Talk:Clan Keith

There seems to be rather a lot of confusion regarding some of the later Earls Marischal, (It is never Marshal).Brendandh 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the 18th century, there were two Keith brothers who headed the clan. One left and went abroad. The other followed after the Battle of Glenshiel in 1719. The one who was already abroad wrote an account of the battle mjgm84 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dickson sections
I don't understand how the Thomas Dickson of Hazelside and Symington (1247-1307) and his Dickson descendants from the Keiths and The Good Sir James (or "Black Douglas") And His Connection With Thomas Dickson have much to do with the article. A quick scan of the three society links gives no mention of any Dicksons.--Celtus (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've dumped it over at Dickson (surname) - I think the theory was that Dickson was the son of a Keith, so it was vaguely relevant. It appears to have originated in The Border or Riding Clans by B. Homer Dixon (1889) available here - hopefully someone can sort it out.Le Deluge (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the paragraph - I don't see why the article should list anyone just because they're descended from a Keith, there's apparently no connection with the Keiths' role in the Wars of Independence either, and there's nothing in the further text to corraborate the (unreferenced) conclusion that "this began a long association with the powerful Clan Douglas" (Moreover it read like this: "Thomas Dickson [...], the son of [...] de Keith, who was a son of [...] de Keith and Margaret his wife, the daughter of [...] Douglas. This began a long association with [...] Clan Douglas." Eh?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrissel (talk • contribs) 10:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agnatic Seniority incorrect Clan chief
The present holders of the Keith chieftaincy are patently invalid...since the Middle Ages, the position of Clan Chief is usually determined by agnatic seniority i.e. the Falconers aren't Keiths through the male line. Next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.13.40 (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Chatti
As an ancient historian, this bothers me quite a bit: The name of this tribe keeps cropping up in the more fanciful depictions of the Scottish past. It's a prime example of an "antiquitizing" misnomer very common in mediaeval and early modern historiography, by which an influential group of the (at that time) present is boldly and almost always completely spuriously identified with a name from ancient sources that sounds sort of similar. We see it as early as Jordanes' Getica (instead of Gothica), giving the Goths a few extra centuries of history, in the mediaeval usage of Dacia for Dania (i.e. Denmark) that made it look as if the Danes were already being mentioned under the Principate, and in the learned papal usage of Teutonici for thiudisci in connection to the German emperors. The Chatthi bow off stage before the Age of Migration and reappear after a sound shift as the Hassi of the Carolingian age (note the change from ch to h). There is absolutely no reason to posit an unattested migration of such tribesmen, or even mercenaries from that area, to 11th c. Scotland, and certainly none where their name would still have retained the initial ch or c sound. Interestingly, this imaginary link is not even found in the original story, and I have no idea how the editors of the Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia got to it. The Battle of Barry aetiology -- apart from being, well, entirely made up as far as battles go -- dates back to Hector Boece's History and Chronicles of Scotland, which you can read up in the original here, paragraph 81. If some of the compulsively learnèd characters that followed Boece then found it opportune to claim "Keth = Chatthi", they had no foundation to do that whatsoever. "'Praecipuus erat Cami percussorum egregius adolescens Keth nomine, ut ab annalibus traditur, cuius ingenti virtute eo die Danorum opes haud parum profligatae. Hic tantis pro meritis Malcolmi regis benevolentia agro in Laudonia tum donatus, Kethis familiae hoc seculo inter nostrates admodum insigni, genus atque exordium dedisse creditur. Ex ea progenia in qua nunc est, regii architriclini (vulgo marescalli) magistratros haud paucos insignes patriae assertores prosiluisse, sequentes enarrationes satis edocebunt.'" (English translation from the same site: "The man who took the lead in his killing was a fine young lad named Keith, as our annals record, thanks to whose virtue Danish power suffered a great loss that day. For his great merits he was granted land in Lothian out of King Malcolm’s bounty, and this is regarded as the beginning of the clan of the Keiths, who enjoy high distinction among our countrymen at this time. From his progeny came those magistrates we call the Marshals of Scotland, no mean champions of their nation, as the narratives that follow will clearly show.") This article would benefit from fidelity to the source material rather than to what passed for historiography in an age of competitive speculative reconstruction. Still, it does not top my favourite so far: Not too long ago, some businesslike self-declared genealogist apparently sold the notion to the Bowyer family that their name did not date back to a bow-making ancestor, but to the Celtic tribe of the Boii who last appear in the 1st c. BC. It was hard work getting that out of that article. Trigaranus (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has to reflect what is siad in the source being quoted. If you want to change it then you must find another source to quote, reflecting that information.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true, but remember we're allowed to exercise editorial discretion. Not all sources are equal - some may be reliable for certain things and less reliable for other things. See Talk:Inchkeith where there are echoes of this discussion, about the unreliability of Boece and the sources the misuse him. It'd help if we could find a reliable source giving the origin of placename Keith. It'll almost certainly have nothing to do with the Camus story. Here's a link to the ODNB article of the Keiths (14th-century to 16th-century). Here's POMS's page on Hervey the marischal, progenitor of the Keiths - listing the contemporary sources his recorded in .--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Found a source for the placename. On page 131 (footnote 21) of . This particular source cites William J. Watson's Celtic Place-Names, and states that the placename Keith comes from a Cumbric form of the Modern Welsh coed ("wood"). Taylor specialises in placenames, so he should be ok to follow; here's his faculty page on the University of Glasgow website .--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd concur with the above, having lived and grown up in the specific house that was the caput of the barony of Keith for 20 years of my life, that it is a Cumbric name, see nearby Pencaitland etc. But all Scots ancient families have their origin myths, they should be discussed, mentioned, but not discarded for their patent mythology, no? Brendandh (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well by all means if there is a source to quote then add the info to the article. Although I think it would be good to include all possible origins from the different available sources.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, as far as the Chatthi are concerned: I have no stake in this discussion, and you are very welcome to leave the Collins information in there. I just wanted to help improve the quality of the article by pointing out that historically speaking a Chatthi tribesman at the Battle of Barrie and as a progenitor of Clan Keith is, in lack of a more subtle term, poop. I am happy to concede that the article as it stands now is "sourced", but the fact of the matter is that someone, somewhere between Boece and the Collins Encyclopedia, went ahead and, as one might say "done pooped up". There is no historical value to the statement that it was a Chatthi tribesman, there is no historical foundation to it (except in the form of said perhaps purposeful mistranslation), and there is certainly no shred of truth to it as far as historical truth or fact can be established at all. It would behove any editor on this article to not take the simple road and read up pre-digested summaries, as they are presented in the Collins Encyclopedia, without taking a butcher's at the actual sources relating to the events. If sourcedness is your concern, you are very happy to quote Boece directly, since his works are freely available at libraries and online. But you are also perfectly free to limit your survey to the Collins. Trigaranus (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clan Keith. 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/20120406000144/http://www.irvinehistory.com/Brief_History.htm to http://www.irvinehistory.com/Brief_History.htm

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) 04:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Where’s the clan Keith crest? 2601:601:8680:A0A0:B9C9:FDD2:8BE3:F0D0 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)