Clans of Scotland Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
@CzarBrodie
This is NOT Vandalism
Please read the forum post here http://forum.clanhay.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=400 AND the facebook group "the REAL Hays" which wikipedia forbids links to, therefore we cannot "reference" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.28.218 (talk • contribs) January 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly I am not a fascist. My political views are strictly none of your business. I take your talk edit title hereto as an offence. Secondly, your edit, being controversial and failing to meet Wiki guidelines, was not referenced. I believe face book references are blocked as they are generally not considered references. Your edit seemed to me to be vandalism, I saw a similar edit was deleted, and this due to its reference. I did a quick Google search for the subject matter, found nothing, and considered the issue to be a hoax.
- I note the new added reference, namely: forum.clanhay.net. I read the links information and take issue with the subject matter being included in the article clan Hay. I think the information in the added paragraph, titled “Disputed Chief” should be deleted. My reasons for thinking this are: WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:SPS. yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, User:94.192.28.218 those links don't cut it. Forums and social networking websites can't be used as references, and shouldn't be linked to in the 'external links' section (Wikipedia's guidline of 'External links'). You need to find something that comes from a reliable source, like something published (Wikipedia's guidline of 'Reliable sources'). The article isn't suppose to promote one movement or another, only state relevant info that has been published about the clan.--Celtus (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely ludicrous points of view. Especially not promoting movements. You ARE promoting the current incumbent and disputed clan chief, and not allowing the truth to be told. Once again it seems that I have come across ridiculous policy in Wikipedia - Once before I wrote an article about a sports club only for it to be repeatedly deleted - despite them being a founder member of the sport in Scotland. A Little research showed much less informative pages about clubs in Northern Ireland. I guess it's who you suck [strike]off[/strike] up to on Wikipedia.
Well done for supporting the "institutions" which have raped Scotland over and over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.28.218 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
And nice of you to uphold the "mighty" Good Faith that is supposedly promoted here!![1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.28.218 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, your 'research' didn't take you far [2] proof that the current line ARE NOT hays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.28.218 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Slow down. The Wikipedia guidelines mentioned are there in part to keep people from giving undue weight to sort of 'fringe' takes on a subject. The article is supposed to be a balance of what has been reliably published about a certain subject. So adding a bit about a movement that has never recieved any media coverage or that has not been mentioned by a reliable source is giving it undue weight. Thats the whole point. No one is stopping you from writing about how the chiefship has descended through the years. You can do that. Just follow what your sources say.--Celtus (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Celtus has a good point. While it appears there is not (yet) enough sources to place the "Disputed Chief", nothing is stopping you including information (with Reliable sources) to the subject matter that appears in your links. Some of the contributors in your links advance claims and information in their arguments. This information, always being well referenced, may well be relevant to the subject matter of Clan Hay. Basically what I am saying, is that in my opinion it is not appropriate to add the information you advanced, these are unreliably sourced conclusions (opinions), but I do not see a problem with adding the information/history/genealogy that created these conclusions (but please note the references can not be the talk pages thereto).
- Re you reference to good faith. You are correct in thinking I should have considered your edits in such light. As explained, I originally deleted your edit out of hand as it had already been deleted. When you reference the matter to talk, and listed a none-Face Book link, it was clear your edits were in good faith. However, the reason I did not mention such is that in my opinion good faith requires a certain degree of courtesy, I think that your subject title of your edit at the talk hereto lacked this courtesy. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure you can base this on "(opinions)". As it is clear for the evidence of the line of succession of the earl of errol and lord hay, that the clan was indeed "stolen" (the stolen bit may be an opinion) but a Boyd changed his name to take the clan Hay. This is A FACT - a well documented FACT - despite your assertions that this is unheard of. To leave out this major fact, I feel, is un-encyclopedic. So be it - Wikipedia is hardly a source to be trusted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.131 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wiki does in fact refer to the name change, see James Hay, 15th Earl of Erroll. There is however nothing unusual about this. As I understand it, the title of clan chief (and some other titles) can pass through a woman if there are no male heirs. the children/descendents of this woman must change their name to that of the clan in order to succeed as chief. This has happened in many Scottish clans, Clan MacLeod, Clan Sempill, Clan Mackenzie being a good examples, see in perticular the paragraph tilled The modern Clan Mackenzie. sometimes this name change does not happen (or has happened in reverse), in which case the clan has no "chief" until he changes his name, Clan Innes is a good example here. sometimes, as in Clan Hay, and because the families of clan chiefs often marry into each other, the chief is entitled to two chiefdoms, but because of the law, can only hold one name, therefore one clan; Clan Douglas and Clan Hamilton are a good example here, where the Duke of Hamilton is entitle to both clans, but as his last name is Hamilton, can only legally be chief of Hamilton. (if he changed his name to Douglass, he would perhaps be Chief of Clan Douglass and no longer that of Hamilton). Occasionally errors have happened, leading to interesting complications, a good example here is Clan Mar and Clan Erskine and the shared title Earl of Mar. Occasionally the situation can be very confusing indeed, even to the clan, such as the case of Clan Fraser where in effect there are two chiefs.
- If a descendent male can be found from the Chief of Clan Hay (and be able to prove this descent to the Lord Lyon King of Arms), he may be entitled to petition (to the lord Lyon or the Court of Session or the House of Lords for the tittles) for the undifferenced arms of Hay, he would not gain the titles (unless the situation was like that of Mar), as they seem to have been proven to go no other way, than through female descent, he (or she) would then be chief of Hay.
- wiki, once you take the time to read it, is in fact a very good source of information. It would be good if you could contribute. You may know sources of information regarding clan Hay and have the time to sort through and give the information. The article on Clan Hay is sorely needing references an extra information. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
From what I can gather, the title seems to have passed to someone with little or no blood relation to the Hays - not simply through a woman as you suggest. I would suggest this is what makes it unusual. From the links provided it would seem that a Michael and Stephen have already petitioned the Lord Lyon to 'retrieve' the clan but are meeting "200 years of sculduggery" (quote from Alex Salmond). They seem to be fairly certain that a 'pureblood' Hay exists - that a number existed at the time, but their status as Jacobites made them ineligible. As the 'head' of the Clan holds lands and titles, I expect it to be a very one sided fight to 'reclaim' the Clan, but I look forward to the battle. I've always found it strange that such a 'big' Clan has little history, going from High protectors and constables of Scotland, to little more than English lapdogs, perhaps this explains it. Ntbear (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize if my view seemed like a suggestion, I was referring to the link referred to by 94.192.28.218. I am familiar with this reference, having discussed a few genealogies with the sites owner, Darryl Lundy. His references and research are usually excellent; so it was without question that I reviewed the genealogies as given in the link. If you click on "pop-up pedigree" just under the title: James Hay, 15th Earl of Erroll, you should see a list of ancestors. In this list you should see Lady Margaret Hay, clicking on her gives you a page informing that she is the daughter of John Hay, 12th Earl of Erroll. accordingly, James Hay, 15th Earl of Erroll, is a blood relation to the Hays and a descendant of the Hays blood line of the chiefs, the Earls of Erroll, the chiefs of Clan Hay. from the same source, I noted that John Hay, 12th Earl of Erroll had a son, the 13th Earl, who died unmarried, a daughter, Lady Mary Hay, who, there being no male heir, became Countess of Erroll; she died without issue. 12th Earl of Erroll had a third daughter, Lady Margaret Hay. Margaret married James Livingston, 5th Earl of Linlithgow; they had two children: Lord James Livingston and Lady Anne Livingston. It is unclear if Lord James Livingston had issue, Lady Anne Livingston however married William Boyd, 4th Earl of Kilmarnock and had four sons: Captain Charles Boyd, Captain William Boyd, William Boyd, Lord Boyd, and James Boyd who became James Hay, 15th Earl of Erroll. as to the history of the Boyds, Charles "escaped abroad" as he was a Jacobite, William died unmarried, the other William died young, and the eldest, James changed his name to Hay and became the 15th Earl of Erroll and chief of Clan Hay. I fail to see how he "stole the clan". It should be noted that James Hay, 15th Earl of Erroll was also a descendent of several families of Jacobites, his father being captured at Culloden was beheaded and James was forbidden to inherit his tittles, his mother "detained" General Fawley at dinner in order to achieve a Jacobite victory, his grandfather James Livingston, 5th Earl of Linlithgow had his tittles confiscated as he joined the Jacobite uprising. Many of his family died in Rome at this time. Rome was the court of the Exiled Jacobite kings. Few families in Scotland can boast such a Jacobite pedigree. I can well understand the Earl of Errol not replying to the letter addressed to "Mr. Merlin Moncreiffe" and posted at link. No doubt he was very saddened, as I was, to read that text. I think the Hays have a lot to be proud of, the foremost being their chief and his extraordinary Jacobite heritage. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a minor inaccuracy in your reasoning here. You state that James Hay "is" a blood relation to the Hays. It seems that Lady Margaret Hay did not inherit any of the titles, as she died long before her older sister. Her son became Lord Livingston. It seems odd that the children of Lord Livingston's older brother should inherit the titles of the Hays? It does to me anyway. It is a very spurious blood relation at best. As his grandmother never inherited the titles, and he "had" to change his name to "claim" the titles. To be clear, James Boyd's grandmother was the younger sister of a one time Countess of Errol. I suppose in absence of 'better' evidence to suggest a more 'correct' heir existed, we should assume in "good faith" that the lineage is correct. However, if "the real" clan hay can offer a better lineage for the Hay Clan, and they seem determined to, there may well be a challenge to this. They also mention an ancient rite of Elders to elect Clan Chiefs. Surely this method would also strip the titles from Lords and Earls? However, as there is a "Real Clan Hay" in existence, I would have thought it's mention here is appropriate as encyclopaedic. Ntbear (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure about any minor inaccuracy - Mary, became countess as there were no male heirs. When she died without issue, the line passed to her younger sister Margaret (there still being no male heirs). Margaret was also a child of the 12th Earl of Errol. Margaret, however, died before her older sister. Therefor the title passed to Margarets direct male heir as she, on the other hand, did have issue (failing which, this would of passed to her direct female heir etc.). If titles could not pass through dead people there would be very few left. I do not see anything odd about this. As explained above, it is not uncommon for the titles to pass through the female line if there is no son, see the Clan Mackenzie#The modern Clan Mackenzie example. I do not think that the direct surviving descendent of the 12th earl of Errol is a "very spurious blood relation ", quite the opposite. I have been checking other references, and did not find any information that contradicts Darril Lundy's genealogy. The Genealogy of the Existing British Peerage By Edmund Lodge is of interest. It mentions on page 186 the contract related to the Earl of
MarErrol. This contract, granted by Charles II of Scotland in 1666, is given in greater detail at link, stating "he (The 11th Earl) obtained a regrant of his honours, with the special power to nominate his heirs. In 1674 he nominated his cousin, Sir John Hay of Keillour as his heir (The 12th Earl), and failing him, Sir John's heirs female (Mary and Margaret), and failing them, certain Tweeddale Hays(Marquess of Tweeddale)". Not sure what the "ancient rite of Elders to elect Clan Chiefs" is, however, it is worth noting that the regrant by Charles II is rock solid and cannot be changed or even challenged by clansmen. For reasons already gone into, I do not think the "Real Clan Hay" is encyclopedic. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the "ancient rite of elders" is mistaken view of what an ad hoc derbhfine is. A certain number armigers and landowners, with a Lyon Court Herald present, can choose someone to petition the Lord Lyon, in order be appointed as Commander of the clan. Until something like that is covered in the press i don't think the "Real Clan Hay" really exits or is notable.--Celtus (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I actually took the time to investigate the "REAL Clan Hay" and spoke with Michael - who has already spoken with the Lord Lyon about all of this. I will not replicate his messages to me without his consent - however - He insists the lord Lyon has said Merlin (head of the clan) cannot be challenged, but when he dies his cousin will take over and there is 20 years to challenge him. (not his son who is already lord Hay). The Lord Lyon has decided that when Merlin dies, Merlin's son switches to chief of the Moncrieff's, Lord Boyd's son will take over the Hays, and Moncrieff's son will take over the Boyds. That doesn't sound a very clever idea really - it sounds like a stitch-up, but I do expect you two to defend it! In any case 1. I was expressing my personal view that the inheritance ( James Boyd's grandmother was the younger sister of a one time Countess of Errol - but the younger sister never inherited the title) is wrong. It is my personal opinion that rather than descend a dead younger female relative, the title should have passed upwards until a male Hay was found - that is MY opinion - please do not state this is wrong - as it is my opinion. You may not share it - I don't really care if you do or not - to me it seems fairly arbitrary and to me it is less arbitrary to find a male heir by traversing upwards rather than downwards through dead relatives. 2. Celtus in my conversations with Michael he mentions several methods of "reclaiming the clan" one is the old Scots tradition of 9 elders of the clan 65+years of age meet up and elect a clan chief based on merit , blood, and passion for the clan and Scotland. Which to me does not include landowners, etc etc.- so I don't buy your assertion - and it is not very polite to make assertions like that. 3. It is not up to Mr Celtus to decide the legal status of the "Real Clan Hay". It is an organisation with a constitution, therefore, saying it "does not exist" is misguided as it is an entity - maybe not a clan - but it exists in some form.
As for inclusion of this material - there seems to be 2 votes for and 2 against, so unless someone breaks the tie, I guess it stays out. Ntbear (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Disputed Chief
The so-called Chief is alleged to descend from the Boyd family who stole the Clan with the help of the English king. The Boyd's had fought at Culloden against the Hays and only sought their lands and castles to sell for profit. A movement to have the Clan returned to "real" bloodline Hays has started on facebook (please search for Real Hay Clan as the wiki-naz1s won't allow a direct link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.28.218 (talk • contribs) January 2, 2009 (UTC)
- “Disputed Chief” deleted re WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:SPS. See This is NOT Vandalism above. yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)