Talk:Clan Douglas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clan, Family or 'House'?[edit]

There are discussions on whether or not 'Clan Douglas' is indeed a clan, further down the page. However, as 'clan' has been removed from parts of the article, yet again, I felt that it would be useful to pull future discussion under a more appropriate heading.

Brendan, I ask you not to change bits of the article because you are 'na still not happy with 'clan' '. You are clearly out-voted by other contributors. It might be appropriate to write a paragraph outlining the debate, but I think that we need to accept that modern usage is that the Douglas family is now Clan Douglas. Shipsview (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of "Clan Douglas". Firstly we have all the modern day "Clan Douglas" societies. However more to the point Lowland families did actually live in clans. Some people have a misconception that only Highlanders lived in clans - this is an idea which was brought about in the Victorian era - an era where there was all sorts of misconceptions written about the Scottish clans. Lowlanders lived in clans, although they may well have lived by a different culture. Historically there was a "Clan Douglas".QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The reason English has clan as a word is precisely because people in the 'Lowlands' lived under such systems; also check out references in the OED, e.g. word used in 16th century Scots English translations of Virgil and Livy. Similarly 'family' meaning 'clan' rather than 'household' is also of Scots origin. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Chief[edit]

Why can't the Marquess of Queensberry be head of the clan? john k 20:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, because that title is extinct? Longshot14 23:31,

7 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, no it's not. The current Marquess was born in 1929, and his son, born in 1967, is also alive, as the article indicates. john k 03:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this clan not currently have a chief ? I think it needs one.
Clan Douglas may well need a Chief...but there is none at this time. There are several who could apply for recognition as Chief but would have to give up their hyphenated surnames. And to them there is no value to do so. Mel 02:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Clan Douglas' may or may not have a chief, speculation really as there is no such thing as Clan Douglas! The House of Douglas on the other hand certainly has a chief of the name and following. He is the Duke of Hamilton, to surmount difficulties encountered by being the head of two Houses - Hamilton and Douglas, the Duke's younger brother Lord Selkirk takes responsibility for all relating to and regarding Bloody Heart matters.Brendandh 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A clan is a recognised entity under Scots Law. Both the Douglas-Home and Douglas-Hamiltons are barred from matriculating as chief due to the double-barrelled surname (a legal decision). Clan Douglas has a legally recognised history but as it has no chief it has no current legal standing. Were a chief to be recognised, the clan would then have a legal standing. Under Scots Law, the term clan and family are interchangeable and the habit of calling lowland families and highland clans is a Victorian invention. Historically, clan (or clann) was used for both Highland and Lowland clans. For more information have a look at http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/clans_families_septs.htm, it's a good article written by one of the four senior officers of the Lyon Court. The term 'House' is usually reserved for Royal Houses such as Stewart.(Nfras 03:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not so, Concise OED gives the definition of House- "a Family, esp. a Royal Family, A Dynasty". The House of Douglas fits both 1 & 2 and through the marriage of Princess Mary of Scotland to George, 1st Earl of Angus there is Royal Stewart in the veins of the Heirs Male. Furthermore, through Sir William Douglas the Hardy's wife Eleanor de Lovaine, all descendants of William Douglas, 1st Earl of Douglas can trace their line back through Charlemagne to Charles Martel.

  • To to top off that if the descent through Stewarts is followed then via Isobel of Huntingdon the line of the Douglas can be traced back through-

So as well as having Royal connections the House of Douglas has at least two Divine ones. I think that qualifies the use of House. Brendandh 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the article title to Clan Douglas to match the naming convention used on all Clan articles. I have also added in the fact that it is also referred to as the House of Douglas for those that wish to refer to it as that. Nfras 03:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debrett's People of Today has the following:

MORTON, 21 Earl of (S 1458);, John Charles Sholto Douglas; also Lord Aberdour (no actual cr, but designation of the eld s & h, incorporated with the Earldom in a charter of 1638, where the Earls of Morton are described as domini Abirdour); head of the male line of the Douglas family This seems a better claim than most to me!Shipsview (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morton can claim descent through the Douglases of Dalkeith, who were seperated from the main branch at a very early date, prior to William the Hardy or the Good Sir James, and only latterly started using the Bloody Heart on their Harness. The fact is that both Red and Black lines of Douglas started in bastardy, their lordship was pragmatically recognised by the crown &c., and since the black line has been extinguished, the chief of Douglas is undoubtably the Duke of Hamilton, in his guise as Marquis of Douglas and Earl of Angus. Brendandh (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that only royal members of Clan Stewart, are members of the House of Stuart, which actually could be said to be two dynasties. so a royal connection does not make the whole clan into a royal house. The reason the Clan has no chief involves complicated and vague law. In order to be Chief of the Name and Arms, one has to have the right to the undifferenced arms of that name. Inheritance of arms varies in Scotland, but it undifferenced arms is supposed to go to the senior(mostly male) line. Paternally, his grace would be a Douglas, had not his ancestor changed his name. since arms and names are connected, the Hamilton-Douglass can't claim the arms of Douglass. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hamilton-Douglass? Erm, yep! Brendandh (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits bring us back to this again. Brendandh, your statement (above) 'the chief of Douglas is undoubtably the Duke of Hamilton' cannot be true, or he would be accepted as such by Lord Lyon, and others. You need to accept other possibilities. The late Duke of Buccleugh stated 'Hamilton is chief of the Hamiltons, Home is chief of the Homes, Morton is chief of the Douglases and I am chief of the Scotts', or words to that effect. This seems good to me! Shipsview (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This old chestnut again. The late Buccleuch may well have said such, but one cannot get away from primogeniture here. Both Buccleuch and Home obtained their Douglas inheritance through the female line, in the case of the Homes, triply so by the marriage of the Duke of Douglas' sister Lady Jane Douglas to Sir John Stewart, and the marriage of their granddaughter's daughter to the 11th Earl of Home. The Earls of Morton are probably nearest in that they are descended in the male line from Regent Morton, a younger son of George Douglas of Pittendreich, Master of Angus, but still the direct senior of line of descent from the Master's elder son, David Douglas, 7th Earl of Angus to the current Hamilton is yet unbroken. As such they are the senior claimant to be Chief of the name and arms of Douglas. See here for what a previous Lord Lyon has to say about it. [1] Brendandh (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions[edit]

Well that naming convention is wrong. Googling produces 850 for the correct House of Douglas, 951 for the incorrect Clan Douglas. 980 hits however, for the 'Douglas Clan', which IS an acceptable way of referring to the following of a lowland chief. The Douglases were not culturally Gaels. Brendandh 12:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for community input from the rest of the Clans of Scotland contributors. Depending on the response we will make a final decision. I am willing to abide by it and will not make further changes to the article until a decision is reached.
My opinion is that the Wikipedia convention is to have Clan X, not House of X, not X Clan. (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions). There are over 150 articles using this convention and your own assertion above proves that Clan Douglas is "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" (quote from Wikipedia naming conventions article). It is also Wikipedia policy to have the name of the article first followed by other names. As the title of the article is Clan Douglas I suggest -
Clan Douglas also referred to as House of Douglas. Nfras 00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Google or however some people wish to present themselves now, there is a distinction betwix an Historical House of Douglas under an extinct Scottish nobility versus a modern legally recognised royal house under the present Westminster system. Only the Lord Lyon can legalise claims to chiefship and only the House of Lords can determine questions of peerage and thus whether there exists a House able to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom. The Scottish crown has been absorbed and as such succession to it is extinct, therefore the usage of the term House in Scotland is extinct, excepting where it is now an equivilant UK House. There would be a better claim to succession from the Stuart decendands who live in Germany, although, not being Anglican they can not legally be enthroned.petedavo 02:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the Clan Douglas is an established and well-respected Scottish Clan. The naming convention is used by the Clan Douglas Society of North America,[2] as well as by MyClan.com.[3] And we use it for all the clans. So does everyone else who lives in the real world. Just how it goes. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 09:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I've been researching it and only in a historical sense a house of Douglas ever existed. The current modern day Houses or Dynastic Families of the UK are defined by the Act of Settlement. Currently Douglas can exist as a clan nay a house unless we are recording it as a historical entity only. petedavo 10:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A rethink...After viewing House of Stuart and Clan Stuart I am now of the opinion that we could have a entry for the historical House of Douglas for the former Kingdom of Scotland and a current entry for the modern Clan Douglas of the United Kingdom, if the seperate enteries were to follow a similar format to the two Stuart enteries if the family ever held the crown or was in direct line of succession to a crown thus making them a house at sometime.petedavo 10:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll leave it over the weekend for additional comment but as of Monday I'll change it back to Clan Douglas. Nfras 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any assertion upon the article that anyone of the surname Douglas was an actual King and has real prospect of any current hereditory right to a Crown anywhere. The best I could find was a couple of Regents, Earls, etc, thus noble but doesn't make it as a Royal House as yet, therefore this argument seems voided. The article must revert to describe Douglas as a Clan in absence of proof.petedavo 08:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brendandh writes: "Douglas ain't an Erseman, he's Flemish/Strathclyde Brythonic and parlant in Inglis, so no Clan mullarkeys here". Oh dear! You have got a bee in your bonnet about this, haven't you? Clans have nothing to do with being Irish - OK something, but not everything. Try looking up Clan in Wikipedia - or are you planning to re-write that too? You have also to recognise that terminology changes with the generations - faster, even, with modern communications. If 'Clan Douglas' is acceptable to the majority, then we should accept that - not ridicule it. On a personal note, I think it is probably true that the Douglases were not a clan, but they are now! Shipsview (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erseman in Scots denotes (slightly perjoratively!) one who is Gaelic speaking, from the Highlands and Islands or Ireland. The Douglases were not of those places but of Lanarkshire and Flanders, thouroughly P-Celtic/Germanic. Latterly in Southern Scotland, Kindreds were known as Names and the Graynes thereof, similarly to Highland Clans and their Septs. But they were not Gaels so therefore should not be referred to as such.

There is admittedly the Clan Douglas society of North America, but that does not mean that the historic kindred of the Douglas were a Clan, merely that the Douglas diaspora has chosen to take the Victorian revivalist attitude to Scottishness. The House of Douglas was the most powerful in Scotland during the 14th-15thc , and were within grasp of the throne, massively important in western European diplomacy at the time and in effective control of southern Scotland. If you are referring to the diaspora ,yes Clan Douglas, but in reference to the historic dynasty, it is the House of Douglas that one should refer to. The 2nd D in Brendandh, is Douglas btw. Brendandh (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should definatley be called Clan Douglas. The idea that only highlanders had clans and that lowlanders were families is a 19th century idea. The fact of the matter is that the historical evidence shows that both the lowlanders and highlanders lived in "clans". An Act of the Scottish Parliament of 1597 talks of the "Chiftanis and chieffis of all clannis...duelland in the hielands or bordouris" - thus using the word clan and chief to describe both Highland and Border families. The act goes on to list the various Lowland clans. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brendandh - that explains your prodigious knowledge on the family - sorry clan. It is interesting that the 1597 statute does not appear to list the Douglases. The following are listed: MIDDLE MARCH: Elliot, Armstrong, Nixon, Crosier; WEST MARCH: Scott, Bates, Little, Thomson, Glendenning, Irvine, Bell, Carruthers, Graham, Johnstone, Jardine, Moffat and Latimer. No Douglas! Shipsview (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Earl of Angus is mentioned before that particular list as the one of the thirteen landlords of the Middle March who had 'broken men' living on their lands. The list you quoted is of the clans that dwell on those lands that sometimes follow their chiefs against their landlords. I just noticed that Scott should read Scott of Ewesdale.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason there is no Douglas on the list is that a large portion of the Riding names and Graynes thereof mentioned owed allegiance to the Earl of Douglas until his attainder of 1455, and following that mostly to the Earl of Angus, as their feudal superior, he being tenant in chief to the Scottish Crown for his properties. Although following 1455, some such as the Scotts and Ker(r)s increased their landholdings by being granted forfeited Douglas territories as tenants in chief, to the point that their heidsmen were ennobled. Scott and the Fernieherst Kerrs in 1606, and the Cessford Kers in 1616. Brendandh (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Momento[edit]

If petedavo had cared to read the above, regarding the OED definition of "house" here, or that of dynasty here,then perhaps he would not be so confused. The history of the House of Douglas is a mirror of that of the Kingdom of Scotland, it does not require a regnal seat to qualify for the accolade of a "regnal" style. If one were to read Froissart, there is ample testament to the Noble and Puissant Princes that have been so styled from the 14th century, of both Douglas and Angus lines. In the later Middle Ages and Early Modern period members were the Power brokers of Scotland. The history of the chiefs of this house, and their cadets is enormously notable within medieval and early modern Scots history, and while the aspirations of the contemporary N. American organisations such as the CDSNA are maybe to be encouraged, they do not have a monopoly on real fact. The House of Douglas is not and was not a 'Clan', they were not Gaels, they may be referred to informally as a 'clan', a parallel differentiation can be made between the Proper and common nouns, 'Conservative' and 'conservative'. This from the 9th living heir male in direct line from William I, Lord of Douglas . Brendandh 18:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if one were to read any published and accredited experts on the subject, Michael Brown (historian), Herbert Maxwell, Gordon Donaldson, James Balfour Paul, G. W. S. Barrow to name a few, there is no mention of Clan Douglas. This is purely an invention of the diaspora during the late 19th/20th centuries, as can be attested by the amount of non-UK sites using the erroneous term. If a 'Clan Douglas' (as with others such as 'Clan Home', 'Clan Bruce', 'Clan Kerr', 'Clan Scott' etc.), article is to be correct, it should reflect the history of that diaspora since going hence from these shores, and not impose reverse Cultural imperialism on the non Gaelic families of Scotland. Brendandh 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you wrote above, however, I don't agree with your assertion that Clan Douglas is an incorrect usage. I take my cue from the Court of the Lord Lyon who is the final arbiter on all arms in Scotland and all documents from the court refer to Clan Douglas, not House. What you also need to take into account is that the Douglas-Hamiltons are barred from matriculation as chiefs of Clan Douglas, but if they can style themselves as head of the House of Douglas they sidestep the legalities of their position. I do not doubt or underplay the importance that the Douglases played throughout Scottish history, but you seem to be confusing their eminence with their current status. If you feel the need to write an article documenting the 'House of Douglas please go ahead, but I think you will be largely repeating information that is in this article and adding very little. Nfras 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below

Douglas Territories[edit]

Copied from User talk:Flozu Sorry, but you're wrong as far as that map goes on the rather arcane Clan Douglas Page. It does not show any of the Douglas lands in Angus, Moray, Aberdeenshire, West Lothian, and in fact on closer inspection it does not even include Douglasdale the historic heartland! Funny that as well it is called ClanKerrMap, a Border family that lived in a relatively small area of the Borderland until they were made Marquesses of Lothian. It is going to be removed until someone can find something a little bit more accurate. CheersBrendandh 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by wrong. I agree that this map is incomplete and therefore of limited worth, but it does appear to be accurate in so far as goes. It shows Douglas lands in Nithsdale, Upper Teviotdale, and in the Lammermuirs. It also shows Douglasdale itself - albeit chopped in half. Obviously it doesn't show the Douglas territories in Angus, Moray, Aberdeenshire & West Lothian as it doesn't extend that far. However, I'd have thought an incomplete map was better than no map, although hopefully it will be replaced it with something more comprehensive in due course. Flozu 11:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC) PS. If you find the map too awful, I won't object further if its removed.[reply]
If you go here: http://www.burkes-peerage.net/articles/scotland/cmindex.aspx you can view the entire map, with other Douglas territories. The peice used on the Clan Douglas page shows the largest area. Could do with a better map. However the infomation on the Clan Douglas page is excellent but could perhaps do with an improved layout. Psycotics1454 12:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone rescue the link to the Burkes Peerage map, please? Shipsview (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Profile The right column shows 'Region' 'Borders'. 'Region' is hyperlinked to Highlands and Islands. Given the spread of the Douglases from Orkney to Wigton, can this be cleaned up?Shipsview (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelso Abbey, the Barony of Holydean, and a black & grey tartan[edit]

Hello all. Here are my fool ramblings for those so inclined to care. Though not pictured in the Clan Douglas article, there is another Douglas tartan which is black and grey. It was from this that Clan Moffat took its modern tartan by adding a thin red stripe to it respectively as a token of allegiance to Clan Douglas ("The Moffats," by Moffat of that Ilk). I could be mistaken, and I often am, but if I recall correctly there are indeed connections with the Barony and Lordship of Holydean and Clan Douglas, but the clan was greater than its involvement in Kelso, it being a very large and powerful clan. Having become somewhat of an expert on the Barony and Lordship of Holydean, I have seen little history in the old records regarding a clan that is proportionately too great for so little historical record in Kelso. Thus, with humility I say it is my opinion that the honourable Clan Douglas should not limit its origins to Kelso but the clan historians should consider a broader scope of origination. Kind regards, Holydean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holydean (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

Care to explain why you think this article needs a rewrite? Nfras 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it is a mass of unreferenced near gobbledegook with no consistent chronological flow. Further, the whole article is simplistic and naive in its interpretation of various major players within the Kingdom of Scots, Gaels or no . Did you actually Read what I previously posted? While the article does contain information that should be useful for a student of Scots history, it cannot be verified, and therefore cannot be useful as such, a major no-no for a supposedly serious encyclopaedia. Please remember this is not Shortbread, Nessie and Brigadoon. Brendandh 02:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen Sir, I do not intend to carry this on much further and regret the insinuations that you seem to be making. The Court of the Lord Lyon, albeit the oldest extant of its type in the Western world, takes a line that those of the diaspora of Scotland, as that is rather where its major source of business comes from, need to be confirmed as "Real" Scots, from "Real Clans", regardless of whether this is accurate or not. For example see the Court's interest in "Clan Tartan", the wearing of the modern Kilt, a military convention, worn now by civilians, a distant cousin of the Breacan Feile, is seen as the standard Scots dress. This despite the discredited Vestiarium Scoticum of the Sobieski Stuarts. As I previously have mentioned, the article for Clan Douglas, a modern invention alongside many other 'Neo'-Clans should refer to the undoubted exploits of the descendants of the Douglas, beyond these shores. This article, Clan Douglas, repeats and regurgitates misinformation from dubious sources, that relate to important historic personages, who are not here to defend themselves but if they were.... Further, this is not about the aggrandising of one particular branch of the present day House, that of Angus, Morton or Queensberry, but proper factual information. Brendandh 02:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article is a "mass of unreferenced near gobbledegook with no consistent chronological flow", then please, by all means rewrite it. I would have no objections to the article being rewritten, I was asking because I didn't know why you wanted it rewritten. You added the re-write tag but didn't say why. Regarding the insinuations, I am making no insinuations. I merely stated that I am taking the stance of the Court of the Lord Lyon as the definitive source (as it is the legal arbiter in these matters). Regarding the exploits of the descendants of Douglas outside Scotland, I have no objection to this and feel it would add greatly to the article. Many other Clan articles reference overseas achievements (Barclay is one that springs to mind - The De Tolley-Barclay line for example). If you want to rewrite the article then I would be very happy to work collaboratively to rewrite it with you. To be honest, I think we both want the same outcome but are going at it from two different viewpoints which is counter-productive. I'm not looking for an argument, I am trying to get a consistent approach across all Clan articles and create a useful repository of information on the Clans of Scotland. You obviously have a lot of knowledge regarding the Douglases and have a lot to contribute but this bickering is getting us nowhere. Nfras 05:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the infomation is actually in chronological order. As for references I'm sure a 'good' book on the Clan Douglas will do the trick Psycotics1454

There is a good book about the Douglas family, it is by Dr. Michael Brown and it is called 'The Black Douglases'. It is the definitive work on the medieval Douglas family and is unlikley to be bettered anytime soon. The idea of a 'Clan Douglas' is not good history, just victorian sentimentality; a better usage would be 'family' or 'kin' or perhaps 'affinity', but 'clan' is just silly. 217.43.69.36 (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Och it's aye been wi' the guid book. Brendandh (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-wrote and added some references to much of the content of this article. The Douglases can be considerd a clan. Its not just a victorian idea that the Lowlanders were clans. They did historically live in large clans. QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern era" section[edit]

A notice has been placed in the Modern era section saying that the article should not contain any "miscellaneous" information. This could be correct as the article is supposed to be about the "Clan Douglas" and much of that info might not be clan related. So is it fair to delete this section ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe certain things could be deleted, but the 'modern era' should be covered within the article. Just because there aren't Douglases reivers romping across the borders on horseback doesn't mean the clan ceases to exist. The Douglases are represented at the The Gathering 2009 as i type this.--Celtus (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agee, there should be a modern era section as long as its accurate and well sourced. Just becuase a person is called 'Douglas' does not mean they must have a connection with the clans' history. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening lines[edit]

I disagree with the statement in the opening paragraph about the Clan Douglas being "one of the smallest 21st century clans". Firstly there are not any actual "clans" anymore so I presume the statement is refering to the clan association or society, and if this is the case it should be stated so. Also there is no actual chief of the Clan Douglas, so is there an actual "official society or association" anyway ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Clan Douglas Society of North America. Though maybe the editor is thinking of numbers of the surname in Scotland or worldwide, or something like that. Either way it is an opinion unless backed-up, right? The chiefship thing seems to be only a technicality. From the SCOSC website: "The Douglas-Hamiltons are the heirs to the house of Douglas but cannot assume their titles since the Lord Lyon requires them to assume the single name Douglas". Maybe Douglas-Hamiltons are an extremely small family!--Celtus (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Septs[edit]

It is disappointing to not see Kirkpatrick listed as a sept of Clan Douglas. Among many(amateur)Kirkpatrick historians/genealogists, the lowlands dwelling Kirkpatrick family would have been closely aligned with the Douglases (as opposed to the highlands Colquhouns)and their inclusion as a sept under the more powerful Douglas Clan would be reasonable. Hweha (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the term "Septs" in this article since it was jargon. This reference actually says "septs" is an incorrect term. SomeRandomFilmArticleEditor (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think electricscotland.com would not come under the standard of WP:RS; see Talk:Scottish clan/Archive 1#Peer review May 2009 section Accuracy & Neutrality. electricscotland.com as a source was also disused at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland/Archive 1#Clan Martin and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland/Archive 1#Clan Martin and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland/Archive 1#excessive or improper use of copyrighted material and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland/Archive 1#Clan Duncan. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of septs given in this article appear more "inclusive" than the lists of septs recognized by the official Clan Douglas societies of North America and Australia. What criteria were used in selecting these sept names and what historical evidence is provided/available for their inclusion? I have researched the Douglas septs for over two years for Clan Douglas Society of North America and I have documentation for many of them. My research can be seen in pdf. format or Flipbook format on the Douglas Archives website [4]. While I am not against including surnames outside the "official" organization's lists, the responsible thing would be to have some documentation available. I suspect "Dickle" is a mistake and should be "Dickie" (a variant of Dickey). I have never seen any of the following listed as septs of Douglas: Alexander, Drongon, Hardy/Hardie, Henry, Hixson, Irwin, McConnachie -- and these inclusions may be based on someone's wishful thinking and a desire to belong. I have seen Simms and Syme listed (as variants of Symington). (Apparently) Kidston is accepted as a Douglas sept but I have seen no proof (but would love to have it, if it exists). Hweha

Clan Douglas Society of North America (CDSNA) and Clan Douglas Association of Australia (CDAA) have what appear to be the more acceptable sept lists. CDAA based their sept list on the list provided by CDSNA back in the 1980s. CDAA lists Bell …and so did CDSNA until a few years ago when Bell was removed based upon a request from clan Bell. In my opinion, it never should have been removed; Bell is a sept of Douglas. Agnew was accepted by CDSNA as a sept in December 1988 based on its being noted as a sept in the 1954 publication Badges of the Scottish Clans, Blackett was accepted by CDSNA as a sept sometime between 1996 and 1999. The list of septs, as accepted by CDSNA and/or CDAA: Agnew, Bell, Blackett, Blacklock, Blackstock, Blackwood, Blaylock, Breckinridge, Brown, Brownlee, Cavan, Cavers, Dick, Dickey, Drysdale, Forest, Forrester, Foster, Gilpatric, Glendinning, Glenn, Harkness, Inglis, Kilgore, Kilpatrick, Kirkland, Kirkpatrick, Lockerby, Lockery, MacGuffey, MacGuffock, McKittrick, Morton, Sandlin, Sandilands, Simms, Soule, Sterrett, Syme, Symington, Troup, Young

I have doubts about the validity of Kilgore and Young. The Young connection is weak (at best) and the story relating the Douglas family to the Kilgore family through an anonymous foundling sounds more like romantic fiction.

I note that Carmichael is included in the sept list here but it has not been accepted by CDSNA or CDAA although I would agree it has a definite connection to Douglas. Other names that have justification for inclusion as septs of Douglas are: Carruthers, Dalziel, Deal, Dickson, Dixon, Hamilton, Home, Moffat, Rowell, Rowle, Rule, Rutherford, Turnbull, and Weir. These names (and others) will be considered at the July 2012 CDSNA AGM for possible inclusion into CDSNA’s list of recognized septs. Hweha (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Hweha[reply]

  • Ok, Hamilton and Home are certainly NOT septs but their own tribes. Agnew, Sandilands and Glendinning under their own chiefs were NOT septs, but were historically and feudally subservient to Douglas. The riding surnames of the Borders such as Dixon, Moffat, Rutherford and Turnbull were NOT septs either, even though they were at times vassals of the Douglas also. The other surnames could at a pinch be considered septs of Douglas, but more from vassalage rather than Derbfine. Brendandh (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I agree with you regarding Sandilands and Glendinning; both are traditionally considered septs of Douglas. Your argument for vassalage rather than being a sept and could easily be applied to Carmichael (which is not a sept of Douglas), Kirkpatrick, or Symington. Hamilton and Home may be 'tribes' but they are also heirs of the Douglas titles and have a much clearer claim to connection with Douglas than those surnames I listed in an earlier comment that have NO connection to Douglas but appear to be someone's wishful thinking. In my opinion, those unconnected names should be removed from the listed septs unless some traditional or historical evidence can be provided for their inclusion. Hweha (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know its not the best source but Electric Scotland has a list of septs for Clan Douglas here: [5]
      • There is a discussion in the Douglas Archives about the inclusion of the Bells here: [6] with a link to the CDSNA sept booklet Shipsview (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Alexander, Drongan, Hardy, Hardie, Henry, Hixson, Irwin, and McConnachie from the listed septs since no real evidence for inclusion has been offered and these names have not been accepted by CDSNA or CDAA. Dickle changed to Dickie, since the 'l' was an obvious misprint for'i'. Kirk was removed since this is likely a misinterpretation of Kirk/Kilpatrick where Kirk was assumed to be a separate name and no other evidence for Kirk has been found. Forest, Forrest, Forrester, Forster, Harkness, Simms, Syme, Troup added since these are recognized by CDSNA and/or CDAA and evidence is available for their inclusion. Although they appear to have been accepted as septs, evidence is weak for Kidston, Kilgore, Troup, and Young and any documentation for these would be appreciated. Hweha (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Osborn from the listed septs since no real evidence for inclusion has been offered and these names have not been accepted by CDSNA or CDAA. Shipsview (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treachery at Teba[edit]

"Alfonso kept his army back from the attack; likely in some arrangement with his cousin Edward who could never beat the Douglas in combat."

This comment seems to be based on a highly speculative interpretation of a passage in Le Bel's Chronique (repeated in Froissart) which describes Douglas, having misunderstood an adjustment in the allied battle line, charging unsupported into the midst of the Granadan army. He had assumed the whole Christian army was about to attack but was 'profoundly mistaken', as LeBel puts it, for not one man moved. As a result, Sir James and his whole company were overwhelmed and killed. In LeBel's view, failing to support Douglas once he had committed this error was, 'a great shame and a great failure on the part of the Spanish' but neither he or any other 14th century source mentions treachery on the part of the King of Castile.

It is arguable that this train of events, which is only one among several versions of how Douglas died, demonstrates as much a degree of good sense and discipline among the Christian troops. Even Barbour, who does not say Douglas advanced in error, mentions (without any further comment) Alfonso's provision of liaison officers to brief the Scots in the local ways of war on the Frontera. Barbour does not question the need for such advice and his description of Douglas pressing forward in pursuit of a retreating enemy is ambiguous. However, immediately he realises that he is advancing unsupported, Douglas is shown prudently turning back to re-group and it is only his decision to aid a comrade in trouble that seals his fate. Thus Barbour can emphasis Douglas' loyalty and valour, echoing his loyalty to Bruce, and highlight that as the cause of his death rather than any rashness or lack of caution in fighting an unfamiliar enemy.

This passage really ought to be cut but for now, in case there is a creditable published commentary I am unaware of, I shall tag it 'citation needed' —Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistency[edit]

How come Clan Hamilton has a Chief, but not Douglas? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone agrees that the Duke of Hamilton is the 'heir to the chiefdom'. The earl of Morton is the head of the male line of the Douglas family. The earl of Home could also be considered to have a claim.Shipsview (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm no. The Earl of Morton is not the heir male to the chieftancy of the House of Douglas, he is a descendant of a younger son of Archibald I, Lord of Douglas. Following the forfeiture of 1455, the Earls of Angus were the Chiefs of the House of Douglas. The Douglases of Dalkeith were always a cadet of the two larger branches, excepting the single occasion when the 8th Earl of Angus inherited his uncle's de jure uxoris title of Morton following Morton's decapitation, the Earl of Morton has never been the head of the house. The present Earl of Angus (the Duke of Hamilton) is the senior direct male descendant of William de Douglas.

Further, considering there are no marriage certificates available for the Dalkeith line, I would like any contemporary commentator to put it to either Archibald the Grim or Bell-the-Cat that they were not the head of their house, no matter that both red and black branches were founded in bastardy. Brendandh (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently none of you read the question. the Duke of Hamilton has the last name Douglas-Hamilton, and is heir to the chiefs of both clans. However, this article says his grace is not chief of Douglas because of his name, the clan Hamilton article says his grace is chief. In addition, the source cited in this article also lists the his grace as chief of Hamilton. Also, the cited source, mentions neither the Lord Lion, or Hamilton's name. It only confirms the emptiness of the Douglas seat by it's absence. So obviously something is wrong. Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Lord Lyon cannot decide who is the chief of a clan. He can only decide who is chief of the "name and arms". In most cases the chief of the "name and arms" is usually also the chief of the clan, but there are some exceptions. An example of this would be Clan Fraser where the chief of the clan and the "chief of the name and arms" are two different people. As for the Duke of Hamilton being granted, by law, the "chief of the name and arms" of Douglas, he does have the right in that he is the closest relative, even if it is through a female line, but the Lord Lyon will only grant him "chief of the name and arms" if he takes the singular name of "Douglas" not "Hamilton-Douglas". If he did just change his name to "Douglas" then he could no longer be "chief of the name and arms" of Hamilton which is why he has not changed it to just Douglas.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to clarify: the present Duke of Hamilton is 'the' senior direct male descendant of William I, Lord of Douglas in an unbroken line via William Douglas-Hamilton, Duke of Hamilton and his wife Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton (she being the then head of the House of Hamilton. The present Duke of Hamilton is also the chief of the name and arms of Hamilton, see the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. Brendandh (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well even if he is the nearest relative through the direct male line of Douglas, then he still has to assume the name of Douglas only to become chief of the name and arms of Douglas. Then he cannot be chief of the name and arms of Hamilton. Either way he is neither chief of Clan Douglas or chief of the name and arms of Douglas.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Duke of Hamilton is Hamilton, he also is Douglas. A peer is qualified by his territorial designation. That he may also be the senior member of another house seems immaterial? The present Duke (who is also the Marquis of Douglas) is descended in a direct primogeniture line from William I, Lord of Douglas, and via William the Hardy's union with Eleanor de Lovaine, from Charlemagne; in much the same way that the Dukedom of Hamilton was settled on a Douglas, via the ladies. Still anyway, if there is still a girn check with Lyon [7] Brendandh (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a number on that site to call them during office hours btw! Brendandh (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I sent a email to the council, they have yet to reply. It seems that the Duke of Roxburghe, can not be chief of Innes because he has a double name, yet the Duke of Hamilton and the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne both have double names, yet they can be chiefs. explain this? I understand the arms part, and the descent. The question is just about the names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinynanorobots (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Douglas branches[edit]

Quintus, you have added some interesting Branches to Clan Douglas: Douglas of Hardy, Douglas of Sandlin and Douglas of Sterrett.
Can you tell us a bit about them? Where are Hardy, Sandlin and Sterrett? Who are the progenitors of these branches? Shipsview (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shipsview, I did not add those branches to the branches box, they were already there. All I did was add the surname of Douglas to each one and also put them into a vertical list which I think is more appropriate then having them in a written list seperated by a comma. However from what I know these branches appear to be historically the most important branches in relation to the "chieftainship" of the Clan Douglas.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh! I wonder who did list them? Sterrett and Sandlin are septs - that is not the same as a branch, and there are 30 more septs. William Douglas the Hardy was one person, there is no branch or sept that follows that name, as far as I am aware. I am not sure that 'Clan Douglas' has branches, but if it did, that would be presumably Morton, Drumlanrig/Queensberry/Buccleuch, Douglas-Hamilton and Home? Or would the list include all the families, most of whom are listed here: http://www.douglashistory.co.uk/history/families/index.htm ?Shipsview (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Douglas of Sandlin, Douglas of Sterrett, (Hardy, hardly!!!) etc, eh? These are names of families related to and historically vassals of the House of Douglas, but not called Douglas . (cf. those of the surname Barlas/s, descended from Catherine Douglas). See here [8]. If one is looking for cadet branches other than the main Black and Red, where's Douglas of Mains, Douglas of Cavers etc? Removing this box until someone can do a proper bit of research rather than just popping something up as the mood takes them. Brendandh (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have removed those names which are Sept names, and also removed Hardy as that was just one person. I am not sure who listed these originally. I have left the Douglas of Douglas, Douglas of Angus and Douglas of Morton. There must be many other branches, maybe someone can find out. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem now is, that there is no Douglas of Douglas in the Black line any more. The title Lord Douglas of that Ilk is currently held by the Earl of Home, however the legality of that is moot. So as per the above section, both the Home's (dubious) and Hamilton's Douglas lines are from theRed branch. The only peerage representatives of the Black line left are the Drumlanrig Douglases, the Duke of Buccleuch and Marquis of Queensberry, as bastard sons of James Douglas, 2nd Earl of Douglas. Following the forfeiture in 1455 of James Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas, the Douglas of that ilk became George Douglas, 4th Earl of Angus, so Douglas of Douglas and Douglas of Angus became the same line. Brendandh (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Black Douglas of Douglas line should be kept in there even if it has died out because this was the original chief line and historically is therefore the most important branch of the clan. As for the red branch that should be kept for the reasons you have mentioned above. Of course the Douglas of Morton line should be kept because that is still extant. It might be worth adding the Douglas of Ormond/Forfar branch which again has died out but is significant in the history of the clan.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black Douglas hasn't died out though, and is represented by the Drumlanrig Douglases, ie Queensberry, minor collateral byblows of the 2nd Earl of Douglas. Douglases of Dalkeith (Morton) were prior to the schism of Black/Red. Following the attainder of 1445, as I pointed out the Douglas of Douglas was the Red Douglas ie Angus. The Earldom of Ormonde was firstly created for the brother of the last Earl of Douglas, who was executed shortly after his ennoblement following the Battle of Arkinholm, secondly created for a younger son of the Marquis of Douglas (A Red) who had succeeded to the majority of the Blacks forfeited lands, including the caput of the Lordship of Ormonde, Avoch Castle, not enough to qualify as a 'branch', I don't think. Furthermore the primacy of one particular branch over the other was not about titles of nobility, it was about power, who controlled the territory, who controlled the king, who had the strongest inernational ties, following 1445 that was undoubtably the Reds.

Douglas of Douglas is misnomer if referring just to the Blacks, the various men who led the house of Douglas were referred to as in normal Scots usage by their territorial designation, eg the sons of the 7th Earl of D are always referred to as Douglas, Moray, Ormonde and Balvenie. The Earl of Douglas was simply Douglas, the Earl of Angus simply Angus, as can be shown when the 11th Earl of Angus was ennobled further as the Marquis of Douglas, he became the Douglas, as well as being Angus. One of the reasons why there is a redirect from Black Douglas to the Earl of Douglas, and a redirect from the Red Douglas to the Earl of Angus. If one needs a comparison look at the chieftancy of Clan Donald, and the descendants of Alexander of Islay, Earl of Ross, a similar situation to the decendants of William Douglas, 1st Earl of Douglas insofar that although the Lordship of the Isles does not exist, in the main line as Lord of the Isles, The MacDonald of that Ilk is now the descendant of his younger illegitmate son Lord MacDonald. Brendandh (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what makes a branch? if you look at Clan Donald, they have some branches that have chiefs, and a few other clans have a sort of auxiliary branch. and this becomes an issue on all the clan articles. For all of them have many branches of different statuses, but without different terms. Historically the Chief was the leader of the clan, and so at least getting the other members to follow is required. although heritable jurisdictions probably played a role. The reason for the redirect from Black to Red, was that the Red inherited (in an irregular fashion) the property of the Black Douglas, and most likely their vassals. When it comes to inheritance, some times favor with the King, trumps primogeniture. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the case of the Clan Donald, it is unusual in that some of the branches had their own chiefs but this is probably because they were such a big clan. This isn't the case with branches of most other clans. But then you have the question: what makes a chief ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Angus didn't recieve the Lordship irregularly, see here [9]. Also see here at 670 [10] and here at 770 [11]. The former of 1457 gives the 4th Earl of Angus, former Black Douglas lands in SW Scotland. The latter from 1463 following the 4th Earls death, gives control of the Lordship of Douglas, and the Lordship of Tantallon to his brother William Douglas of Cluny to be held in wardship for the underage Archibald Douglas, 5th Earl of Angus. Further charters on page 856 in the the index. Brendandh (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was irregular because an attainder was involved. When the 9th Earl died, he still had a brother. Also, although he is a relative of the previous lord of douglas. he didn't inherit it, the King took it from the Black Douglases and gave it to the Earls of Angus. Which is why Angus is didn't receive all their titles. Of course all lines Red, Black, and Queensberry are all illegitimate descendants from the Lords of Douglas. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, he didn't have a living brother. 8th Earl died in 1452, Moray and Ormond in 1455, and Balvenie in 1463. The youngest Henry/George, is supposed to have died aged 15 years. The 9th Earl didn't die until 1488. [12] Brendandh (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further, it wasnot irregular, because if one looks at the links above which are from the Register of the Great Seal of Scotland, they refer to the de jure Lord of Douglas, ie the Earl of Angus. Brendandh (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest that it was illegal. Rather abnormal. Of course, if one looks at the logic that placed Archibald the Grim as heir over Baron Drumlanrig, then it makes since that the Angus line is Chief. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The primogeniture of bastardy no less! Brendandh (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surname[edit]

Here are reliable sources for the origin of the surname:

  • "Learn about the family history of your surname". Ancestry.com. Retrieved 23 November 2011. This website cites: Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-508137-4.
    • "various places called Douglas from their situation on a river named with Gaelic dubh 'dark', 'black' + glas 'stream' (a derivative of glas 'blue')".
  • Hanks, Patrick; Hardcastle, Kate; Hodges, Flavia (2006), A Dictionary of First Names, Oxford Paperback Reference (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, p. 402, ISBN 978-0-19-861060-1
    • "Transferred use of the surname from a place in the Southern Uplands named with Gaelic dubh 'black' + glas 'stream'".
  • Reaney, Percy Hilde (1995), Wilson, Richard Middlewood (ed.), A Dictionary of English Surnames (3rd ed.), Oxford University Press, p. 139, ISBN 0-19-8631464.
    • "From Douglas (Lanarkshire), 'the black water' (Gael dubh, glas)".

Here are reliable sources for the origin of the place name, from which the above sources state that the surname is taken from:

  • Mills, Anthony David (2003), Oxford Dictionary of British place names (reprint ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198527589
    • "S. Lan. Duuelglas c.1150 '(Place on the) Douglas Water'. The Celtic river name means 'black stream' (OGaelic dub + glais)".
  • Mac an Tàilleir, Iain (2003), placenamesC-E (pdf), p. 40. This pdf is a list of placename etymologies hosted on the Scottish Parliament Website. I suspect the author is the same Iain Mac an Tàilleir of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig mentioned on their website here: [13].
    • "Black stream", from an older Gaelic Dubhghlas".
  • Broderick, George, Pre-Scandinavian Place-Names in the Isle of Man (doc). Broderick is scholar who written numerous books and papers on Manx placenames (see here: [14]). While this is specifically the etymology of the Manx placename Douglas, it notes that the Scottish placename (amongst others) is derived in the same way.
    • "It is generally agreed that Douglas is derived from PCelt. *duboglassio-, i.e. PCelt. *dubo-, dubu-, OW dub, W. du, OIr. dub, Ir. dubh 'black; deep', with PCelt. *glassio-, W. glais, OIr. glaiss, Ir. glais 'water, river', with the meaning of 'clear water' (cf. Watson 1926: 457, Ekwall 1928: 131-32, Jackson 1953: 275, 276, 674), with its contrasting Fionnghlais. Douglas is a settlement name derived from a river name. It is quite com­mon in British and Irish place-names, whether as Douglas (Man, Scot­land, Ire­land), Dyfleis, Dulais (Wales), or Douglas, Develish, Dawlish, Dowlish, etc (England)".

Brendandh, please don't remove these sources. If you think you have a better source, which shows that these are in error, then give it here and tell us what is says. You can't remove stuff just because you don't like it. You can't create your own etymologies to trump the ones offered in modern reliable sources. If there really was a tradition that the surname was derived from Cumbric and meant 'dark grey', then give the source, and we can add it into the article properly so it is clear where outdated tradition ends and current belief begins.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motto[edit]

Reverting change: Jamais dernier would be Never last. Jamais arriere is Never behind Shipsview (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm French and I would definitely translate "jamais arrière" by "never backwards", in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE2C:A690:24F2:7A42:C13D:5FE (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Thrones[edit]

I see no basis for removal of "The events were included in the HBO episode, The Rains of Castamere, of Game of Thrones which aired June 2, 2013 in the United States." User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree that reference to a single episode of a TV series does not warrant inclusion, however, with more than 700,000 mentions on Twitter, Facebook, blogs, news sites and forums, online chatter about the episode does make this notable. (Source: Mashable) Shipsview (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NORTHERN CRUSADER[edit]

Th A Fischer, in his books on Scots in Poland and Prussia, - "Scots in Eastern and Western Prussia" (1903)- http://archive.org/stream/scotsineasternwe00fisc#page/n5/mode/2up writes of the death of a Lord Douglas at the hands of English knights in Danzig/Gdansk, whilst a guest of the Teutonic Order on the Northern Crusades.

"The death of Lord William Douglas of Nithisdale in 1390 or 1391 is related to us by various Scottish, English, French and German sources, all of which have been enumerated in our previous volume. [Scots in Germany] To these may now be added the oldest Hochmeister Chronik dated about the beginning of the fifteenth century. It mentions Lord Douglas in these words: "There the English slew a very honourable earl out of Scotland on whose account there was great grief amongst all the Lords, for he was a very staunch fellow in body, possessions and honour." [The writer of the Chronicle seems to refer to Konigsberg.]"

"William Douglas was the natural son of Archibald Douglas. The united knights of England and Scotland, who after the battle of Otterburne in August 1388 agreed to terminate their incessant feuds by an armistice of three years duration, had, according to Scotch sources, made him commander of a fleet of 240 ships. Shortly after his arrival at Danzig he excited the jealousy of some English warriors of rank, who as friends of his mortal enemy Clifford did not scruple to assassinate him. It appears that this Clifford had in Scotland challenged Douglas to fight him in single combat... We are not told that he went to Prussia also, but his friends acted for him, hired assassins, waylaid Douglas on his way home from church and killed him and one of his servants near the end of a bridge. Most probably this was the bridge, or more correctly the quay, of the Mottlau river, called then as now the "long bridge." One of its gates, the Frauenthor, was near the High Altar of the Church of St Mary." Th A Fischer: "Scots in Germany" (1902)

This would be William Douglas of Nithsdale. Shipsview (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)(Not the author of the above entry)[reply]

Indeed. We could do with getting a better represention of his arms, than my rather inept scan from a few years ago, and maybe an image of the historic gate in Danzig, if such exist? Brendandh (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clan crests[edit]

The article features a green salamander surrounded by fire on a chapeau as the crest of 'Clan Douglas'. Yet, there never was a crest for all Douglases. The Douglases of Drumlanrig use a heart crowned and winged, the Douglases of Morton use a boar passant between two trees, whilst the Douglases of Lochleven use a boar twixt an oak tree cleft. Other have a hand holding a spear or dagger or sword. A peacock and a savage holding a club also feature.

The Salamanader has become the crest used by highland dress suppliers, leading to Douglas family members wearing incorrect arms. We have no control over what they do, but we can make a better Wikipedia entry. I would be interested in the views of others more knowledgeable. Shipsview (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the enflamed Salamander (a royal symbol of France) came after the Dukedom of Touraine was conferred upon Archibald Douglas, 4th Earl of Douglas, prior to that, according to the Gelre armorial the Earl wore a plume of ostrich feathers, a hint of which may be seen in the Drumlanrig lots' crest of the winged heart. Brendandh (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morton Castle[edit]

Never the seat of the Earls of Morton! Shipsview (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now just hang on a minute. It appears from the info in the Morton Castle page that it belonged the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Douglas Earls of Morton. And I would be interested to know when it became known as Morton Castle ? was it under their occupation ? Yes the article says that the earldom was named after a different Morton, but it seems more than likely that the castle was named after the earldom, given the four earls. It seems a little too much of a coincidence for the castle to have been named Morton but not because it was a seat of the Earls of Morton. And where are your sources ? The Morton Castle article has a list of books but no proper references.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A long minute!
It is often difficult to find a source for something that did not happen. I would argue that it is you that needs to find a source to show that Morton castle was the 'seat'.
What is a 'seat'? If you are suggesting that it is 'an alternative name for a stately home in the British Isles', then you are possibly correct. But usually it refers to a principal residence when referring to nobility. The 19th Earl lists his 'seats' as Dalmahoy, Aberdour Castle, Conaglen House and Loddington Hall (Peerage, 81st edition). The 20th Earl listed Aberdour Castle and Dalmahoy (Debrett's, 1956). The 21st Earl, in the draft for the 2015 edition, lists his 'residence' as the Old Mansionhouse, Dalmahoy (no 'seat'). So, certainly no recent Earl of Morton has had Morton Castle as his seat.
As to early holders of the Barony, there is this:
The name of this earldom derives from a small holding in East Calder. Originally it was named for another family holding, the Parish of Morton in Nithsdale but at the time of his belting as Earl, his step-grandmother, Janet Borthwick, who held Morton in Nithsdale objected to the name of the Earldom but it was at that time determined the name came from Morton in East Calder (Calderclere). See Scots Peerage, Vol. 6, p. 354. As found on this page: James_Douglas,_1st_Earl_of_Morton. This is explained in more detail in Adams' 'A history of the Douglas family of Morton (Dumfriesshire) and their descendants'. This does not make it a seat of the early Earls of Morton; just one of their properties. Shipsview (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A have updated the article accordingly.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An oar to be poked in

With no intention to upset the parade, but a family is capable of having more than one seat: look at the present Buccleuch. Morton Castle was a caput of a barony, and I believe though cannot verify, that it was the original intention to take title from there, and Mistress Borthwick's attempt to keep her kailyard green and seperate caused a bit of last-minute wrangling! Brendandh (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'more than one seat' - as demonstrated by the 19th and 20th Earls. But there is no evidence that Morton was used as a residence, so... Shipsview (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corresponding from my particular seat in the Borderland, home is where one choses to hang one's hat! It was certainly used by them. Brendandh (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas generals[edit]

Apart from general clan matters, I also have an interest in the military pages here on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_generals_and_brigadiers has a number of Douglas generals whose biographical entries require writing. Any takers? Shipsview (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Heron[edit]

I have removed Clan Heron from the list of allied clans because it was not rendering correctly. But were this English family allies of the Douglases? Shipsview (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC) I appear to have only corrected the link! Shipsview (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clan Douglas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial shields[edit]

Amongst the armorial shields is depicted that of 'Sir Archibald Douglas'. These arms were used by Hugh, Earl of Ormond, brother of Archibald, Earl of Moray. My understanding is that they were also used by Archibald, 3rd Earl of Douglas, though he had others. I hope someone more knowledgeable than I can confirm and then amend the caption? Shipsview (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Douglas families in France, Germany, and Sweden[edit]

The recent reversion of (unreferenced) entries referring the European branches of Clan Douglas highlights their omission from this article. Perhaps Equord and Tataral would like to rectify this?Shipsview (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:QuintusPetillius is engaged in a series of disruptive edits to this article, and appears to believe that this is his personal article that he WP:OWNs and that he is entitled to revert all edits by others, regardless of their merits, for example the highly relevant and sourced material about the Swedish family branch which is in fact the primary focus of the corresponding article in Swedish and an equal focus of the German article (de:Douglas_(Dynastie)#Schwedische_Linie). Douglas is very much a European dynasty with notable branches in other countries than Scotland and this article doesn't adequately reflect that.

I should also note that this is a badly written, badly structured, very much unfinished article of low quality in the first place. --Tataral (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the proposal to create a separate article for the Swedish branch: If someone wanted to write an extensive in-depth article about the Swedish branch, then it would be fine to create a separate article (in accordance with WP:SPLIT), but the Swedish branch's history should still be summarized in this article, because it is the main article on the family to which also the Swedish branch belongs. We currently only have a brief section on the Swedish branch, which would belong in this article regardless of the potential future existence of an in-depth article on that branch. --Tataral (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect link[edit]

The link from the reference to the Drysdale connection, Drysdale/Douglas Family History, charm.www5.50megs.com, brings up security warnings. Is there a better reference? Shipsview (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External link[edit]

The link to the Canadian site, using the Wayback Machine, no longer works. Can anyone find it? Shipsview (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

his embalmed heart was recently recovered in the Douglas vaults[edit]

"Douglas' bones were boiled and returned to Scotland; his embalmed heart was recently recovered in the Douglas vaults at the Kirk of St Bride"

This reference to the remains of Sir James, Lord of Douglas (died 1330) appears to be a misreading of the two cited sources, the first of which (Hewitson, 1997)only refers to the alleged discovery of Robert Bruce's heart at Melrose; the second (Maxwell, 1902) offering only this statement in reference to St Bride's church: "Let into the altar steps, and covered with glass, are two heart-shaped leaden caskets, one of which is reputed to contain the heart of the Black Douglas ; but there is reason to believe rather that they contain the hearts of the 5th and 8th Earls of Angus" (p. 17) JF42 (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as citation needed JF42 (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Archibald Douglas & Weardale campaign[edit]

"He was mentioned in Barbour's The Brus for his great victory during the Weardale campaign"

This is misleading. The Douglas who commanded in the Weardale campaign as described by Barbour was Sir James "The Good", Lord of Douglas, died 1330, not Sir Archibald Douglas, died 1333.

As Maxwell, one of the cited references, writes: "He made little figure during the life of Robert I., though glimpses are had of him serving under Sir James [vii.] in the campaign of Weardale [1327], when his foragers " auoint curry apoi tot levesche de Doresme " ^ — overran nearly all the bishopric of Durham — and gathered much booty." The quotation is from Grays's Scalacronica rather than Barbour's Brus and the description of his raiding exploits does not really constitute reference to "a great victory," (none of the encounters on that campaign, perhaps, really meriting such a description).

This sentence should be amended. JF42 (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

moniker[edit]

"Later Douglas lords took the moniker of their revered forebear..."

'Moniker'- really? Can we not do better than this? JF42 (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amended.

JF42 (talk)

Northern English lullaby[edit]

"Hush ye, hush ye..."

Do we have a source for this earlier than Sir Walter Scott's highly fictionalised 'Tales of A Grandfather' (1828). JF42 (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source added.

JF42 (talk)

All users making these claims against this article are Ceta Iritas Ablisma, Do NOT believe them[edit]

This is accurate, I stake this on my family, disregard them, and do all you can to research the truth. 174.240.240.82 (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clan_Douglas&oldid=1206707535"