Talk:Clan Stewart

This Talk page was not moved with the main page on 31 July 2008, so the history for this page before then can be found at Talk:Clan Stuart.

What is a seneschal?

Someone can do write an article over seneschals? Anselmocisneros 07:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Clan Stewart Today

First, we're using Stuart as the main spelling in here, your supposed to try to organize everything so that they use the same spellings and mention other ones once or twice. Second, it reads like a damn advert, if you want adverts for your thing, no matter how good, philanthropic or whatever it may be, go rent them, don't use up space on Wiki. If you want to be mentioned on Wiki, follow the rules don't write it up like a pamphlet. I'm deleting this part for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Move article from Clan Stuart to Clan Stewart

I think the article should be titled Clan Stewart because this is the spelling used on the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs website [1]. There are three Stewart/Stuart clans recognised by the Lord Lyon: Stewart; Stewart of Appin; Stuart of Bute. Clan Stuart of Bute is the only one that has a chief recognised by the Lord Lyon, though. Would anyone have a problem if we merge this article under the title "Clan Stewart"?--Celtus (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection. I would just like to see us make a decision and be consistent. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I know. By looking at Talk:House of Stuart its clear editors have a divided opinion on Stuart/Stewart. I think we should follow the lead of the mentioned site for the clan name, though. It is too bad the Court of the Lord Lyon website ([2]) doesn't actually list the clans it recognises. You'd think it'd be easy for them to do, and would be interesting to many people (and helpful to us).--Celtus (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I put it up for an Uncontested move at Wikipedia:Requested moves, because no one really had an opinion one way or another. But an editor contested it. I'll just copy and paste what an editor said here so everyone can see: This is not uncontroversial. Google gives 9150 hits for ""clan stewart" -wikipedia", but 9630 hits for ""clan stuart" -wikipedia". I think this should go through the "potentially controversial" process. In response i just want to point out that the editor might not have known there is another clan called Clan Stuart of Bute. And that there were three ships called Clan Stuart, one of which was sunk in around 1940 and is a shipwreck. So i'm getting 2,060 hits for "clan stuart" -steamer -ship -"of -bute" -wikipedia -sank -shipwreck. And 9,880 hits for "clan stewart" -steamer -ship -"of -bute" -wikipedia -sank -shipwreck. If the Standing Council uses Clan Stewart and all the clan societies we can google up use Stewart i think it ought to be moved to that spelling. Alot of hits in any google search are of forum postings, blogs, myspace profiles, bucket shops, ebay items and other odds-n-ends, i think.--Celtus (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Celtus. It was me that put the move in the "Contested" section. I do not oppose the move. I was just worried that the move might be controversial, and so should have the five day period for people to comment. I'm not an expert, but your argument that the page should be moved is convincing so far. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just wasn't sure where to respond, so i just pasted what you wrote here so others could see your point.--Celtus (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Speculative French origins

Why is this given undue weight? So no ruling dynasty can come from the Highlands since the Dalriata period of early Argyll? Those people are all simply backwards Gaels? Much has been said of the Stewart/Stuart family themselves, internally divided and self-defeatist, much like their English counterparts, the Tudors, who, by the way, were "native" and just as well from "the backwaters". The Tudors even had a more historical connection to Brittany, as that is where Henry VII's exile was before committing treason with willing traitors, against Richard III. There is no factual history of this family/dynasty in France, until the Auld Alliance and then during Jacobitism, as a place of exile against the prevailing political climate, much as in the Tudors' case during the Wars of the Roses. After all, how many centuries does it take to come up with truth? Catterick (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what the Tudors have to do with this. This is about a Scottish clan, most articles talk about the progenitor of the clan, be he a semi-legendary hero, or a breton knight. By the way a Normanized Breton isn't exactly French. many clans have non-Gaelic progenitors, almost always some knight who moved to Scotland and was given land from the King. What is your point? Do you think that being descended from someone in which now is France is a problem for an English Dynasty? and that this would make the Stewarts look bad? That is ridiculous, the Stewart origin is not unusual for Scottish clans, or Kings of either Scotland or England. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Y-DNA test results for "Royal" Stewarts do not support a French origin. It presents them as part of a large northern Gaelic kin-group, which includes such population groups as the Dal Cuinn of northern half of Ireland and Dal Riada of Western Highlands. See YTree.net for results.

clan crest

the clan crest seems to be that of the Earl of Galloway, should it not be of the last person to bear the undifferenced arms of Stewart? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

logically, yes, but the clan crest seems to be a recent science and its use is at times peculiar, especially with armigerous clans. Re Stewart, the references point to the Earl of Galloway crest, Way of Plean, George; Squire, Romilly (2000). Clans & Tartans. Glasgow: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-00-472501 8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) pp. 276, and wiki is about references, not what we think should be correct or we believe to be logical, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. I think the reason behind Galloway is that he is the best candidate for chief, but has never made a claim. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

one possible explanation to the last chiefs arms not being used, is that that the last Stuart chiefs were the House of Stuart, or kings and queens (and those in exile) and that their arms were the royal arms of Scotland and that these arms are now claimed by House of Windsor and are not the property of Clan Stuart, its chief etc. The Jacobite claim has since passed to the House of Wittelsbach and its head, Franz, Duke of Bavaria, who is not a Stuart.

Earl of Galloway and chiefdom

Why is Lord Galloway treated as the chief, yet not the chief? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

not sure, my thoughts are that he is "treated" as chief as he is the last known surviving male Stewart descendant (and who is not descendant of an illegitimate son of the Stuart kings {eg House of FitzJames} but is of a legitimate line). As to why he is not chief, my guess is that he has not officially made a claim, i.e. gone to the Court of the Lord Lyon and asked to be registered as Chief of the Name and Arms of Stewart. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Would make sense, not many, even if they know they are legitimate, make a claim. I've been working out my family ancestry however and have surprisingly a found direct, and what seems like a legitimate line to the Stewart monarchs. Maybe I should make a claim if I get it approved? Heh, anyway, it seems pretty regular for one not to make a claim like that, especially when already at a comfortable position.

stewart of appin

they have a chief, Andrew Francis Stewart, 17th of Appin Tinynanorobots (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

branches

different types of branches have different statuses(stati?), While Only Bute, has a recognized chief, Stewart of Appin, is armigous, and there for are their own clans, where as the Stewarts of Galloway is just a branch of the family, same for those of Atholl and Balquaddir. They are branches of the family, but there seems no reason to list them of all the other branches. Tinynanorobots (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The situation is much the same as clan Donald, there are officially recognized chiefly branches (Clan Macdonald of Clanranald, Clan MacDonald of Keppoch, MacDonnell of Glengarry) who are clans in their own right, and a high chief: Baron Macdonald. You are right to note that some branches here are likewise more sinior than others. Some are clans in their own right, others just branches. Appin, while armigerous is nevertheless a chiefly line (a clan), Stewart of Balquhidder is probably not a clan but a branch. Stewarts of Galloway would be entitled to the position of high chief (he would have the best claim to the right to hold the chief of the name and arms of Stewart). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some of the so called branches may be clans in their own right. However they all "branch" off the senior line and so I think it is ok for them to be called branches. As mentioned by Czar Brodie, Clan Donald has several branches with their own clan chiefs but at the end of the day they are all branches of the senior line and so are considered branches of the same clan.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Article re-write

This article currently focuses very much on the House of Stuart (Stewart) which already has its own article. I am therefore going to be re-writing it specific to the Clan Stewart.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Banquo lives? The Stewart a native Gaelic family?

I've noticed that Y-DNA testing of 'Royal' Stewart have them sharing a common DNA origin with other families from Western Scotland.

Is there any explanation why of the Stewart ancestor seems to have traveled from Brittany to the Welsh Marsh before finally returning to the land of their ancient kin, random chance or are they a native family (Stewarts did considered themselves native Scottish clan to at least the 17th century)?

I haven’t been able to find any modern works on the origin of Walteri Filli Alani, (as called on his seal). Hence I have had to accepted that the latest authoritative author on the subject was Horace J. Round, who published "Studies in Peerage and Family History” in 1901.

However, his interest (as seems true for later author) was the origin of the Fitzalan family (i.e. ancestors to the Earls of Arundel) and not the actual origin of Walteri Filli Alani. For he accepts that Walteri Filli Alani was a member of Fitzalan family simply because: “This was established at some length by Chalmers in his Caledonia (1807) on what he declared to be ‘the most satisfactory evidence.’”

He does reference Riddell’s “Stewartiana” published in 1843, however essay just re-integrates the 1807 claims of Chalmers.

Chalmers assumed that there was an associated between Walter son of Alan (who is only found in Scotland) and William son of Alan, a noble from Shropshire (whose house is the ancestor to the prominent family of the Earls of Arundel).

How does Chalmers show that Walter son of Alan found only in Scotland is the brother of English Lord William son of Alan?

He does so by two facts:

1. Chalmers says: “Now; Richard Fitz-Alan, the Earl of Arundel, being with Edward III., in Scotland, during the year 1335; and claiming to be Stewart of Scotland, by hereditary right, sold his title, and claim to Edward III., for a thousand marks”

Hence by the Earl of Arundel claiming hereditary rights to the Stewart of Scotland he must be related to the family of Walteri filli Alani.

However, I have found no modern confirmation for this hereditary claim. Instead modern author Oliver Thomson writes instead on the subject: “… Richard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, Lord of Oswestry applied to Edward III for the vacant position of the Royal Steward of Scotland. He was turned down but did visit Scotland to lead the English siege of Dunbar in 1338” From “The Rises and Falls of the Royal Stewarts”, 2001.

He nor any other author I can find reasserts Chalmers hereditary claim, suggesting that it has not been verified. Hence useless new evidence is emerges, i.e., a modern transcription to the text in question, Chalmers claim cannot be relied on thte truth of this subject.

2. Chalmers identifies that then Walteri Filli Alani founded the Cluniac priory of Paisley by arranging with Cluniac abbot of Wendlock, Shropshire, to supply the monks. This he and others have used to justify Shropshire as the origin of Walteri Filli Alani and relationship with the Fitzalan that held land elsewhere in Shropshire.

This said, King Edmond of Scotland was sent to the Cluniac Abbey of Montacute in Somerset following the events of 1097. Should I assume that the Cranmores are original from Somerset? With some speculative ideas, as in the manner of Chalmers, I am sure I could associate the Royal Scottish family with a local Somerset family... .

After reviewing the two reasons why Royal Stewart originate from Anglo-Norman nobility I find the justification wholly lacking.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.1.234.166 (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)