noble house, with some of its members serving as High Sheriff of Shropshire. It was the son of Alan named Walter FitzAlan who became the first hereditary High Steward of Scotland, while his brother William's family went on to become Earls of Arundel.

When the civil war in the Kingdom of England, known as The Anarchy, broke out between the legitimist claimant Matilda, Lady of the English, and her cousin who had usurped her, King Stephen, Walter had sided with Matilda. Another supporter of Matilda was her uncle David I of Scotland from the House of Dunkeld. After Matilda was pushed out of England into the County of Anjou, essentially failing in her legitimist attempt for the throne, many of her supporters in England fled also. It was then that Walter followed David up to the Kingdom of Scotland, where he was granted lands in Renfrewshire and the title for life of Lord High Steward. The next monarch of Scotland, Malcolm IV, made the High Steward title a hereditary arrangement. While High Stewards, the family were based at Dundonald, South Ayrshire, between the 12th and 13th centuries.

History
The sixth High Steward of Scotland, Walter Stewart (1293–1326), married Marjorie, daughter of Robert the Bruce, and also played an important part in the Battle of Bannockburn gaining further favour. Their son Robert was heir to the House of Bruce, the Lordship of Cunningham and the Bruce lands of Bourtreehill; he eventually inherited the Scottish throne when his uncle David II died childless in 1371.

In 1503, James IV attempted to secure peace with England by marrying King Henry VII's daughter, Margaret Tudor. The birth of their son, later James V, brought the House of Stewart into the line of descent of the House of Tudor, and the English throne. Margaret Tudor later married Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus, and their daughter, Margaret Douglas, was the mother of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. In 1565, Darnley married his half-cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, the daughter of James V. Darnley's father was Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox, a member of the Stewart of Darnley branch of the House. Lennox was a descendant of Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward of Scotland, also descended from James II, being Mary's heir presumptive. Thus Darnley was also related to Mary on his father's side and because of this connection, Mary's heirs remained part of the House of Stuart. Following John Stewart of Darnley's ennoblement for his part at the Battle of Baugé in 1421 and the grant of lands to him at Aubigny and Concressault, the Darnley Stewarts' surname was gallicised to Stuart.

Both Mary, Queen of Scots, and Lord Darnley had strong claims on the English throne through their mutual grandmother Margaret Tudor. This eventually led to the accession of the couple's only child James as King of Scotland, England, and Ireland in 1603. However, this was a personal union, as the three Kingdoms shared a monarch, but had separate governments, churches, and institutions. Indeed, the personal union did not prevent an armed conflict, known as the Bishops' Wars, breaking out between England and Scotland in 1639. This was to become part of the cycle of political and military conflict that marked the reign of Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland, culminating in a series of conflicts known as the War of the Three Kingdoms. The trial and execution of Charles I by the English Parliament in 1649 began 11 years of republican government known as the English Interregnum. Scotland initially recognised the late King's son, also called Charles, as their monarch, before being subjugated and forced to enter Cromwell's Commonwealth by General Monck's occupying army. During this period, the principal members of the House of Stuart lived in exile in mainland Europe. The younger Charles returned to Britain to assume his three thrones in 1660 as "Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland" - with the support of General Monck - but dated his reign from his father's death eleven years before.

In feudal and dynastic terms, the Scottish reliance on French support was revived during the reign of Charles II, whose own mother was French. His sister Henrietta married into the French royal family. Charles II left no legitimate children, but his numerous illegitimate descendants included the Dukes of Buccleuch, the Dukes of Grafton, the Dukes of Saint Albans and the Dukes of Richmond.

Present-day
The Royal House of Stuart became extinct with the death of Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart, brother of Charles Edward Stuart, in 1807. Duke Francis of Bavaria is the current senior heir.

Monarchs of England, Scotland, and Ireland
From the Acts of Union 1707, which came into effect on 1 May 1707, the last Stuart monarch, Anne, became Queen of Great Britain and Ireland.

Family tree
Round provided a family tree to embody his essential findings, which is adapted below.

Origin

 * Alan fitz Flaad
 * William FitzAlan, Lord of Oswestry
 * William Fitz Alan, 1st Lord of Oswestry and Clun
 * William Fitz Alan, 2nd Lord of Oswestry and Clun
 * John Fitzalan, Lord of Oswestry
 * John FitzAlan, 6th Earl of Arundel
 * House of FitzAlan
 * Jordan fitz Alan, Seneschal of Dol
 * Walter fitz Alan, 1st High Steward of Scotland
 * Alan fitz Walter, 2nd High Steward of Scotland
 * Walter Stewart, 3rd High Steward of Scotland
 * Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward of Scotland
 * James Stewart, 5th High Steward of Scotland
 * Walter Stewart, 6th High Steward of Scotland
 * Robert II of Scotland
 * John Stewart of Ralston
 * John Stewart of Bonkyll
 * Alexander Stewart of Bonkyll
 * Earls of Angus (extinct 1361)
 * Alan Stewart of Dreghorn
 * Stewart of Darnley
 * Earls of Lennox
 * Stewart of Garlies
 * Earls of Galloway
 * Stewart of Burray
 * Stewart of Physgill (Phisgal)
 * Stewart of Minto
 * Lords Blantyre
 * Stewart of Tongrie
 * Stewart of Barclye
 * Walter Stewart of Garlies and Dalswinton
 * John Stewart of Dalswinton
 * Walter Stewart of Garlies and Dalswinton
 * James Stewart of Pearston
 * Stewart of Pearston
 * Stewart of Lorn
 * Clan Stewart of Appin
 * Earls of Atholl
 * Earls of Buchan
 * Earls of Traquair (illegitimate)
 * John Stewart of Daldon
 * Robert Stewart of Daldowie
 * Walter Bailloch
 * Earls of Menteith
 * Robert Stewart, Lord of Darnley
 * Simon fitz Alan
 * Clan Boyd

House of Stewart

 * Robert II of Scotland
 * Robert III of Scotland
 * David Stewart, Duke of Rothesay
 * James I of Scotland
 * Alexander Stewart, Duke of Rothesay
 * James II of Scotland
 * James III of Scotland
 * James IV of Scotland
 * James, Duke of Rothesay
 * Arthur Stewart, Duke of Rothesay
 * James V of Scotland
 * James, Duke of Rothesay
 * Arthur, Duke of Albany
 * Mary, Queen of Scots
 * Alexander Stewart, Duke of Ross
 * James Stewart, Duke of Ross
 * John Stewart, Earl of Mar
 * Alexander Stewart, Duke of Albany
 * Alexander Stewart, Bishop of Moray
 * John Stewart, Duke of Albany
 * David Stewart, Earl of Moray
 * John Stewart, Earl of Mar
 * Sir John Stewart (illegitimate)
 * Stewart of Ballechin
 * Walter, Lord of Fife
 * Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany
 * Murdoch Stewart, Duke of Albany
 * Robert Stewart
 * Walter Stewart
 * Lords Avandale
 * Lords Stuart of Ochiltree
 * Barons Castle Stewart
 * Earls Castle Stewart
 * Alasdair Stewart
 * James Mor Stewart
 * James "Beag" Stewart (illegitimate)
 * Stewart of Balquhidder
 * Stewart of Ardvorlich
 * Stewart of Glen Buckie
 * Stewart of Gartnafuaran
 * Stewart of Annat
 * John Stewart, Earl of Buchan
 * Robert Stewart, Earl of Ross
 * Alexander Stewart, Earl of Buchan, the Wolf of Badenoch
 * Illegitimate sons
 * Stewart of Atholl
 * David Stewart, Earl of Strathearn
 * Walter Stewart, Earl of Atholl
 * Alan Stewart, 4th Earl of Caithness
 * David Stewart, Master of Atholl
 * John Stewart, Sheriff of Bute (illegitimate)
 * Clan Stuart of Bute

House of Stuart
Descended from the Stewarts of Darnley (Stewarts of Lennox)

 * Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, husband of Mary, Queen of Scots
 * James VI and I
 * Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales
 * Charles I of England
 * Charles II of England
 * James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth (illegitimate)
 * Dukes of Buccleuch
 * Charles FitzCharles, 1st Earl of Plymouth (illegitimate)
 * Charles FitzRoy, 2nd Duke of Cleveland (illegitimate)
 * Dukes of Cleveland (extinct 1774)
 * Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Grafton (illegitimate)
 * Dukes of Grafton
 * George FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Northumberland (illegitimate)
 * Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St Albans (illegitimate)
 * Dukes of St Albans
 * Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond (illegitimate)
 * Dukes of Richmond, Lennox and Gordon
 * James II of England
 * Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge
 * James Stuart, Duke of Cambridge
 * Charles Stuart, Duke of Kendal
 * Edgar, Duke of Cambridge
 * Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge
 * James Francis Edward Stuart
 * Charles Edward Stuart
 * Henry Benedict Stuart
 * James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick (illegitimate)
 * House of FitzJames
 * Dukes of Berwick
 * Dukes of Fitz-James (extinct 1967)
 * Henry FitzJames (illegitimate)
 * Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester
 * Robert Stuart, Duke of Kintyre and Lorne

Complete male-line family tree
Male, male-line, legitimate, non-morganatic members of the house who either lived to adulthood, or who held a title as a child, are included. Heads of the house are in bold.

 * Alan fitz Flaad, c. 1060-1120
 * William FitzAlan, Lord of Oswestry, 1085-1160
 * William FitzAlan, 1st Lord of Oswestry and Clun, d. 1210
 * William FitzAlan, 2nd Lord of Oswestry and Clun, d. 1215
 * John Fitzalan, 3rd Lord of Clun and Oswestry, 1200-1240
 * John Fitzalan II, Lord of Oswestry, Clun, and Arundel, 1223-1267
 * John FitzAlan III, Lord and Baron of Clun and Oswestry, 1246-1272
 * Richard Fitzalan, 1st Earl of Arundel, 1267-1302
 * Edmund Fitzalan, 2nd Earl of Arundel, 1285-1326
 * Richard Fitzalan, 3rd Earl of Arundel, 8th Earl of Surrey, 1313-1376
 * Richard Fitzalan, 4th Earl of Arundel, 9th Earl of Surrey, 1346-1397
 * Thomas Fitzalan, 5th Earl of Arundel, 10th Earl of Surrey, 1381-1415
 * William Fitzalan
 * John FitzAlan, 1st Baron Arundel, 1348-1379
 * John FitzAlan, 2nd Baron Arundel, 1364-1390
 * John Fitzalan, 6th Earl of Arundel, 3rd Baron Maltravers, 1385-1421
 * John Fitzalan, 7th Earl of Arundel, 4th Baron Maltravers, 1408-1435
 * Humphrey Fitzalan, 8th Earl of Arundel, 1429-1438
 * William Fitzalan, 9th Earl of Arundel, 6th Baron Maltravers, 1417-1487
 * Thomas Fitzalan, 10th Earl of Arundel, 7th Baron Maltravers, 1450-1524
 * William Fitzalan, 11th Earl of Arundel, 8th Baron Maltravers, 1476-1544
 * Henry Fitzalan, 12th Earl of Arundel, 1512-1580
 * Henry Fitzalan, 1538–1556
 * Edward Fitzalan
 * William Fitzalan
 * George Fitzalan
 * John Fitzalan
 * Thomas FitzAlan, d. 1430
 * Edward (or Edmund) Fitzalan
 * Richard FitzAlan, 1366–1419
 * William Arundel, c. 1369-1400
 * Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1353-1414
 * Edmund, d. 1349
 * Michael
 * John, a priest
 * Walter fitz Alan, 1090-1177
 * Alan fitz Walter, 2nd High Steward of Scotland, 1120-1204
 * David fitz Alan
 * Walter Stewart, 3rd High Steward of Scotland, d. 1246
 * Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward of Scotland, 1210-1282
 * James Stewart, 5th High Steward of Scotland, 1260-1309
 * Walter Stewart, 6th High Steward of Scotland, 1296-1327
 * Robert II of Scotland, 1316-1390
 * Robert III of Scotland, 1337-1406
 * David Stewart, Duke of Rothesay, 1376-1402
 * James I of Scotland, 1394-1437
 * James II of Scotland, 1430-1460
 * James III of Scotland, 1452-1488
 * James IV of Scotland, 1473-1513
 * James V of Scotland, 1512-1542
 * James Stewart, Duke of Ross, 1476-1504
 * John Stewart, Earl of Mar, 1479-1503
 * Alexander Stewart, Duke of Albany, 1454-1485
 * John Stewart, Duke of Albany, 1482-1536
 * John Stewart, Earl of Mar, 1456-1479
 * Walter Stewart, Lord of Fife, 1338-1362
 * Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany, 1340-1420
 * Murdoch Stewart, Duke of Albany, 1362-1425
 * Robert Stewart, d. 1421
 * Walter Stewart, c. 1392-1425
 * Andrew Stewart, 1st Lord Avandale, 1420-1488
 * Walter Stewart
 * Alexander Stewart
 * Andrew Stewart, 1st Lord Avondale, d. 1513
 * Andrew Stewart, 2nd Lord Avondale, d. 1549
 * Andrew Stewart, 2nd Lord Ochiltree, 1521-1591
 * Andrew Stewart, Master of Ochiltree, d. 1578
 * Andrew Stuart, 1st Baron Castle Stuart, 3rd Lord Ochiltree, 1560-1629
 * Andrew Stewart, 2nd Baron Castle Stewart, 1590-1639
 * Andrew Stewart, 3rd Baron Castle Stewart, d. 1650
 * Josias Stewart, 4th Baron Castle Stewart, d. 1662
 * John Stewart, 5th Baron Castle Stewart, d. 1685
 * Robert Stewart, of Irry, 1598-1662
 * Robert Stewart, de jure 6th Baron Castle Stewart, d. 1686
 * Andrew Stewart, de jure 7th Baron Castle Stewart, 1672-1715
 * Robert Stewart, de jure 8th Baron Castle Stewart, 1700-1742
 * Andrew Thomas Stewart, 9th Baron Castle Stewart, 1st Earl Castle Stewart, 1725–1809
 * Robert Stewart, 2nd Earl Castle Stewart, 1784–1854
 * Edward Stewart, 3rd Earl Castle Stewart, 1807-1857
 * Charles Andrew Knox Stewart, 4th Earl Castle Stewart, 1810-1874
 * Henry James Stuart-Richardson, 5th Earl Castle Stewart, 1837-1914
 * Rev. Hon. Andrew Godfrey Stewart, 1812–1889
 * Andrew Stuart, 6th Earl Castle Stewart, 1841–1921
 * Andrew John Stuart, Viscount Stuart, 1880-1915
 * Robert Sheffield Stuart, 1886-1914
 * Arthur Stuart, 7th Earl Castle Stewart, 1889–1961
 * David Andrew Noel Stuart, Viscount Stuart, 1921-1942
 * Robert John Ochiltree Stuart, Viscount Stuart, 1923−1944
 * Patrick Stuart, 8th Earl Castle Stewart, 1928–2023
 * Andrew Richard Charles, 9th Earl Castle Stewart, b. 1953, the senior living Stewart
 * Hon. Simon Walter Erskine Stuart, 1930–2002
 * Thomas Harry Erskine Stuart, b. 1974)
 * Corin Edward Leveson Stuart, b. 1975
 * Tristram James Avondale Stuart, b. 1977
 * Charles Patrick Stuart, 1892-1928
 * Hon. Andrew Godfrey Stuart, 1790–1872
 * Andrew Thomas Stuart, 1814–1894
 * Robert Walter Stuart, 1845–1918
 * Walter Burleigh Stuart, 1875–1912
 * Burleigh Athol Stuart, 1904–1982
 * Ernest Martin Stuart, b. 1935
 * Conway Athol Stuart, b. 1968
 * Burleigh William Henry Fitzgibbon Stuart, 1823–1905
 * Godfrey Richard Conyngham Stuart, 1866–1955
 * Robin Charles Burleigh Stuart, 1907–1970
 * Douglas Charles Burleigh Stuart, b. 1940
 * Andrew John Burleigh Stuart, b. 1967
 * James William Burleigh Stuart, b. 2006
 * Burleigh Francis Brownlow Stuart, 1868–1952
 * Burleigh Edward St. Lawrence Stuart, 1920–2004
 * Edward John Burleigh Stuart, b. 1953
 * Simon Francis Brownlow Stuart, b. 1980
 * Henry George Burleigh Stuart, b. 1982
 * Josias Stewart of Bonington
 * James Stewart, Earl of Arran, d. 1595
 * James Stewart, 4th Lord Ochiltree, d. 1658
 * William Stewart, 5th Lord Ochiltree, d. 1675
 * William Stewart of Monkton, d. 1588
 * William Stewart
 * Henry Stewart of Braidwood
 * Henry Stewart, 1st Lord Methven, 1495-1552
 * Henry Stewart, 2nd Lord Methven, 1551-1572
 * Henry Stewart, 3rd Lord Methven, d. 1586
 * James Stewart of Beath
 * James Stewart, 1st Lord Doune, 1529-1590
 * James Stewart, 2nd Earl of Moray, 1565-1592
 * James Stuart, 3rd Earl of Moray, 1581-1638
 * James Stuart, 4th Earl of Moray, 1611-1653
 * Alexander Stuart, 5th Earl of Moray, 1634-1701
 * James, Lord Doune, 1660–1685
 * Charles Stuart, 6th Earl of Moray, 1683-1735
 * Francis Stuart, 7th Earl of Moray, 1683-1739
 * James Stuart, 8th Earl of Moray, 1708-1767
 * Francis Stuart, 9th Earl of Moray, 1737–1810
 * Francis Stuart, 10th Earl of Moray, 1771-1848
 * Francis Stuart, 11th Earl of Moray, 1795–1859
 * John Stuart, 12th Earl of Moray, 1797–1867
 * Archibald Stuart, 13th Earl of Moray, 1810–1872
 * George Stuart, 14th Earl of Moray, 1816–1895
 * Archibald Stewart, 1771-1832
 * Francis Stuart, 1793-1875
 * John Stuart, 1795-1840
 * James Stuart, 1797-1850
 * Rev. Edmund Stuart, 1798-1869
 * Edmund Stuart, 15th Earl of Moray, 1840-1901
 * Francis Stuart, 16th Earl of Moray, 1842-1909
 * Morton Stuart, 17th Earl of Moray, 1855-1930
 * Francis Stuart, 18th Earl of Moray, 1892-1943
 * Archibald Stuart, 19th Earl of Moray, 1894-1974
 * Douglas Stuart, 20th Earl of Moray, 1928-2011
 * John Stuart, 21st Earl of Moray, b. 1966
 * James Stuart, Lord Doune, b. 2002
 * Alexander Stuart, b. 2004
 * Frederick Stuart, b. 2006
 * Charles Stuart, b. 1933
 * James Stuart, b. 1962
 * Justin Stuart, b. 1964
 * Duncan Stuart, b. 1967
 * James Stuart, b. 1933
 * James Stuart, 1st Viscount Stuart of Findhorn, 1897-1971
 * David Stuart, 2nd Viscount Stuart of Findhorn, 1924-1999
 * James Stuart, 3rd Viscount Stuart of Findhorn, b. 1948
 * John Stuart, 1925-1990
 * Douglas Stuart, 1801-1855
 * Douglas Stuart, 1843-1863
 * George Stuart, 1805-1835
 * James Stuart, 1741–1809
 * David Stuart, 1745–1784
 * Francis Stuart
 * Francis Stuart, d. 1766
 * John Stuart, 1675-1765
 * Francis Stuart of Cullello, b. 1636
 * Archibald Stuart, 1643-1688
 * Charles Stuart, d. 1732
 * James Stuart of Binend, 1716-1777
 * Charles Stuart of Dunearn, 1745-1826
 * James Stuart, 1775-1849
 * George Stewart
 * Francis Stuart, 1589-1635
 * Henry Stewart, Lord St Colm
 * Archibald Stewart
 * John Stewart, d. 1609
 * Alexander Stewart
 * David Stewart
 * Alexander Stewart, d. 1425
 * James Mor Stewart, 1400-1429
 * John Stewart, Earl of Buchan, 1381-1424
 * Robert Stewart
 * Alexander Stewart, Earl of Buchan, 1343-1394
 * David Stewart, Earl of Strathearn, 1357-1386
 * Walter Stewart, Earl of Atholl, 1360-1437
 * Alan Stewart, 4th Earl of Caithness, d. 1431
 * David Stewart, Master of Atholl, d. bef. 1437
 * John Stewart of Ralston
 * John Stewart
 * Walter Stewart
 * Andrew Stewart
 * John Stewart, d. 1318
 * Andrew Stewart
 * James Stewart, fl. 1327
 * John Stewart, d. 1298
 * Alexander Stewart of Bonkyll, 1271-1319
 * John Stewart, 1st Earl of Angus, d. 1331
 * Thomas Stewart, 2nd Earl of Angus, d. 1361
 * Alan Stewart of Dreghorn, d. 1333
 * Alexander Stewart of Darnley, d. 1374
 * Alexander Stewart of Darnley, d. 1404
 * John Stewart of Darnley, 1380-1429
 * Alan Stewart of Darnley, 1406-1439
 * John Stewart, 1st Earl of Lennox, 1430-1495
 * Matthew Stewart, 2nd Earl of Lennox, 1460-1513
 * Mungo Stewart
 * John Stewart, 3rd Earl of Lennox, 1490-1526
 * Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox, 1516-1571
 * Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, 1546-1567
 * James VI and I, 1566-1625
 * Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, 1594-1612
 * Charles I of England, 1600-1649
 * Charles II of England, 1630-1685
 * James II of England, 1633-1701
 * James Francis Edward Stuart, 1688-1766
 * Charles Edward Stuart, 1720-1788
 * Henry Benedict Stuart, 1725-1807
 * Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester, 1640-1660
 * Charles Stuart, 5th Earl of Lennox, 1557-1576
 * Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of March, 1522-1586
 * John Stewart, 6th Seigneur d'Aubigny, d. c. 1567
 * Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox, 1542-1583
 * Ludovic Stewart, 2nd Duke of Lennox, 1574-1624
 * Esmé Stewart, 3rd Duke of Lennox, 1579-1624
 * James Stewart, 1st Duke of Richmond, 1612-1655
 * Esmé Stewart, 2nd Duke of Richmond, 1649-1660
 * Henry Stewart, 8th Seigneur d'Aubigny, 1616-1632
 * George Stewart, 9th Seigneur d'Aubigny, 1618-1642
 * Charles Stewart, 3rd Duke of Richmond, 1639-1672
 * Ludovic Stewart, 11th Seigneur d'Aubigny, 1619–1665
 * Lord John Stewart, 1621-1644
 * Lord Bernard Stewart, 1623-1645
 * Robert Stewart, 5th Lord of Aubigny, 1470-1544
 * John Stewart, Seigneur d'Oison, d. c. 1512
 * William Stewart, Seigneur d'Oison, d. bef. 1504
 * Alexander Stewart of Galston
 * John Stewart, 2nd Lord of Aubigny, d. 1482
 * Bernard Stewart, 3rd Lord of Aubigny, 1452-1508
 * Alexander Stewart of Darnley
 * William Stewart of Jedsworth, d. 1402
 * Alexander Stewart, 1st Earl of Galloway, 1580-1649
 * James Stewart, 2nd Earl of Galloway, 1610-1671
 * Alexander Stewart, 3rd Earl of Galloway, 1643-1690
 * Alexander Stewart, 4th Earl of Galloway, 1660-1694
 * James Stewart, 5th Earl of Galloway, d. 1746
 * Alexander Stewart, 6th Earl of Galloway, 1694-1773
 * Alexander Stewart, Master of Garlies, 1719-1738
 * John Stewart, 7th Earl of Galloway, 1736-1806
 * George Stewart, 8th Earl of Galloway, 1768-1834
 * Randolph Stewart, 9th Earl of Galloway, 1800-1873
 * Alan Stewart, 10th Earl of Galloway, 1835-1901
 * Randolph Stewart, 11th Earl of Galloway, 1836-1920
 * Randolph Stewart, 12th Earl of Galloway, 1892-1978
 * Randolph Stewart, 13th Earl of Galloway, 1928-2020
 * Keith Stewart, 1894-1915
 * Alexander Stewart, 1838-1896
 * Walter Stewart, 1888-1918
 * Alexander Stewart, 1914-1985
 * Andrew Stewart, 14th Earl of Galloway, b. 1949
 * Alexander Stewart, Lord Garlies, b. 1980
 * David Stewart, b. 1960
 * Samuel Stewart, b. 1990
 * Harry Stewart, b. 1992
 * Jack Stewart, b. 1999
 * Ian Stewart, 1917-1973
 * Alastair Stewart, b. 1944
 * James Stewart, b. 1975
 * FitzRoy Stewart, 1855-1914
 * Admiral Keith Stewart, 1814-1879
 * William Stewart, 1774-1827
 * Horatio Stewart, 1806-1835
 * Horatio Murray-Stewart, 1834-1904
 * Charles Stewart, Bishop of Quebec, 1775-1837
 * Montgomery Stewart, 1780–1860
 * Alexander Stewart, 1808-1837
 * James Stewart, 1819-1895
 * Montgomery Stewart, 1863-1895
 * Frederick Stewart, 1865-1930
 * Herbert Stewart, 1866-1960
 * Douglas Stewart, 1869-1888
 * Percy Stewart, 1871-1962
 * Archibald Stewart, 1874-1930
 * Horatio Stewart, 1877-1943
 * Arthur Stewart, 1879-1967
 * Edward Richard Stewart, 1782-1851
 * Edward Stewart, 1808-1875
 * Herbert Stewart, 1843-1885
 * Geoffrey Stewart, 1878-1914
 * Malise Stewart, 1911-1974
 * William Stewart, 1847-1883
 * James Henry Keith Stewart, 1783-1836
 * George Stewart, d. 1758
 * Keith Stewart, 1739-1795
 * Archibald Stewart, d. 1795
 * James Alexander Stewart-Mackenzie, 1784-1843
 * Keith Stewart-MacKenzie, 1818–1881
 * James Stewart-Mackenzie, 1st Baron Seaforth, 1847-1923
 * George Stewart-Mackenzie, 1824-1852
 * Leveson Stewart, 1786–1819
 * Alexander Stewart, 4th Earl of Galloway
 * Alexander Stewart of Torbane and Galston
 * Robert Stewart of Newtoun and Westoun
 * James Stewart
 * William Stewart of Castlemilk, d. 1429
 * John Stewart of Cruikston and Darnley
 * Walter Stewart
 * Walter Stewart of Garlies
 * James Stewart of Pearston, d. 1333
 * Lords of Lorne, Earls of Atholl, Earls of Buchan, Earls of Traquair and Clan Stewart of Appin
 * John Stewart of Daldon, d. 1333
 * Robert Stewart of Daldowie,
 * Steuart baronets and Seton-Steuart baronets
 * Hugh Stewart
 * Robert Stewart
 * John Stewart, d. 1249
 * Walter Bailloch, 1230-1293
 * Alexander, Earl of Menteith, d. bef. 1306
 * Alan, Earl of Menteith, d. 1310
 * Alan II, Earl of Menteith, d. bef. 1323
 * Peter Stewart
 * Muireadhach III, Earl of Menteith, d. 1332
 * Alexander Stewart
 * John de Menteith, 1275-1329
 * John de Menteith
 * Walter Menteith
 * William Stewart
 * Leonard
 * Jordan fitz Alan
 * Simon fitz Alan, fl. 1163
 * Leonard
 * Jordan fitz Alan
 * Simon fitz Alan, fl. 1163

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: House of Stuart


text:
User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 6

Did you know that if you had a real computer and you took it to a real computer shop, you could have that faulty hard drive replaced in about two hours? Tannin

Thanks for your note on my talk page - i made a mea culpa for which i apologise - im only human after all - and an Aspie to boot. I'm just a humble Wikipedian and for what it's worth my only claim to fame is that my brother is Simon Austin who was the guitarist for the Australian band Frente back in the early 1990s

PMelvilleAustin 04:27 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that i'm a "damm good" contributor to Wiki - though i don't know if really am

PMelvilleAustin 04:51 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Be careful about weddings. When my brother got married my father ended up in hospital. (I blame my brother's RAF officer training for leading him into over-planning everything to an overly and unnecessarily tight set of criteria - which led to my father needing to do to much at the same time in different places and have a car crash instead.)

"Leathers"? How too too much. Waxed cotton bike gear like Bellstaff's makes a far stronger non-fashion statement. PML.

I noticed that Taku is moving the Japanese Emperors around again, but as I am currently arguing with him about something else I didn't want to get involved. Was it agreed? Mintguy 02:16 19 May 2003 (UTC)

 * Please notice my new scheme seems agreed and notice that many people besides me think the old one emperor something of Japan is wrong. I know I am getting in the fight around yesterday and today but you know the quality of wikipedia (accuracy in Jtdirl's words) is really importnant. It would be more peaceful if you concerntrate on only writing a new article but sometimes change in status quo or in settled convensions are necessary. What you have to is be careful. Otherwises, you will end up in name calling, which is the last thing all of us want. -- Taku 04:00 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Someone (ok, 68.21.42.253) was mucking about on your user page. On the assumption that you haven't moved to Texas, working incognito, I've reverted the changes. -- Someone else 07:00 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Look, don't take this the wrong way, but I was a bit surprised to see all that stuff on your user page about how wonderful you are. Don't you worry that it might give people the wrong impression? I don't mean that the praise is undeserved, but it does make you look a little ... well, big-headed.

I'm afraid your application to become a sysop had passed me by (I stopped subscribing to the mailing list about a year ago, because it was always full of people squabbling). Obviously I would support you, though I must admit that I hoped you and I would be the ones to remain outside the "establishment". Deb 16:41 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Hey, do you feel like working on Political philosophy? See also my comment on the talk page -- I think it needs a major overhaul. I tried to write a general intro that would accomodate a variety of views (NOT just political science!!) but I think you could really make a major contribution here, if it interestes you, Slrubenstein

Have you seen this page, about the electronic voting last year? Basically, the inner workings aren't available for public scrutiny. Which makes me sleep easier at night.... -- Jimregan 10:46 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you reverted the changes at Republic of Ireland. I hope to hear/see some suggestions for improvement of the page at Republic of Ireland/temp, rather than just moving the old contents back. See also the talk of that article. Jeronimo 13:11 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Could you take a look at the Ian Paisley article? 62.64.220.151 has been making some changes regarding IP's future, but I don't follow the NI news closely enough to know if the changes are justified. By the way, you're quite welcome to borrow my joke from the Ian Paisley talk page! Arwel 16:13 26 May 2003 (UTC)

I already replied on my own talk page, but I can do better Yeah, Republic of Ireland/temp looks ready for prime-time. And what's your excuse for being up at this late hour :) -- Jimregan 03:25 27 May 2003 (UTC)

 * I replied on my talk page, but the Republic of Ireland/temp article looks OK - I can't speak for anyone else, but I found the history interesting. The only thing I'd change is to drop the article when you talk of "The English..." being a second official language! -- Arwel 18:33 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Ah, its good to be back... if only on moderated (clinically supervised) doses. ;) I've been plugged into that life which exists (sometimes too neglected) outside of the confines of Wikipages and squabbles about the deservingness of albums to be on whatever stupid list happensto crop up... Now, what's this I'm hearing about Wikimoney?? Mein Gott, I feel somehow responsible... If I was around at the time - I might have stopped this... :)- 豎&#30505sv

You're the second person today to say that...hmmm...who, me, paranoid? I figured I'd pick a name that would be completely anonymous, and it's been famously successful -- though I might have chosen something more memorable had I known I was going to stick around. Ah, well, a moment of caprice, years of regret... sounds about even. Now, does that Irish religion column have a centerfold?  -- Someone else 04:28 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Is Jim Duffy you? If so, can I add the sentence "He edits wikipedia as Jtdirl ."? Evercat 21:48 29 May 2003 (UTC)

 * No so, I'm afraid.

In answer to your question on the Talk:List of French monarchs page, I'm basically in agreement with you: the article looks good as it currently stands. However, one individual is insisting that it needs some undefined improvements. Hopefully I can get this individual to either explain what is wrong, or agree that the page is satisfactory before other individuals involved get too frustrated. -- llywrch 00:24 30 May 2003 (UTC)

lol = lots of love?

Sigh... stupid acronyms... :)

--Dante Alighieri 08:37 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As per Jimbo's agreement, you have just been made a sysop! Sysops basically can't do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like "jklasdfl,öasdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion for more than a week, protect pages when asked to, and help keep the few protected pages there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.

Note that almost everything you can do can be undone, so don't be too worried about making mistakes. You will find more information at Administrators, please take a look before experimenting with your new powers. Drop me a message if there are any questions or if you want to stop being a sysop (could it be?). Have fun! --Eloquence 01:10 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, I saw your response on the anonymous guy's talk page and it seemed pretty convincing. :-) Evercat 02:06 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

First may I say how impressed I am with your commitment to Wikipedia and high standards of contribution. I noticed that you added the footnote to the article on British Commonwealth pointing out that states formally leave the organisation prior to readmission as republics. This matches my understanding. Am I correct in thinking that the detail of South Africa's exit from the Commonwealth (on which both articles are vague) followed this pattern - with readmission as a republic being refused. If I am correct, then I think it would be a worthwhile addition to both articles as I can recall hearing sterile arguments as to whether SA was expelled or whether it withdrew. Thanks - Alan Peakall 17:31 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Yeah I saw his emphasis of the word Protestant on a few pages and was going leave a message for you here to look into his edits. I was about to revert David Norris when I noticed you already had. I'm off to bed shortly, so no time to investigate all of his other edits. I've come to the conclusion that Wikipedia will never be free of those who want to twist the articles to their own agenda. The normal vandals can be tackled, but then there are those with an agenda. My recent spat with Taku just tired me out, and I ran off and sulked for a week (he means well I guess, but his poor English and his relentlessness and other things mangle articles to the point of uselessness i.e. look at subprogram - a word virtually no-one in the computer industry uses). User:Harry Potter introduces blatent absurdities along with subtle inaccuracies and impossible to verify assertions into articles so that it difficult to distinguish fact from fantasy. I've given up fire-fighting. Mintguy 22:22 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok, this is not an endorsement, since I haven't transacted with them, but the website that is selling miniature Papal Tiaras here and here is too good not to share! -- Someone else 06:22 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hello - I myself went to check with the RTÉ press office as well - great minds, eh? - and suitably *modified* my note on the Irish language talk page. Thanks. -- Kwekubo

Do you realise that when you wrote the stuff on Mountbatten that you put "Provisional IRA, a small terrorist group in Ireland"? I thought an anon had written it and reverted, and then realised that he had actually removed it. Mintguy 21:46 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying about the pIRA. In terms of numbers and popular support they are small, but in terms of impact that are massive. I think the same could probably be said of most terrorist organisations which by their very nature they are generally small. Compared to other similar organisations I don't think you could say they were small. BTW do your mates call you Jimmy or Duffy? I assume it's one or other. Mintguy

You're back? Cool! Tannin

--- Congratulations on sysop status! I've been busy lately, and thus inactive and late to find out. I'm going to be away for another three weeks, but look forward to a blitz of new articles afterwards. 172

Hi. Can you look at Lord Lucan, which I just disambiguated. The problem is that the first two earls of Lucan, are usually ignored when refering to the 1st Earl, 2nd Earl etc.. I'm sure you can figure out a sensisble way to disambiguate the Sarsfield's. Mintguy
 * Ahh also... just remembered that the current Lord Bingham (which I believe is the title always used by the Earl of Lucan's eldest son), does not appear to be the same chap as Lord Bingham of Cornhill. The former being a merchant banker and the latter being a Law Lord. Mintguy

--- Hey there. Total empathy with the 'History of China has been destroyed' viewpoint. I stopped watching it after it became apparent that said user was not going away and was persisting in reverting, and others were actually contributing to those reverts rather than my rewritten version. Please drop me another talk note once the article is reverted, I will continue to work on it if it is not constantly silently reverted in the same manner it has been : if it is, I simply lack the time to follow through on edits and re-integrate subsequently contributed material. -- prat

 * Hey, Jt. the History of China was a mess. The said user has obviously some difficulties with his English; however, as I said earlier, some of his viewpoints are valuable. His attitude of taking edits as personal attack and wholesale reverts of others' works offended wikipedians. I will try to work out a compromised version based on Prat's, Moostoh/202's and others' work. Hopefully everyone can start working from there. kt2

--

Banknotes, especially really old ones, are almost always copywrite-free for use in contexts such as this. So go nuts! Banknotes are my speciality, by the way. I have a vast collection :) user:J.J.

I know of the big statue in Phoenix park etc.. I'm sure Ireland is very proud of the duke, but how Irish was he really? Would you classify all British nobility born in Ireland as Irish? I'm sure you know of the Duke's supposed quote about his Irishness. Is this apocryphal? Mintguy

 * Well I know all about the prejudice towards the Irish, even Irish gentry at that time. Wellington also served with the colonial army, which was also looked down on by the rest of the army, IIRC. So he managed to do pretty well for himself all told. His Irish accent was probably as bad as Peter O'Toole's. Anyway I was just wondering if there was a line to be drawn between "foreign colonial oppressors" and absentee landlords with Irish titles and those who made some contribution to Ireland. It's a fuzzy line I'm sure, but probably a very POV one. Mintguy 00:11 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Anyway.. I've kind of got hooked on disambiguating British and Irish peers having done [Earl Lucan|Lucan]], Spencer, Westminster and Wellington. I've noticed that User:Jlk7e has been busy doing the same. So I was wondering if you had any thoughts about standards for doing this. i.e. Look at Duke of Norfolk. I don't like the way this was done. I also don't like the #numbering infront of of each duke in Dukes of Devonshire, and agree with you that Duke of Devonshire is a better title. I also think that these articles should include the holders of the titles that are now held by the current Duke, i.e. see Duke of Westminster for what I mean. Just wondering if you had any thoughts. I'm no expert, I'm just pottering about. Mintguy

 * User:Jlk7e has just pointed out to me on my talk page that this is a lot more complicated (as I should have guessed). Mintguy

About Republic of Ireland, things look under control at the moment. I hesitate to become deeply involved, unless things get really nasty, which they haven't yet, as Ireland is certainly not my area of specialty. I do agree with you, though, that the "Republic of Ireland" article should refer specifically to the modern Republic of Ireland, and not include medieval history of the country (which can easily be dealt with on History of Ireland), and that Scipius's discussion of that history is pretty ridiculously simplistic. The struggle against the English that began in the 12th century? The Irish Free State becoming "independent" in 1922? In any event, I'll keep an eye on the page, but things seem to be okay for the moment. john 04:19 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It all seems quiet on thr RoI front ATM. Thanks for the heads up. I've disambiguated the Duke of Abercorn and Lord Longford. On the List of Lords Lieutenant of Ireland we've got

 * James Hamilton, 2nd Marquis of Abercorn (June 1866)
 * Duke of Abercorn (March 1874)
 * Duke of Abercorn (March 1874)

.. Unless I've made a mistake they are actually the same person, just the latter is after he was created a Duke. Not sure how best to indicate this. Mintguy 16:25 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Like John, I'm a bit baffled by the Republic of Ireland controversy. Can't figure out who wrote what, but it looks okay the way it is as of this minute. I should let sleeping dogs lie. Deb 17:15 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering about the Lords-Lieutenant pages. Currently, the page "Lord Lieutenant of Ireland" has a list of holders of the office, but there's also a page of "List of Lords Lieutenant of Ireland".... Something ought to be done, I imagine... john 18:57 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

- Hi there JTD! Well, is there really a need for all this polemic regarding my edits? Certainly, some of my changes are likely in need of improvement, never claimed they were perfect, but I would have appreciated it if you had simply corrected the bits that were inaccurate, rather than reverting wholesale (including other changes that were appropriate), accusing me of vandalism, and going off misrepresenting my position and intentions to other people. The debate about the name of the article is long past us, my issue now is with the template and its format. Your history section is excellent, but it's far too long for what is intended. Check other country articles to see what I mean.

I think our difference of opinion partly stems from what we envision the purpose of the page to be. Your expertise is obviously on the creation of the Irish state and its history and workings and you would see the article on the Republic as a continuation of that and thus be sensitive to exact definitions of that state and how it differs from previous states. My purpose is more to create a general, broadly themed article about the present country, speaking in general terms about where it came from, how it works and what it looks like. In these terms a definition is certainly wanted, but it shouldn't dominate the page, as other topics are equally important to a general (non-Irish) public, and as such it is unfortunately not possible to go into too much depth.

What do you say we try to flesh out a shorter history section that combines our versions, but is more focused on the creation of the Republic? -Scipius 23:36 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

re: mailing list - At last, someone speaks sense on capitalisation! Thanks Jtdirl, you've convinced me completely. I at least will follow your suggested approach from now on. Martin 20:46 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Obviously the famine was going to be contentious topic, and I could tell from the page history that it was a source of constant conflict. That's why I posted in talk, hoping that it would cause less of a stir. Perhaps some pages need a "metatalk" as well :) PS4FA 22:45 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for shifting the Lord Lieutenant Link, etc. on Sackville's page. If you don't mind a question, how do I get anyone to comment on the talk page for the Battle of Saratoga? I can't tell if anyone thinks its a good or a bad idea. Also, yes I'm a history fan, but concentrating on Amerucan Revolution. We will, of course contine to cross paths from time to time, mostly in the UK material. Thanks again, see you around the wiki,  Lou I 00:06 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I share your concerns about scientology! Arno 07:41 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just read your mail about Capitalisation; maybe you should put it on Talk:Capitalization? Seems a better way of retaining these sorts of discussions than the mailing list. Or maybe I'm just saying this cos my mailer is broken and I can send replies... -- Jim Regan 18:04 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In your capacity as an administrator, you presumably have the power to change the Main Page. Could you add Phil Williams (politician) to the "Recent Deaths"? LOL Deb 18:54 12 Jun 2003 (UTC) - Why is Phil Williams listed on the Main Page but is not listed in recent deaths and does not have the date of his death mentioned in his article? These are all prerequisites for listing on the Main Page. --mav 23:37 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * That's my fault. There was some doubt about whether he died on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning.  I will put it right. Deb 17:41 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

FearÉIREANN - I did all the New York bishops at the same time List of Roman Catholic Bishops and Archbishops of New York at the same time and used the same date format for all of them. I don't change date formats for the sake of changing date formats. Sorry if you were offended. -- Someone else 21:14 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * the '?' thing is perplexing. It undoubtedly has something to do with Microsoft and curly quotes, but I'm not sure if the problem is mine or yours... they show up normal (to me) before you edited them, and as question marks afterwards (see this difference). I'm pretty sure I have smartquoting off, though I may have missed a spot. Is your "smartquoting" off? Were the question marks there before you edited? Maybe your editor (Safari?) is choking on a character I put in and changing it?  -- Someone else 22:09 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * I probably just accidentally typed a curly quote in there then... Thanks for checking. -- Someone else 22:35 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Morning. I like what you did with the British Isles page—much better than anything I could have done. -- Jim Regan 05:21 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

BTW, since you decried the lack of "demonstrable facts" on VFD, are we ever going to see any citation of sources for Mary Robinson? A lot of the material sounds pretty doubtful and POV to me, but without sources I'm reduced to googling - which mostly turns up info on how much the Israelis hate her (and I notice that whole episode is missing from her bio, hmmm) Stan 13:30 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up about Michael. I am familiar with his story. In regards to Dashboard Confessional, I was just going about my daily activities and editing mistakes I come across. I didn't stop to think of the origins of the article. If you intend on deleting the article, I fully support the move. Sincerely, Kingturtle 03:06 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the glowing reference. After that, I could hardly refuse! Deb 10:16 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Bleah, you would think Michael would give up one of these days. Anyway, I fully support the removal of all of his text, even if I touched it up a bit. Thanks for the heads up. -- Notheruser 12:43 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is it true? You and Scipius have reached an agreement on Republic of Ireland? The Wiki process works! -- Jim Regan 09:52 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Re: same-sex marriage, yeah, there was never much doubt in my mind, though I sometimes wonder if I should try to rephrase stuff like that to "critics say that, blah blah, etc" :-) Anyway, cheers for the support... Evercat 23:03 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the praise about the Alfred Hitchcock writeup, but I fear it's misplaced--I wonder if you noticed both pages of its history. My first contribution to it was on 21:30 1 Mar 2002, and ironically, I think the majority of my contribution to it has been in rearranging text and removing various parts I thought were POV and explaining why.... Though, don't get me wrong, I do like Hitchcock quite a lot, have seen many of his films, have read the Spoto book, etc. :-)  Koyaanis Qatsi 05:10 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-

I'm sorry, but the Center for Disease Control has expressly forbidden gurlz in the cabal in order to control the spread of cooties and monkeypox. My hands are tied... Gay guyz are allowed, as long as you promise to never be too gay. The Irish, though.... I dunno about that. Aren't you all a bunch of U2-listening, Guiness-drinking, pub-brawling Brit-killing redheads who toss c's, l's and ch's into words willy-nilly? If so, you're in, if only for the Guiness (I'm drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon, now -- and if you don't have that in Ireland, consider yourself lucky.) Tuf-Kat

FYI: "No photo placed here by me had any copyright claim of any nature. And, I am not required by law, nor is Wikipedia by the DMCA, to check out if a photo not labeled as "copyright" should be". --Joe Canuck, from Oliver's Talk page. Martin 12:22 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hey, IM me about the naming convention on years in articles. --Dante Alighieri 02:24 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Doing a bit of canvassing are we Jtdirl? I'm not particularly interested in these naming convention debates, but your point about renaming hundreds of articles reminded me about that super-page-move code I'm meant to be writing. Maybe I'll have to quickly shackle something together. Anyway, I hope you have more luck with Jim, Dante, Evercat and John. -- Tim Starling 02:30 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Here we go again. Please see Talk:List of British English words not used in American English. For some reason I can't fathom, PML has decided to make an unwarranted slap at me, and I really don't understand what I've done to offend him on that page. -- Zoe

Sigh... why you persist in being online without being logged on to IM continues to baffle and frustrate me. ;) --Dante Alighieri 10:09 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=Adam+Rinkleff&type=1 Pizza Puzzle

Oh, sure, fix your bracket and <nowiki> errors on everyone's talk page but mine, see if I care. :p -- John Owens 21:15 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, I did vote, but I think the edit summary about says it all. :p -- John Owens 21:59 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Have you looked at Talk:U.S. Virgin Islands (as well as the accompanying article)? I got sucked in by PML, and though I know I can glean something from the link I put into the talk page, I'm feeling just a bit burned out from it. -- Jim Regan 00:25 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

OK, I did it anyway, but could you give it a glance, and give me an opinion? TIA -- Jim Regan 00:29 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (theorems) Pizza Puzzle

Saw you write "I was only able to go back through his last 500 edits (aaagh!)"

Actually, you can do any number, I think. Just replace the 500 in the URL with 2000, or whatever. I think this catches them all, if you're feeling particularly masochistic. :-) I count 718 Evercat 03:20 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Heh. You don't have to do it right now... :-) Evercat is off to bed.

Oh I know, but as Mav mentioned this is a bit over the top even for Adam. And of course there's been no actual "vandalism" from that account since. Call it a hunch I guess. :) - Hephaestos

Oh, and by the way, I suspect that Michael is a Canadian, but I'm not entirely sure. Something about being from Canada in Michael's page, etc. I heard Canadians are more likely to use British than Yankee spelling anyway, so you might be right on that score. Rickyrab 15:22 20 Jun 2003 (UTC) - Hi Jtdirl, I don't have any inconveniences with protected pages in general, but I normally request the right to review the decision why a page has been protected. The only notice visible was Joe complaining about abuse. There are certain rules about blocking pages, basically: Don't block if you're involved yourself, list them on Protected pages, unprotect as soon as possible. Personally, I would have asked other syspos to protect the pages instead of doing it myself. But this is not the typical kind of edit war, it's not about content but about copyright. We should review this afterwards in a lessons learned summary. -- JeLuF 19:22 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I need a second opinion on my last comment on Talk:List of British English words not used in American English, i.e. was I being too harsh? I'm not too sure, because this rubbish with PML has dragged on longer than I care for. -- Jim Regan 02:01 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Jtdirl, Can I ask you to cast your mind back about 3 months to the debate about whether dates should be "Month date" or "date Month"? I was under the impression that it had been decided that we could use either as long as we were consistent within articles, but I seem to have got into an edit war with User:Eloquence over 10 Rillington Place, and I'd like a second opinion before I kick that particular sleeping dog! I have to say that "month date" in an article about a British murder case simply looks very wrong to me... -- Arwel 19:27 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, thanks for trying. It's certainly my recollection that both forms were acceptable, and the way I add up the voting on the talk page more people favoured either dd/mm or allowing both than just mm/dd. I've certainly been using dd/mm in my articles for the last 3 months anyway, and this is the first time anyone's complained! -- Arwel 23:12 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just curious as to why you created both Irish presidential election, 2004 and Irish Presidential Election, 2004. -- Minesweeper 16:56 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi JT, how's the connection holding up for you these days? Even for me on a nice broadband it's occasionally slow, but OK most of the time... (BTW, if broadband is available in your area you should really consider it... :-) Evercat 22:43 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Eircom's home package is pretty cheap, but if you download a lot, I'd recomment getting the Esat business connection - no download cap. BTW, I know you're passionate about the capitalisation issue, but I think you may have been a bit harsh on User talk:Michael Hardy. All the best. -- Jim Regan 23:07 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Re: Droop Quota: If a student wrote the formula as adjusted by him they would get an F-

Really? I don't think the brackets are strictly necessary, since they don't actually disambiguate anything (though I would probably keep the outermost brackets, but drop the innermost...) Evercat 23:35 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Heh. I didn't mean to provoke you into an enormous defense of the brackets. :-) For me this is such a tiny issue that I don't think you should waste your time arguing with me about it. :-) I myself see no problem with the formula in the article either way. Indeed, perhaps it is best to avoid any possible confusion.

 * As for Michael, my comment wasn't related to that matter at all. It was just a minor technical query... Evercat 00:43 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Re: ChuckM and Joe Canuck (etc.) being the same person. I had the same suspicion myself, but I am giving ChuckM the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, whoever they are, the entire discussion is wearing a bit thin. I'll be glad when the images are deleted and (hopefully) the controversy over with. -- Wapcaplet 01:09 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-- You said in an edit summary reverting another user: "moved to correct spelling after some idiot screwed it up"

 * JT, you're an Admin now and the user in question is not an "idiot." You know the rest. --mav

James,

I hope we can return to a more pleasant level of conversation after that whole date discussion is over. As I said, I do not really have strong feelings on which style is used, my primary concern is consistency. But I could even live with an inconsistent solution, as long as it is approved by most users (right now it actually looks like the "Day Month" style will become our new standard). I think it's important that we remain open about our decision making process and leave a track record whenever possible.

You do get too aggravated on wiki. Try to relax, man! --Eloquence 04:56 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah. I know exactly what you mean, JT, and how you feel. I got so fed up a while back that I just walked away from it, and discovered that there were in fact several other things that I liked doing with the vast number of hours I previously devoted to the 'pedia. I was about a 16th of an inch away from just quitting for good, but (since I love this place so much) I decided to say and do nothing at first, just walk away and do something else until I felt either (a) that I definately didn't want to come back, or (b) that it was worth another try. This is why I dissapeared for a couple of weeks a while back. (BTW, I popped in and read your previous message only a day or two after you posted it, and still feel guilty for not replying. I should at least have emailed you.) I'm back now, but only for the time being and on a part-time basis (i.e., about one-third as many hours as I used to spend here, with quite a bit of time devoted to the new hobbies instead). I have no fixed intention about the longer-term. I'll just continue (rather more slowly) with my self-imposed task of helping Jim knock the fauna articles into some sort of decent shape and play things by ear. Anyway, a while ago when each of several other contributors were about to spit the dummy (one at a time), I tried hard to talk them out of it. (No need to name names, there have been a few.)

Then, when I reached the end of my own tether, I realised that it didn't really matter what anyone said, I was either going to feel like working of the 'pedia again or I wasn't. So, in short, I'm not going to try to persuade you to stick around, nor on the other hand, to hurry you on your way. I would miss you, of course, that goes without saying, and the 'pedia would be a poorer place for not having your depth of knowledge and professionalisim around. But in the end, you will either feel one way or feel another way. Walk away if you want to, take a break, and don't visit unless and until you actually feel positive about the Wikipedia experience again. Time heals all things, and - who knows? - perhaps the passage of time will help the bureacrat types loosen up a bit and ease off on the backseat bloody driving.

There needs to be a sea-change here; a renewed commitment on the part of 'pedia contributors to writing quality content, and a good deal less buggerising about micro-regulating the content that other people create.It is easy, very easy, to consider the common urge to fiddle with existing content and bugger up (or improve, as the case may be) the work of other people and attribute it to plain, old-fashioned character flaws: easy to regard the non-contributor and semi-contributor bureaucrats as anal types who want simply to control everything and cast it all in their own image. And, doubtless, there is an element of truth in that. However, I believe that we would be making a grave mistake in attributing the cause of the behaviour to the person in that direct fashion. Nor should we forget that in most (but by no means all) cases, the person themselves is genuinely attempting to do something good for the 'pedia, however antagonistic they may be and however poor their knowledge of the field in question. (I shan't trouble to mention the dishonourable exceptions - you know who they are as well as I do, and they are few in number.)

The primary cause of backseat driver syndrome is much simpler and, once you think of it, much more obvious: it is simply that creating new content from scratch is a great deal more mentally demanding than tinkering with existing content. Most of us here have other demands on our time and energy: we have jobs, families, all kinds of stresses to deal with.

So, when we come to the 'pedia, we have already expended a good deal of mental energy, and it is just so much easier to react than to act.

One can edit someone else's article in a very relaxed, rather passive frame of mind. One simply scans through Recent Changes and changes a capitalisation here, spots a spelling error there, deletes outright a bit of graffiti. It is, psychologically speaking, simply a matter of comparing a new or changed entry with one's mental "template" of what Wikipedia article ought to look like. If it doesn't fit the template—which is largely composed of an assemblage of individually trivial things like bolding the article title, and putting links around every word in a sentence that might just possibly ever turn blue instead of red—then one can make a little edit with a minimum of mental effort. (And, what's more, add to that misguided numerical status symbol called an edit count - which in itself is a powerful encouragement to short and relatively mindless edits.)

When I'm tired, or I've had a stressful day, I do exactly this. I look at my great pile of textbooks and think "I really ought to do something about the gaping hole in the mammals section by writing a short, fact-filled article about the Indian Elephant". After a few minutes staring at a blank screen with a heading that starts "You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist yet. To create the page ...", and trying to organise my thoughts enough to make a start on it, I sigh, and flick over to Recent Changes. Inside five minutes I've added some punctuation, bolded a heading, deleted some obvious graffiti, shared a joke with someone on a talk page, and bumped my post-count up another 10 or so. It's a nice, relaxing way to spend an evening. You can even do it with the TV on.

Working on real content is a great deal harder. You have to think, organise, research, make notes, type long sentences, check your facts, wonder if you are skipping too much detail on the one hand, or making it too technical on the other.

In this distinction, we are all the same: creating is so much harder and more mentally draining than simply editing that the natural temptation is always to drift towards doing the easier task - and it is a natural consequence of that drift that we Wikipedians tend always to gravitate towards the bureaucratic, editorial end of the style-content spectrum, and it is hardly surprising that some of us wind up getting obsessive and anal about it, and others of us wind up getting pissed off at all the back-seat driving and stop producing the content that makes it all possible in the first place.

I'm not sure what can be done about this. Largely, I think it's inevitable. However, social norms can do a great deal to alter human behaviour. Jimbo, with his extraordinary commitment to cooperation and respect for other people, sets a great example here. Without it, I do not believe that this international project would have ever got off the ground. I guess in the end, it comes down to respect. Wikipedians generally need to become more able to respect one another's work, more prepared to say "I don't know anything much about this subject, perhaps I better have enough respect for James to assume that he knows what he is doing and leave it alone", more prepared to contribute articles on things that they do know about, and less prepared to buggerise in areas they don't know anything about, messing up the work of the people who did the hard yards and created the article in the first place.

I learned my lesson in this early on: I changed an obvious misspelling in an article about explosives to correct it. I soon discovered that it was not a misspelling at all, but a technical word I had never heard of, and that I'd completely messed up the sense of the paragraph just by changing a single letter. So far as I recall, I have not tried to edit a chemistry entry from that day to this.

Tony

title: User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 6