Talk:Robert de Brus, 6th Lord of Annandale

message: I have corrected here, as elsewhere, (Robert Bruce, 5th Lord of Annandale) the serious misconception that Edward I manipulated the debates and judgements surrounding the Great Cause to advance his territorial ambitions: it is simply untrue.  Judgement was fair and open.  The fact that Edward then proceeded to take advantage of the feudal concessions he had gained in the affair does nothing to detract from this truth.  
John, the Red Comyn, was Lord of Badenoch, not Earl of Buchan, a title that belonged to his kinsman.
Rcpaterson 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Great Cause

message: There is a decrepency on the death of Robert de Brus.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_I_of_Scotland  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.195.168 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert de Brus

message: What does that mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awiseman (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? --AW 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By marriage. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Literally - "By right of one's wife"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brendandh (talk • contribs) 14:38, June 4, 2007  (UTC).
I just gave this sections, they aren't that well done, but I didn't wan't to screw around with the article too much as I just stumbled on here and am not an expert. Colin 8 21:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Looks much better with sections. Just skimming over, it still has a few factual inaccuracies (e.g. Neil/Niall de Brus is the second eldest son, not the fifth). I, incidentally, have a 19th century depiction of Robert and Countess Marjory I ought to upload sometime. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  jure uxoris? 

message: According to Duncan, Niall was almost certainly the second son of Robert, not the fifth son. See: 
: Bruce, Edward, earl of Carrick (c.1280–1318), soldier and claimant to the Irish throne, was the third, or possibly fourth, son of Robert VI de Brus (d. 1304), son of the claimant for the Scottish throne, and Marjory, countess of Carrick. He had two older brothers, Robert (King Robert I), and Neil, and was probably older than Alexander and Thomas; he also had four sisters, the oldest, Isabel, married to Erik II, king of Norway. A. A. M. Duncan, ‘Bruce, Edward, earl of Carrick (c.1280–1318)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 , accessed 22 Jan 2008 Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niall de Brus 

message: Do we have a reliable source that he died of leprosy?  The only source I know of for this is Braveheart. PatGallacher (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Leprosy

message: The new title may have the merit of being unambiguous, but there is the problem that it appears to contradict the Wikipedia guideline that we refer to somebody by the most senior title they held in their lifetime. PatGallacher (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he wasn't earl of Carrick in his own right anyway (his son took the title when Marjorie died) and I'm not sure we have to worry about this kind of thing back for this period. We don't follow such guidelines when following them obscures things, e.g. why Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley and not Henry Stuart, Duke of Albany. I mean, it's no big deal. I was fine with the title until it got moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I've never added any big text to this page, but I'll respond. I don't think we really know when this all happened. It would make more sense to me that Robert VII (king) became earl because his mother was dead and he was now regarded as being of age (he's 18 in Nov 1292); this looks like more like how it normally happened in Scotland. The trouble is that these older writers overformalize things and don't see reality from "law" - i.e. Scots of the time didn't distinguish a jure uxoris earl from an ordinary one (legally), when someone gets the king's consent to change something is not necessarily the time when it is changed, etc. Anyways, I guess it is possible he did it merely for this legal fiction too; the thing is, Earl of Carrick wasn't just an honorary title, it was a right to preside over a little state, and Robert VI had no such right beyond that of his wife, who was dead and who by 1292 had an adult son. The problem with this of course is that the Lord of Annandale was even more of a vassal of the king of Scots than the earl of Carrick. So this would explain why Robert V handed Annandale to Robert VI, not why Robert VI handed Carrick to Robert VII (clearly for the reasons I've given). In Fee is a pseudo-medievalism that's meant to mean "by feudal contract". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: If you click on the link of the daughter of Robert de Brus, Margaret (born 1283) it puts you to Marjorie Brus (born 1296). Which of the two birthdays, particularly which of the two fathers is correct? Robert de Brus, 6th Lord of Annandale or Robert I, King of Scots? Can somebody help here, please?
(124.121.41.224 (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report of link mistake in article 

message: Is there a connection :
Robert De Brus was from france as were a large number of the knights templar
they were both involved in the Eighth Crusade (launched by Louis IX, King of France, in 1270)
and they were both in Acre at the same time (1271)
is it possible ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.175.226 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a connection between Robert De Brus and The Knights Templar 

message: I'm proposing to remove a lot of this article, on various grounds. On layout, it lacks well-defined sections and includes unacceptable lists, sometimes indented. On style, it reproduces chunks of primary sources and is not all in present-day English (those who want to use Latin or Gaelic will find Wikipedias for that purpose). On content, its main problems are the lack of reliable modern inline references, the use of outdated primary sources, the inclusion of unverified (possibly imaginary) dates and places, the quotation of legends and of dubious assertions from ill-informed editors or unreliable sources, and the inclusion of too much trivia (minor land transactions in rural Essex, while possibly of interest to students of local history, do not tell us anything about a man important on a European scale, who walked with kings). 
The result will be a lot shorter, but hopefully sounder. Clifford Mill (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a bad idea - I'm getting rather concerned about your edits. There is hardly any Latin or Gaelic, and re your smararse comment, will anyone looking at the WPs in those languages find anything at all on this topic? I'd go more cautiously than you usually do. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with @Clifford Mill, the article as it is now is rather confusing. I translated it in italian and made it have the good article badge, perhaps someone can work on and improve it based on the current it.Wiki version. Cosma Seini (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purging unencyclopedic material