Talk:Royal burgh

Royal burgh charters
Am I right in thinking all royal burgh charters were modelled on a borough charter of Newcastle upon Tyne? Laurel Bush 12:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Unlikely. Why would it be?


 * I didn't spot any reference to it at the Newcastle upon Tyne article. What date was it granted? Rutherglen claims to be one of the first Royal Burghs: 1126.--Mais oui! 19:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it back. You are correct, assuming that this article is well-sourced, and it certainly appears to be:
 * Scotland in the High Middle Ages
 * --Mais oui! 22:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Think it is something I first read in the book Scotland: A New History by Michael Lynch. Laurel Bush 12:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

It's a good point that there is little direct evidence for Newcastle being the source. Howeover, there are a large number of reasons for believing it was; burghal laws are usually modelled on another town, and it is difficult to see where else they could have been modelled on. G.W.S. Barrow wrote that "it is no rash guess that between 1136 and 1157, when they held Newcastle, the Scottish kings transferred the customs of that comparatively young English borough to the their own towns of Berwick-upon-Tweed, Roxburgh, Edinburg and Stirling" (Barrow, Kingship and unity, p. 98) I need to modify the text of this article anyways, since it is about burghs in general rather than royal burghs (which are different). I have an image I made which got superseded from another article; I'll post it. - 01:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

City Status
I'm pretty sure that royal burgh status was not revoked on becoming a city. describes "The Freedom of Entry into the City and Royal Burgh of Glasgow" being granted to the Highland Light Infantry and later the Royal Highland Fusiliers (as they had become). Also the 1911 Encclopedia Brittanica describes Aberdeen as "a royal burgh, city and county of a city". Edinburgh is called "The City and Royal Burgh of Edinburgh" in official legislation, and so on. Lozleader 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Abolition
I think this needs very thorough investigation. I feel certain townsfolk are unaware that their Royal Burgh status has been abolished. What could possibly be the purpose of such a move? David Lauder 20:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * According to section 1(5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 all local government areas existing immediately before the "appointed day" (16 May 1975) ceased to exist. These were listed as counties, counties of cities, large burghs, small burghs and districts. It makes no distinction between royal and police burghs. Not sure if you can assign a "purpose" other than local government reform. There were plenty of municipal boroughs in England and Wales with just as long histories and equally ancient charters which lost their status the year before. Lozleader 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I shall find a copy of the Act you refer to. I am inclined to think that the burgh being founded by Royal Charter or subsequently bestowed with one, is not quite the same thing as the Act refers to. The Act is changing the way local government in Scotland operates. Whilst it therefore abolished town councils in both ordinary towns and Royal Burghs alike, it is difficult to see how the Act removes a foundation or special charter bestowed by The Monarch upon the good citizens of that burgh. What is the connection between the two? Certainly if we go back far enough Royal Burghs had certain inaliable rights many of which are today dormant, but these were burgh rights and nothing to do with the administration of local government in Scotland. I still say this needs more investigation. My brother-in-law is an Advocate. I will try and contact him for an opinion. David Lauder 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would chip in my own view here and say I too doubt very much that they have been abolished. I can guarantee signs have been erected (much later than '75) saying "welcome to the royal burgh of...".  I would view it as a title which is unchangeable as long as the town bearing its name exists, not an active instrument of government (the two things being different in character). SFC9394 18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this a very interesting subject. I would suggest we add a section on "Royal burghs today" on what has not been abolished.

There has apparently been a cmapaign of late for the return of burgh rights. The article describes the burghs as "formally abolished". This might be a good formula to use, as the *title* is clearly still in use. North Berwick Community Council claim to have "reinstated" the royal burgh title (under royal charter).

Who holds the charters, and are their rights enforceable, and by whom? The residents?

Burgesses seem to exist in some places, but not in others. This case, regarding a protester against the Skye Bridge toll unsuccesfully tried to use the burgh charters of Dingwall and Inverness. It notes that no burgesses have been appointed in Dingwall since 1975. On the contrary, the Scottish Borders council has delegated to area committees "All matters relating to the creation of Burgesses and Honorary Burgesses of former Royal Burghs and Burghs"

The charter of Arbroath was also used in a campaign against the Skye Bridge toll

Lozleader 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of royal burghs
Is the figure of 70 royal burghs correct? Donaldson & Morpeth state that they ultimately numbered 66. - DJBMurie 21:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

References in the List of royal burghs section
The references in the List of royal burghs section were positioned under the title of the section. I've put them in the title.--Adûnâi (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a popular misconception that Burghs were abolished
(Moved out of article)

It is a popular misconception that Burghs were abolished by the 1973 Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The act abolished areas of local government and administration - counties, Burghs etc but was silent about abolishing Burghs themselves. Careful reading of the act confirms this. Both a QC and the former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament both affirm that Burghs were not abolished. Therefore, Section XXI of the 1707 act is still the governing legislation even though much of it has been altered or ignored - but not Section XXI. Wikipedia could do us all a service by pointing this out to local authorities, government servants and members of the Scottish Parliament and indeed the Lord Lyon, all of whom are similarly deluded. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlneil (talk • contribs)