Talk:House of Burnett

Two articles

There is a Clan Burnett article and a Burnett of Leys article I suggest we merge the two into the Clan Burnett article.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Both need work. The Burnett of Leys family (not clan) is the only Burnett family on the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. The article in the Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia is written from that viewpoint, not the family as a whole with all branches. Also, the current “Chief of the Name of Burnett”, James C. A. Burnett of Leys (note, not a clan chief), represents the House of Burnett in its entirety. I’d suggest this article, Clan Burnett, or properly House of Burnett, should represent the other major branches: Burnetts of Barns, Burnett of Leys, Burnetts of Kemnay, Burnetts of Crimond, Burnetts of Monbodo, and the Ramsays of Balmain (paternally Burnetts). The article Burnett of Leys can reflect the chiefly (albeit junior) branch, the house of Burnett of Leys only. Bearpatch (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the merger should go ahead. The section on the Burnets of Leys is not that much different or larger from the article; the exception being a large section on heraldry, but that in my view should be taken to this page where the heraldry of the other branches can be included (and compared), and I look forward to doing their shields some time in the future. An interesting point, a clan chiefs owns a clan, i.e. it is his property so it would be unthinkable to not place the history of the chiefs in the main article and any branches that need extra room have to seek it in separate articles, e.g. Clan Campbell. What happens in a "House" I have no idea, to be honest, I am somewhat confused by the term "chiefly (albeit junior) branch." In clans: chiefs are always senior. Houses are not my forté. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. just noted the comments at Talk:Burnett of Leys, Celtus is of course right, "Burnetts of Leys (the chief's family) aren't a branch of the clan, they are the clan", but once again, as it is not a clan but now a House....

House of Burnett?

I oppose the move of clan Burnett to "House of Burnet". To begin with Burnett is not a "house". House is a term usually used to describe a royal dynasty, see Royal house; Burnett in my view does not come under this category. In this sence it would be more appropriate to move the article to Burnett (family). However once again I would also appose a move to Burnett (family) given that Burnett is a Scottish family with a recognised chief, hence the label Clan Burnett is more appropriate. In a sense, a Scottish clan is a Scottish family with a chief (or which at one time had a chief). Note also that "House" is a term directly related to the royal line and is inappropriate for clansmen (and even branches) who can not identify their direct descendent to the king. Is this sense House of Stuart and Clan Stuart are two district and very different subjects. I noted the statement According to the Chief of the Name of Burnett, "even in the Lyon Court records, there was never a 'Clan Burnett'." in making the move to House of Burnett, yet such a declaration would need a reference, nor do I think such a statement justifies making the Burnett clan a royal house. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am also unhappy in regards to the fact that all my work to the original Clan Burnett article is now missing from it, now renamed as the House of Burnett. I will be making amendments in due course.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of Wikipedia is directly dependent on the accuracy of information provided within the articles. Assuming you both agree, we should be striving for accuracy in this article. The House of Burnett, which is what that family calls itself—it is the official name. Why would we even inadvertently force a name on them such as "Clan Burnett" when, as it states clearly on the official House of Burnett web site: (http://www.burnett.uk.com/faq.htm , last paragraph) the correct terminology for the Burnett family is "The House of Burnett"? It also states in that same paragraph that although the term "clan" has been used to describe some Lowland families, even in the Lyon Court records there was never a “Clan Burnett”. Also, it is not in the purview of the Lord Lyon to determine whether an entity is a clan or family. That determination is made by the Chief of the Clan or the Chief of the Name in question. Quoting Frank Adam & Thomas Innes, The Clans, Septs & Regiments of the Scottish Highlands (pp. 152-53) : "A clan is a social group consisting of an aggregate of distinct erected families actually descended, or accepting themselves as descendants of a common ancestor, and which group has been received by the Sovereign through his supreme Officer of Honour, the Lord Lyon, as an honourable community, with its "family seal of arms" held by its chief or Representative, whereof all the members, on establishing right to, or receiving fresh grants of, personal hereditary nobility, will be awarded arms as determinate or indeterminate cadets, both as may be of the chief family of the clan. If such community comprehends only families of one surname, i.e. that of the chief family, then the community is or may be termed a 'Name'." You also see, consistently, the phrase used Scottish "clan and Family" as the two have distinct differences yet both are treated equally, or as being the same under Clan law. If you study clan law further you’ll see the decision by the Lord Lyon which restored clans to the same status as noble families (MacGillivray v. Souter) after which the law stated they are now the same (as in equal). Note that in the Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia in each clan or family article, you typically find in the first sentence or paragraph an identification as to whether this group is properly a clan or family. Burnett, on p. 86 begins with “This ancient family…”; Forbes, on p. 138 in the first sentence states: “ …lie the lands of the Clan Forbes…”; Arbuthnott on p. 68 states: “This land has been in the hands of the same noble family for more than twenty-four generations…”; and lastly, Campbell, on p. 90, “Traditional genealogies place the origin of this clan among…”

I answered the posting above (the same day) where QuintusPetillius wrote: “There is a Clan Burnett article and a Burnett of Leys article I suggest we merge the two into the Clan Burnett article.” And actually this was a valid point in that the two articles, as they were written, were both essentially about the Burnett of Leys branch. Before, this article was based almost entirely on the article "Burnett" (pp. 86-7) in the Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia. Unfortunately, and it wasn't immediately obvious, this article was written from the viewpoint of the present chiefly family, not the entire family (name or house). But written from a more balanced viewpoint and using a wider variety of reliable sources the House of Burnett is a separate entity from the branch of Leys and deserves to be represented accurately. As to the use of the term house for a family, it’s not that uncommon. Book titles such as Maxwell’s House of Douglas or David Malcolm's House of Drummond show clearly the difference in usage between a royal house and a noble house. From Dictionary.com, the third definition for the word house is: "3. (often initial capital letter) a family, including ancestors and descendants: the great houses of France; the House of Hapsburg." You also find the term "cadet house" in references on Scottish heraldry referring to a cadet line of a family. A royal house is a common but far from exclusive use of the term house regarding a family structure. Your point regarding the difference between the House of Stuart and Clan Stuart is valid in that there is a difference, but you can also say there is a difference between the noble House of Stewart and the royal House of Stewart and be just as correct. Lastly I hope this answers your questions regarding using the correct name for this family, the difference between clan versus family, noble houses versus royal houses, and the reasons for improving this article in the manner I did. I would be happy to work with either of you or anyone else in continuing to improve this article. Thanks, Bearpatch (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bearpatch. I still think the move is not appropriate. your quote (A clan is a social group...) seems to confirm to me that Burnett is a clan, yet even if you are arguing that is a family, the point being that it has been moved to House which is, in my view, still highly inappropriate. You could also argue that the Lyon never describes Burnett as a House. All the references you gave to say Burnett is not a clan talk about the Burnett family, not the House of Burnett. As to giving a dictionary definition, the same could be argued with "clan". The House definitions you gave seem to me that these are reference to "noble Houses", whose titles included numerous Dukes, marquises, earls etc. Are you saying that Burnett is not a Royal House but is a Noble House? The Burnett have a baronet, but the chief is not the baronet of Leys, adding to the confusion by calling him the chief of House. Surly if there was a House of Burnett, the baronet, the direct male line from the first chiefs, would be its chief representative. After all, the Burnnett Baronets of Leys are the direct male descendents. The only ref to the House seems to be an internet question and answer ref, a dubious source, yet even if we accept this, is it appropriate to call a clan by whatever a web site says it is? What if it called it the empire of Burnett, would we then have to list it as Burnett empire? A bit extreme like example, but my point being that the ref is valid insomuch that the article should contain this info (that such a ref thinks it is the House of Burnett, then again, it could be argued that such a ref is promotional), yet not enough to change the title of the article in my view. For this I think we would need serious none interested references which agree, i.e the Lyon stating it is the house of Burnett, and not a clan web site promoting its membership to a self invented organisation. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

One additional point and this is for QuintusPetillius. I hated to see your work go as well. But if merged much of it would have gone anyway because of duplication and it was in fact more pertinent to the Burnet of Leys article. I had intended to see what could be moved to and integrated with that article once I had the time. There are at least two sections I can think of that would probably work into the other article with little difficulty. Bearpatch (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think QuintusPetillius's work can stay. He uses good references. As the Burnett of Leys article, this should be merged in my view. Bearpatch, I read a serious accusation about you on a very experienced user's page, see this, section: Ibid and Op cit. referencing Noting that "Bearpatch...seems to be using Wikipedia for some sort of original geneological research or to promote family folklore, sometimes reverting or removing tags requesting citation or clarification.... I'm concerned about the amount of original research he's doing." Can you clarify, and state if you have a conflict of interest in editing certain articles. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Czar, thanks for the support. When I have time I will be adding my well referenced information from the "Clan Burnett" article to this article. Cheers.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I’m not arguing the Burnetts are a family (synonyms: house, name), that point is already established. I’m pointing out the necessity of calling something by its accurate and correct name. I would have thought that, when given a link to a web page, in this case the official House of Burnett family page, if you still had genuine doubts you might have thought to verify that it was first, called the House of Burnett; secondly that it was an official organisation recognized by the Lord Lyon. You could have taken the very simple step in contacting them to ask; given their contact information was at the bottom of the home page. You've also had ample opportunity to show me anything authoritative where the Lord Lyon officially recognizes this family (house, name) as a clan. BTW, the Ross Herald, Charles J. Burnett, who in an article published in 2000 refers to this family as the House of Burnett and James C.A. Burnett as the current head of the House. As for the use of the word house for a noble family, another source is J.H. Stevenson, Heraldry in Scotland, Vol. II (Glasgow: J. MacLeahose & Sons, 1914), passim. You'll notice how the author uses the word house as a synonym for family numerous times throughout the book. Also note instances of the terms: cadet house, noble house, chief of the house, motto of the house, and the specific mentions of several noble houses (Douglas, Hamilton, Murray, et al.). I think this might better help you understand how the word is used in Scots heraldic and clan law.

Let me correct a point you just raised. The House of Burnet does not have among it's members a Baronet of Leys at present; the title became dormant in 1959. But I'm missing something here, and perhaps you can help me understand; as a baronet is not a member of the peerage and a chief of the name is not required to be a baronet, I’m not sure why you brought this up. What was your point? The current Chief of Burnett of Leys petitioned the Lord Lyon in 1988 for his Standard and Pinsel as the Head of the House of Burnett (which flags were granted 26 February 1989).

I take responsibility as an editor to insure what goes into an article is accurate and verifiable and is not just an unsubstantiated opinion. So what I remain concerned with is a seeming lack of understanding of the difference between a clan and family and an apparent (and please correct me if I'm wrong) lack of interest in independently verifying what I've shown you. Even when corroborated by a reliable source on Scottish law there appears to be no interest in correcting what has now shown to be an incorrect understanding. I informed you there were problems with the article over a week ago but got no response. And as the formerly incorrectly named article using a single tertiary source (30 times) this was a real problem (please review WP:WPNOTRS) , but has since been corrected. An equally disturbing problem is the article in Scottish Clan and Family History, on pages 86–87, is from the first paragraph to the last is principally concerned with the Deeside Burnetts not the House of Burnett. It might also be interesting if you could point out to me where the word "clan" appears anywhere in this article. I can't seem to find it. In fact, the very first use of this source [1] failed verification on that very point. I thought to tag the problems here but there were so many and I had all the sources at hand, it was easier to rewrite it. Given the low activity in editing here the past year or so, tags could sit here for years and not be addressed. I would have gladly involved you in the name change had you shown any interest in discussing the problems. I’m sure you were unaware of them and were not and are not intentionally trying to insert bad or misleading evidence into a WP article. As we’re all experienced editors here I’m sure you realize as I do that inclusion of anything based on unsupported opinion or insufficient evidence (WP:VNT) or any misuse of sources (for example advancing a position not supported by the source itself) is not allowed at WP. None of us, I’m sure, are advocating anything of the sort which is why we need to discuss this further so as to reach a clear understanding of the points in question. I believe that with some genuine discussion we can come to an agreement on these issues. It's worked before and that's what we're encouraged to do. One point we can discuss is based on WP:AT : "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." This means that while the House of Burnett has been shown to the official name for this family, that as shown house is a synonym for name and family, and is supported by reliable sources—if it can be shown by equally reliable or better sources that there is any alternate name which is preferred we can discuss it and see if we can come to a reasonable consensus. Bearpatch (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well o.k. then. My argument was probably a bit sentimental. Agreed that Burnett is not a Clan but is a House. It should now be removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Clans of Scotland and transfered to Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland and the template {{Scottish clans}} should no longer list it, along with the various clan lists, crest badge lists etc. I created the {{Infobox Clan}} and designed it so that it can list a diferent name to the clan, but it will continue to link to clan articles, notably clan chief, this may not be that important as I included a note on some of the legal aspects of chiefs and the lord lyon at that article (Leys is chief of the name and arms of Burnett and so would come under that heading), these judgements supercede the one you mentioned. The problem arises with the crest badge, these are strictly reserved for members of a clan see link. The info box is built around this, so I think it should go. I will work on this transfer tomorow or let you attend to it. On a sub note, some of your sources were interesting and I did like many of your edits. If you are interested, please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Clans of Scotland. We are very short of editors and would welcome your input. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

While I am somewhat disgruntled at my work not being included in the current article, I have little interest in this article and will not be taking any further action.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with the changes in templates at this point. Minor problems can be worked out later. I understand regarding the {{Infobox Clan}} but either it’s use has to be more liberal with regards to being used by clans and families, or perhaps a variant infobox could be created just for Scottish families. As to crest badges, actually Scottish families use them the same as do clans. Note that in the Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia, near the top of each article on members of the standing council is their crest (badge, plant badge, clan badge). For that of Burnett, here are a couple of convenient links displaying their crest: : http://www.burnett.uk.com/hob-store.htm http://www.scotclans.com/scottish_clans/clan_burnett/history.html. There is a difference between clans and families but in general usage they are sometimes lumped together and not always incorrectly. Note that "Scottish clan law" applies equally to clans and families. Also, the link you provided to the Court of the Lord Lyon regarding Crests is written apparently with the assumption the reader is somewhat familiar with clan and heraldic laws of Scotland. It might have been made clearer by including chiefs of names (houses, families) and their members. I’m sure you know that it is illegal in Scotland to display any heraldic image you are not entitled to. The explanation would seem to stem from the decision in 1937 by the Lyon that "clans and families are the same". This statement has at times been quoted out of context and taken to mean they are the same thing. The clear intent of the statement is discovered when you read it in context to understand that they are the same under law, but different in structure. So the statement regarding crests on the Court of the Lord Lyon Crests page would be correct as seen by the Lyon court, in that legally what applies to clans applies to the noble families. There are several instances of grouping clans and families under the general terms clans. It falls to editors here to clarify that as best we can. That might mean more Wiktionary terms being created or edited to reflect the unique nature of Scottish clan law and heraldic laws. Tell me what you think, should there be a separate infobox or should we use the one we have for both families and clans? I appreciate the invitation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Clans of Scotland. As a member of this group do you feel it’s appropriate to bring up this issue of properly identifying the difference between Scottish clans and families? It would seem there is work to do in correctly and consistently identifying articles on Scottish families and applying the correct (or deciding to apply a joint) infobox and other aids to help readers understand the difference. I has thought to bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland but it's probably appropriate for either group. Thanks. Bearpatch (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I can not agree with you on this point. The Lyon has no jurisdiction on Clans, this was determined by the Court of Session at a later date. "Scottish Clan Law" technically no longer exists. Legally all that is left since 1746 is an heraldic court. The Lyon Court is strictly heraldic, and has no bissiness saying what a clan is. He can however recognise a chief through descendent from an earlier recognised chief (however he can not create a new chiefdom). However, the Lyon can give a chief supporters or a clansmen the right to wear a crest badge. These devices are heraldic. Both supporters and clan crest badges are highly restricted, one indicates nobility and the other membership to a clan. The use of the clan crest badge is highly restrictive. Both the crest badges you linked to are false, as you pointed out, Burnett is not a clan, and secondly they are in colour. Note also that apart from the link I gave you at the Lyon Court, most of the info you find on the internet about Crest Badges is complete bunk, designed to sell merchandise or worse, i.e used to invent families into clans. On the one side you argue that Burnett is not a clan, it is a family, then: that family and clan are the same thing. The reference to crest badges is to the point: only for clans. If we start using original research and say all families are clans then this is a floodgate to every surname being a clan, every married couple with children being a clan etc. I do not think it is a good idea to discuss this at this time. This may seem odd to you but there are many families or other organisations that consider themselves clans and occasionally try to create pages on wikipedia using their clan web site as prof of there existance. These will use our arguments against us, things like declaring a family to be a clan would cause endless strife. Note this edit and it is linked to a web site that uses some of my past arguments about clans, including a question I asked the Lord Lyon in the Scottish parliament. My arguments turned against me! Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

chiefly versus senior

I noticed this in the heading: The chiefly branch is the Burnett of Leys family although the senior branch is Burnett of Barns. I do not want to get into a long discussion like the one above, but is there really a difference between senior and chiefly? As it stands it looks confusing. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk)

Yes there is a difference. The senior branch of a family is one claiming, or who has established in the past to be the main stem of the family which other cadet lines of a family branch from (or are junior to). It can also mean a branch created earlier than other branches. For example, when compared to the branch of Burnett of Monboddo, Burnett of Leys is senior. In 1550 Burnet of Burnetland petitioned the Lyon for rights to the motto Virescit Vulnere Virtus, then in use by Burnett of Leys. They apparently succeeded as they began using it requiring Burnett of Leys to change to a new motto. So the inference here is that the Lord Lyon recognized Burnet of Burnetland as senior to Burnett of Leys. Burnet of Barns claimed to be the successor to Burnet of Burnetland and claimed the seniority of the family as a whole. But, the current representative of the family of Burnett is also the head of Burnett of Leys, who is now recognized by the Lyon as the chief of name of Burnet(t). A chiefly branch is literally the branch the current chief of the name belongs to. As a general rule the chief of the name would normally be of the main stem or senior line making such a distinction unnecessary. So the use of the term chiefly branch usually implies an exception to the general rule exists with a particular family (name or house) or clan. Bearpatch (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

all very odd and amusing. The motto is registered in Scotland (unlike England), but having the same motto or crest as another family is not unusual. Mottoes can also be changed on reregistration. When one family has the same motto and crest as another, it usually implies they are closely related. for example, in this case, the Burnetts of Shetchokaly, of Leys and Barns all had the same crest and motto Verescit Vulnere Virtus and the Burnetts of Innerleith and Wariston both had the same crest and motto Virtute Cresco. Perhaps Burnetland was saying they are closely related by taking the same motto, and Leys implies, by changing his motto, that they were not. Who knows. This is not very important to the article, or, as you put it, is just "inference". In Clans the chief is not a branch. To continue with the analogy of trees, the chief is the trunk, branches form when the chief has younger sons. Both the trunk and the branches form what is the clan, the chief is head of the whole tree. The Burnetts of Burn saying that they are the rightful chiefs seems well documented, but given that the Lyon registered Leys as chief of the Name and Arms the matter seems decided. I think the Burn claim should be mentioned in the article, but not in the opening paragraph. It appears that the Leys have gone through the female line at some point (given that the male heir to the baronetcy of Leys is Sir Alexander William Burnett Ramsay bt.). This would be be important to include in the article under a ref that explains where this happened. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The larger question

If you’ll note I said above “… it is not in the purview of the Lord Lyon to determine whether an entity is a clan or family.” So I understand completely the role of Scots clan law and the Lyon’s role with clans and families today. But let’s get back to the changes you made here and elsewhere regarding your acknowledgement that clans and families do have some differences. OK, we agree on that point. But there is now a larger problem that can either be gone about the hard way or the easy way. For example, you removed Burnett from the List of Scottish clans. Wouldn't it be a much simpler and a more elegant solution to rename the page “List of Scottish Clans & Families”? Because otherwise there needs to be a separate page for Scottish Families and someone needs to remove a lot of names from that clan list because they also are families. What we do here for Burnett needs to be done for other families. Another example is the clan infobox you authored. Can it be used for both groups as-is, with a simple adjustment, or does it need to be duplicated for Scottish families? Give that some thought. Clans and families are both similar and different but they are sometimes mentioned together under the term clans. I was making the very same point when I said above: “There is a difference between clans and families but in general usage they are sometimes lumped together and not always incorrectly.” Then I went on to give Scottish clan law as an example of how they both came under the term clan. It’s our job as editors to explain any complicated or seemingly confusing ideas to the readers. We are an encyclopedia not a dictionary. It's what we do routinely. We need to have a rational and consistent approach so these pages are not seen to contradict each other or that we don't create so much duplication of effort that it confuses the issue even further. Now, this discussion is as regards the House of Burnett and so is appropriate here. If this grows to be a much larger question, then it needs to be taken elsewhere. But it doesn't necessarily have to. Minor adjustments here and there allow for the recognition that there are both Scottish clans and Scottish families. In their individual articles they need to be correctly identified which is which, and other places, with minor tweaks in the wording, they can be combined on the same lists or categories without confusion. So for the present, how do we integrate Burnett back into these pages and lists (templates etc.) realizing that what we do for Burnett needs to be done for a considerable number of other families? Like it or not what we hammer out as solutions here may have much larger ramifications. Bearpatch (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

“… it is not in the purview of the Lord Lyon to determine whether an entity is a clan or family;” yes but nor is it in the Lyon's purview to determine whether an entity is a House. It is in the purview of a chief to declare what he is chief of. Leys, who we know is chief, declares that Burnett is not a Clan, so it is not a clan. He declares it is a House, so it is a House. The default is that a group with a chief is a clan. If we come across reliable references which inform that the chief does not recognisse a clan then we can move them to whatever else the chief says it is, otherwise it should be left in clan in my view. Family usually means a small group of related individuals, House usually means a large group of related individuals with hereditary titles. Clan on the other hand is completely different. First off Clans have, or have had (in the case of broken clans), a chief. Secondly they have clansmen who share an allegiance to the chief. The clansmen are (contrary to what people think) for the most part not related to the chief, nor do necessarily share the same surname. There is a tradition of a common ancestor (the clan founder) but this is a tradition and is technically impossible. For example, in Burnett, the only remaining male line to the founder is Sir Alexander William Burnett Ramsay bt, all the other lines from the 6th to the 13th baronet died out. So where do all the Burnetts come from? The answer is they adopted the name, this is how clans work (unlike family and houses). On average, the direct male lines only increase proportionally to the population. So the population in Scotland in the year 1000 was about 1 million. It is now about 5 Million. So for every man in 1000 there should now be only about 5 direct descendents in Scotland. Clans like Macdonald are not large because their chiefs were having more sons, but rather because they had greater land and more followers. Smaller clans smaller land and less followers. “List of Scottish Clans & Families” would become meaningless, and every surname, every group, would need an entry. We are an encyclopedia not a telephone directory. Burnett had every right to call itself a clan, but if Burnett wants to leave the clan structure, fine; this, however, is no reason in my view to rearrange everything else. I have checked the clans on List of Scottish clans‎, some names were clearly not Clans and these I deleted. You are free to do the same. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, understand there are two types of groups; at times both are generally termed clans even though specifically one is a clan and one is a family. They both are subject to the Lord Lyon. At the web page for the Lord Lyon Court we've established that in places the general use of the word clan has been employed meaning clans and families. Generally both organisations are subject to clan law (there is no duplicate second set for families) although the law acknowledges that clan and family are exactly the same. It might better help you to understand if I quote this in context: "By what charter or statute? Of old by Crown Charters quod sit capitani of sundry clans and later under statutes 1592 c. 125 and 1672 c. 47, whereby Lyon is required to give out and difference arms for distinguished 'stok and lineage,' 'chief,' and 'cadet' of families—clan and family being now recognised as 'exactly the same' and the chief or representative of the family identical with the head of the clan." [Adam; Innes, Clans Septs & Regiments, 146] Perhaps it was my fault that I didn't quote it in context earlier. Many Wikipedia articles accurately reflect the general use of a term and at other times the specific use of the same term. For example, a chair can be a general or specific term. A rocking chair is still a chair, generally speaking, but specifically it is a rocking chair. So too the word chair can accurately refer to a club chair or a rocking chair. And yes, both could be further reduced by subtle differences. Just like most clans have a clan chief, yet a few have a chief of the name. Another example is some clans, most in fact, have septs while some do not. Should we separate them based on either point of difference? Both? Or separate them because some have branches like families? What about families structured like a family but have the word clan in the name (and have a chief of the name instead of clan)? What about a family that has one or more septs, but claims to be a family? Are you also certain the rest of the project members (the project you graciously invited me to join) feel that the project is only about clans in the strictest sense, and also feel they should separate from articles any Scottish groups that don't fit the strictest sense of a clan? Is that what this project is about? I ask because I didn't see that when I was looking it over. It's a point I'd need clarified by that project group.

It seems the simplest answer is that Scottish families and clans can be on the same list as they rightly have been. The irony here, and I find it very ironic, that the most frequently used reference for "List of Scottish Clans" is the book by Way and Squire, The Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia—that’s Clan and Family. It seems the authors of this work have figured out how to include both groups in the same sections of this encyclopedia, show their crest badges for each entry (both groups have crest badges), and handle in the individual article whether the that organisation is a family or clan. Why isn't this something we can continue doing here in lists, infoboxes, and categories? Bearpatch (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I saw your proposal to merge the two List of crest badges used by Scottish clan members and List of Scottish clans. Not a bad idea as they are very similar... But what then would be wrong with titling the combined pages "List of Scottish Clans and Families"? It is certainly a simple solution. Bearpatch (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

First off, your last point, the ironic side, which on appearances, does seems odd. This I can explain. The source to define who is a clan is not The Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia but is rather the old web site of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, now archived here under "My Clan". The Standing Council uses the same info, but its new web site is a lot more difficult to navigate. The reason it abandoned its old site was due to financial difficulties that I am not prepared to discuss. You will note that the text of the articles at "My Clan" is very similar to The Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia to the point of seeming to be a copy violation. This is because the same authors gave permission for their text to be used, and, as I understand, participated in the web sites creation. As far as I can see these (My Clan and clanchiefs.org) are the most authoritative sources on Clans (curiously, even more than The Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia even if they use the same text). As you can see the matter is at lot more clearer at the archive, and I think it is justifiable that we have relied on this. As to the other questions, I dont think "List of Scottish Clans" should be changed. But you really should take any suggestions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland as I think what you are asking for is a radical change to Clan articles and the structure of the project. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I understood that. I was unaware of how it was being done without violating copyright, but I did recognize it was taken from the book, word for word. All that’s lacking in upgrading from the web page references to the book is the page numbers. So we agree it was ironic. As for discussing it at the clan project page, I thought I had done the same thing by talking to you here. If it does come to a discussion I think it is probably more appropriate to do it at the parent project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland. At any rate, I see your point, adding the word family to the title is a radical change, notwithstanding the recent changes from family to clan were not. Perhaps the solution is much easier though. TTYL Bearpatch (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

One more small point, until we have a Noble families infobox I'm going to use the clan infobox here as the only visible mention of the ambiguous term clan is in "rival clans". Bearpatch (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We have Noble family infoboxs, The Noble Houses of Europe seem to use the infobox I added, e.g. House of Percy or House of Neville. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the try but it seems to be more of a round peg in a square hole than before and English families (the examples were Percy and Neville) are not structured the same as Scottish families (houses, names) under Scottish clan law. So again best here is to use the one it was using. It's a near perfect fit and is in use on a number of other family articles. Should a larger segment of the community approve separating the two groups and the List of Scottish Clans is reduced just to clans, then we can readdress the issue if it's even an issue. A replacement infobox would be 99% the same as the current clan infobox and I'm not even certain it's worth having two for the insignificant difference of one visible word. Thanks anyway. Bearpatch (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hell Bearpatch, you convinced me that Burnett is not a clan, was never a clan etc. That it is a House, and now you tell me it is a clan???? Under clan law???? Houses are the same all over Europe (not just England). The clan infobox is not appropriate for Houses. All its links point to clan articles. The House infobox is appropriate for houses. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the third time I've repeated myself so perhaps the axiom is correct (the third time's the charm). We'll see. "I was making the very same point when I said above: “There is a difference between clans and families but in general usage they are sometimes lumped together and not always incorrectly.” Then I went on to give Scottish clan law as an example of how they both came under the term clan." You didn't ask any questions or ask for clarification so I naturally assumed you understood. It essentially is encompassed in Scottish clan law and again "the decision in 1937 by the Lyon that "clans and families are the same". This statement has at times been quoted out of context and taken to mean they are the same thing. The clear intent of the statement is discovered when you read it in context to understand that they are the same under law, but different in structure." Reading it into context, as I did above "Quoting Frank Adam & Thomas Innes, The Clans, Septs & Regiments of the Scottish Highlands (pp. 152-53) : "A clan is a social group consisting of an aggregate of distinct erected families actually descended, or accepting themselves as descendants of a common ancestor, and which group has been received by the Sovereign through his supreme Officer of Honour, the Lord Lyon, as an honourable community, with its "family seal of arms" held by its chief or Representative, whereof all the members, on establishing right to, or receiving fresh grants of, personal hereditary nobility, will be awarded arms as determinate or indeterminate cadets, both as may be of the chief family of the clan. If such community comprehends only families of one surname, i.e. that of the chief family, then the community is or may be termed a 'Name'."

Also quoted from p. 146 of the same work: "...whereby Lyon is required to give out and difference arms for distinguishing "stik and lineage," "chief" and "cadet" of families—clan and family being now recognised as "exactly the same" and the chief or representative of the family identical with the head of the clan." This is the basis of the 1937 decision by the Lyon that among other things confirming the above.

The problem was, and it was perhaps my fault for not explaining well enough, you didn't fully understand. You have grasped the part where there are differences between the two, but you likewise need to understand how they can also be considered the same. So clans and families are considered the same under law, but also that law recognizes differences in structure and the right of a chief to choose his identity and that of his clan or family. I was sure you were grasping this when you saw the irony in the title of The Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia (i.e. the authors clearly recognize the concept). Or the examples where the Lyon is using the term clans to refer to both groups (as discussed above in families having crest badges (aka: plant badges, clan badges). So if this doesn't complete the picture for you then tell me specifically what part you don't understand and I'll explain further. I really won't mind at all if it allows you to understand the complete concept here. Bearpatch (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Look you are seriously annoying me, reverting 3 times is both annoying and silly. I tried to help and make as many concessions as possible. It was ludicrous to me that Burnett was a House, and I think you are beginning to see that. If you dont want it to be a clan but a House, then help to remove infobox or other that links it to a clan. The infobox I gave was for houses and fully compliant with other House articles. If you want it to be a clan then it can have the infobox, and yes we can list in the article that such and such web site calls it a "House". This is a similar compromise to Clan Gordon. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to annoy you at all, I've been trying to patiently help you here. The concepts you are not grasping are not that difficult. If nothing else respect the word of the chief of the name, that it is named the "House of Burnett". It is expressly stated they are not and have never been a clan. That they are a noble house (name, family) is in complete accordance with clan law as currently enforced by the Lyon. You've also been quoted from a member of the Court of the Lord Lyon that Burnett is a House. Your edit, which I restored after an edit conflict (simply out of courtesy) is not correct but I wanted to answer you here as to why it is not. But we do not have a consensus here regarding this family being called, incorrectly as I have shown you, a clan. Only in the most general terms and when referring to both families and clans as a group could you call them a clan. But to enter a name like "Clan Burnett or House of Burnett" is not a compromise, it's a contradiction in terms and would only serve to introduce ambiguity into an article. What is not a contradiction in terms and what I offered as an actual compromise was "List of Scottish clans" be changed to "List of Scottish Clans and Families". Clans AND families is a common phrase used repeatedly including in the title of the book we've been discussing The Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia. So clearly that is not a contradiction in terms. I'll be perfectly willing to discuss any reasonable compromise or suggestion that does not degrade an article or articles here or elsewhere. Bearpatch (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I am proceeding to re add Burnett to the various clan articles. This idea of calling it clan Burnett but noting that a web site calls it "House" was my original proposal. You have wasted a great deal of my time over this issue. There is no need to quote clan law over the issue, I am fully aware of the mater. I am a clan chief and have had to declare my interest in the past on wikipedia so as not to make edits that could have a conflict of interest. I asked you earlier a question Bearpatch, I read a serious accusation about you on a very experienced user's page, see this, section: Ibid and Op cit. referencing Noting that "Bearpatch...seems to be using Wikipedia for some sort of original geneological research or to promote family folklore, sometimes reverting or removing tags requesting citation or clarification.... I'm concerned about the amount of original research he's doing." Can you clarify, and state if you have a conflict of interest in editing certain articles. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We've wasted time if you've learned nothing regarding the differences. I find that very unfortunate but I still don't regret trying to help you understand. You declared a COI on Clan Brodie and I answered you on this before. I am not reverting to ad hominem comments or attacks and neither will I respond to them. They're usually an indication that the conversion is running pretty dry. Look, I'm sure your level of understanding of this issue works in your particular situation. But every noble family in Scotland is not a clan. If it's a matter of additional sources on the subject you've only to ask. But as you seem tired of the conversation at this point we can just leave this as-is. Bearpatch (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

recap

We seem to be going in a circle. This is how I see events. First you move the page to House of Burnett, I question this, you argue that Burnett is not a clan, you give this as reference. I argue against but finally agree. My reasoning at this point is that if Burnett is not a clan then it should not be listed as a clan. I remove Burnett from the various clan lists and take the clan info box and nav box off the page. You then re add the clan infobox saying that it should remain until a House infobox can be built. I add a House infobox noting that this House infobox is the standard one used by Houses on Wikipedia. You then remove the house info box and place the clan info box back saying that the House infobox is for English Houses (and is presumably inappropriate for Scottish Houses). I re add the House infobox noting that it is used for European houses (not just English). You then say that family and clan are the same thing. I presume you now accept Burnett is therefore a Clan and move the page back to "Clan Burnett". We go through an edit war where you disagree with my edits that start the article (now called Clan Burnett) with the words

"Clan Burnett, also known as the House of Burnett"

You delete my edits and references and move the article to "House of Burnett" complete with clan infobox. You continue to argue that family and clan are the same thing. Yet you also argue that "Clan Burnett or House of Burnett" is not a compromise, it's a contradiction in terms and would only serve to introduce ambiguity into an article. The problem here is that you are also saying that Burnett is not a clan, never was a clan. Yet you are also saying Clan and House are the same thing. As far as I can see it all depends which references we give more credence to. If we rely of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs web site, we say Burnett is a clan and list it accordingly. In this case I see this version (titled "Clan Burnett") as being the best and it includes a compromise that notes a family web site that calls it a House. However, if we rely on the Burnett web Question and Answer page as the best source, then we should have this version (Titled "House of Burnett") in my view. I can accept either of those two last versions, but I can not accept the article as it stands. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I support Czar Brodie on this one.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, a recap then. You agreed to the name House of Burnett based on this being what the Chief of the Name choses to call the family. You agreed that even the Lord Lyon does not have the power to change that. I’ll quote you from your message of 13:58, 25 May 2013: “It is in the purview of a chief to declare what he is chief of. Leys, who we know is chief, declares that Burnett is not a Clan, so it is not a clan. He declares it is a House, so it is a House.” Your words and I agreed and still agree. So that part would seem to be settled. Moving on, you removed Burnett from the List of Scottish Clans. I only made the comment: “Wouldn't it be a much simpler and a more elegant solution to rename the page “List of Scottish Clans & Families”? Because otherwise there needs to be a separate page for Scottish Families and someone needs to remove a lot of names from that clan list because they also are families” (15:58, 24 May 2013). Note, I did not object or ask you to replace it. I only pointed out an alternative. I also pointed out the irony in using ‘’The Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia” for a list of Scottish Clans only, and you indicated you saw that too. Then on the point of clans and families being the same under law but different in structure, I quoted ‘’The Clans, Septs & Regiments of the Scottish Highlands’’ (pp. 152-53) from the message I posted on 17:59, 18 May 2013 and have repeated myself twice since. It’s plain to see from the above that I have been very consistent and patiently making the same points throughout the extended conversations. Characterize it any way you like, the evidence of what was said is directly above. It’s in black and white and each conversation, taken in context, is there to show if anyone has flip-flopped, who that might be, and over what issues. The sticking point seems to be the lack of understanding of how clans and families differ, but in some situations are treated the same. You’ve yet to ask for more valid sources to further clarify the point. I reverted your edits based on the consensus this was the House of Burnett. As you correctly pointed out I agreed to remove the clan infobox once a suitable replacement was available even though if we are to separate clans from families, which you indicated you wanted earlier, any replacement infobox would virtually the same in appearance. Is there some pressing issue as to why the infobox cannot remain until a near-identical box is ready? The fact it works as well for families as clans attests to a good design. Bearpatch (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Diana, Princess of Wales

The fact that one of her 10x great-grandmothers was daughter of Thomas Burnett, 1st Baronet of Leys (as can be seen here- http://ourancestraltree.com/our-family-connection-to-diana-princess-of-wales-sources/#/ - with numerous sources listed) seems to be of questionable encyclopaedic value and the section appears shoehorned in. She is not in any meaningful sense a member of this family, so her inclusion- and that of her two sons- seems gratuitous and frankly strange. It does not appear the contributor has gone to all the other articles for families from whom Diana was similarly distantly descended and added equivalent content, so one questions the necessity of it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.203.140 (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)