User talk:David Lauder: Difference between revisions

Hello David Lauder! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Your numbering source please? - Kittybrewster 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC):- not a source for the number change on list of extant baronetcies. - Kittybrewster 10:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. See Sir John Lauder, 1st Baronet. - Kittybrewster 10:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My source was Lauder. The early creation should not be on the extant baronetcies. - Kittybrewster 10:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I still don't know what has happened to all my work. I havn't the time to do it all again. Your remark is debateable as it is an extant baronetcy. All that happened was that the patent was replaced altering the succession. GEC is clear on this (although not on other things). David Lauder 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either. I am sorry. Thank you. I disagree on the extant statement however on the basis that the earlier creation is not listed on SCB's Official Roll. Best wishes. - Kittybrewster 10:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I feel it would be wrong to deny them the earlier creation which is clearly continued, albeit under a new patent replacing the old one. The SCB's (a 20th century group?) Official Roll should possibly be corrected. How does one contact them? David Lauder 11:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19th century - www.baronetage.org - Kittybrewster 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, the problem is that wiki requires verifiability, the balance of the sources seem to suggest that the Kitty is correct. You need to prove by citation a reliable source(s) to couter the above. Certainly if you could get the SCB to change their entry that could be used as a source. On another note if you are related (which you may or may not be) to the subject of an article it is good form to note that on the talk page as Kitty has done on at least one of his family related entries. Alci12 12:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have given what I thought were very considerable amounts of source material, where as all kitty has cited is some fellow called Leigh Rayment, who, to the best of my knowledge is not a well-known authority, such as G.E.C., Burkes, or otherwise. The world of academia still prefers printed source materials rather than the websites of those who 'do' the peerage as a hobby. I have asked someone else to contact the SCB and raise this issue. He is friendly with one of their vice-presidents. Just have to wait and see. I am related, as you say. David Lauder 13:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rely on The Official Roll rather than Rayment. The Roll does not say that the second creation has earlier (than 1690) precedence. And you tell us the first creation was cancelled; i.e. is no more. I see no reason for the Roll to be corrected. It would be great if you would explain why the 1st Bt sought a second baronetcy to replace the first. And if you would explain why you call Lord Fountainhall Sir John Lauder. - Kittybrewster 13:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall, was knighted circa 1680. Upon his father's death he also became the 2nd baronet. David Lauder 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Lord Fountainhall inherited the baronetcy but he would never have been called Sir John because he had a greater title. - Kittybrewster 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

To the best of my knowledge he was always referred to as Sir John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall, (see Crawford) possibly because Lord Fountainhall was a judicial title. I've never seen anything refer to him as simply John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall. Regards.David Lauder 10:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most users prefer sources we can easily check (if possible) The online free version of Burke's doesn't give a date at all so it's not much help. As Rayment uses the usual sources for his page and having frequently compared both on other matters it's usually sound but was not the basis for the article. The SCB entries are regarded as a good source, if they change then absent any other counter evidence that would be very helpful in sorting this out. Obviously it's up to you but if the closeness of your relationship could be reasonably deemed by other users as a potential conflict of interest you ought to comment on the article talk page. Alci12 14:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont perceive a conflict here. But SCB is the definitive source and we should rely on the Official Roll as is until it is amended. - Kittybrewster 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not like to think there was a conflict here. I am myself an academic and I have cited both G.E.C.'s The Complete Baronetage as well as Lord Fountainhall himself, someone, I would have thought, given his legal position, as unimpeachable. I don't really know how much better than that one can get! David Lauder 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict, if it exists, has nothing to do with sources and is simply a wiki policy about editing articles about yourself or your immediate family where another user who may not know about your relationship ought to, to allow a fair assessment of any changes you make. I hope Kitty won't mind me showing his article where this is clear. Talk:Sir_William_Arbuthnot,_2nd_Baronet Alci12 13:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am only distantly related (3rd cousin of the present Bt). They are not my immediate family. I believe I have made a factual point about a baronetcy. Being related has no bearing on this matter whatsoever. It is either true or it is not. I still feel I have presented far more sources on this matter than anyone else. Yet I am still judged as incorrect. Amazing. I really don't wish to continue this discussion. I cannot add to it. David Lauder 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, your sources are excellent and your contribution is valuable. I think as you do that the suggestion around your relationship has no bearing. I do so wish people would not take things personally. There are 2 issues here.

• Sir John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall. I entirely take your point but it is contra wiki MoS. Let us see what User:Proteus says on it.

Your comment on Talk:Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet is "The correct form of address for a baronet, either written or verbal, anywhere at all, is 'Sir'" but you will find your perspective is contra wiki-MoS which holds that using titles implies a person is somehow "better" than his peers and is therefore non neutral POV. In my opinion that wiki-thought is contra NPOV. - Kittybrewster 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm afraid this is a French Revolutionary/American concept that we are somehow all equal. It really is a crashing bore. Of course we are not. All the animals in the jungle are not equal and neither are humans. Unless they are saying that I am just as good as, say, Einstein! If they are trying to make an encyclopaedia they cannot introduce a political philosophy into it. It must reflect fact. They cannot deny people their titles and forms of address just because they disapprove of them! David Lauder 21:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2nd baronetcy was de facto dated 1690 and does not date from 1688. The 1688 one was cancelled and is no more. Baronetcies are ranked in order of creation. The Official Roll is conclusive on this narrow issue. - Kittybrewster 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear we are just going over old ground here. My understanding is that the new Patent was drawn up to replace the old one which was deemed to out of order after both court and parliamentary hearings. Whilst it was a new Patent it was not a new Creation as such, as the Creation of that baronetcy already existed. For instance, Sir Thomas Dick Lauder always referred to the Creation as 1688 and this is shown in The Grange of St.Giles.

The whole problem with all these directories etc., is that they all copy from one another over the decades, even centuries, thus perpetuating errors. People then refuse to accept anything else by quoting them all! I had to obtain a Lyon Court letter for the editor of Burkes to prove that GEC was quite wrong about the funeral escutcheon he cited, and even after that when the new edition appeared he had not changed the entry. What hope. David Lauder 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused — what exactly is the issue here? Cracroft's has a 1688 Baronetcy (of Idington, co. Berwick), which was cancelled in 1692, and a 1690 Baronetcy (of Fountainhall, co. Haddington), which is extant, and currently held by Sir Piers Dick-Lauder, 13th Bt. There were ways of altering the succession of Baronetcies, but they don't seem to have been used here. Proteus (Talk) 16:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A writ of novodamus, yes? That was how they steered the Dukedom of Queensberry around the cannibal. Choess 01:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would have done. But here it seems to be pretty clear that the earlier title was cancelled and a new one (with an entirely different TD, no less) was created, so I'm not entirely sure what this chap seems to be basing his "alteration" claims on (other than statements by holders of the title, which can hardly be said to be unbiased as to the issue of how senior it is). Proteus (Talk) 18:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you would read what I have said more carefully. The entire matter was not only aired in court but in parliament! If you are saying we should disregard the statements made by one of Scotland's most eminent jurists ever, Lord Fountainhall, as "biased", then I don't know quite what to say. David Lauder 18:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament's about the worst possible source imaginable — they've made such monstrous errors in the past (Earldom of Mar, anyone?) on matters like this that I'd take anything said in Parliament with a pinch of salt. (Yes, including things said by a Baronet about the seniority of his own Baronetcy.) Proteus (Talk) 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was not the Earldom of Mar case heard in the UK parliament? In any case, that was far more complex. This was a very straightforward matter. And this was no mere baronet. David Lauder 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cmt for privileges hears all cases where the claim is not self-evident. The Mar case was no different but the Cfp made a more than usually stupid decision to the extent that parliament passed an act to undo the consequences. As to proteus's other comment there are more than enough peers who have little accurate knowledge of their own titles, uses them wrongly or assign them the wrong precedence, date, succession or remainder that they have never constituted an reliable source. No one is so eminent a source that they are not fallible especially where it is to personal advantage. Alci12 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You confuse the post-1707 parliament with the Scottish Parliament which did not have such a committee. I have never seen one solitary reference anywhere which describd Lord Fountainhall as either biased or corruptable. He raised the case on it merits and won. Anyway, I have now heard back fom my source who contacted the SBC's man who states:

I am puzzled by the reference to me, or the SBC, being cited as the authority for any matter relating to the Patent in question. I have been in post only 15 months, but my records (going back only to 1960) show that the Baronetcy is titled "Lauder, now Dick-Lauder of Fountainhall". Where the "Idingtoun" came from I regret I have no idea.

I am sorry that I cannot be of more assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Perry Abbott Secretary SCB

G.E.C. also states that the baronetcy (i.e: both 1688 & 1690 Patents) was only 'of Fountainhall'. So firstly I am being told the SCB are the authority whom everyone is relying upon, but they tell me they are not. So I feel that my sources are possibly superior. David Lauder 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confuse nothing, my Cfp remark related to your comments about the Mar earldom being heard in parliament, nothing more or less. The CfP doesn't hear issues relating baronets. I certainly would regard the official roll as a source. However, Proteus cited Cracrofts, you've cited GEC this is no more clearly settled than before. This isn't personal, or me(us) being difficult we just want to make sure that wiki is right! This is clearly a more than usually complex case and may just take time to tie up all the ends. Alci12 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message, I agree that John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale is not the successor to Richard Maitland as Keeper of the Privy Seal. However the problem lies not with the succession box but with the recently created redirection page which turns what was previously a red link for "John Maitland" into a link to Lauderdale. I will convert the "John Maitland" page into a disambiguation page to overcome this.--George Burgess 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The successor was John Maitland (Prior) - Kittybrewster 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Priors were abolished when Maitland got Coldingham. He was appointed Commendator. In addition, he later became John Maitland, 1st Lord Maitland of Thirlestane. I have now done an entry for him. David Lauder 09:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Maitland, 1st Lord Thirlestane and John Maitland, 1st Lord Maitland are now redirects. Is that correct? - Kittybrewster 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. David Lauder 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heho, I would like to suggest you to merge your article to the preexisting article Saint Baldred and then redirect it. The article Saint Baldred is linked to other articles, contains the correct format (in example the saints-infobox) and is not named wrongly (you have missed a blank between St. and Baldred). By the way, before creating an article you should search and find out whether not already one article to the respective topic or person exists. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

• Many thanks for that. I have posted the reply on your Talk page. David Lauder 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right, Saint Baldred seems a little bit faulty - in example if he has died in 606, he couldn't be born 647. It would be great if you would use your informations, for which you have references, to expand and correct the article. After doing that, you can remove the merge-tag and can redirect your article (you simply have to insert: #REDIRECT [[Saint Baldred]] - instead of the previous text). Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

There was a little misunderstanding :-). How you know the Wikipedia software can change code to text or signs. If you put something between square brackets for example, you will receive a link. But sometimes it is necessary to show the code and not the result. In these cases we can use <nowiki> and </nowiki>, then the Wikipedia software will ignore everything what is between them and will represent it exactly instead of changing it. Therefore you simply would have been supposed to leave the <nowiki> and </nowiki> out. Thanks for your work. ~~ Phoe _talk 15:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

All I was saying on the discussion page is that the article title seemed a little bit of a reach for someone to actually search for, and I recommended creating some redirects to your article from other pages like just "Alexander Home". StoptheDatabaseState 21:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Thanks. I appreciate any assistance and advice. David Lauder 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly agree with you about that lump of "Bass"-alt! (boom, boom... sorry couldn't help it) You certainly don't have "Fidra Rock" or the "Lamb Rock". While it is admittedly a very large piece of stone, I've always known it as "the Bass" unadorned with anything geologically inspired. I'll put a note on the talk page, and if not contended I'll move it. As a Lauder, I would be most grateful if you would have a go at, or pass me some info regarding a couple of articles I'm trying to get up and running Whitecastle (a stub) and Nunraw (not started yet), as I understand that that formed part of the Lauder o' Bass' lands. Slan. Brendandh 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC) ps 3 months in Donegal, 9 months in Jock. I'm afraid I haven't worked out how to do it at the same time, but still endeavouring.[reply]

Sorry. Also, I'm trying to find out information on North Berwick Castle - down near what is the Glen Golf club on the east bay there is the remnants of the motte. According to Mr. Spratt, curator of Dirleton Castle and www.maybole.org fame that was the first norman fortification around this part of the coast and latterly a Lauder curtelage until it was demolished. AND proir apologies for overburdenment with questions: is the name Lauder from the place or did the place take its name from the person? Thanks Brendandh 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I am frightfully sorry but I failed to respond to your North Berwick query. I'll see what I can find. David Lauder 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC). OK, I've found something now and will post on your Talk Page. David Lauder 11:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll answer here and put a note on your talk page. The Lauder of The Bass family did have, briefly, Whitecastle or Nunraw (same thing - Whitecastle is the ancient name which is really attached to a Stone Age fort there). I will see what I can find. It passed to the Hepburns who had it for a couple of hundred years. The castle at North Berwick - I have something somewhere on it - was almost certainly a modest fort rather than a castle. The Lauders were Normans, and as they are the earliest recorded proprietors of The Bass (late 11th century) its possible they had something to do with it. The Royal Burgh of Lauder takes its name from the family (not visa versa). It is on record that they had a grant of most of the lands in and around the present town before the feudal system was introduced, the hamlet (as that is all it then was) being further up the hill towards the moor. When the family built their first Pele Tower there a new village (later town) built up around its walls. The few old huts up near the moor were abandoned. David Lauder 08:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info David. Although I started the White castle article as is, I feel that it would actually be more appropriate to move it to Nunraw and include a subsection on the hillfort, and another on the modern Cistercian community, obviously noting the connection with the cistercian nunnery in Haddington in the early days. What do you think? Regards Brendandh 18:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your message immediately above. Yes, I agree, it should be under Nunraw. David Lauder 16:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to contribute to this talk page, topic MBE if you have a view. - Kittybrewster 16:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sightly bonkers discussion but I have commented. David Lauder 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have. But you are only partly right. One is appointed rather than awarded

MBE (like Proteus's corporal analogy). - Kittybrewster 17:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are correct. You are awarded the medal though; appointed to the order. Thats what I meant to say. Sorry I wasn't all that clear. Its all a bit of hair-splitting is it not? David Lauder 17:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think one is also appointed a Knight of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (or whatever). It would be helpful if your comment were made more clear. It is interpretable wrongly. - Kittybrewster 18:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am off to church now, but my understanding is that all knights are dubbed in the traditional manner whatever order they are invested into. I have never heard of any knight being 'appointed'. He would be dubbed a knight of whichever order and enrolled forthwith. I'll look at Shaw when I get home. David Lauder 18:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. They are appointed to an Order - then dubbed. - Kittybrewster 07:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the other way around? I always thought the word appointed related to a position rather than an honour. David Lauder 12:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbing didn't always happen. It's not uncommon to find soldiers serving in the empire appointed to various orders of knighthood and use the title but never return home to be dubbed (or have it performed by another) and indeed frequently never receive their insignia. There are some rather amusing stories of honours being put aboard ships which sank or took so long to arrive that the recipient had been posted somewhere else and as fast as the award tried to follow them they managed to evade it :D Alci12 13:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"feudal baronies have now been completely abolished by Act of Parliament (2004)"

Not so, the titles were seperated from the land and the almost all remaining feudal/legal and other privileges removed by the Abolition of Feudal Tenure 2004 but the title was absolutely and explicitly preserved.

The key sections are:

(1) Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege incidental to, barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office (whether or not of feudal origin).

(2) When, by this Act, an estate held in barony ceases to exist as a feudal estate, the dignity of baron, though retained, shall not attach to the land; and on and after the appointed day any such dignity shall be, and shall be transferable only as, incorporeal heritable property Alci12 13:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I don't disagree with that. I read through the Act very carefully because of its overall very controversial nature. But the feudal baronies, which were until then recorded in the Sasines, because they had legal territorial rights, were abolished. The titles alone exist as paper titles and nothing more. It is ridiculous and meaningless. Even a Lordship of the Manor in England still carries certain rights. David Lauder 17:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are certainly 'paper' but they obviously retain certain features that lotms don't, they are titles in law and some give heraldic supporters. We have yet to find out in the courts the extent to which Lyon will be able to restrict some of the privileges granted wrongly by past Lyons last century Alci12 17:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought supporters were personal. Is that not so? I thought all that a feudal baron could claim was a funny lttle hat somewhere on his arms. I shall look at Thomas Innes to see what he says. Which feudal baronies carry Arms pertinent to the actual barony rather than the holder? They must be pretty ancient and very rare. David Lauder 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A feudal baron can petition by right for supporters for their arms if the barony dates prior to 1587. Various others after that date and before 1618 also seem to have acquired that right but not all. I wouldn't rely on Lyon Innes of Learney. He claims 'historic' practice which fits his views of what the dignity of barons ought to have. He was in large measure responsible the c20 practice of granting the chapeaux both blue and red without any good historic basis. He also pushed a view (which the courts had refused) of a historic wide range of lyon powers relating to recognition. To save me some typing you might like to look at a quick listing of some of the problems [1] The section where his earlier and later views are compared is especially revealing ( see Such a cap {was formerly} IS ) Alci12 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but if we cannot rely upon the Lord Lyon King of Arms, who is a lawyer and a judge in his own officially recognised court, then it must leave us all without an accurate source on the subject. Nevertheless, I note all you say. David Lauder 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy. I just thought that you might not be aware how some of Innes' views are regarded today. He was but one lyon and the present holder appears to be having a go at undoing some of Learney's actions (for example the chapeaux). Lyon's decisions are subject to some judicial review so we do have some case law some of which is mentioned at [2] with more remarks about Learney's differing views Alci12 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Thomas Arbuthnot (ship). - Kittybrewster 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Fascinating. David Lauder 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this, I changed to avoid misunderstanding of the article and to try to aim for more consistency. Many maps in this period (although I can not reference any from exactly 1792) refer to the area as East Lothian, East Lothian Shire as well as Haddingtonshire, although I confess to being unsure of when the name was officially changed to Haddingtonshire. For example Angus was changed in the late 19th century and was changed back around the same time as East Lothian in the 1920s. I am not sure, however, if this equates to what you say about Kant, as Königsberg was named after Kalinin and the city had never previously been referred to as Kaliningrad in the past. The Wikipedia article on Kant does actually mention that he was born in what is now Kaliningrad. Either way, feel free to revert my change if you feel it improves the article. Benson85 18:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have three maps here: 1707, 1815 and 1854. They all call it Haddingtonshire. As for Angus, it was still called county Forfar in the 1871 census returns. Regards. David Lauder 09:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you seen the section of the style manual on how to reference sources in wikipedia? cheers Nesbit 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I havn't. I will take a look at it. I hope its not terribly convoluted. I'm not brilliant at the IT business. David Lauder 08:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you go to my home page and email me. - Kittybrewster 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdoms of Scotland and England both existed in their own right until 1707, even though they were united in personal union since 1603. Please look at the Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Great Britain articles, the cited references and the British Isles (terminology) article. Please also bear in mind WP:CIVIL in relation to your edit summaries, before accusing other editors of bias. The best forum to discuss problems that you have with the article is on its talk page. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept that I have been uncivil to anyone at all. I made a comment about content, not about any particular individual. Never mind. I see you and someone else have reverted my edits. I have no intention of entering edit wars or acrimonious disputes. My understanding, and I would regard myself as having a pretty good education, is that the Kingdoms of England and Scotland continue until this day to be kingdoms in their own right but which Kingdoms were united under one Crown, the supreme authority. That is when the United Kingdom(s) came into being (but with separate parliaments as, to a lesser extent, today) and that is when the Union flag (without St Patrick's Cross) came into being to show that. I will see what Dalrymple, Thomson, Tytler and Burton have to say before I also consult Anderson. Thank you for your comment. David Lauder 19:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to amend this. - Kittybrewster 00:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: St. Baldred, I'm slightly perplexed as to who "Bishop Gibson of Saint Andrews" is. In 1542 the "bishop" of Saint Andrews was Cardinal Archbishop David Beaton, and looking through all the main east coast and Glasgow lists of bishops, I can't find a Gibson anywhere. In fact the only Gibson I've come across is a late seventeenth century Anglican Bishop of London. Brendandh 01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

J Stewart-Smith gives the following citation on page 190 of The Grange of St Giles (1898): "1542. The v day of January, M. Wilhelm Gybsone, Byschop of Libariensis and Suffraganeus to David Beton, Cardynall and Archbysschop of Sant Andros, consecrat and dedicat the paris kirk in the craig of The Bass, in honor os Sant Baldred, bysschop and confessor, in presence of Maister Jhon Lauder, Arsdene [Archdeacon] in Teuisdaill [Tweeddale]], noer publict." The author adds a footnote that this comes from Excracta e variis Cronicis Scocie, printed for the Abbotsford Club, 1842,p.255. David Lauder 10:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaton would not have been so "Pastoral" I would imagine. I had a moment there, modern Bishops (including Suffragans) always have there own see, eg Bishop of Dunkeld within the Archdiocese of Edinburgh and Saint Andrews, but that was not always the way obviously. Libariensis is a term that I'm not familiar with and have been trying to decipher, can you shed any light? On another subject, Sir Hew/Hugh/Hugo (de) Giffa(o)rd needs an article, considering that he is probably the most famous of the high Mediæval superiors of Yester etc. Would you care for a collaboration on the "Wizard"? Brendandh 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Gibson preceeded John Sinclair as Dean of Restalrig, and is recorded as suffragan bishop of Saint Andrews with the title of Libaria 16 July 1540 (Dowden, Bishops, 32, n2) and appears in the St Andrews Rental Books on 28 August 1541 and in the Yester Writs in June 1542. He died on 7 July 1542. Refer: Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae Medii Aevi Ad Annum 1638 revised edition, edited by D.E.R.Watt and A.L.Murray, Scottish Record Society, Edinburgh, 2003, p.482.

I'll have a go at helping with de Giffard. I may have some detail on him. Let me know what you would like me to do or whether you want me to commence a page. What's the "Wizard"? Regards. David Lauder 08:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note about Soutra. Technically Soutra aisle is in the Borders, the boundary with Midlothian runs along the B6368 which gives access to both the Aisle, all that remains of the Hospital and Religious House, and the Car park prtaining. The Car park only is in Midlothian, but the Aisle and archaeological digs are in Berwickshire. Although F.H.Groome states that originally it was part of Haddingtonshire, but was annexed by the parish of Fala which lies in Edinburghshire. The boundaries must have changed since 1902 when Groome was writing. Brendandh 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was unaware of that. Was it originally in Berwickshire though? Regards. David Lauder 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to make that point on the policy page. I'd recommend that you raise your objection at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Before you do, though, please read all the discussion that led to the ruling and that has reaffirmed it several times so far. You are not the first to raise this question.

Here are a few of the more relevant discussion threads but some of the others about legal liability and our general presumptions on privacy also apply. I know it's a long read but the archives of this particular talk page are worth reviewing. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 1#Policy
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 1#Privacy of birthdays clarification needed
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 1#Privacy of birthdays
  (note: there are two sections on the page with this same header. In this case, make sure you read the second one)
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 2#Privacy of birthdays
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 3#Privacy of birthdays?!
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 5#Proposed change/clarification to privacy of birthdays

Well here's a reference to the "former burgh of Lauder" in legislation: [3], this is less official: [4] On page 19 of this it refers to former burghs [5]

As far as the Royal Burgh of Lauder's *arms* are concerned, they did indeed revert to the Crown, just like those of county councils, on May 16, 1975. Lauderdale community council was allowed to rematriculate the arms of the burgh, with a community council coronet added, in 2000 (Lyon Register, lxxxi, 23). As Lord Lyon would not allow two entities to have the same coat of arms, the burgh can be taken as no longer existing.

Many other community councils have gone through the process of reclaiming the burgh arms, the most recent being Portknockie, I think.[6]

Have a look at this conversation [[7]] from a couple of months ago. Also the Select Committee mentioned in passing in 1999 that article XXI of the Act of Union protecting royal burghs had been abrogated by the LG(S)A 1973.

Area councils administer "Common Good Funds" for the benefit of inhabitants of burghs: I assume these are vestiges of burgh charities and possibly relate back to charters. They almost always refer to "former burghs".[8] [9] [10] [11]

Of course, there is nothing to stop a place using the title. Community councils in particular can call themselves anything they want, Brechin calls itself a "city", but it isn't.

Lozleader 21:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote. - Kittybrewster 22:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have. David Lauder 11:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey- you may also wish to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde- another non notable IRA member. Astrotrain 13:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]