Talk:Sholto Douglas
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editDoes anyone else think that this page should have been left as it was before (ie a redirect to William Douglas, 1st Baron Douglas of Kirtleside)? Most of the links to this page seem to be refering to the military leader. The one I saw that wasn't was added by the same user that changed this page to its current form.Cjrother 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a mistake. There are considerably more than one Douglas of repute with the name Sholto. No detraction intended to Lord Kirtleside but the name Sholto was one of the more popular names within the House of Douglas. They may not have had articles written about them yet but there will be in future no doubt. I would suggest there should be disambig. page to avoid any confusion. Brendandh 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- A disambig page would be fine with me. Cjrother 20:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Douglas-Scotti
editNo, quite right and also quite odd! The family of Douglas-Scotti, latterly (800yrs latterly!) of Vigoleno, do appear to be Douglases by association and relatives before the name was acquired, whether this is before Freskin's offspring obtained title in Scotland or later, is unclear, but they acquired the right to apply the name Douglas by the 1st Marquis. Brendandh (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Douglases were Flemish mercenary leaders who took Scottish territorial appellations owing to their relatively low origin. They came to Scotland in the mid-to-late 12th century when such guys were hired by the Scottish kings. Anything that suggests otherwise is fringe pseudo-history. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- As for "mercenary leaders who took Scottish territorial appellations owing to their relatively low origin.", What about the Bruces, from either Brieux or Brix? A territorial designation, albeit Norman. Devorguilla of Galloway, another. Or the Gospatricks of Dunbar, earlier Earls of Northumbria another case. These were not people of "low origin", and neither was Freskin, if the theory that he is the first progenitor of the Douglas is correct. Brendandh (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Taking hereditary locative appellations was a continental practice, not a Scottish or Anglo-Saxon one. The Gospatricsons didn't take Dunbar until the later 12th century, by which time it was a county. I think you misunderstood me though ... I meant that these guys didn't bring to Scotland such appellations because they were low ... being Fleming is a sign of "low" birth in the context in any case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- In whose case? Bastard William brought plenty healthy chaps with him from Brittany and Vlaanderen by choice or coercion. Quantify please your assertion that being a Fleming means that you are of "low birth", apart from the obvious physical height of the whole thing!Brendandh (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ps Gospatrics had the superiority of Dunbar since they had it as part of Northumbria, with only a blip here and there. Gospatric being a direct descendant of Oswald..Brendandh (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gospatric's descent in the male line can be traced as far and no further than a guy named Maldred son of Crinan. Anyway, the Flemish knightly aristocracy were French-speaking, and if these guys are being recognized as Fleming the chances are they are of mercenaries, perhaps of urban origin (c/f John_Hawkwood). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- As for "mercenary leaders who took Scottish territorial appellations owing to their relatively low origin.", What about the Bruces, from either Brieux or Brix? A territorial designation, albeit Norman. Devorguilla of Galloway, another. Or the Gospatricks of Dunbar, earlier Earls of Northumbria another case. These were not people of "low origin", and neither was Freskin, if the theory that he is the first progenitor of the Douglas is correct. Brendandh (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
To which in the nicest possible way, I have to say 'balls'! (with a :-) of course!) The Douglas harness is similar and related to that of Murray, which corroborates the Flemish origin, but where do you explain the Douglas-Scotti of Vigoleno? They were not hangovers of Archibald, 4th Earl of Douglas's ill-fated trip to France in the 14thc., as two centuries prior they were leading Guelphs in that part of Italy. Brendandh (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, the Douglas-Scotti were not hangovers of either Archibald, the 4th, or Archibald the 3rd Earl's visits to the continent, in the 15th and 14th centuries respectively. Brendandh (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Haven't got a clue about them, the important thing is that they didn't exist before the 12th century ... not with the name Douglas. That is absolutely certain. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)