Talk:Clan Douglas

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Clan, Family or 'House'?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Momento

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Can anyone rescue the link to the Burkes Peerage map, please?  Shipsview (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Douglas Territories

message: 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)
thread_title: Kelso Abbey, the Barony of Holydean, and a black & grey tartan

message: Care to explain why you think this article needs a rewrite? Nfras 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Modern era" section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Opening lines

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Septs

message: "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)
thread_title:  Treachery at Teba 

message: How come Clan Hamilton has a Chief, but not Douglas? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  Brendandh (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

text:  There is a number on that site to call them during office hours btw! Brendandh (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  inconsistency 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Angus didn't recieve the Lordship irregularly, see here . Also see here at 670  and here at 770 . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  Brendandh (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Clan Douglas branches

message: Here are reliable sources for the origin of the surname:
* This website cites: .
**"various places called Douglas from their situation on a river named with Gaelic dubh 'dark', 'black' + glas 'stream' (a derivative of glas 'blue')".
*
**"Transferred use of the surname from a place in the Southern Uplands named with Gaelic dubh 'black' + glas 'stream'".
*. 
**"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:
*
**"S. Lan. Duuelglas c.1150 '(Place on the) Douglas Water'. The Celtic river name means 'black stream' (OGaelic dub + glais)".
*. 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: .
**"Black stream", from an older Gaelic Dubhghlas".
*. Broderick is scholar who written numerous books and papers on Manx placenames (see here: ). 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)
thread_title:  Surname 

message: Reverting change: Jamais dernier would be Never last. Jamais arriere is Never behind Shipsview (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Motto

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Game of Thrones

message: 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)
thread_title: NORTHERN CRUSADER

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Clan crests

message: 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)
thread_title: Douglas generals

message: I have removed Clan Heron from the list of allied clans because it was not rendering correctly.</S>  But were this English family allies of the Douglases? Shipsview (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Clan Heron 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030034302/http://www.douglas.ca/ancestry/index.html to http://www.douglas.ca/ancestry/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Armorial shields 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Douglas families in France, Germany, and Sweden 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suspect link 

message: 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)
thread_title: External link

message: "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)
thread_title:  his embalmed heart was recently recovered in the Douglas vaults 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Sir Archibald Douglas  & Weardale campaign 

message: 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)
thread_title:  All users making these claims against this article are Ceta Iritas Ablisma, Do NOT believe them