User talk:Nora lives/Archive II

Curran
Hi, Was just wondering if you had a reference or anything regarding the origins of the Currans as part of the Uí Liatháin's in East Cork? Thanks a mil, Breandán. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 109.77.108.69 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I no longer have the article and do not have access to it at the moment. I'm quite a long distance from any university. DinDraithou (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ó Corráin, Donnchadh, "Onomata", in Ériu 30 (1979): 165-85. link to article at JSTOR

Cheers, will be able to access this in college. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 93.107.196.104 (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

O'Donovan
I suppose you are a quantum writer regarding the O'Donovans... you write and don't write. Maybe I am uncertain.

As an FYI, Brian Donovan of Eneclann / Trinity College is the senior member and direct descent of Clan Loghlin and the Wexford O'Donovans. He also has access to John O'Donovan's manuscripts and notes.

Eventually, the article will need to get cleaned up and have removed the numerous imprecisions, and insert fact for speculation. For instance - 1) there is no uncertainty as to how the plaque was set at Castle Donovan in 2000 rather than Bruree- the worldwide gathering was taking place near Skibereen, and the organinzing group took the occasion for a day journey and sightseeing to Castle Donovan where they had a bit of a celebration - it was not intended to be a significant recognition of two thousand years of history. 2) I laughed when I saw the reference to the MacCarthy Reagh's as beloved. That was a brutal time period, and collusion of the then chiefs of all the clans, and their overlords, in disenfranchising their clan's members from land ownership using the policy of surrender and regrant still brings bitter feelings into the public domain to this day. And, other than this article, I have never seen the O'Donovan's referred to as vassals. It's a pretty big step from the reality of Irish chiefs as overlords and the lease laws follwed under Brehon law to describing those practives in European feudal terms.

Clan Aneslis is not extinct. When John O'Donovan wrote the Appendix to the Annals of the Four Masters, he did not have evidence to the contray, but his later correspondece with Jeremiah O'Donovan (as set out in his O'Donovan Rossa's Recollections) clearly indicate that Jeremiah was of clan Aneslis, and his descendents are certainly not extinct. Plus, John O'Donovan was absolutely notorious for bending family history for his own purposes, which is a whole 'nother issue. Kind of amazing that Daniel O'Donovan of the James II Parliment for Doneraile was left out of an "exhaustive" family history. Some og the then O'Donovan's got along with him, and some didn't, and so some are mentioned, and some are not. History is not what you read, that is for sure.

But, all in all, I appreciate your efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modonovan (talk • contribs) 22:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, aren't you nice? I can't appreciate yours so far because you've done almost nothing. So add whatever needs adding. Change what needs changing. Or go to Talk:O'Donovan, add the information there, with sources where you can, and I'll use whatever possible in the article.


 * I do the best I can for a relatively young American with only a bachelor's education. Furthermore my grandmother, a descendant ofDonal II O'Donovan, married a more base man than you can imagine, and I will never in my life have arms of any kind. I'm the fucking scum of the earth and this is sometimes my little pleasure, when I'm not too drunk to care but feeling loose enough and confident. Next up is probably the case of our almost as unfortunate cousin, Juliana Donovan, Countess of Anglesey, scandalized widow of Richard Annesley, 6th Earl of Anglesey, and mother of Arthur Annesley, 1st Earl of Mountnorris. She belonged to the Ballymore Donovans, and may still have descendants through her daughters (one married a baronet). The line of her son failed with the death of the 2nd Earl. Stay tuned. DinDraithou (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Through her granddaughter Lady Catherine, married to a younger son of the Duke of Beaufort, she has a number of living descendants. It does not say so there, but according to an old Debrett's, Catherine was the daughter of Mountnorris by Sarah Cavendish. I also find O'Tooles (> Hall) from Juliana's daughter Lady Catherine, and MacLeods (> Annesley) from her granddaughter Lady Hester-Arabella (daughter of Mountnorris by Lucy Lyttelton). The British are crazy. In any case the Countess Juliana has plenty of descendants. Her grandson the 2nd Earl of Mountnorris finally got her name cleared in 1817, although accusations appear to persist from the enemy camp for a while after. DinDraithou (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made a few changes following your suggestions, but Jeremiah O'Donovan (MP Baltimore) is given in multiple sources as belonging to Clan Loughlin, which I believe his manor, O'Donovan's Leap, was in. If you have made an error, and are referring to Daniel O'Donovan (MP Doneraile), which you created (I renamed it to avoid confusion with the other), then you will need at least one reliable source stating he belonged to Clan Aneslis. John O'Donovan seemed fairly sure he belonged to Clancahill, but I agree he was insecure enough about his own ancestry to sometimes fail in his judgment. (Addendum: I'm too tired to rewrite this nicely written paragraph. I see you are referring to O'Donovan Rossa.) DinDraithou (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Clan Aneslis
Alright, I've read the relevant chapters of Rossa's Recollections carefully and think the case was 75% proven. The tour of little towns is bewildering, and we are relying on his memory of the memories of a very long dead and possibly unreliable great aunt. It could possibly be a fabrication (the scholar suggested it all be published), but this was private correspondence, andO'Donovan Rossa does not really strike me as a liar. Possibly he chose not to print any doubts the scholar might have had, but I really see no evidence of anything missing. Another obvious suggestion is that the Clan Aneslis became convenient ancestors for a tenant farmer after they became defunct, Clancahill and Clan Loughlin remaining represented among the published pedigree class. But then in favour I 1) wonder if the Rossas would not have remembered some descent from or association with either of those dynasties, and 2) find something "un-lowly" about the man himself... he strikes me like a real war-like clansman and maybe even something of a natural gentleman. His class and times made him a famous complainer but I'm willing to understand that. So I have mentioned his probable or adopted slíocht in his article. DinDraithou (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Countess Juliana
I have created her article, Juliana Donovan, Countess of Anglesey. DinDraithou (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fitzgeralds
You've done a good job with the family tree on your user page. I'll see what I can find from the family historian and let you know. Malke 2010  18:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello DinDraithou,

Here's a FitzGerald Coat of Arms someone just sent me.. Thought you'd get a laugh out of it. Malke 2010  17:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We should look for family genealogy websites. They always include some history and they might have a source.  But here's an 'encyclopedia' entry I just found.  . Malke  2010  02:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And this one . Malke 2010  02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! These are fantastic. Will definitely use. DinDraithou (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sources linked to Croom. I think I did Google "Croom" once when looking for sources.  But maybe it was Croom Castle.  All right, excellent, now we have some sources.  Do you want to open a subpage? Malke  2010  16:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll look for more sources. And pictures.  I'll look for copyright free ones, or maybe get one with permission.  I'll check with Moonriddengirl about how to get permission, etc. Malke  2010  19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Kilcash Branch?
Yes actually. How else could it be described? The senior line of the Bulter lies is extinguished due to lack of legitimate male heirs. Cousins from Kilcash inherit the earldom. What word would you to describe that line of Bulter cousins? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're maybe a little new to this. His father was a son of the 9th Earl. His brother leaves no legitimate male issue. There is no new "branch" yet. Same small family at this point. Also the insertion of "minor" is a little ridiculous.DinDraithou (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Uncle, not brother. Not a big difference in this case. Googling "Kilcash branch" (turns up almost nothing not from Wikipedia), they were Catholic, not "minor" or junior. DinDraithou (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My question was, "What word would you to describe that line of Bulter cousins?". I didn't see a sensible alternative proposed above, possibly because I'm so new to all this. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Eoghanachta: Fraudulant author?
You deleted large sections of text because of your belief that the "author of that material appears to be the fraud XXX".
 * 1) Should this not have been debated before deleting?
 * 2) Is this original research by you in unmasking frauds?
 * 3) Even if the author was a fraud, would that render all the material false? Even frauds sometimes write the truth.  Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Listen, I like your work at Wikipedia, but you are even less experienced with the Eóganachta than I was when I wrote nearly that entire monstrous article, mostly before I had an account. If you don't know who Terence Francis MacCarthy is then you should be remaining humble there for the present. And furthermore you didn't even give your source properly. Notice I left it all alone until you added that, which didn't even link to anything. And no, nothing from that fake MacCarthy is admissable, because if it's actually sort of right then he got it from somewhere else and simply didn't tamper with it too much. Ask User:Fergananim if you don't believe me.


 * Finally only three or four of those septs provided any number of kings, and the most powerful of them all, Cathal mac Finguine, belonged to Glendamnach. I or someone should change a few things there because it now turns out he actually may have been recognized King of Tara in some way. DinDraithou (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ADD: We should be friends, but you're defending a totally bad source. It's not your fault at all though, since you're new to it and we don't really know each other. For material on the web concerning Terence Francis MacCarthy, first read Chief of the Name, then see here,here,here, and you might also findthis fun too. Alsohere. DinDraithou (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Croom Castle
That is excellent. Great job. Malke 2010  02:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I made the talk page. I put it on the WikiProject Ireland list. Malke  2010  02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Conung/Cuarán
That was embarrassing. Good thing you caught that!--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha! Totally easy mistake to make! What gives me the talent are the three or four Olafs in my own confusing family tree. I think it's such a strangely foreign sounding name for us English speakers that it produces some confused state. In fact it sounds pretty I think. So you were destined to confuse Conung with Cuarán, after becoming subconsciously convinced all Olafs are the same.DinDraithou (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Cotter
Hi,

Thanks for the work on the Cotters (I'm descended from the Cotters of East Cork).

I have just gained access to a detailed biography of Sir James Cotter, the one who killed John Lisle the regicide, and will create a new article on him soon.

Slan. Urselius (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect that many of the 'Ostman', Norse-derived, families of Ireland found the Anglo-Norman invasion difficult; some, probably the majority, integrated with the English incomers whilst others, such as the Cotters, moved into the local Gaelic society. The Cotters, not being entirely part of the Irish clan system, seem to have received relatively little comment from the traditional bardic poets and genealogists. It is interesting that one of their early land holdings was in Copingerstown, the Copingers being another Ostman family from Cork. That Cork was a Viking foundation and Cotter a Norse-derived name does suggest a Norse or partly Norse origin for the family. Any connection to Ottar, or Oitir, of Dublin probably cannot be proven, though he was using Mac Oitir as a patronymic at the same time that surnames were becoming firmly established in Ireland.
 * Cheers Urselius (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have made a very great improvement on the coverage of the Cotters and their origins. Thanks again. I have some information on the Copingerstown Cotters, references to members of the family in the 1500s, and some information on the Cobh/Anngrove Cotters before the time of Sir James Fitz Edmond. Perhaps a separate article for the Cotter family of Cork would be useful, rather than everything going into the baronetcy page? Urselius (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's quite remarkable, considering the dearth of material out there on the Cotters, and the Norse of the Irish Sea Zone for that matter, that so much has been uncovered by yourself. Thanks for the offer of the source material, you should be able to email me at urselius.urgel@yahoo.co.uk. Cheers, Urselius (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the email, the article makes for very interesting reading. The Ottars certainly moved around a lot!Urselius (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There was another Ottir Dub, "one of the four leaders of the foreigners," who was killed fighting on the Dublin Viking side at the Battle of Clontarf - from The War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill, James Henthorn Todd, p. 206. Urselius (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Urselius (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ping
Hi DinDraithou, could you enable your e-mail, just temporarily if necessary. I have something you may be interested in.Cavila (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pong
Thanks for the heads up on my talk, it's good to see you're busy. and writing new&interesting stuff. I', just checking in briefly now, no regular internet connection ATM and busy doing other (pleasant) stuff than Wikipedia for the summer - but keep me posted about new articles you write - I will most probably not be able to help with anything, but I will surely enjoy reading it whenever I'm back in business here again (end of August/ beginning of September I assume). Keep up the good work, best regardsFinn Rindahl (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't access steenstrups book via Google, and I'm only at home (with a steady connection) until tomorrow morning (CET). If you could possibly mail me those relevant pages mentioned by Bugge (13ff etc) I guess I should be able to sort it out even while travelling. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fitzgeralds 2
Hi DinDraithou, we're going on vacation. I'll be back September 2nd. If you need anything, please email me. Have a nice rest of the summer. Malke 2010  16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New category:Anglo-Norman Irish dynasties
Agree that it's better. Was thinking of creating same myself. The title's a bit unwieldy, but can live with it. Would "Cambro-Norman Irish dynasties" not be more accurate? Or what about a more simple, though admittedly less accurate, "Hiberno-Norman Dynasties"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm not completely happy with it and thought of going with Cambro-Norman, but got worried it might exclude those families without Welsh ancestry, although it's supposed to mean something different. Then we have the case of the FitzGeralds who are possibly not Normans at all. There is debate about their paternal ancestry and it could be Saxon, Danish, or finally their exotic favourite, which is Florentine. But they are more Welsh in any case. The de Barrys are also part Welsh, and I wouldn't be surprised if the de Cogans were too. Others called Norman could just as well be Frankish or Breton and have simply forgotten. Do we even have any idea of what the Butlers/Walters are? Sounds Saxon. And then we have the wild case of the de Burghs, which I wish I knew more about, or maybe not.


 * Then in the case of the FitzGeralds and Butlers they found themselves in Munster, which is actually something of a separate country, so their experience was a little different. I'm a little unclear about what's going on with both families right now. Both seem to be having continuing misfortunes, which is a shame. Your choice on the category, if you want.DinDraithou (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So family not good enough for you then? Wanted to go up in the world did we :-) Fiztpatrick dynasty does have more of a cachet admittedly. Glad you put them among the Ancient Irish as opposed the to Cambo Nrmans. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it was for two reasons that I corrected my own error. First, they visit Wikipedia and call themselves a dynasty, and second the FitzPatricks did contest for the kingship of Leinster. For family vs dynasty I first try to find out what they are currently referring to themselves as, for example the MacDermot Kings of Moylurg, now Princes of Coolavin, are calling themselves a family. If I can't then I base it on whether whoever it may be contested for the provincial overlordship or not, and/or reigned. In the case of the Butlers and FitzGeralds circumstances made them great Earls palatine, and both proved mighty, so I allow them special status. DinDraithou (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to dig up an heraldic crest for the De Barry family? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not really good with that sort of thing. My knowledge of arms is quite poor, since I can't have any myself. The Barrys certainly need more articles though. DinDraithou (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tourism
Firstly - a friendly reminder that one of the principal guidelines of the project is to build consensus through civil discussion. Your summary here could be construed as problematic in this regard. In terms of the point itself however, as I'd noted on the Cliodhna article, my reading of the relevant guidelines is that opinions (including myth and legend) should be referred to as such. IE: We should say "the legend suggests that X happened", rather than "X happened". The latter is problematic because it presents legend as fact. (You and I may get the distinction between legend and fact - but this guideline is in place to make that distinction clear to the casual reader). Can you help me understand your problem with this? It's not entirely clear from your edit sum. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you don't know what you're talking about and were guilty of restoring junk in the article. Are you responsible for all that OR? Apparently you know nothing about the history of the MacCarthy family, otherwise you would not have put the properly sourced material below the unsourced trash. What are you doing in the article? Were you a tourist?DinDraithou (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK - Again I have some concerns about your disregard for the relevant guidelines and your insistence in commenting on me as an editor rather than on the issue or my question. Not that it matters, but: No I am not "responsible" for that content, No I am not a tourist (I am from the area), and No I am not (as you put it) ignorant of the history of the history/builders. In fear of attracting yet another BITEy response, can I ask you to address the question I asked? (Which you completely ignored in your "response"). Namely: Why you reverted the inclusion of an "attribution" to the Clíodhna legend. Guliolopez (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Don't tell me about guidelines. You're completely missing the point. And saying you know something about the history doesn't make it true. You really do not appear to, and even got the builder wrong. So you're filling up my talk page with nonsense because you're embarrassed. It was bound to happen eventually that someone would come along and remove all that trash, and insert the proper legend... which you're picking at for personal reasons. DinDraithou (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW the Cliodhna legend can be found in Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend, I believe. DinDraithou (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not engaging any further. You clearly have no interest in addressing the point I raised. Don't be surprised if your shocking disregard the NPA and AGF Wikiquette guidelines eventually land you a censure. Guliolopez (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Blah blah blah. You came to my talk page. Go find some sources and start making respectable contributions. This is the new Wikipedia. I immediately lose confidence in people who restore unsourced and unreliably sourced material that is clearly bad, and think you have no place here. DinDraithou (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Email
Send it to me at fergananim@yahoo.co.uk -that chapter looks very interesting. I won't be able to get back to you on the MacCotter's till next well (long story) so sorry for the delay. Fergananim (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed
Hi, I agreed with your removal of that purported work on the antecedents of Somerled. That 'paper,' such as it was, appeared to have been published nowhere and so qualified as self-published research (OR) in my book. Thanks.MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You get the credit for noticing it. We really need to defend the upper worlds against lowliness of that kind. And was that article weird or what? It starts out trying to tear down Clann Somhairle who are widely respected and liked in both Scotland and Ireland, and after this business goes crazy and attributes everything to a connection between the Celts and Slavs. omg. I have nothing against the Slavs but this is not a great moment for a few of them. DinDraithou (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was certainly an 'offbeat' little piece of work. lol. Thanks for removing it. I've seen your posts on other articles and enjoyed them. It looks like you, like I, are pretty much steering clear of the haplogroup pieces these days. I rarely dip my toe in: there be sharks and such! MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Chiefs of Clan MacLeod
Hi - me again; I thought I would move the discussion here in order not to trespass further on User talk:Brianann MacAmhlaidh. You have added: "Because this noble person, Guy MacLeod of Talisker, is an agnate he is the legitimate Chief of Clan MacLeod, regardless of any recognition given to the false chiefs by the Scottish Government or by the modern "clan society" itself, which has no authority." Doesn't that beg the very question that I was seeking to address? Your addition provides one point of view, but there are many others (I suspect, the vast majority) who would not accept it and would indeed take the contrary view. If so, would it not be better to express your view in more qualified terms? What do you think? With best wishes, 45ossington (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the "clan society" of which the other one is "chief" is not the clan itself. The original clan consisted of the original agnates and those people they accumulated. Thus the currently "recognised" "chief" is a natural subject of the agnate the "clan society" has foolishly denied recognition. Occurring recently in 2007, it was only a matter time before someone acquainted with Gaelic culture discovered the dispute and entered. As a verified nobleman, Guy MacLeod of Talisker is entitled to the arms and there are other ways he can get recognition, in Ireland or on the Continent. With the proper knowledge and support he should be able to go right over his base subjects and force the impostor to step down from his non-existent chiefship. What has occurred iscriminal. Can you get in touch with him? DinDraithou (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I partially reverted you on Clan MacLeod, on the infobox. I know you think Talisker has a right to the arms, and the title of chief, but in Scotland you know the question of the arms is for the Lyon to decide. Talisker can take it to court there if he likes. I don't think you should replace the current holder of the arms with Talisker. I think we should leave the Talisker stuff to the actually article on the chiefs. Czar Brodie recently made a post in relation to this kind of thing atTalk:Akins.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing is for the Lord Lyon to decide and it never has been. MacLeod of Talisker's arms are not his to look at. It's a garbage office recognized as such across the globe. Scotland remains a laughing stock because of it. You wouldn't believe what they say! Mickey Mouse could succeed there, just like this "Hugh Magnus" and his pretentious base family. DinDraithou(talk) 08:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's how the law works in Scotland though, he alone delves out the arms. You can't fight battles against the Scottish system on Wikipedia. You can bring up verifiable info that others have missed, like mentioning the Talisker situation (which the society prolly wouldn't be too keen on having spread about) but you can't make Talisker a chief over anyone else. All we know is he wanted to be recognised, and that he questioned the legitimacy of the former chief. And we know he is a lineal descendant of the old line. All we've got is one measly news article on him and his claim. I don't want to edit war with you, but I think you went too far with the infobox.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that neither he nor the glorious "Hugh Magnus" are proper chiefs at the moment. That Guy MacLeod belongs to the "old line" makes him the de jure chief, at the very least, and that is simply incontestable, and must be mentioned. But "Hugh Magnus" is the "recognized" sovereign of this commercial enterprise and escapist retreat for office workers that calls itself the "Clan MacLeod". The actual Clan MacLeod would appear to be the person Guy MacLeod, who looks serious about his dignity and will get recognition in the end. DinDraithou (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In my view, it is only "incontestable" that Macleod of Talisker is "chief" of the "clan" Macleod if one adopts your definition of "chief" and your definition of "clan". But this is an English-language encyclopedia and one surely has to paysome attention to how other people (particularly in the modern UK, of which Scotland is part) use those expressions.45ossington (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This can't be attributed to "my" definitions. These are widely accepted and everyone knows that the chiefs and clans of today principally serve the undignified purpose of making those of humble birth feel like they belong to something ancient. Most of it is about heritage tourism and tartans and badges and ugly old castles which should be knocked down. I will concede Hugh Magnus "MacLeod" the chiefship of that industry in the article, but if he is mentioned then so must be MacLeod of Talisker and the historical entity of which he would appear to be de jure chief. That he has declared himself the rightful chief is fairly serious and I see no mention of any concession. Finally it cannot be avoided that Hugh Magnus is not of noble lineage. Female line does not count in the Gaelic world. Ask anyone. DinDraithou (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK - I'll ask my mother (nee Kirstie Mackenzie) and will see if she agrees. I will also take soundings when I am up in the Isle of Skye next month to stay in my grandparents' house. I am not myself sure that the present Scottish conception of a clan chief is rigidly determined by medieval Irish law (or even medieval Scottish law, for that matter).45ossington (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it - it is not acceptable to add material to articles which makes provocative statements without providing citations from Reliable sources. If you have them, but do not know how to add them please ask for help. I have added some tags on the most obvious problem statments and will seek further assistance. Ben Mac  Dui 18:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most obvious problems? You went for the wrong ones. I still don't quite get where you're coming from.DinDraithou (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't call the Lord Lyon "controversial" or make provocative statements about what the Clan MacLeod Society can and can't do or do and don't do, without a citation. It is not that I don't agree with you - and I am not saying that I do - it's a simple matter of policy. See also WP:CITE. Ben   Mac  Dui  07:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You clearly have a burning conviction that a clan chiefdom can be inherited legitimately only through the male line. It's a point of view, but you don't appear to recognise:
 * that there is an alternative view, which finds well-attested support among clan societies, heralds, people bearing the name in question, and/or the modern population of Scotland in general;
 * that your view is likely to represent a minority view (the times they are a'changing);
 * that the meaning of "clan" and "chief", as used in an English language encyclopaedia, must be based on common usage, rather than (a) on one individual's idea of what they ought to mean, or (b) on what they might have meant 500 years ago.
 * You similarly appear to attach a private-language meaning to "nobility" (I won't even start on immemorial nobility), which would be completely unrecognised by the vast majority of the present population of the Scottish Highlands, or indeed the UK more generally. I can't speak for what Americans mean by "nobility", but rather understood that they had got rid of all that in 1776!
 * 45ossington (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What? You're talking progressive nonsense. This is not about some social movement. It would be half acceptable if there were no surviving male line descendants, but here we have one and he calls himself the rightful chief. End of discussion about his importance. As far as nobility I happen to descend from several kings through the female line and the last prince in my pedigree only died in 1593, the last semi-sovereign lord in 1639, namely Donal II O'Donovan. He joined Hugh Ó Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone! (I've been thinking of getting in touch with the O'Neills concerning MacLeod of Talisker, since his ancestors fought under them.) You might be surprised to learn that I am not unlike Hugh Magnus in my own background, since I lack a paternal lineage. Don't talk to me about nobility. DinDraithou (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Din, you seem like a nice guy, and I don't mean to butt in. But the snafu in your reasoning in this instance is that, however correct or incorrect the claimant's claim is to the clan chiefdom, he is currently recognized as the chief. This is simply an encyclopedia. Our job is to record things as they are, not as we wish they would be. To upturn the Lord Lyon's opinion – no matter what you think of it – constitutes original research. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you write about it for a publication of some sort, where you can lay out your arguments and make your case. It would make good reading. Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not the way it works, MP. He simply cannot be Chief in this case, although he might be recognized "chief" by a bunch of tools in Scotland. The title has been claimed by someone else, someone with a right to it. This is hardly original research, because I read it in that article, only four years old. No concession has been made that I have seen, so Wikipedia must reflect what we have available. I discovered a situation here where MacLeod of Talisker was treated as if he had lost and was now irrelevant. This is unsupported, because you can't prove it's over. And I am confident it is not, because I am qualified to know what he wants. Wikipedia is now a very important place for certain information and it would be criminal of me to not attend to this here. DinDraithou (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I have now sent a note to the O'Neills. Nothing may come of it but at least some important people will know soon and the MacLeods could get a little blacklisted in Europe for the mistreatment of the heir male. I suggested he be considered for possible recognition in Ireland someday, when that is possible again. It may not be possible but might get his name mentioned to others. DinDraithou (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we please take this matter to its proper resting place: Talk:Clan MacLeod. DinDraithou is posting prevocative postings on my talk page and I do not like dealing with this kind of user on a personal basis. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hardly provocative to call out a user or two for ridiculous things. Since you have been unable to show me a concession and keep restoring Hugh Magnus uncritically, we now have a problem. So I looked at your user page and found you calling yourself a Pict, which is fine, but then I find an evidently ridiculous source in Clan Brodie talking about the "male line of Pictish kings" being associated with your clan. Do you believe that? And yes this has to do with your ability to edit Clan MacLeod.DinDraithou (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright well I see that you have conceded Guy MacLeod should at least be mentioned so I feel bad for tearing you down. Maybe you are a male line descendant of a Pictish king. Anything is possible. It's a shame about the records.DinDraithou (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)