Talk:Duke of Atholl

message: In 1963, all Scottish hereditary peers acquired the right to sit in the House of Lords,but hereditary Irish peers did not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.63.17.27 (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

message: I've found many references to "Duke of Athole". Same family ? If so, this article needs to mention the alternative spelling & its relevance.. if not, it needs to say something along the lines of "not to be confused with Athole"... Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Standardized spelling is a rather recent thing. What wording would you suggest? —Tamfang (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Athole spelling ?

message: I'm referring to this bit, from the very first paragraph:
:...with a special remainder failing his heirs male to those of his father...
I really have no idea what that means, and I very much doubt I'm alone. If it is absolutely necessary to use specialist language here (and I'm not necessarily saying that it isn't) then it needs to be explained to the general reader, either plainly immediately following or at minimum by the appropriate use of wikilinks. It's really not reasonable to expect a casual browser to know what (for example) "special remainder" means straight off the bat. Loganberry (Talk) 00:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me explain the basic issue, and perhaps you can fix the article in a way that makes this more comprehensible to you.  The standard remainder of a peerage is to heirs male of the person who is given the title.  So, basically, it can pass to all male-line descendants of the first holder, but not to descendants through a female line, or to anyone not descended from the original holder.  If all male-line descendants of the original holder die out, the title becomes extinct.  In this case, the special remainder means that after all male-line descendants of the original grantee die out, the title can pass to male line descendants of his father - i.e., to his brothers and their male-line descendants.  As far as articles to link to, primogeniture, remainder (law), and hereditary peer explain various aspects, although I'm not sure there's a good one stop location for all of it.  I'm not sure how much should be explained here.  On the one hand, we want readers to understand the concepts, but on the other hand this article is not about those concepts, and the article shouldn't get distracted into a detailed explanation of genealogical/legal terms. john k (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing intro 

message: I have now moved the material on the earldoms of Atholl to a separate article, Earl of Atholl. I have also substantially expanded the material on the dukedom. I think the split will make it easier for readers. Tryde (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: : As of 2010 there were twelve subsidiary titles attached to the dukedom: Lord Murray of Tullibardine (1604), Lord Murray, Gask and Balquhidder (1628), Lord Murray, Balvany and Gask (1676), Lord Murray, Balvenie and Gask, in the County of Perth (1703), Viscount of Balquhidder (1676), Viscount of Balquhidder, Glenalmond and Glenlyon, in the County of Perth (1703), Earl of Atholl (1629), Earl of Tullibardine (1628), Earl of Tullibardine (1676), Earl of Strathtay and Strathardle, in the County of Perth (1703), Marquess of Atholl (1676) and Marquess of Tullibardine, in the County of Perth (1703). These titles are also in the Peerage of Great Britain.
Eight of those titles are older than the Peerage of Great Britain.  Was something deleted? —Tamfang (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked them up.  All twelve are Scottish. —Tamfang (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  peerage of GB 

message: Surely the arms should reflect the situation which occurred in 1957, when the Barony of Strange parted company from the Dukedom: any right to bear the Ensign of Man would have similarly passed to the Heir General and presumably is at present enjoyed by the Baron  Strange. More technically, the succession to the Lordship of Man was not governed by the same entail as that of the Dukedom. There may be an argument that  as the 4th Duke sold the remaining title to the residual rights in Man in 1826, the right to bear the ensign ceased at that point; alternatively if the successive Dukes have Matriculated their arms with Lyon, then presumably the Legs of Man have been claimed in error...?? 
Manninagh1958 (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms 

message: The blazon in the infobox 
:
does not match the illustration, which is
: Quarterly, first grand quarter counter-quartered Atholl and Stewart; second grand quarter Murray; third quarter counterquartered (i) Stanley, (ii) Man, (iii) Or a on a chief indented azure three bezants, (iv) Gules two lions passant argent (Strange de Knockyn); fourth grand quarter counter-quartered (i,iv) Or a lion rampant azure and (ii,iii) Azure five fusils in fess or (Percy).
—Tamfang (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blazon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Duke of Atholl. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221074325/http://blair-castle.co.uk:80/thecastle/highlights.asp to http://www.blair-castle.co.uk/thecastle/highlights.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150730070836/http://www.europeanheraldry.org:80/united-kingdom/families/families-m-r/house-murray/ to http://www.europeanheraldry.org/united-kingdom/families/families-m-r/house-murray/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified