Talk:Clan Maclean

I've never heard of any references to Sir Fitroy (or any MacLean)being part of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Also as far as using Mc or Mac my own father uses the a while his brother does not, they are the same. An interesting note is the reference in "A River Runs Through It" when the father says that his son is using the prefix Mac instead of Mc and that people will think they are from the Lowlands because of it. BMacLean

In this article it says the MacLeans shared with their in laws the Clan Campbells a mutual dislike for Clan MacDonald. However history shows that the Macleans fought in several battles alongside the MacDonalds and against the Campbells.

Allegiances varied a lot. At different times, various Chiefs tried to curie favor with various monarchs. An excellent example is the Maclean's role in supporting the Royalists in Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms--Mclean.kane (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did a lot of rewording and punctuation/spelling fixes, but quite a bit of this article is still basically suspect. Most of the stories are anecdotal and no reference or source is listed. It would be nice if someone with a knowledge of clan history could check the accuracy here. Wantsarevolution 03:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's a little intense, all those names with wikilinks. Like a Red Sea, really. Is that a precedent in articles like these at all? Alekjds ^talk 03:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Clans of Scotland Wikiproject lists Clan Ross as its sample page. It has an associated clans and septs section with a more reasonable number of items listed, with bullet points. That would probably be the best guideline to follow when scaling this section down. Wantsarevolution 22:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

A while ago someone deleted all the "famous MacLeans" who did not spell their surnames identically, including several McLeans. However, it is generally accepted that in the last few centuries many names have had their spellings changed due to illiteracy, language barriers, and the like, yet they are still descendants of the same clan. It would probably be both fair and accurate to add some of them back onto the list. Wantsarevolution 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of course McLean and MacLean are the same name, and should both be here. So should Maclean, as Duart spells it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why nor merge Maclean Baronets here? Most of it is the list of the Chiefs of MacLean of Duart, in order since 1631, and a mention of Sir Fitzroy Maclean and his son. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Should be merged. The list of all chiefs is on the Clan MacLean page.

While Wikipedia is inconsistent, it seems excessive to have the title spell Maclean one way and the body spell it another. Septentrionalis 21:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think the 'correct' or 'proper' name is Clan Maclean (as opposed to Clan MacLean), and the article should be moved there. Clan Maclean is how the clan is presented on the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs website; same as on the Burke's Peerage website; same on the Maclean Clan Worldwide website which seems to be the Clan Maclean website.--Celtus (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The 'l' should only be capitalized when the fist 'a' is omitted. In that case, the 'c' should be underlined to indicate that common letters have be omitted. It is similar to using "Jas" for as a short version of "James".--McLean.kane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC).Reply

"The 'l' should only be capitalized when the fist 'a' is omitted". Nonsense, the reason I know this is that my surname is "MacLean". 77.99.98.37 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The official website for the clan (www.maclean.org) spells its name variously as MacLean or Maclean which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I contacted the website curator (Ian McLean) to clarify what's the right way to spell the name of the clan but I did not yet receive an answer.

ICE77 (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the section Former clan chiefs the dates are inconsistant. Either they should all be when the man was clan chief, or the birth and death dates (there was no way that Sir Hector Maclean, 18th Clan Chief was 3 years old when he was killed at the Battle of Inverkeithing! I would suggest that the date should be birth and deaths as one can work out when the man became chief by the death date of the last chief. --PBS (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

We need to get serious and start placing a refs for every piece of info in the article. It'll be easier for everyone to spot typos and errors. We'll be able to weed-out the poorer or out-of-date sources and spot confusions. The edit history shows 'young' and 'great' Hectors swaping names, dates and events without a single reference to back anything up.--Celtus (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have been working on rebuilding the Previous Chiefs table into a more readable format and checking the dates for accuracy, since I also noticed a few errors. Is there a good way to share and discuss it before posting it?--Mclean.kane (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You could post the table here on the talkpage, or maybe create a sandbox page on your userpage and link us to it (see here for how to create a sandbox). If you post suggestions here it'll be easier for others who might be watching the article to give their opinions. One thing i kinda think is that the list ought to be in descending order. Also i think the notes included could be kept to a minimum, so every entry only occupies one line. It'll be alot easier to browse the list then. There's no point writing things like "25th Clan Chief" when the information in presented in table form.--Celtus (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here are a few lines to show what I was thinking, it could be ascending or descending, that doesn't really mater to me. I did have more information, but made it easier to read. let me know what you think.

Looks good. A big improvement on the current one. This list is going to be huge though. Look at the lists of monarchs on wikipedia, they just include basic stuff: date of birth/death, date of succession of the kingship, actual descent (or relationship to prior monarchs) and marriages (List of Kings of Dál Riata, List of Kings of the Picts, List of Scottish monarchs, List of English monarchs). I think including various occupations, military units, promotions, and campaigns is an overload of info. The key stuff is the succession and all that (like on the king lists mentioned), isn't it?--Celtus (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yea, it definitely gets unwieldy, The date of succession is the same date as the death of previous chief. If I remember correctly, there were only two times that there was no direct hereditary heir causing the Chiefship to change houses--so I agree limiting the "notes" those kind of substantial shifts would make it much easier to read, besides, each Chief would have their own page eventually anyway.--Mclean.kane (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

--Mclean.kane (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

To centralise the discussion. Copied from Hector Og MacLean of Duart, 15th Clan Chief

To follow up on what Celtus has said: Sir Lachlan Maclean, 1st Baronet was the 1st to hold the Maclean Baronets. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage

4. Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix.

It may be that the name should be at Lachlan Maclean but looking at Clan Maclean, this could be confused with other Lachlan Maclean so we are justified in using the format Baronnet but the of Morern should not be included. --PBS (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that Clan Chief is a title I think it is a position (that is, it is not a title granted by a central sovereign authority, like Baronet or Earl). So for example Duke of Argyle is a title bestowed by the Crown of Scotland on the Chief of Clan Campbell, so for example "The current clan chief is Torquhil Ian Campbell, 13th Duke of Argyll." (taken from the Clan Campbell) page.--PBS (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Disclosure: I just wanted to clarify my relationship to the topic, since it was pointed out that my edits may be in violation of the COI policy. My surname makes it obvious that genealogically, I am related to the Clan Maclean. Since my particular family emigrated to the U.S. in 1807--after two centuries, I feel that no strong "interest" can exist. Also, I am not a member of any of the recognized organizations relating to the Clan Maclean.

Edits Thus Far: First, my edits thus far have been extremely minor--mainly correcting links to the proper pages in the history project that I started (a lot were turning up as 404's). Also I corrected several publisher attributions. The site macleanclan.com is independent of the official Clan Maclean site at maclean.org. I corrected several Publisher attributions crediting the Clan Maclean Wiki page for research that we did and articles that we write at macleanclan.com. By the way, I've since learned that including a link to a publisher is considered spam at Wikipedia--Sorry, I didn't know it was frowned upon (and yes, I did know that it had no effect on the publisher site's SEO)--I though I was doing the reader a favor. Sorry for the newbie mistake. :) Thus far, I've made no substantive edits.

Excited To Help Any Way I Can: Due to the COI policy, I'll probably make suggestions on this page rather than just posting them. I really do just want to help, I've created a site on the subject and have spent an amazing amount of time reading about it. At the history project site (macleanclan.com) any page that has a full article has been well-researched and checked for errors by two different people; pages that just list facts still need to be researched more fully and have their article writen. Honestly, with the exception of having previously studied the subject matter and sharing a surname, I am about as removed from any other contributor. This clan has its share of good guys and bad guys, but as old as they are, they are mostly just names and dates at this point. Having a degree in journalism, I should e able to keep facts "neutral." I'm just here to help in any way possible. Feel free to contact me directly if there is any way I can be of service.

--Mclean.kane (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

In the last few days the some of the articles on the earlier clan chiefs have been moved to new names by user:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). It is not clear to me why. Unless the reliable sources indicate that the new names are more commonly used than the older names I think that they should be moved back:

• moved Gilleain na Tuaighe to Gillean of the Battle Axe
• moved Maolcaluim mac Giliosa Maclean to Malcolm Maclean, 3rd Clan Chief
• moved Iain Dubh mac Gilliemore Maclean to John Dubh Maclean, moved John Dubh Maclean to John Dubh Maclean, 4th Clan Chief
• moved Eachuinn Ruadh nan cath Maclean to Red Hector of the Battles Maclean
• moved Lachlan Og Maclean to Lachlan Og Maclean, 8th Clan Chief. I have already moved this one back (WP:PRECISION)
• moved Eachann Odhar Maclean to Hector Odhar Maclean
• moved Eachann Mor Maclean to Hector Mor Maclean, 12th Clan Chief
• moved Eachann Og Maclean to Hector Og Maclean, 13th Clan Chief

These moves have created disambiguation problems so

• Hector Og Maclean has been moved to Hector Og Maclean, 15th Clan Chief to make way for a dab page
• Hector Mor Maclean has been moved to Hector Mor Maclean, 16th Clan Chief to make way for a dab page

As I pointed out in the Names and titles section above "I don't think that Clan Chief is a title I think it is a position (that is, it is not a title granted by a central sovereign authority, like Baronet or Earl)." so we should avoid using clan chief in article titles unless it is needed for WP:PRECISION reasons, IE the name is Wikipedia descriptive one, and not a proper name. For this reason if the men are commonly known by their Gaelic names we should use them unless they are usually known by their English translations. --PBS (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• This is the English Wikipedia, not the Gaelic Wikipedia. The Gaelic Wikipedia can have the article names in Gaelic, and the Latin Wikipedia in Latin. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is not relevant what language the name is written in, what matters is what the English language sources use, if the English sources use the name then so should we. We should not be translating names unless the sources do so. Can you show in any of the pages above that the name you have moved the page to is more common than the name you have moved it from? --PBS (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm jumping in the middle here, so I'm not sure of the issue. If the question is, do references use the English spelling as apposed to the Gaelic? I think the answer is yes, e.g. Oxford dictionary of national biography for Hector Mor Maclean of Duart. If the question is do references list chiefs by numbers? I think the modern ones do, eg burkes peerage list of chiefs, and their publications (not on the net). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just noted that Maclean "clan" books also give English names. e.g. Renaissance of the Clan MacLean, p.35, "John, who became Forth Chief. He was called Ian Dubh, or Black John". This seems to indicate that the Gaelic names are terms of endearment or nick names. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The one coat of arms we're currently using for the Maclean chiefs (top img) doesn't seem to be the correct one for at least the present chief (bottom img). I fixed this, but i don't know for certain what coat of arms we should use for the others. How many different coats of arms have the chiefs used? I'm going to remove the images from the other infoboxes until we can come up with some references to show that so-and-so bore such-and-such arms.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

What evidence do you have? It would have been much better to discuss your apprehensions here before removing them from the articles. You have not cited any references to backup your claim. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The blazon is referenced (just click the image and read it for yourself, or look at the 28th chief's article since it is his coat of arms). The coat of arms we were using doesn't have a reference and doesn't show the blazon from which it was drawn. I think that if we had the 28th chief's coat of arms wrong, then chances are we probably had at least a few others wrong as well.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Where does it say the 28th's is wrong? His is a variation of the original symbol with the addition of an ostrich and a seal holding it as shown here. That is his personal version of the Clan Maclean chief symbol. Both The Scottish National Library and the Clan Maclean Organization vetted the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

28 isn't wrong now because i corrected it. That was the whole point of this little thread, you know. Just look at the two coats of arms here, can you see the difference? We have been adding coats of arms to articles without actually knowing whether they belong. You re-added arms to the first three chiefs, do you have any evidence that such early Macleans used those coats of arms?.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

What has been corrected? I am still not following what you are trying to convey. Ahh, is it the color of the salmon? Why are we still using the fog that is distorting the mountain, is that supposed to be an added optical effect to make it look 3d? I find it distracting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep, that's right. The lymphad too (red flags). I think the 'fog' is a just a 3D illusion. Pretty much all the svg arms on the commons use it. Remember that argent can be illustrated silver or white, too.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here's another example, found this on GoogleBooks, The Genealogy of the existing British peerage and baronetage, by Edmund Lodge, 1859, page 753. This coat of arms is listed for the 9th baronet (25th chief). Quarterly, 1st argent, a rock gules; 2nd, argent, a dexter hand fesswise, couped gules, holding a cross-crosslet fitchee in pale azure; 3rd, Or, a lymphad sable; 4th, argent, a salmon naiant proper, in chief two eagles' heads erased affrontee gules. The lymphad and eagles' heads appear to differs from the 28th's, as well as the supporters (two ostriches).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, It is the salmon color. I see it here too. Good eye. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

On page 477 of that book it mentions a couple 16th century Maclean seals, and says that coloured arms are recorded in the 16th century. It kind of seems like that there aren't any recorded Maclean coats of arms before then.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let me write both the National Library and the Clan Maclean organization and find out if it is proper or improper to display the COA for the Chief retroactively to all the Chiefs. They missed the red fish, so they weren't diligent the first time I asked for the articles to be vetted. They did find a few typos the first time, and made a few genealogical corrections where we linked to someone of the same name, but they weren't the proper person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really sure this is about being 'proper'. A coat of arms either belongs to someone or it doesn't, right? This seems to be about citing sources. Images should be treated like any other information in an article because mistakes tend to creep in if we don't cite a source for everything. What would help us would be a list of blazons for each baronet's coat of arms, since we've found out there seem to be to have more than a few used.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just noting here that the 26th chief seems to have the same coat of arms as the 28th (a blazon and image appears in this book [1]).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

And the reference I showed, has the same going back to the 15th chief.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? Which page, can you quote what is says here? Look at this; this is for the 8th bt, 24th chief. Arms - Quarterly: first, ar. a rock gu.; second, ar. a dexter hand, fesswise, couped, gu. holding a cross crosslet, fitchee, in pale, az.; third, or, a lymphad, sa.; fourth, ar. a salmon, naiant, ppr. in chief two eagles' heads, erased, affrontee, gu. Crest - A tower embattled ar. Supporters - On a compartment vert, two selches ppr. Motto - Virtue mine honor (this is from Burke, John (1832). A General and heraldic dictionary of the peerage and baronetage of the British Empire. Winsor and Newton. pp. 127–128.). So, compare it to the 28th's arms: the ship is just black, no red flags, the oars aren't crossed either; the supporters are different; the motto is spelt "honor", instead of the 28th's "honour" (though this may not really mean anything, i don't know).

Look at this; this is for the 9th bt, 25th chief. Arms - Quarterly: 1st, arg., a rock, gu.; 2nd, arg., a dexter hand fessewise, couped, gu., holding a cross-crosslet, fitchée, in pale, az.; 3rd, or, a lymphad, sa.; 4th, arg., a salmon, naiant, ppr.; in chief, two eagles' heads, erased, affrontée, gu. Crest - A tower, embattled, arg. Supporters - Two ostriches, ppr. Motto - Virtue mine honor (this is from Burke, Bernard (1869). A genealogical and heraldic dictionary of the peerage and baronetage of the British Empire. London: Harrison. p. 732.). Again the boat is just black, the oars aren't crossed and the flags aren't red like 28; the supporters are different from both 24 & 28; and the motto is "honor".

Here's one more, the same as 24th's (except the spelling of "honour"). It just lists this under the name "Maclean (Dowart, afterwards Morvaren, bart., 1632)" Quarterly, 1st. ar. a rock gu.; 2nd, ar. a dexter hand fesseways couped gu. holding a cross crosslet fitchée in pale az.; 3rd, or, a lymphad sa.; 4th, ar. a salmon naiant ppr. and in chief two eagles' heads erased affrontée gu. Crest - A tower embattled ar. Supporters - Two seals ppr. Motto - Virtue mine honour (this is from Burke, Bernard (1864). The general armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Harrison. p. 644.).

Dear Mr Norton. Please forward your enquiry to the official heraldry office for Scotland - The Court of the Lord Lyon, HM New Register House, Edinburgh, EH1 3YT. All requests need to be made in writing. For information the website is www.lyon-court.com I hope this is helpful to you.

Jackie Szpera, Scottish Library, Central Library, George IV Bridge, Edinburgh, EH1 1EG Tel 0131 242 8070

Obviously it is fine for the clan to claim descent from the Cenél Loairn and admirable that they aren't so indecisive as many other clans about their ancestry, which is why the History (Origins) discussion needs to be lengthened and made more interesting. We need something relatively plausible getting us from the misty past into the time of the earliest documented Maclean chiefs. As they say about property: it's all about location. The claim of Dál Riata ancestry is easily enough supported with a reference or two. DinDraithou (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I noticed on the page that the information about our clans Tartan was missing and am wondering if it is something that will be or needs to be added into the article. It may be because of a lack of information on the web or in books but it seems to be a significant part of the family history that should be covered. Dietrick Kooyman (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

==MacLean Vs Maclean I attempted to revert some of the uppercase 'L's, but there are more to do. Note that both can be correct, but the clan name is generally Maclean, and the Duart Macleans are spelled thus. Shipsview (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand this. There is no Lord Maclenn to my knowledge, and no spelling of that name on the page referenced. Shipsview (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Re: Sir Robert Charles McLean of Alford OBE BT, 5th Baronet of Breda; there is no such Barony as Maclean of Breda; there is no Maclean branch 'of Alford'. I have removed this entry (twice) Shipsview (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article says that the clan’s rise to power began in 852 but goes on almost immediately to say that its founder was Gillean of the Battle Axe, who was alive in the 1200s. Both can’t be true or am I missing something? SamMcDermott (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

A recent edit infers that it was just Urquhart Castle that the Macleans lost in 1509. Did they mot also lose the lands? Shipsview (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply