Talk:Clan Campbell/Archive 1

honor -> hospitality
Honour/honor isn't a particularly encyclopedic word: "I've stained my pants" might be fact, but "I've stained my honour" a matter of opinion. ;) I think "hospitality" sits better as it marks the beginning of the end for the tradition of highland hospitality. Anilocra 09:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whoever put that so called "commentary" in the article in November is an ass.

Certain branches of the Tenhet family are directly related to the Campbells of Argyle, so I put it on there

Arms
The arms are those of the Chief of the Clan, not of the clan itself. Only the chief may use them - I put in a title bar over them to correct this.--Breadandcheese 04:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lord of the Isles
No Campbell chief was ever appointed Lord of the Isles. The last Macdonald Lord of the Isles was deposed in 1493 by James IV. The following century James V reserved the title to the crown, where it remains to the present day. Rcpaterson 22:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Montrose
Montrose was executed in 1650 for preceived treasons, not for any attempt he made on Castle Campbell. Although he was hanged he was not drawn and quartered, a form of punishment for treason unique to England. Rcpaterson 23:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Montrose was hanged, and you are right, for perceived treason (he was a loyal supporter of Charles II, but not a loyal supporter of the Kirk Party of that day, which handed Charles I over to the Cromwell forces and then half-heartedly backed Charles II. It was CHarles II himself that betrayed Montrose as a peace-offering with the Kirk Party (Covenanters).  Only with Montrose executed, would the Kirk Party finally accept a shaky alliance with Charles II.  BUT, to be clear, Monstrose was not left in one piece.  His hand was sent to Aberdeen, while his head was placed upon a stake on the Tolbooth in Edinburgh.  That was common practice in 17th century Scotland.  To execute by hanging and then to DISMEMBER them.  Not exactly "Drawn and Quartered" - this was much less precise.  Hands were chopped, feet chopped, and heads chopped.  And the head, hands and feet were sent about the Kingdom to be put on display for various lengths of time. Ironically, Montrose's own political opponent, the 8th Earl of Argyll, Archibald Campbell, was himself later executed in the same manner, and his body was dismembered and he was treated likewise. Later both bodies were finally recovered, put in separate sarcophogi, and then placed in honorable entombment at either side of St. Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh. And everything I just said can be found on the plaques above each man's sarcophagus. Oghmatist (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wars of Scottish Independence
How could the Campbells have possibly fought alongside Robert the Bruce in 1333 when he had died four years previously? Also, if they (the Campbells) were awarded any land it wouldn't have been by the defeated Scots! Someone needs to either remove this reference (again!) or correct it - the battle was most likely Bannockburn in 1314!

The "Victorious" Campbells, as the writer quoted, seems could do no wrong according to this article. The Campbell clan betrayed Scotland and were perfectly content to receive land, titles, and funds from the imposter, Hanoverian queens and kings while any hope of freeing Scotland from the oppression of English rule was squashed. The ancient language Gaelic was lost, as well as an entire way of life that valued culture, family, music, religion, and other traditions that have gone to hell in this present age, and that we may never know again.

K. McLaren

-Some- of the Branches of the Campbell clan betrayed Scotland, not the entire -Clan-.

LTenhet


 * During the Scottish Wars of Independence the Campbells were indeed on the side of Scotland and The Bruce. It was only in later centuries that they became traitors to Scotland and earned the near-universal hatred from the other Highland clans which they enjoy today.--207.194.4.123 (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Clan Campbell did indeed support the English taking over Scotland, but they were not the only clan to do so. Most of those living in the lowlands supported the English or at least didn't care. Gaelic was not lost, in fact it's still spoken today, and other aspects of Scottish heritage and culture are being preserved as best it may. Clan Campbell is working as hard as any clan to preserve it's Scottish history. Next time, before you insult an entire family, get all the facts. I don't agree with some of thing things that previous clan members may have done, but that does not condemn the entire clan! A proud daughter of Clan Campbell, Gwynt (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its not quite right to say the Clan Campbell betrayed Scotland which ever way you look at it. They foguht against the Englsih during the Wars of Independance anyway. As for the Civil War of the 17th century that wasn't between England and Scotland anyway, it was between royalists, parlimentrians and Scottish covenantors. Yes the Campbells did indeed support Englishman Oliver Cromwell when he came to occupy Scotland in the 1650's but they wern't the only ones. As for the Jacobite rebellion of the 18th century, you have to take into account the Union of the Crowns in 1603 (when the Scottish king became king of England too) and also the Act of Union in 1707 when the two countries agreed to be united under the same parliment. By supporting the British Government (not English) the Campbells were obeying the law along with half of Scotland.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Campbells have become like the later O'Brien dynasty in Ireland, who are unfairly viewed as being turncoats by a persistent community of Irishmen, following the career of Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of Inchiquin. See the Sack of Cashel. DinDraithou (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I don't have anything against the Clan Campbell for what side they were on there are plenty of other reasons why people from other clans might not like them: the drowning of the Clan Arthur, the Dunoon Massacre of the Clan Lamont, oh and lets not forget the Massacre of the MacDonalds of Glencoe.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Campbell Clan has its heroes and its villains. They are probably singled out, however, because they are the most powerful noble family in Scotland, holding the greatest "claim" of title and land in Scotland, and that is a direct result of being the most politically astute and ruthless of the clans. That is not to say that no other clan was ruthless - they all were, to varying degress. The Campbells were just the best at it. Take that as either a compliment or an insult, but to pretend that they achieved that power through niceties and fluffy talk is a bit naive. They were just more effective at figuring out which way the wind blew. They often used very effective tactics of playing one clan off against another, and then when violence broke out, the Earl of Argyll or one of his scions would be very quick to offer his clan's services to the Privy Council to put down the insurrection. Part of the deal would always involve a "winner keep the spoils" term. The Campbells were also very astute business people. They offered to seize the land, in the name of the Crown, to cultivate the land, clear away some of the tenants, create dams, build roads, and basically create economically viable, income-generating properites where once existed wildnerness and pastoral settlements. The Campbells were not a typical "Highland Clan" in that respect. They were far more suited to the Feudal regime - not the Gaelic one. They rejected old Gaelic traditions of communal ownership and pastoralism and embraced first the feudalsim of vassalage and income-generating estates, and second, the commercialization of land for profit far quicker than any other clan. They had half their power base in the Lowlands - first with Castle Campbell in Clackmannanshire (near Dollar, former Castle Gloom), and then throughour Perth and Kinross. They extended westwards with each new "license" by the Privy Council to put down insurrections. And most of those insurrections involved some branch of Clan Donald on the other side. So was born the Donald/Campbell rivalry. By the time the Campbells had secured the Kintyre in the south, and Islay, north to Lorn and Glenelg and across the regions bordering Lochaber, they had become the de facto bulwark between the MacDonald clans (Keppoch, Clanranald, Sleat, Glencoe, Glengarry) and the Lowlands. They used this strategic and tactical position to great political advantage. They also were one of the earliest supporters of Calvinism (Presbyterianism) in the Highlands, giving them significant political leverage in the largely Calvinist Lowlands. By the time that the other clans figured out how to play the game, the Campbells were masters at it. Does that make the Campbells evil? No. The Gordons of Huntly were no different. They used the same tactics in the North of Scotland, to great effect. But they were Catholic longer. And that played against them during the centuries when Religion was Politics (16th and 17th). Today, Scotland still has some of these religious scars, but it has largely moved past these issues. And now, most of the Campbell land appears to be given back to the people of Scotland in the form of public parks and nature preserves. So, the title "Duke" is a title of peerage and nothing to do with political power any longer. Alex Salmond, the First Minister, and his SNP party have a lot more political power than Clan Campbell, and they represent a much broader cross section of the people than any clan chief ever did. I agree that the article appears to lionize the Campbell Clan a bit over the top, but I don't think we should demonize them as a counterweight. I would love to see the current chief of the clan offer a more balanced view of his family's history, and I do think some of the "titles" he claims were more limited in time and no longer applicable. Admiral of the Western Isles was used when the Earl of Argyll was licensed to put down insurrections that attempted to resurrect the Lordship of the Isles. That is not exactly an issue any longer! He is truly admiral of nothing, unless he is a commissioned flag officer in the Royal Navy at the rank of Admiral. Oghmatist (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Clan Campbell probably should receive some credit for actually being the only clan that ever consistently took the side of Edinburgh over everyone else almost all the time. From Robert the Bruce down to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the Campbells never really were enemies of government in Edinburgh. They did betray King Charles I - but so did Oliver Cromwell and his Parliamentarian Roundheads. The Campbells were loyal supports of James I/VI - and to be honest, the MacDonald families had less loyalty to Edinburgh than the Campbells. That is the reason the Lordship of the Isles itself was finally crushed by James IV. The last Lord of the Isles, Iain MacDonald, offered to make a treaty with Edward IV of England, during the War of the Roses, and when the Tudor side of the bargain fell through, all was revealed to Jame IV. So, many of the Clan Donald never saw their first loyalty to Edinburgh or to Scotland. They were loyal to their Gaelic Lordship of the Isles, and to a much older regime than the modern one developing between Lowland Scotland and England. They were never great supporters of the Union of the Crowns, nor of the Union of the Parliaments later. The Campbells did support Cromwell's deposition of the King, but even they did not completely agree to the execution of Charles I. They then made shaky alliance with their former enemies simply to defend Scotland from Cromwell (which failed, and the Military Governorship was imposed upon a conquered Scotland). When the Restoration of Charles II occurred, the Campbells may not have been crazy about it, but they did not rise up in rebellion either. They alwasy were loyal to the Privy Council in Edinburgh (largely because they often had de facto control of it, and at many times, people agreed that the Government in Scotland was essentially a Campbell government). So, I think it is a bit silly to say that the Campbells "Betrayed Scotland." They more accurately made Scotland into their own fief, so why betray it? They may have betrayd the wee people of Scotland, or betrayed some of the clans of the Highlands, but that is not the same thing as "betraying Scotland." And when William of Orange became the de facto king, they wholeheartedly supported him. Even down to the Massacre of Glencoe. So, obviously, they were "loyal" to Edinburgh, and sometimes to London (when it did not conflict with Edinburgh). They were never Jacobites. If the Campbells betrayed anything or anyone, I would posit that they betrayed the Gaelic way of life early on. But then, I don't know that they were a family steeped in ancient Gaelic tradition. They were more Normanized, if not Norman in origin, and never were a fully "Highland" Clan. They were equally a "Lowland" Clan, and maybe they were 50/50. But lets not confuse them as equivalent to the MacDonalds, who were themselves half-Norse and half-Gaelic. Nothing Norman or English or Lowland about them. So, the Campbells represented a different future, a different vision for Scotland than the MacDonalds did. The Gaelic way of life was not going to coexist withe the Feudal way of life. The Gaelic concepts of chief/clann were not the same as the Norman-Saxon concepts of Lord/Vassal. Popular fiction tends to blur those distinctions, and Sir Walter Scott stands first in the long line of authors who did that blurring. Gaelic chiefs did not have "Vassals" as the Lady of the Lake poem implies in the "Hail to the Chief" song. But regardless of the historical fictional blurring of reality, it is clear that the Clan Campbell were loyal to their vision of Scotland, and they succeeded in largely achieving that vision. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is not my point. I don't have an answer to that. And I wouldn't lay either the good or the bad solely at the feet of Clan Campbell. They were to emerging Scotland what the Rockefellers and Carnegies were to emerging America. They moved with the wind sometimes, and the had the power to move the wind their direction. Good, bad, and ugly. But, I think in the past 200 years, they have largely been a good thing for Scotland. They have protected a lot of land from being overun with pollution, they have preserved the natural heritage, and they have embraced much of the revival in Gaelic culture. So, whatever wrongs they committed in the past, their current and recent generations have done much to correct. For that, they should be appreciated. Once the claimed the power, they appear to have accepted the responsibility. Oghmatist (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clancampbellcrest.jpg
Image:Clancampbellcrest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clancampbellcrest.jpg
Image:Clancampbellcrest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Celtic and Norman origins
Hi. Should this important text be included in the Clan Campbell lineage?

''The Campbell’s have both Celtic and Norman origins. Anciently named; O’Duibhne or MacDiarmid. [NB: dia = god; armaid = of arms] Accounts state that a Malcolm of the clan went as a widower to Norman France where he married an heiress of the Beauchamp family and adopted that name. A son Archibald accompanied the Conqueror in 1066 and became founder to several English lines.'' (Campbell. p55: Collins Guide: Scots Kith and King: A Guide to the Clans and Surnames of Scotland. ISBN: 0004356659)Stephen2nd (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the Campbells are considered to be originally O’Duibhnes. I think the speculation is the were originally of Strathclyde British descent. "Tradition holds that the first of the Campbell ancestors (still not yet called Campbell) who came into Argyll married Eva, daughter of Paul an Sporran and the heiress of the O'Duibne tribe on northwestern Lochawe". However, the Campbells first appear in the 13th century, "The first of the name Cambel (the original spelling) who can be found in the surviving records was one who owned lands near Stirling in 1263. The earliest written date for a Cambel in Argyll is that for Duncan Dubh, landowner in Kintyre in 1293," . --Celtus (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Celtus, thanks for the Scottish O’Duibne marriage references. When cataloging Clans, family tribes &/or other group collectives, in genealogical, time line and armorial terms. My database record is quoted surviving records; sourced, researched and verified as fact. Article Clan Campbell stated the O.Duibne origin. As corroborated by my Collins Guide corroborating the genealogical records of O’Duibne &/or Ui Duibne were Mac Diarmaid: Rockingham: Patent 12 James I.; illuminated patent by indented Deed Dated 1640, family patrimony of Mac Dermot lineage, including 389 quarters, extending over eight centuries. [NB: Within and without parameters of: “Arms of the Realm and Ancient Local Princip-alities of Scotland, Kingdom of Scots: Angus; Atholl; Buchan; Caithness; Carrick; Fife; Galloway; The Lennox; Mar; March; Menteith; Province of Moray; Ross and Strathern.“] Last record: per se as “Driven from his ancient patrimony during the Cromwellian Wars.” NB: McDermott – Beauchamp: Or, three Cross-Crosslets: Arms of William Walpole PM.

PS. If anyone has any Dermot; Donald; Moubray; genealogy; heraldic; patent; references, I have a few Campbell and other clan files, including speculative and tradition categories. In the lists things you must do before you die, mine own, is to see this illuminated patent. Regards.Stephen2nd (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tartan
I have removed the image box with the Campbell of Argyll tartan. Under "Clan Profile", I was afraid this box would confuse people into thinking it was the official campbell tartan. If a tartan is displayed, it should be the standard Campbell (Black Watch) tartan. The three other official tartans might also be nice to show, but Campbell of Argyll is only notable because the Sixth Duke of Argyll added a white stripe to his personal tartan. He was the only one to do it, and the family thought it "rather pompous". (See http://www.ccsna.org/jsep50a.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.230.225 (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "Black Watch" tartan. I think it not quite accurate to imply that Clan Campbell is equivalent to the Black Watch. A lot of people served in the Black Watch, and the two are largely independent of one another as concepts. Also, the tartan for the Black Watch was standardized by order from London, under a Hanoverian monarch. The origins of the Black Watch are murky, and I think it is a bit of overreach for Campbell to claim it also was the "father of the Black Watch." Lets not get hasty with claiming things for the clan here. Tartan patterns did not have the heraldic significane of Feudal coats of arms, and Gaelic chieftains did not put the same kind of emphasis on "coats of arms" in the pre-Hanoverian Scotland as they do in the post-Walter Scott Scotland. The current "Tartan" chic is a nice draw for tourism, and serves as a nifty "Scottish-pride" sort of thing. But lets be honest with ourselves. Most of that is not indicative of pre-Culloden times. Even the "tartan" distinctions were not so clear cut at Culloden. That is largely a later 18th century innovation. Clans had colored plaids based on locally available dyes, and one clan could perhaps distinguish another clan based on regional dying patterns, but nothing resembling the Lyon Court's distinctions of today! Like I have said elsewhere, there has been a very large blurring of the distinctions between Gaelic culture and Feudal culture, and fiction and commerce have given a false impression that chief/clann was the same as lord/vassal. Clan tartans pre-1750 should be considered with several grains of salt. The British Empire had a vested interest in recruiting Highland men into the Empire's Army, and to do so, it was a major sponsor of the "tartanization" of the clan system. It needed uniforms for its various Highland Regiments, and so, differentiation was now being dictated for Imperial purposes, in a military context, and largely as a function of post-Culloden absorption of the Highland young men. While the Highlanders were being recruited to fight and die for British Empire around the globe, most of their Gaelic culture was being systematically extirpated back home. Whether the outlawing of Gaelic as a spoken language, the removal of Gaelic traditions as a religious proscription, or the outright forced removal of people off the land - it was a comprehensive system of de-Gaelicizing the Highlands and Islands from 1750 to the mid 1900s. And the rise of the "tartan" heraldic concept was largely to reinvent the portions of Highland militarism that suited the purposes of the British Empire. For us to read backwards, through the artificial prism of Imperial revisionist history, is to completely miss the reality. These are issues that are too sore and too complex to be trivialized into a reference that Clan Campbell invented the Black Watch Tartan in the late 17th century. Poppycock and Rubbish :) Oghmatist (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Pipe Music "Baile Inneraora" translated as "The Campbells are Coming"
As an Irish Gaelic speaker (same as Scots Gaelic but with a number of subtle changes by separation of the peoples over a few centuries) a few things arrest my gaze. Baile = Town. So I am puzzled as to how Baile Inneroara translates into "The Campbells are coming". A basic translation of that sentence in Irish Gaelic (so allow for some Scots Gaelic modifications, please) would be : Tá na Caimbeulaigh ag teacht."  [Caimbeulaigh is a logical plural of Caimbeulach, meaning 'a Campbell'] But here's a guess about an alternative.  I translate Baile Inneraora quite confidently as 'Inneraora Town'. That part is not a guess. My guesswork is : Could Inneraora be from Inbhear Aora?  (I know that Inbhear=Estuary or similar.  So could this mean the Estuary of a river called Aora?).  Could 'Aora' be derived from the name of the River Irvine?  So we might have got an evolutionary linguistic line such as :  Inbhear Irvine --Inbhear Aora --- finally Anglicised as Inverary. Any suggestions?  Posted by Breathnach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breathnach (talk • contribs) 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I Googled the Gaelic name and it turned up this page on the 'Clan Campbell Society of North America' website: . Seems like the proper English translation from the Gaelic is "The Town of Inveraray". The other name, "The Campbells are Coming", seems to have nothing to do with the older Gaelic one, but according to that webpage it's the most common name today. I think that particular name might have something to do with the Siege of Lucknow. Google that battle and "The Campbells are Coming" and you'll find the story about how the the troops relieving Lucknow marched to the song and were led by a Campbell; supposedly a woman at Lucknow could hear the men coming before they were in sight.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Updates
I came here because I was hoping to link the updated article on Glencoe to this but I'm concerned by this passage. Being Irish I understand the weight of history, I'm not trying to downgrade the brutality of the event and I'm confident we all share a common objective in improving Wikipedia. I'm happy to discuss these points.

''In 1692, 38 unarmed people of the Clan MacDonald of Glencoe were killed in the Massacre of Glencoe when a Government initiative to suppress Jacobitism was entangled in the long running feud between Clan MacDonald and Clan Campbell. The slaughter of the MacDonalds at the hands of the soldiers, led by Captain Robert Campbell of Glenlyon, after enjoying their hospitality for over a week was a major affront of Scots Law and Highland tradition. The majority of soldiers were not Campbells, but a roll call from a few months before included six Campbells in addition to Cpt. Robt. Campbell: Corporal Achibald Campbell, Private Archibald Campbell (elder), Private Donald Campbell (younger), Private Archibald Campbell (younger), Private James Campbell, Private Donald Campbell (elder), and Private Duncan Campbell.[22] See also: Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot.''

There are two major and significant errors of fact in this paragraph;

...suppress Jacobitism was entangled in the long running feud between Clan MacDonald and Clan Campbell...

It is generally accepted by the vast majority of Scottish historians that this claim is simply not true; its derivation is from the Whig historian Macaulay in 1859. I'm happy to provide references if needed.

''...The majority of soldiers were not Campbells, but a roll call from a few months before included six Campbells in addition to Cpt. Robt. Campbell: Corporal Achibald Campbell, Private Archibald Campbell (elder), Private Donald Campbell (younger), Private Archibald Campbell (younger), Private James Campbell, Private Donald Campbell (elder), and Private Duncan Campbell.[22] See also: Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot...''

Claiming anyone not called Campbell wasn't a Campbell is in direct conflict with the Clan Campbell Society itself, which lists all the Campbell Septs, many of which do appear in the muster rolls http://ccsna.org/jsep10a.htm#A11. On that basis, MacIain wouldn't be a MacDonald. I also have a minor issue with the wording of this sentence;

...The slaughter of the MacDonalds at the hands of the soldiers, led by Captain Robert Campbell of Glenlyon, after enjoying their hospitality for over a week was a major affront of Scots Law and Highland tradition...

There is no argument that it was a brutal act but this is hardly a neutral phrasing; being picky, they were at free quarter (very different from voluntary hospitality) and since there was a law against Slaughter under trust, it wasn't particularly unusual; you don't make laws unless there's an issue.

I mention this because Glencoe wasn't especially unusual - look at the records and transcripts for the Atholl Raid of 1685 for example. So why we remember it is perhaps the most interesting part. Comments?

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with what you are proposing with the exception of the line that says "the majority of the soldiers were not Campbells...". I think when it comes to Wikipedia we have to distinguish between someone who has the clan name and someone who has a sept name. Just because you are a MacAskill for example, you would not call yourself a MacLeod. Taking it from the other direction, to say that they were all Campbells just because they were under the command of an important member of the Clan Campbell would also be ridiculous, whether they were septs of the Clan Campbell or not. Furthermore, it was, as you know, a regiment of the Government army that carried out the attack which makes the idea of referring to all of the septs with different names as Campbells all the more ridiculous.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

2004 move request
This page should be moved to Clan Campbell -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:07, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)