Talk:Duke of Atholl

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.

In 1963, all Scottish hereditary peers acquired the right to sit in the House of Lords,but hereditary Irish peers did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.63.17.27 (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Barony of Percy forms part of the peerage of Great Britain; all other titles belong in the peerage of Scotland. The Duke's eldest son and heir has the courtesy title of Marquess of Tullibardine. Between 1846 and 1957 the Duke was also Baron Glenlyon in the United Kingdom, enabling him to sit in the House of Lords. On this barony's extinction in 1957, the Duke of Atholl had the dubious honour of being the highest ranking peer without a seat in the House of Lords (removed in 1963 when all hereditary peers gained the right to sit in that body)."

Something is wrong here. If he had the barony of Percy (GB) he would have been able to sit without the Glenlyon title. So either the Percy entry is wrong or the present dukes did not inherit this title till after 1963 Alci12 13:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athole spelling ?

I've found many references to "Duke of Athole". Same family ? If so, this article needs to mention the alternative spelling & its relevance.. if not, it needs to say something along the lines of "not to be confused with Athole"... Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized spelling is a rather recent thing. What wording would you suggest? —Tamfang (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing intro

I'm referring to this bit, from the very first paragraph:

...with a special remainder failing his heirs male to those of his father...

I really have no idea what that means, and I very much doubt I'm alone. If it is absolutely necessary to use specialist language here (and I'm not necessarily saying that it isn't) then it needs to be explained to the general reader, either plainly immediately following or at minimum by the appropriate use of wikilinks. It's really not reasonable to expect a casual browser to know what (for example) "special remainder" means straight off the bat. Loganberry (Talk) 00:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain the basic issue, and perhaps you can fix the article in a way that makes this more comprehensible to you. The standard remainder of a peerage is to heirs male of the person who is given the title. So, basically, it can pass to all male-line descendants of the first holder, but not to descendants through a female line, or to anyone not descended from the original holder. If all male-line descendants of the original holder die out, the title becomes extinct. In this case, the special remainder means that after all male-line descendants of the original grantee die out, the title can pass to male line descendants of his father - i.e., to his brothers and their male-line descendants. As far as articles to link to, primogeniture, remainder (law), and hereditary peer explain various aspects, although I'm not sure there's a good one stop location for all of it. I'm not sure how much should be explained here. On the one hand, we want readers to understand the concepts, but on the other hand this article is not about those concepts, and the article shouldn't get distracted into a detailed explanation of genealogical/legal terms. john k (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to parse with a pair of commata: with a special remainder, failing his heirs male, to those of his father. But since the first duke was himself heir-male of his father, his heir male (if any) was also his father's, so I simplified the language: with a special remainder to the heir male of his father. —Tamfang (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could some explanation for the 'KT' labels in the photos also be added? It's unclear what that signifies or even how to link to or reference information about it.

Split

This article was split into an article Duke of Atholl and one Earl of Atholl. But this would entail checking almost every link to the article to see where it would then have to go and redirects like Earls of Atholl wouldn't obviously point to either article. This seems a great deal of work to little benefit so I have undone the split. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments copied from User talk:Tryde

Although in theory there is no problem with splitting articles, as you did with Duke of Atholl, there are issues with the way you have done this. First of all, it appears from the history as if you created the Earl of Atholl article when in reality you simply copied other people's work. This loses attribution, required by the GFDL. Secondly, there are no end of redirects to the Duke of Atholl page which need to be split between the two articles. And even when split, which does Marquess of Atholl belong to? And so on. Thirdly there may be links which go to the wrong place. All of these things can be resolved, but you should be aware of them when splitting articles. A final point to consider is that splits are generally only done when articles are too large. That wasn't obviously the case here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, this split just doesn't work. There would be no end of work as redirects like "Earls of Atholl" can't be simply changed and it isn't clear whether links to Earl of Atholl should go to that article or to Duke of Atholl. Everything needs to be checked manually, which is a lot of work for nothing. I've undone the changes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears that I created the article but there is no other way to do it, is there? Most of the redirects would still go to the Duke of Atholl article, as they are subsidiary titles of the dukedom. I will go through the redirects one by one. Marquess of Atholl would redirect to the article on the dukedom, as this is a subsidiary title to this peerage (there were no other creations of the marquessate of Atholl). I think a split like this is very motivated as the page as it appears now is very hard to read or understand. There is also no connection between the earlier creations and the Murray dukedom. Regards, Tryde (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--- End of copied comments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone through the redirects more closely, four of them, Mormaer of Atholl, Mormaerdom of Atholl, Earl of Athole and Earls of Atholl, should redirect to Earl of Atholl. Earls and Dukes of Atholl (which is a nonsense article anyway) could also be a redirect to the earldom. The other articles should be redirects to the article on the dukedom. Tryde (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding links, what I mean was that things which link to Earl of Atholl could be about any Earl. The link in George Gordon, 1st Marquess of Huntly should redirect to the split-off article, but the one in John Murray, 1st Marquess of Atholl should go to this one after the split, or so I think. Again, looking at links to Duke of Atholl, they aren't necessarily about the stuff you propose to cover here: William Kennedy Dickson is, John Stewart, 4th Earl of Atholl isn't, neither is Clan Donnachaidh, but Tynwald Day is. Or at least the place where the links I looked at appear in the article seem to read this way, but some of the articles could well need to link to both articles after a split. There are between 100 and 200 links which would need checked, mostly by eye.

I could also wonder why we would stop with one split. Why not split the mormaerdom back out, and split the various incarnations of the earldom into separate articles? This seems rather a lot of work. Lack of clarity will be more easily fixed by editing this article than creating others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your concerns. If the article was split the link in the Huntly article would lead to the article on the earldom while the link in the Atholl article would link to the article on the dukedom. The same goes for the other articles you've mentioned. What's the problem? This system is used for other articles as well, see for instance Earl of Salisbury/Marquess of Salisbury and Earl of Bath/Marquess of Bath. The Duke of Atholl is very cumbersome as it is now - if we split the article more information on the earldoms could be added to that article. The history of the Murray family and their titles could then be explained in detail at Duke of Atholl. Tryde (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I have now moved the material on the earldoms of Atholl to a separate article, Earl of Atholl. I have also substantially expanded the material on the dukedom. I think the split will make it easier for readers. Tryde (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

peerage of GB

As of 2010 there were twelve subsidiary titles attached to the dukedom: Lord Murray of Tullibardine (1604), Lord Murray, Gask and Balquhidder (1628), Lord Murray, Balvany and Gask (1676), Lord Murray, Balvenie and Gask, in the County of Perth (1703), Viscount of Balquhidder (1676), Viscount of Balquhidder, Glenalmond and Glenlyon, in the County of Perth (1703), Earl of Atholl (1629), Earl of Tullibardine (1628), Earl of Tullibardine (1676), Earl of Strathtay and Strathardle, in the County of Perth (1703), Marquess of Atholl (1676) and Marquess of Tullibardine, in the County of Perth (1703). These titles are also in the Peerage of Great Britain.

Eight of those titles are older than the Peerage of Great Britain. Was something deleted? —Tamfang (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked them up. All twelve are Scottish. —Tamfang (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arms

Surely the arms should reflect the situation which occurred in 1957, when the Barony of Strange parted company from the Dukedom: any right to bear the Ensign of Man would have similarly passed to the Heir General and presumably is at present enjoyed by the Baron Strange. More technically, the succession to the Lordship of Man was not governed by the same entail as that of the Dukedom. There may be an argument that as the 4th Duke sold the remaining title to the residual rights in Man in 1826, the right to bear the ensign ceased at that point; alternatively if the successive Dukes have Matriculated their arms with Lyon, then presumably the Legs of Man have been claimed in error...?? Manninagh1958 (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blazon

The blazon in the infobox

Quarterly: 1st, Paly of six Or and Sable (for Atholl); 2nd, Or a Fess chequy Azure and Argent (for Stewart); 3rd, Argent on a Bend Azure three Stags' Heads cabossed Or (for Stanley); 4th, Gules three Legs in armour Proper garnished and spurred Or flexed and conjoined in triangle at the upper part of the thigh (ensigns of the Isle of Man); over all, an Inescutcheon en surtout Azure three Mullets Argent within a Double tressure flory Or ensigned of a Marquess's coronet (for Chiefship of Murray).

does not match the illustration, which is

Quarterly, first grand quarter counter-quartered Atholl and Stewart; second grand quarter Murray; third quarter counterquartered (i) Stanley, (ii) Man, (iii) Or a on a chief indented azure three bezants, (iv) Gules two lions passant argent (Strange de Knockyn); fourth grand quarter counter-quartered (i,iv) Or a lion rampant azure and (ii,iii) Azure five fusils in fess or (Percy).

—Tamfang (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duke of Atholl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]