Talk:Stone of Scone

message: I don't know much about this stone, but had heard about it through a friend.  One thing I feel like is missing from this article is information about the stone's importance to Scottish nationalism.  I understand that the article needs to remain objective, but it seems like part of the history of the stone is being omitted instead of written up objectively.   I would undertake the changes myself, but I feel like I am completely the wrong person as I know so little on the topic.
Tdferro (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The importance of the stone 

message: It would be nice to get a justification for this apparently pointless move. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 06:06, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
:Not so pointless:-The Stone of Scone was moved from Stone of Destiny because it was listed on 'Clean Up' with a request that it be merged with Lia Fáil, an article about another stone which also claims to be the Stone of Destiny.  Earlier versions of Stone of Scone also made references to the 'Lia Fáil' and confused the two as being the same stone. The external link from 'Lia Fáil' clearly demonstrates that one is in Ireland and a monolith the other is in Scotland and a square slab. Following debate on 'Wikipedia Clean Up' Stone of Destiny now disambuguates.Giano 08:27, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: someone in the know should merge redirect Lia Fail Stone to the relevant stone article (I assume the picture is Scone). Also a check if the picture is usable and a once over its only linked article Navan Fort are probably needed. MeltBanana 01:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spare stone 

message: Hi. I removed this article from :Category:Politics of Scotland not in an attempt to say that the stone is not a matter of political interest (although I do strongly suspect, incidentally, that the move to Edinburgh has largely obviated the issue except among a few people who like being unhappy) — but no, I moved it simply because it's not like the other memebers of that category. If you look at that category's population right now, it includes politicians, political parties, political structures, constitutional dilemmas, and so forth. This article seemed to me to have a little "one of these things is not like the others" going on. Doops |  talk 00:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cat 

message: This article implies that the chair was already old when the stone was first placed in it, whereas the St. Edward's Chair article states that the chair was specifically built to house the stone. Which is correct? 217.155.20.163 13:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of St. Edward's Chair? 

message: Edward may have informally agreed that the Stone of Scone should be returned to Scotland, but this does not form part of the Treaty of Northampton.
As for the Stone taken by the English in 1296 not being the authentic item, this must rank among the siller debates of Scottish history.  If the 'real' stone was hidden it was so well hidden it could not be produced for subsequent Scottish coronations.  It is really no surprise that it could not be dug up in time for Robert Bruce's rushed affair in 1306; but there is really no excuse for it missing that of his son, David, the first Scottish king to be anointed with full papal approval.  Besides, why claim the Westminster stone back at all if it was a fake? The question is rhetorical. Please, please, no oddball answers!
Rcpaterson 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created an article Westminster Stone theory which discusses the theory that the stone Edward took was not the real one.  It also aims to present the arguments and counter-arguments.  This alleviates the need for speculation on this page.  Perhaps the existing speculation and theories could be removed from here? Gwinva 16:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the Stone. 

message: Could someone please give me the reasons why my contribution to 'External links' constantly gets removed?
It points to a site with various well researched articles about the Stone of Destiny, but it gets removed whenever I post the link. J 10:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does Wikipedia remove my entry under 'external links', please? 

message: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contribution to Stone of Scone. However the link you keep adding is not really appropriate for that article (see Wikipedia:External_links) as it presents an unusual and controversial view which is not represented in the main article.
It would be more appropriate if you were to contribute to the main article, or even better to its talk page or create a separate article, if you believe that you have something important or worthy to add. Thanks!
--Lost tourist 10:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stone of Scone articles 

message: Dear Wibbble,
I recently added the link 'Jacob's Pillar Stone - articles & studies by JAH' and was hoping that you could please explain to me your reasons for removing the link and how you came to the conclusion of it being inappropriate, please? It is very unclear to me on what grounds it can be qualified as 'inappropriate' since the material found on the site contains in my opinion lots of highly relevant & actual information about the stone. Of course, that is my opinion - but even if one does not agree with that it still contains an interesting view, which is very well supported and well cited.
If you are interested in what is written about Jacob's Pillar in the Bible, you can find the relevant scriptures here. 
There must be some way that this information could be made available on this page, and I hope that we can find a way to settle it.
Kind regards, and hoping to hear from you soon.
Jacquessmit 08:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about removed link 

message: Does anyone know something about this stone here: Athelstan of England?--Tresckow 08:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stone in Kent 

message: Are there anyone who has taken a picture of the stone at it's place in Edinburgh Castle? Or maybe anyone who took at the ceremony of placing it there? Or even a snapshot at the copy in Scone castle? Edwin Charles (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture??

message: simply saying they took the stone implies they might have had permission. Also, what happened to the students? Rds865 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't have permission, but neither did Edward I when he stole it. Westminster Abbey didn't own it.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: theft of stone

message: I'm led to believe that the stone was accidentally broken by Suffragettes, not by Vernon, Mathieson, Hamilton and co.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have Hamilton's book handy, but I'm certain he says that it broke when they were removing it. - TG  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.84.66 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite possible that it was broken by suffragettes, repaired and then broken again along the same fault line when Hamilton took it. So both statements could be true. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakage 

message: The article said that St Edward's Chair was used for coronations of all English monarchs except Queen Mary I, Queen Mary II and King Edward VIII. King Edward VIII was not an English monarch and was not crowned at all so he had no place in that sentence but what about Mary I and Mary II? Why wasn't the chair used in their coronation ceremony? Is this information covered by the source provided in the article? Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Edward's Chair and coronations 

message: An Liath Fhàil is the name invariably used for the Stone of Destiny in colloquial Scottish Gaelic. Ltscotland is NOT (rather alarmingly!) a reliable source for Gaelic vocabulary. The term "Clach Sgain" (only source ltscotland) is a translation of an Anglo-English name which as Derek Ross has pointed out is not in common use in Scotland. Ltscotland appears to have a problem with Gaelic. Frequently Gaelic terms on ltscotland Gaelic consist of literal translations from etymologically different English terms instead (and presumably in ignorance of) Gaelic terms. 
For this reason "Clach Sgain" has been edited out. PEÓD 21.11.2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.197.159 (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   Gaelic Name & Ltscotland 

message: Isn't the Stone of Scone one of the Honours of Scotland?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.165.82 (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Where the f*** are references (or a link) to the rest of the Scottish crown jewels?

message: The Stone of Scone ( /ˈskuːn/; Scottish Gaelic: An Liath Fàil), more commonly known as the Stone of Destiny and often referred to in England as the Coronation Stone, is an oblong block of red sandstone, used for centuries in the coronation of the monarchs of Scotland, later the monarchs of England and since 1603, British monarchs. = How would that be possible? The first British monarch did not take to the throne until after the Kingdom of Great Britain had been created! That was in 1707. Before that there was a Kingdom of England and a Kingdom of Scotland. "British" refers to something or someone after the year 1707. 195.188.198.254 (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. The island of Britain existed before either the English or the Scots invaded it. Even before either England or Scotland existed the small kingdoms that later made them up were British kingdoms because they were kingdoms in Britain. So it is perfectly possible to be a British monarch without being the monarch of the whole of Britain. Hence both English and Scots monarchs were British monarchs because they were monarchs of kingdoms on the island of Britain. That is true before 1603 as well as after. Their Britishness is geographical, not political. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, this is patently untrue. After the Union of the Crowns, Scotland and England were still two separate kingdoms. The fact that they had the same monarch didn't change that. In fact, Scotland retained the right to choose its own monarch, right up to the Act of Union in 1707. As the Wikipedia article on Great Britain correctly points out: "The single Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the 1707 Acts of Union between the kingdoms of England (which at the time incorporated Wales) and Scotland." See also Act of Security 1704. Mike Marchmont (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLARING ERROR! 

message: 86.178.198.43 (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Interesting news story; do we know what happened to this stone? Are there any more references for the conclusion of the tests? AndrewJFulker (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubts 

message: James VI and 1 (Scottish title) assumed the titled of King of Great Britain in 1604, 1707 was only the union of the parliaments. Hence, while not statute it is reasonable to say 'British monarchs' after 1604.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.188.13 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And just as reasonable (as I pointed out above) before 1604. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Title

message: I think there are some problems with this bit in the quotation from the Morning Chronicle. First, is the parenthesis part of the original text in the newspaper article? Probably not, I think, so it should use square brackets to show this as an editorial addition. Second, it seems that the editor who added the conversion is assuming that the L stands for the French livre. I see no reason why a London newspaper reporting on an event in Scotland would use a French unit that was obsolete or becoming obsolete at the time. More likely it was intended to be normal avoirdupois pounds. Third, "about 500" should not be converted to a number with four significant figures. So I plan to change this bit to "weighing about 500l []". Indefatigable (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  weighing about 500l (l = livre. so 244.8kg or 539.6 pounds) 

message: Prior to my revision, it was evident that the article was written by a copyeditor(s) passionate about the subject—a non-encyclopedic tone was used and vague, obscure details were included. I have revised the entire article, but citations are still needed, so I have added an "Expert needed" template to the Refimprove template that has been there since 2011.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of article - August 2014 

message: The article claims that Walter Hemingford described the stone in Scotland in the 14th century.  How could that be if the stone had been moved to Westminster Abbey in 1296?
Also, there's a long quote from a 1819 letter to the "Morning Chronicle", in an unspecified city, describing the finding of a "semi-metallic" stone buried in a vault.  Clearly this can't be the Stone of Scone, which was sitting in Westminster Abbey at the time, so what is the relevance to this article?  Mnudelman (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1819 letter is suggesting the Scots tricked the stupid Edward I into taking the wrong stone. The “real” one was then accidentally found in 1819 where it “had been hidden since 1296”. The claimed 14th century Walter Hemingford description seems to be unexplainable. PeterColdridge (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: The article quotes at length a letter to the editor of the Morning Chronicle, dated 2 January 1819, casting doubt on the authenticity of the stone taken to England.  It cites the web site Englishmonarchs.co.uk, which does not appear to be a reliable source, though the anonymous editor who first added the quotation claims above to have seen the letter in an on-line newspaper archive.  If the letter is authentic, the article should report what results, if any, ensued from it.  If the letter is fraudulent, that should be reported, or the quotation should be deleted.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter to the editor of the Morning Chronicle, dated 2 January 1819 

message: The text of the article includes, "Some proponents of the theory claim that historic descriptions of the stone do not match the present stone." The citation-link no longer seems to work (it leads to an article in The Scotsman with the headline, "Fire brigade attacked after responding to Glasgow blaze"). Moreover, I know that the article used to have such an "historic description" with a passage that compares depictions that appear in near-contemp sources with the current Scone Abbey replica and with the broken Stone retrieved after the farcical 1950 attempt to repatriate it. Does anyone know if there is an RS with one or more historical descriptions of the Stone? If so, can you add that info, please? Last1in (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Original Description" 

message: The article just states it's used during coronations.  How exactly is it used?  I assume it's either sat or knelt on?  Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can be bothered to read beyond the first 2 lines, you'll find out. Essentially it is sat on. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is it used? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The section on the supposed identification of the Stone with the Irish Lia Fáil contradicts what is said about the translation of that term in the relevant article:
The stone was originally called Fál, a word of obscure meaning; the Dictionary of the Irish Language distinguishes the word from five homonyms in Old Irish and Middle Irish, which have respective meanings "barrier", "chieftain", "abundance", "learning", and "valley".  It is from this stone the Tuatha Dé Danann metonymically named Ireland Inis Fáil ("island of Fál"), and from this Fál became an ancient name for Ireland. The stone in turn by reverse metonymy was named Lia Fáil "[Standing] Stone of Ireland".  Inisfail appears as a synonym for Erin in some Irish romantic and nationalist poetry in English in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; Aubrey Thomas de Vere's 1863 poem Inisfail is an example.
The fianna [warrior-band] of the Fenian Cycle, though usually simply "the Fianna", was sometimes poetically called Fianna Fáil "Fianna of Ireland".  Hence Fianna Fáil was a sobriquet for modern Irish nationalist militias; for the Irish Volunteers it was an Irish-language alternative to Óglaigh na hÉireann, and the initials FF used on their cap badge have been retained on that of the current Irish Army. In Amhrán na bhFiann ["The Soldier's Song"], the republic's national anthem, the opening "Soldiers are We" is translated "Sinne Fianna Fáil". For similar reasons, Fianna Fáil is the name of a major political party in the republic. The identification of the Lia Fáil with the Scottish "Stone of Destiny" has fostered the misapprehension that "Fá[i]l" means "[of] Destiny", and hence Fianna Fáil is rendered "Soldiers of Destiny". Bibliosporias (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stone of Destiny" 

message: Hello, just linked this to a citation needed tag on the article. I cannot find any scholarly source that use this term. Beyond the Scone palace website, it's also not found on other serious sites. I'm slightly suspicious of it, as while clach does mean stone, it has a fairly rough or mundane connotation. Lia or leac would be more appropriate, and are used for other inaugural stones. Cinneamhain would align with the connotations of fate found in early latin terms, but it is a rarely used term. If it is a historical term then I think it should be retained, but if it is simply a modern translation, it's not a particularly good one, and maybe should be removed. It does appear in Dwelly's dictionary, but variously as 'Clach na Cinneamhainn' and 'clach na cineamhain'. Donnchadh nan Uaimh (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veracity of Clach na cinneamhain name