The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that 19th-century Scottish heiress and philanthropist Margaret Macpherson Grant died, aged 42, shortly after her female partner had abandoned her to marry a man?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2019. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
The paraphrasing of some of the sources is a little close in places. Very easy to do when you have your head in a source all day. Could you look at this and tweak the - non-quote - bits in red. Eg "whom she had probably never met" (which is a direct lift from the source) to something like 'of whom she had little or no knowledge'; etc
Done - the only hits Earwig gets now are a couple of direct quotes, a couple of very short general phrases that I think are probably OK (and would be awkward to avoid), and a couple of items in the bibliography which are mentioned by name online. Thanks for the link to that checklist by the way - I'll bookmark that for future reference! GirthSummit (blether)11:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
You have sized the images in px=, they should be in upright=. Let me know if you would like me to make the change.
Optional: To my eye all of the images are small. Personally I would also crop out most of the grass in the second to make the hall stand out more.
Bibliography: Jervis needs an OCLC - 24298898. And the title should be in title case. I realise that it's not in the original; doesn't matter. DoneSusunW (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
"Born to a country doctor" Given that they didn't have female doctors in those days, you may want to rephrase or expand on that. PS if her father was a surgeon, as you state later, he would have taken grave offence at being described as "a country doctor"'
"where he died in 1852, leaving Macpherson an only child" I realise that Macpherson would technically be a child, but as she would be aged 18, the mental image it calls to mind jars a little. Possible rephrasing?
"received compensation for his claim for the loss of the slaves as business assets" Pedant's corner. He didn't receive compensation for his claim. Possibly he claimed compensation for the loss ... DoneSusunW (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
"but their files do not record his parents' names" I don't see why this is relevant.
"equivalent to £30,000,000 in 2016" Why 2016? And it is usual to insert a footnote explaining the basis of the conversion. Eg as in footnote 1 of Battle of Neville's Cross. As you are relying on a secondary source it would be helpful to footnote their basis for the conversion. (I assume that it provides one.)
"The ensuing court case" This comes a little out of nowhere, with no indication as to the parties, cause etc. How about something along the lines of 'Her previous female companion, now disinherited, sued and the ensuing ... '?
Important: I hope that the pair of you are planning on promptly taking this to FAC? Because I warn you now, if you're not I intend to steal it, file off the serial numbers, and nominate it myself.
Speaking of which, how come Inter-Allied Women's Conference hasn't turned up at FAC yet? It is in better shape than half of the stuff that goes through and you have already done 70-80% of the work in the (rather horrid) ACR.
Well, the update is that I have decided to do it, now that my real life has settled down a bit. I am toying with whether the attendees should be in a table, but reading FAC criteria I have no clue if that is good or not. Maybe you can advise me on my talk page. SusunW (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Wow - lots of great work already, thanks both! So, the currency conversion thing is a template. I had a discussion about this with The Rambling Man while working on the GA nom for St Margaret's Church (the church that she had built for the orphanage). There's no uncontroversial way to convert values - there are various different websites you can use and they all use different algorithms, weighting things differently and arriving at very contrasting figures - there isn't a right answer. TRM suggested just using our own in-house template as the least controversial method - unfortunately, it automatically converts to 2016 values (although presumably at some point someone will update it and the figures will automatically update, which will cut down on maintenence). I'd be happy to consider alternative options if you would like to suggest them. GirthSummit (blether)21:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Following up with more comments:
here is a link to the discussion I had with TRM about the use of the {{inflation}} template.
With regard to the image sizes - I would be happy with a crop of the picture of the house - is there an easy way to do that within the article, or do I need to crop it in MSPaint and re-upload the new image?
I'm afraid I don't know how px versus upright works. Can you point me at the guideline - I'd be happy for you to make the change, but it's probably worth me finding out how to do it myself for future reference. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)09:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Image size: See MOS:IMGSIZE, third bullet point. If you remove px=xxx and replace it with upright= then the image will automatically size to fit each readers preset preferences. (If you look at, for example, Crécy campaign in edit mode you will see a variety of upright sizes, and can probably work out why they are what they are for most of them.)
Crop: SusunW set me, a little while ago, the job of hunting down the crop tool - Commons crop tool. I found it straight forward, but shout if you don't.
Done (I think!) - useful tool, thanks. I had a quick play with the upright= thing, but the image became massive, so I was doing something wrong - I'll have another play with that ASAP, and look at explaining the inflation thing somehow. GirthSummit (blether)11:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Inflation: I am aware that there is a wide range of views and no set policy. I have my own opinions, but that is not really relevant. 2016 is acceptable, it is not as if there has been galloping inflation since then. BUT, it would be helpful to explain the basis on which the figure is arrived at. (The inflation calculator I used in Neville's Cross comes with a link to a page explaining this and a cite, which is why I use it. (It also automatically both updates and adjusts each year.) But there are no doubt a host of other entirely acceptable alternatives.) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks SusunW - I was just figuring out what I'd done wrong there - I think I had it cracked, but you beat me to it! Is there a way to condense all these into a single note though - they're all using the same conversion template, one note referring to all three ought to be sufficient? GirthSummit (blether)15:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Girth Summit I literally hate the "coding aspect" of WP, it is not my area of expertise. I just ask, and when I get a solution that works, I copy it over and over again. No idea how to make it one note, sorry. SusunW (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sadly not. In Neville's Cross, my first FA, there were five sums which I expressed in today's money; I attached an explanation to the first and simply left the rest. No one objected, nor has since, to this aspect of presenting inflation adjusted sums. It seems to be treated a little like a Wikilink. (I assume that you are aware of Template:Inflation/fn?)
I have inserted an upright into the image of the house, slightly increasing its size. This is mostly for demonstration purposes, so feel free to change it back if you are happy with the current image size.
As you have used Clark, Gregory (2017) to calculate inflation you could, if you wished, link on the link you provide and get a figure for 2019, rather than 2016. Ah, you are ahead of me. Good stuff.
"becoming acquainted with Temple's friends in the area" I assume this means London, although it could mean Wiltshire. I would prefer a specific area replaced "area".
The source wasn't specific - I assumed London, but I'm not certain, so I've changed it to 'her social circle'.
"Macpherson Grant placed a ring upon Temple's finger" I believe that it was the ring finger of her left hand. If so, it may be worth mentioning.
Done
"again, had she ever had any" Optional: 'again, if she had had any at the time of her death'?
Done
"She provided the organ at for Inverness Cathedral"
Done
"to her Edinburgh solicitor" "her" being Temple or Macpherson Grant?
Done
"In response, Keir drew up a deed of revocation" I have missed something. How is the revocation a "response" to a notification of a change of address?
It isn't a response to a change of address, but rather someone who might give his accounting a more proper scrutiny, to my reading. It doesn't actually *say* he was hoodwinking Grant, but it does say she was not a businesswoman, which was "troublesome". He had been sending the account statements to Grant. You get the idea that since Temple was not going to be there to help Grant, she wanted her to be protected by Mr. Falconer. SusunW (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Back to the lead "She had just revoked the will" Given that ir was six months earlier, I am not sure about the "just".
Done
"interred in the Aberlour church yard in a burial aisle" Aisles in churches are usually indoors, rather than in the church yard.
Far be it for me to know diddly about churches, but the source says: "A burial aisle, in the Perpendicular style of architecture, erected over the bodies of her father and mother by the late Miss Macpherson-Grant of Aberlour, adds considerably to the beauty of the churchyard. Here is also laid herself…"p 183SusunW (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Agreed - from my reading, it sounds like it's some sort of Gothic memorial structure in the churchyard; possibly not actually a burial aisle in the strictest sense, but without a source calling it something else I think we have to go with that. GirthSummit (blether)06:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
"argued that Macpherson Grant had been coerced into signing the deed of revocation" Any more information on this? Eg, by whom and/or for what reason?
"William Grant of Wester Elchies" Who was he and why might he care about Macpherson Grant's buildings?
So, going purely on the name, he seems to be a rare example of a member of the Grant family who wasn't called Alexander. The Grants were locally powerful and numerous - Wester Elchies was a nearby estate and house, and my guess is that William is a some sort of cousin of Macpherson Grant. I'll do a bit more research to see whether I can establish a clearer link. GirthSummit (blether)06:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I can't find anything more about thie William Grant unfortunately. I think it's highly likely that he is the son of James William Grant (astronomer), but I can't find any sources to confirm that, or to confirm a direct family link between him and Margaret Macpherson Grant. We could perhaps describe him in the article as "another member of the Grant family and owner of a nearby estate"? GirthSummit (blether)12:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I went back to Shaw and about Wester Elchies he says it was in the Grant family for over 150 years, passing from Alexander Grant to his son Robert, who died in 1803 and another son Charles, who died in 1828. As there were no other heirs in that line it passed to James William Grant (of Bengal), who died in 1865. It passed to his son William Grant of Carron, who died in 1865 (which is a wrong date) and thereafter passed to Henry Alexander Grant in 1877. Henry Alexander was still in residence in 1882 at the time of Shaw's writing.p 111 So looking at then James William and Margaret (née Wilson) Grant's family, I found William, born 16 June 1809 in Calcutta, Bengal India[1] who died 18 August 1877[2] and is buried at St Margaret’s.[3]. He did not apparently die in 1882, but he did die after MacPhereson Grant, and in the same year that Henry Alexander inherited. In light of the statement that Grant of Elchies owned the old ruined church at Aberlour, which burned in 1861 and which he bought from the other legatees (Shaw 182), I am positive this is the correct William. SusunW (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
"The Proctors were too impoverished to care for the estate" Given that they had just come into wealth beyond their dreams, that could do with some explaining.
Would that I could, but the source doesn't say anything other than "Her successors were too poor to occupy the mansion house…Fortunately the late Mr. Findlay, proprietor of The Scotsman, purchased the estate".p 73 (Asset rich, cash poor?) SusunW (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm not entirely happy with the word 'impoverished' actually - it is a bit jarring when we are saying they have just inherited vast wealth. My guess here is that, with Macpherson Grant's wealth split between a number of cousins, no individual one of them could afford the upkeep of the house and estate in Aberlour. (Death duty may have played a part in this as well - not really something I know much about, but I think they could swallow up a lot of ready cash from an estate, or even force the heir to choose between mortgaging or selling property if they weren't independently wealthy themselves; this is speculation though without a better source.) I wonder whether we could rephrase this simply to say "The Proctors could not afford to care for the estate..." and leave it at that? GirthSummit (blether)06:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Girth Summit "unable to afford the expense of maintaining the estate" looks good to me. Yes, it's tough because don't really know why. We can logically see why they might not be able to, but without a source, we can't really say more. SusunW (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Is it worth mentioning subsequent uses of Aberlour House?
I've made a few changes - just typed out a blow-by-blow account of them, but got an edit conflict with SusunW - my fault for taking so long to type it. I've got to dash now, but will come back to this tomorrow - please let me know if you think the stuff I've added about Keir is valid based on the sources, or if I'm treading too close to OR. GirthSummit (blether)18:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Since we were stepping on each other's toes (or is that fingers?), I went away until I was sure y'all would be sleeping. Sorry for the earlier confusion Girth Summit. I think between what you cleared before you stopped and what I cleared, we only have a few points outstanding. SusunW (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
No worries SusunW! I've put a few comments above - there are a couple of points I'll try to address later today, would you mind checking the bit where you added 'Falconer' (I think you meant Keir at that point, unless I've misunderstood). Cheers GirthSummit (blether)06:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
SusunW It looks like you are correct there - I was probably barking up the wrong tree with regard to the astronomer chap. With regard to the date, looking again at the source, the date of 1882 is just a headline on the charity's website - it doesn't directly state that that is the date he died. It could potentially be the date that they received the funds (which might presumably have been delayed somewhat with a large estate) - this might well be the right person. Do you want to make any changes to the content based on what you've found? GirthSummit (blether)16:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Gog the Mild Hi - I think SusunW and I believe we've addressed all the outstanding points that we can now. The 'burial aisle' issue is the only thing we haven't really done anything about. Pondering on it a bit more, it occurs to me that Aberlour Church had been destroyed by fire, and was probably a picturesque ruin - this addition might be an external memorial tacked onto the ruins of the church, where a normal burial aisle would have been had the church still been intact.
I wanted to touch on your suggestion about FAC earlier - I can't speak for SusunW, but I for one would be very excited to go ahead with that, having never been involved in FAC and eager to push this as far as I can. Having had a quick look at WP:FAC, I see that it recommends first timers seek the involvement of a mentor before making their first nomination. Your name isn't on the list of mentors, but if you'd be interested I'd be delighted; if not, I had a very positive experience with Josh Milburn when he reviewed my first GA nom, so I might reach out to them when we're done with this GA review. GirthSummit (blether)18:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have switched the image of the church from px to upright. If you don't like the size, feel free to change - it is the same size as the image of the house. Please do not put it back to px.
SusunW: I have made a note of Inter-Allied Women's Conference and will be rereading and coming back to you with any thoughts regarding preparing it for FAC. I will post my thoughts on tables there.
"burial aisle": you can only go with what your sources say, so fine. Possibly the source also knew diddly about churches, although I like your OR supposition.
Keir: the situation is much clearer now. Thanks.
"William Grant of Wester Elchies" Good work. The splitting into thematic paragraphs also improves the flow. (And preempts a comment from me.)
A last query from me "a partner of her agents at Milne & Co." reads as if "her agents" refers to Temple's. If so, a sentence earlier stating that Temple had been directing Macpherson Grant's business affairs, or had her power of attorney or whatever. If the agents were Macpherson Grant's then a brief explanation of how or why Temple was able to instruct them would be helpful.
SusunW, your change is good. If I remember correctly (I'd have to trawl through the sources again to find where I got this impression from), Temple managed quite a lot of Macpherson Grant's affairs while they lived together - I'm guessing that this was because Macpherson Grant had little interest in account-keeping, and the drinking wouldn't have helped. Again, I think this feeds into the stuff about Keir and Falconer - she knew that Macpherson Grant would be vulnerable after she had left. GirthSummit (blether)09:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Girth Summit: I am not listed as I have only had 13 FAs so far (plus one at FAC) the first of these only 9 months ago, so it seemed premature. Not to mention all of them being between 1333 and 1355; and eleven between 1345 and 1347; you could say that they are a bit specialist. That said, I have listed myself as a possible mentor in a couple of other areas and do a fair bit informally. However, I have no article creation experience of biographies, and you should seriously consider being mentored by an editor who has this area down pat. If, on reflection, you would both like me to mentor you, I would be happy to; if you would rather go with Josh, I shall take no offense.
I am always happy to have mentors. Honestly, I would have quit WP my first year had it not been for Montanabw and Dr. Blofeld finding me and helping me. The technical stuff, the entrenchment, the aggressiveness are all things that I find overwhelming, especially over the last year, when I have had so many more real life issues going on. I am still terrified of FA, *especially anything more having to do with photos), but I am willing to give it a go. SusunW (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Gog the Mild, given the amount of effort you've put in on this article already, I'd be delighted for you to act as mentor here. I hear what you're saying about this being outside of your speclialisation, but after 13FAs I'm sure you're familiar enough with the process, and you've already put a lot of work in on this review. If we get stuck I'm sure we can reach out to Josh or someone else for a steer. GirthSummit (blether)09:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
This is a high quality article, easily meeting the GA standards and I am promoting it. You are no doubt aware that you now have seven days to nominate it for DYK. The assessment process has been as much fun as I have ever had with a GAN, so thanks to both of you. I will take a break for a few days, then come back with some "formal" suggestions for FAC. Meanwhile, I shall put some thoughts down on the talk page - don't take them too seriously, they are by way of scratchpad jottings, but do feel free to throw your own thoughts or responses in. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Trust me, permission is required. There have been some really unpleasant dustups at both WiR and WiG for listing things without permission. If Girth Summit concurs I'll be happy to add it to our lists there, but would not presume to do so without agreement. SusunW (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
SusunW, of course I'd be delighted for you to add it there - I'm pleased to be able to support these projects. Gog the Mild thanks for all your efforts with the review. I'm looking forward to your thoughts on moving forward with improvement to FA, and to working with you both on that. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)14:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
DYK review
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that the nineteenth-century Scottish heiress Margaret Macpherson Grant(pictured) gave a ring to her female companion Charlotte Temple, and lived with her as if they were married? Source: "Something like a marriage had taken place between them. Each pledged herself to celibacy; Miss Grant ‘married’ Miss Temple, placing on the latter’s marriage-finger a suitable ring" Source - there are various other sources in the article confirming this.
ALT1:... that the nineteenth-century Scottish heiress and philanthropist Margaret Macpherson Grant(pictured) died, aged 42, shortly after her female partner had abandoned her to marry a man? Source: "Margaret suffered from paralysis in her legs and died in April 1877, just two weeks before her 43rd birthday." - same source as above, the content about her partner having recently left her is supported by various other sources in the article.
Latest comment: 5 years ago34 comments4 people in discussion
For the avoidance of doubt, when I wrote "I have no article creation experience of biographies", I meant at FA. I have navigated 21 BDPs through GAN in the past 18 months, and so have some idea of how they work.
Alt text for all images, including the infobox one. See MOS:ALT; or any image in, eg, Battle of Crecy viewed in edit mode, where each will have "|alt=" followed by some text (the "alt text").
Consider changing all cites to harv, as I did for one with this diff.
Consider inserting a sub section or two into "Adult life".
Normally I would suggest posting it to GoCE for a copy edit and polish. Bit as I do a lot of pre-FAC GoCE work, you may prefer giving me permission to run through it. (Obviously, you can revert any changes you don't like.)
Any thoughts on another, relevant, image or two? Eg, any of the other people mentioned, the Jamaican estate, a photograph of one of the wills, etc.
I for one would be very happy for you to do the GoCE spit and polish Gog - heaven knose my prows could always do with it.
Images - I'll be happy to add alt text to the images. In terms of getting more pics, obviously a picture of Temple would be very relevant, and such a thing might exist if we scour the newspaper archives. It would also probably be worth me punting an e-mail off to the Aberlour charity to see whether they might be willing to donate something, perhaps a picture of Jupp (the priest who ran the orphanage), or an image of the orphanage itself before it was demolished. Temple's son's memorial is quite moving, and we might be able to get a picture of that, but perhaps it's too peripheral to the story to be worth including?
Update - I've attempted to add alt text to all the images; the one in the infobox is working for me, but I'm not seeing the text appear when I hover my cursor over the other two pictures. I can't see what I'm doing wrong though - it looks to me like I've copied the formatting correctly from the Battle of Crecy article - is it just my browser misbehaving? (I've also e-mailed the Aberlour charity about images, so we'll see if anything comes of that) GirthSummit (blether)12:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Your alt text looks fine. I had not previously noticed the alt text appearing when the infobox image is hovered on; I thing that that is a bug, not the others not doing so.
I'll think about subsections for 'Adult Life' - if I'm honest, when I created that section, it was more of a 'I don't know what else to call this bit' decision than a conscious choice, I agree that it needs breaking up.
I'd be very happy for all the cites to be Harvard refs, I just don't know what that means. SusunW, if those particular words in that particular order mean anything to you, please go ahead and change anything we need to!
I'll convert them tomorrow and you can see how it's done. I actually prefer it, as you don't have to read "around" the refs to read the text. Was hard for me at first, but now I don't ever use anything else. SusunW (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oh! I like them refs. I'm like Susun, Harv refs were a real pain the first couple of times; now, when I start work on an existing article, the first thing I do is change the refs to Harv. Note that all page and date ranges should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens. More Wiki-trivia. I have done it, see this diff.
I was wondering whether there are some holes in the content that we might be able to fill, particularly with regard to the source of her wealth. I'd like to try and add some information about the Jamaican estates that she owned, and how much income the estates were generating (before and after the slaves were freed), and perhaps give the reader an idea of the number of slaves her uncle owned. Basically, the whole area of slavery in Jamaica contributing to this vast wealth in an out-of-the-way corner of Scotland seems an important and interesting part of her story, and I think we could expand it - but I'm not sure yet whether the sources exist. I know Jim Walvin (this bloke) pretty well, and was thinking about asking whether he might be able to help out with this, since it's his area - do you think that would help the case at FA, or would I just be creating more work for us to do? Depending on what (if anything) I'm able to find, this might be better suited to a separate article about her uncle, which we could obviously link to from this article. Thinking out loud here really, but responses would be welcome. GirthSummit (blether)00:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think it'd be cool. It's complicated with all the Alexanders. This branch of the Grant family (See David Grant.See Marianne McKenzie) was in Jamaica for at least 3 generations, but, according to these records, the Alexander who married McKenzie was the son of David Grant. It looks like they left around 1836. But, that would mean that Alexander Green Grant was not the son of our Alexander Grant (son of Janet (née Donaldson) and George Grant), possibly a cousin? SusunW (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Girth Summit Now that I've slept on it, were it me, I'd start with the 1854 probate package. Surely it will give his vital info like date of birth, and an inventory of his estate should list all his property. SusunW (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
SusunW, Interesting thought - I think I found his will, here, but I'm on mobile and it's a struggle to read it so not 100% confident it's the right guy. Do you know of a way to get a copy without the watermark, or am I just going have to pay for access? GirthSummit (blether)13:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Girth Summit wow, they make it "virtually impossible" (pun intended) to see the will. It says you can see it for free at the National Archives. Don't know if that is a possibility, but like you, I cannot see anything, except it is clear there are a bunch of dates in it. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Just a thought- could information on other Grants (i.e. all these Alexanders) be added to the Clan Grant page if they are not notable enough for their own page? Then redirects could be created. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thsmi002 If we ever figure it out, yes, we need to do that. I spent a whole day sorting out the children of James William Grant, because it seemed to me that it might prevent future confusion like we have had on this article. SusunW (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Information on the Jamaican property MacPherson Grant owned would certainly round out the article nicely. Probably not essential, but it would look good. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
SusunW, Gog the Mild - I've purchased and downloaded Alexander Grant's will from the National Archives. It's definitely the right person - he's referred to as Alexander Grant, formerly of Jamaica and now of Arlington Street, Middlesex and of the Aberlour Estate in Banffshire, and a section I was able to decipher towards the end includes a sizable provision for Alexander Green Grant (by then a major in the army). The trouble is, I'm finding most of the handwriting very difficult to make out. Are either of you any good at making sense of documents like this? Obviously it's a primary source, but it might help lead us in the right direction in searching for secondary sources if we knew what it said. I'd be happy to e-mail it to either/both of you if you're interested. GirthSummit (blether)15:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Girth Summit I have read at least a million archaic documents in my time, lots of wills and land records. I'll be happy to take a look if you send it to me. And yes, I get that it's a primary document, but typically outside of Wikipedia, those are more reliable than secondary sources for historic figures. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
SusunW, great - I'll ping it in an e-mail to you just now. (I didn't really think you needed an explanation about primary sources by the way - thought I'd better put a note about that just in case anyone is watching this page and wants to start accusing me of OR!) By the way, I just found a bit in it where he mentions 'my niece, Margaret <indecipherable> McPherson' - looks like she had a middle name, but I can't make out what it was! GirthSummit (blether)15:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
LOL Gog the Mild ... well in hand o.O would be a bit of an exaggeration as the handwriting is some of the worst I have ever encountered. Though I am positive her name was Margaret Gordon MacPherson. Still trying to read through it, but it may well take several days. SusunW (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to stick this here, so I don't have to recreate it later.
George (ca. 1731 Drumfurrich-23 April 1816, Elgin, Scotland) [brother of Rev. Alexander Grant of Glenrinnes died 1 August 1806 and the brothers' mother died in 1777] and Janet Donaldson (ca. 1756-1834),[4] had these children (which one of these men might have been Alexander is unclear; however, it is logical to assume that all of the males who were not Alexander were deceased by the time of his will, as he only mentions sisters so far in my reading.):
Margaret (ch. 2 March 1776) (if she is the "old aunt" Margaret Gordon, who MacPherson was leaving her estate to, she may have married Alexander Gordon[5] and she died in 1866[6];
Slow going on reading the will, but here's what I have gleaned so far:
"I own my remains to be laid to rest in the family? vault in the church yard of the parish of Mortlach Banffshire where the remains of my beloved father, mother and uncle The Reverend Alexander Grant are deposited". We also know this from Shaw, but I am curious if the Mortlach parish has records which would lead to figuring out which of George and Janet's children Alexander was. Checking Find-a-Grave[7] and BillionGraves[8] nothing appears to be on line for the early period we need, but people walking and filming the cemetery might not have access to a mausoleum or vault. I wonder if it would be worth our time to e-mail and ask if there are records of a vault containing Alexander, his father George and mother Janet, and uncle Rev. Alexander and anyone else who might be in it? (I also note he does not call his father reverend, thus that seems unlikely ...)
He was in business in Jamaica with Alexander Donaldson (related to his mother?) and Alexander Thomson. They provided victuals to the "king" for provisioning ships, transports, and prisoners of war on the Jamaica Station during the war. (What war???)
Thomson owed Grant money when he died and a whole bunch of text talks about that. (Like a whole bunch, without any punctuation, ugh).
Grant sued (Grant v. Grant, Thomson v. Grant) to recover his money from Donaldson from the sale of the estates and produce of Brampton Bryan, Bryan Castle, Low Layton, Orange D(V)ale and a run? of land ? Fairfield in Saint Georges parish. (Brampton Bryan had 282 slaves on the date of the claim[9] and mostly produced sugar, rum and pimento;[10] Bryan Castle had 237 slaves at date of claim[11] and mostly produced sugar, rum, pimento;[12] Lowlayton 334 slaves[13] sugar, rum;[14] Orange Vale 160 slaves[15] sugar, rum, coffee, cattle.[16] At this point, he had around 1,013 slaves).
Unable to find records of an estate called Fairfield is not listed in the database, though there are several "unknown" estates in it; however, it existed. In The London Gazette, July 1820 it is listed along with other of the above estates and shows that it had 950 acres and was located on Buff Bay River about six or seven miles from the Buff Bay Wharf. Going back to Grant's record,[17] it shows he had claims for Orange River (Could this be Fairfield? On second thought probably not as it was in St Mary, not St George parish) which had 211 slaves[18] and produced sugar and rum[19]; and by virtue of Grant v. Edwards another unnamed parcel in St Mary which had 1 slave[20]. (total slaves at this point 1,225)
He also had interest in the estates of Nonsuch and Unity by virtue of a mortgage due to Donaldson. This estate had 273 slaves[21] and both primarily produced sugar and rum.[22][23] (1498 total slaves at this point).
Just remember that you only need information insofar as it is relevant to Margaret's article. Although I think that your next article may be suggesting itself.Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Margaret Gordon MacPherson, his niece is his primary beneficiary. Should she fail the estate will go to her mother Annie and after her mother to Alexander MacPherson (who he disliked?) for his natural life. If all of them are dead, it is to go to "my valuable friend the said Michael McThiery nephew of my friend the said James Cavoin/Eavoin/Gavoin?" and failing him to any male issue of his deceased sister Mrs. Mary McConochie formerly of Aberdeen (see above).
Margaret, and should she marry her husband, must take the surname Grant.
Maybe it's a British thing, or maybe a thing for people who have money, but he seems inordinately concerned about what people do with their own property he left them after he dies. I just want to yank him up and explain he doesn't own it anymore and to leave them be. ;) More later. SusunW (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
SusunW, I just want to know why the hell he was called Alexander when that appears not to have been his name, especially when almost every other man he seems to have ever done business with or been related to was also called that?! Come to think of it though, it might have been a good thing - if you could safely assume that any man you met was called Alexander, there would be no awkward God, what's his name again moments. I'd be happy to e-mail Mortlach parish to see if they have any records they'd be willing to share with us - do you think a general 'Do you have any records pertaining to the following people I think are buried in your graveyard....' type thing would suffice, or do you have more specific questions in mind? GirthSummit (blether)20:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Girth Summit, I literally choked on my water I was laughing so hard. I would specifically tell them exactly what we have with names and dates only for the people we know are buried there. It will make it easier for them to try to find. Just copy the paragraph above on George and Janet and add Alexander's (need I say Grant, nephew of Alexander Grant? LOL) death date. (Don't give them all of the children of George and Janet. It will seem overwhelming. Just Alexander and ask them if in the vault or their records if there might be mention of other family members.) Ask them if they can confirm the burials or provide any records pertaining to the family. If they respond, then we can ask them about the others. SusunW (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
SusunW, OK, I'll try to find an e-mail address and will draft something. I actually wrote our article on Mortlach Parish Church, so it will be nice to reach out to them - I might ask if they'd be willing to donate any images to improve that article as well. :) Would you like me to copy you into the e-mail, or just let you know what (if anything) they come back with? GirthSummit (blether)21:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Girth Summit that is cool. I often find the subject of my next article from a previous article. Ties them nicely into the fabric of the encyclopedia. It'd be cool if you could get photos. No need to copy me unless you just want to. But when you get an answer, I'll be very interested. Fingers crossed. SusunW (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Margaret was to receive £1,500 payable in 2 annual installments until she reached the age of majority (20). "I bequeath to my said niece for whom I entertain great love and affection highly appreciating that I have observed of her excellent disposition and conduct whilst with Miss Stodart at Hampstead a legacy of twenty thousand pounds on her attaining a majority of twenty years of age or marriage if with the consent of her parents and Guardians and the same settled in manner usual in such cases to prevent its becoming subject to the debts control or liabilities of any husband with whom she may intermarry. Also a further legacy of five hundred pounds independently of the aforesaid legacy of twenty thousand pounds to be paid at my decease." He also gave her a diamond pin, silver plate, and his father's "oval gold snuff box presented to him by myself in 1798," as well as a gold chronometer, table linens, and toiletries.
This is perhaps one of the most significant statements in the will. If he bought a gold snuff box in 1798, he obviously had the means to do so. For him to be in business in 1798 (and he was...see this goldmine of info that also talks about Margaret [24] he had to be "of majority" so born prior to 1778. That leaves us with two possibilities, either he was born in the gap between Margaret and Mary, or he is the eldest child.)
Alexander Green Grant his adopted son (if the above Jamaican records are correct, this was the son of Jamaican-born Alexander Grant, not our Alexander) got £17,500 pounds.
Annie McPherson (Margaret's mother) got £200 life annuity paid in twice-annual installments, a diamond ring and whatever of his furnishings she might want.
"Mr. Alexander McPherson my friend and brother in law a legacy of one thousand pounds as a mark of my regard for him." (Again calls into question the depiction that their relationship was shaky.)
His sister Margaret Gordon widow of Alexander Gordon of Garbity got the same annuity as Annie and a gold watch.
Miss Margaret McConachie at Aberdeen daughter of his dead sister, Mary McConachie, got £1,000 and each of her two brothers got £500.
Noble, his "confidential clerk" got £3,500.
Charlotte Anstruther niece of the late Alexander Donaldson got £1,500 and her nephew Robert Anstruther got £200.
More tomorrow. As this is my 36th wedding anniversary, I promised my husband I would stop working at noon. We are off to adventure. SusunW (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
LOL, "palaeographical skills"! It is a bit like code-breaking and slow going as because once I become more familiar I go back and read earlier bits which I had a lot of question marks about. We had a lovely day, thanks Girth Summit. SusunW (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
An update of sorts: I am finally up to page 11 of 12 (phew) and will e-mail @Girth Summit and Gog the Mild: the final transcription either late today or early tomorrow. Additional tidbits of note:
If Alexander died in London, he wanted to "be buried in the Kensall Green Cemetery in a dry situation in the James circle and a monument erected over the grave with my name thereon"
He first went to the West Indies in 1791. This is confirmed by Maddock, vol IV, 1821, pp 443 for sixteen years prior to the death of Alexander Donaldson (who died in March 1807 during his return trip to England, p 440) Grant had lived in Jamaica and in Saint Domingo (probably Saint-Domingue, i.e. Haiti).
His executors read like a who's who of slave procurers. Alexander Stewart of Winchester House Broad Street, London,[25] James Cavan of Park Crescent Portland Place,[26] Charles McGarel of Wimpole Street,[27] Michael McChlery[28] of Finsbury Circus London, John Irving of No 204 Eaton Place nephew[29] of the late John Irving Esquire MP for Antrim,[30] Alexander McGregor formerly of Glascow but now of No. 3 Arlington Street
He made Alexander MacPherson an executor by codicil.
He reduced the legacy to Alexander Green Grant to £10,000 "circumstances having taken place which induce me to limit said gift" but then later added another codicil to pay £2,100 to buy him the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. SusunW (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Last thing in the will is that he changed the annuity to Annie Macpherson to one for her and Alexander Macpherson and upped it from £200 per annum to £1,000. I've sent the completed transcription. SusunW (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Do we know what the relationship was between Alexander Grant and Marianne McKenzie?
I'm not sure that we do - this whole area of the Grant family's Jamaican history is fairly confusing, we probably need to do a bit more work on this to flesh out the details about what they owned there, and exactly who was was who.GirthSummit (blether)07:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
According to the Jamaican records, Alexander Grant (born 31 March 1790 and christened 7 January 1791, in Kingston, Jamaica) father of Green Grant was the son of David Grant and Ann(e) Hitchman.[31] He was the grandson of Dr David Grant of Dellachapple, Cromdale, Invernesshire, Scotland and Janet Dwarris, both of whom died in Kingston, Jamaica in 1796.[32] Given that both our Alexander's Will and Maddock, vol IV, 1821, pp 443 show our dude came to Jamaica in 1791, they are clearly not the same people. (Not to mention all the records that show our Alexander's father was George, not David). SusunW (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago38 comments4 people in discussion
Hi SusunW - I think I need to apologise again for dropping the ball on this. My RfA ran during our half-term holidays, and the first few weeks of this half-term have been awash with parent consultation evenings, so my Wikipedia time has been limited, and I've basically spent most of it working out how all these new buttons that appear on my screen work. Nevertheless, you've put a great deal of effort into this (especially in wrangling with that will!), so I'm sorry I let this slide. I'm eager to get it moving again, if you still want to, but things aren't quite as fresh in my mind as they should be. If I lay out a few bullet points below, could you confirm whether or not you think I've understood them properly?
The will will allow us to give more detail about the nature of her inheritance.
SusunW, hi - your changes look brilliant to me. I wonder though, now you've expanded on this, it's slightly awkwardly straddling the gap between the 'Early life' and 'Adult life' sections - perhaps we should create a separate subsection about 'inheritance'? I'll attempt something very soon (tomorrow is the last day of term before the school breaks up for Christmas hols). GirthSummit (blether)07:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Girth Summit As I said, feel free to modify anything. I put the paragraph about the lawsuits with the early life and family because it wasn't about her per se, but certainly impacted her. The actual stuff she got, I put in the inheritance section, but I have no clue how to do that conversion thing. I also combined the "outright" gift of ₤500 at Grant's death and the ₤20,000 bequest for her independence into one lump as it seemed irrelevant what his intent was for the separate gifts. SusunW (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
We can clarify the situation with regard to Alexander Green Grant, in that he was in fact the son of a different Alexander Grant, and our chap's description of him as an adopted son was probably true (although perhaps not in a strict legal sense).
Done Per the discussion below, I've removed discussion of AGG entirely
We've got a ref to the Queen Vic's formal assent to Macpherson Grant's adopting the name Grant (pretty cool!)
Done
Your court of sessions refs can be used to support/expand some of the existing details we have about the overall narrative, give more details about her relationships with the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and perhaps expand on her health issues prior to alcoholism.
We can be clear about who her uncle's father was.
Done
You managed to find this PhD thesis about the estates in Jamaica that we think her uncle owned. I've lost track though of how we can connect her to Orangedale - is that in Alexander's will? Sorry if I'm being dense, I'm always amazed at how quickly things can fall out of your head...
You have no reason to apologize for anything Girth Summit. Life happens and wp has no time limit. Besides I was busy getting the Inter-Allied Women's Conference finished ;). I think you hit all the points. Orangedale was just one of the estates she inherited in Jamaica. Since we don't have information about all of them, but pretty much they all operated the same, I think we can give a bit of back ground information on the source of her income, i.e. sugar, rum, and I forget what else...pimento? When you are ready, I'll be glad to help. Real world stuff is a bit crazed at this point, but I'm trying to sort through it all. SusunW (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
No worries Gog - good advice is worth repeating! I'll try to bear that in mind, and avoid getting into unnecessary detail, but there are a few loose ends in the article that will be good to tidy up. By the way, I haven't had anything back from the church, but the charity has been back in touch with some images - mostly of the orphanage unfortunately, and pretty poor quality (they look like pretty poorly scanned copies of pretty poor photos), but one or two might be usable. I'm still waiting for them to sort out releasing them under creative commons and/or confirming the publication date, then I'll stick them onto commons and see whether we can get one into the article. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)12:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I agree, but background information is helpful to put things in context, as are photos, as they often make clear things mere words cannot express. The trick is to put enough in to give context, but not so much in as to be off-topic. :) (I'm also still curious if Alexander the uncle was buried in a dry place (good lord he had control issues) in Kensall Green Cemetery but that has no real bearing on Margaret's article). SusunW (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
SusunW Hi there - I'm looking at Green Grant at the moment. I'm probably missing something obvious - can you remind me how we are connecting him to the Alexander Grant who was born in Jamaica, rather than to Margaret's uncle? Neither of the Jamaica Family Sources seem to mention Green Grant, is there another one I should be looking at? Cheers GirthSummit (blether)16:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
See above note from October 18th confirming that the son of David and Ann (née Hitchman) Grant was married/partnered??? to Marianne McKenzie. McKenzie's record[33] shows she was the mother of Green Grant. SusunW (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@SusunW:, @Gog the Mild:, a penny for your thoughts. It seems to me that the question of why Margaret inherited, rather than Alexander Green Grant, is important, and our article should address it. The sources are clear that Alexander Green was not Alexander's natural son, but (if his will is to be believed) that he was adopted by him; under 'regular' law, that would mean he would inherit. However, this source describes Marianne McKenzie as a mustee - she was mixed race. Alexander Green was, as the son of a mustee and a white British subject, 'legally white' - he had the same rights and privileges as British subjects, born of white parents, with certain restrictions. The source doesn't expand on those restrictions, except to say that they couldn't vote - could they inherit? Are either of you familiar with any sources that could shed light on this? GirthSummit (blether)20:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ha, no. But a quick Google gives this, see just after Mesteefeena. A G Grant would have been a mustefino, and this, p 44 suggests that only the child of a mustefino was legally white. AH HA! What you need is in "Race, Colour, and Miscegenation: The Free Coloured of Jamaica and Barbados" - here on JSTOR, p 8. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
For the life of me I cannot figure out why I didn't get your ping, Girth Summit, but yes, Gog the Mild has found it. Legally white didn't mean totally able to participate. That line in the doc he linked about limited what they could inherit from whites pretty much covers it. SusunW (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks SusunW - I'll have a bash over the weekend. FWIW, the pinging system never fails to baffle me. The rules seem pretty simple - add the ping in an edit and add a signature. From experience however, (with numerous CVUA students), it doesn't always work - I'll explain how to do it, they'll complain that I haven't responded - and sure enough, when I check the history, I'll see that they did everything right but I didn't get the ping. I reckon it's about 90-95% effective, but not entirely reliable. GirthSummit (blether)21:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
WRT the pinging issue: dunno? Pinging separately has (almost) always worked for me, in a kind of 'I didn't know you could ping two people at once' kind of way. My understanding is that if you type out a ping correctly, and sign you post, any new notifications will be sent. If you make a typo, you need to fix it and re-sign, and notification to be sent. But even with straight-up single pings with a single signature, I've had numerous failed notifications where I couldn't see where my student had gone wrong - they mostly work, but roughly somewhere between one in ten or twenty fails for no reason I've ever been able to work out. GirthSummit (blether)21:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Fascinating. I am unaware of any correctly formatted ping I have ever sent or received not getting through. I have tended to regard it as slightly more reliable than email. Peculiar. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Gog the Mild and SusunW: - hope the double ping worked? I've been reading through these sources, but unless I've missed something, I've come away with the impression that there was no legal impediment to AGG inheriting. The Jstor source says that Beginning in 1796 the free coloured were gradually extended... ...to inherit property from whites without limitations, and to save for deficiency for themselves. Not until 1826, however, were they allowed to hold supervisory positions on the plantations. Four year later, in 1830, the remaining disabilities were removed. As I read that, by the time our Alexander Grant died, there would have been no problem with his adopted son inheriting - he presumably just wanted the money to stay within the 'real' family. I'm not sure what we can add to the article about this - it's probably worth mentioning that Green Grant's mother was a mustee, and providing a link to the relevant article, but unless I'm missing something I'm not sure we can tie this to the inheritance. Thoughts much appreciated... GirthSummit (blether)22:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ping worked fine. And I'm not sure either, because all my efforts to clarify have probably muddied the waters. Something about Alexander son of David kept popping in my brain. I thought that if I could find originals of Caribbeana it might help. It didn't. Instead, what I found is David, born 20 December 1744[34] to David and Jane (Janet née Dwarris, died Oct. 1796)p 21 wrote his will on 28 August 1815. He did not list a surviving son Alexander, thus it is logical that Alexander son of David died prior to 1815.[35] (David died 29 June 1817 in Kingston.p 32) There is an Alex Grant who was buried on 23 April 1815 and was 26 years old, i.e. born 1789-1790,[36] which correlates to the 31 March 1790 birth date for David's son Alexander.[37] and death before David's will was written in August ... But, why is there no mention of Alexander Green Grant in the will if he was related to this family? And more peculiar, if David's son Alexander was the father of Green Grant, as this record says, it also shows he was alive 1836.[38] That seems wrong, which then makes me question the whole lineage. Maybe our Alexander was indeed his father? Joseph Green's will clearly indicates that.[39] I am totally confused now about who his father was. Do we put it in notes or leave it out entirely? SusunW (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would guess that Grant snr considered Grant jnr something of an unfortunate and possibly tainted by-blow and didn't trust him to do the "right thing" by an inheritance. But if it's not in the source you are just going to have to just present the facts and leave it to the reader. I am sure you can present them in such a way that most readers will understand what was happening. (I have an article currently in FAC about a 1945 Canadian Army war crime. Except no one ever, anywhere, has described it as such. That was fun!) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ah. Seen Susun's comment. My rule of Wiki-thumb: If you ain't sure, leave it out completely - it may seem important to you, but the odds are that a reader will never miss it. This has, mostly, served me well. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@SusunW and Gog the Mild: I think I'm in agreement with your thoughts expressed above. In theory, I would really like to expand on AGG, because he is obviously an interesting part of the narrative, but I agree the sources are pretty muddy. If I think about how to frame it in the article, I come up with something along the lines of the following:
"Alexander Grant probably (although possibly not legally) adopted Alexander Green Grant, who was the son of a different Alexander Grant and Marianne McKenzie, a mustee, and who was therefore legally white and entitled to inherit property. Nevertheless, Grant left it to his niece."
Kind of sub-optimal, no matter how many sources I cite! I think that, if (when?) we write an article about Alexander Grant, this would be essential content; since this is about his niece, I wouldn't be averse to skipping it. If you are both comfortable with the idea, I'd be content with removing the stuff we have about AGG, or with trimming it to the point where we simply describe him as an adopted son and minor beneficiary of the will. GirthSummit (blether)22:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Gog the Mild and Girth Summit: Don't you mean "Alexander Grant might have been the actual father, though he probably (although possibly not legally) adopted Alexander Green Grant, who also possibly from other records was the son of a different Alexander Grant and Marianne McKenzie, a mustee, and who was therefore legally white and entitled to inherit property. Nevertheless, Grant who was inordinately concerned with what happened to his estate, left it to his niece." LOL I would leave it out of Margaret, (we don't list any of the other heirs) but if we do Alexander, it needs to be clarified somehow. SusunW (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
SusunW, yes, I think that's what I meant! OK, if we're all in agreement, I'll make some changes along these lines tomorrow, and hopefully knock the other outstanding points into shape (my partner is at a conference in London this weekend, and next week is the end of term so basically just fun Christmas activities, so I'm rapidly running out of mental excuses for not finishing this...). GirthSummit (blether)23:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
(I was reading the article and stumbled on this discussion :D) For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that if you go back and try to fix or change a ping, (Like Girth did) it won't go through. The couple pings during my CVUA course with Girth that didn't work were the ones I had to go back and either fix spelling on or add a forgotten signature to. I guess that's my 2¢. (sorry I don't know the equivalent of cents in England. :p is it shillings?) Puddleglum 2.016:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
SusunW - I'm starting this as a new section to avoid getting muddled up with the stuff above. I'm sorry (again!) for my recent hiatus, I had some personal stuff that needed seeing to. I've been back and re-read what you've written in light of your comments above, and I've changed my mind - I can see why you've split it up the way you have, and don't feel the need for a new section for it. My feeling is that we've now incorporated all of the relevant stuff that we can reliably source. I'd be keen to know your thoughts, and those of Gog the Mild, as to whether this is ready to move forward to a FA nomination.
The issue that jumps out at me is whether it has enough images to illustrate it properly. I have received some pics from the Aberlour charity, but they aren't first-rate in terms of clarity (I think they are photographs (rather than scans) of old photographs), and they haven't got back to me with the necessary copyright disclosures. If the feeling is that the article wouldn't make FA with the current images, I can keep hassling them and ask for better images; any other thoughts would be gratefully received. Cheers both GirthSummit (blether)22:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oof! I am a little busy with both RL and various Wiki things at the moment, but I will try to get round to giving it both a thorough copy edit and review this week. Stick a location map at the bottom of the infobox and I reckon that it will do. (I can do that if you want.) Thin, but you have a good reason; I've seen others as thin. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sorry @Girth Summit and Gog the Mild:, I've had no access to the internet for the last week. Real world craziness, but I'm a grand-aunt! On photos, you have what you have. Be sure you put alt text on all of them. It's a description of what's in the photo, i.e. Photograph of a woman in Edwardian dress, or something like that, if you don't know. Not sure how much I'll be able to be on here until after the first of the year, but ping me if you need me and I'll be checking in. SusunW (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
SusunW, congratulations! I hope mother and baby are both doing well. I'll look at the alt text just now - I'm sure I can figure out how to add that. Happy holidays if we don't speak before then, cheers GirthSummit (blether)19:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
SusunW, she'll be in my thoughts, and the same to you. Gog the Mild would you be willing to help out on a couple of technical bits? So, I've had a look at adding a map to the infobox, but 'show preview' told me that I'd put in a load of invalid parameters - I guess you meant underneath the infobox. Can you point me at an example of where this is done well? I'd like to do it myself so I can learn how. Also, I'm a bit confused about the alt text. When I hover over the picture in the infobox, my alt text appears; however, when I hover over the other images, it doesn't work. There is text in there - have I formatted it incorrectly? Thanks GirthSummit (blether)19:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Girth Summit you did alt text fine. I had the same questions first time I did it, thought I'd screwed it all up as only got an explanation on the first photo. I checked your formatting on the 2nd photo and all appears good. The other question is *way* above my paygrade. LOL SusunW (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Coxton Tower has a fine example. But it turns out that you can't put maps in an "infobox person". Which is fair enough I suppose. So I have added one just below. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
I have made a few changes. Feel free to revert any or all of them.
I am not sure about the Jr in "Alexander Jr". Is that really used in Scottish English? With an upper case J? Maybe "Her brother"?
Done I agree that this wouldn't be normal usage. If disambiguation was needed we'd probably say 'the younger' or similar, but going with 'her brother' seems simpler. GirthSummit (blether)13:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes referred to as "Macpherson", sometimes as "Macpherson Grant". I suggest the uses in the first paragraoh of "Inheritance", before the name change is discussed, be switched to 'Macpherson'.
Done I reworded to avoid using her name in one instance, and changed the second instance - which comes just before we mention her changing her name, so I think that's clear enough. GirthSummit (blether)13:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
"a partner of The Scotsman newspaper" isn't quite right, but I am struggling to think of a better way of expressing it.
Gog the Mild OK, will do. The instructions said to ensure that all previous reviews have been closed and archived - I'm not a whizz at setting up archives, but I've hatted above to tidy up the talk page. Let me know if archiving is really necessary and I'll have a play. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)14:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Personally I have never tidied, archived nor hatted anything prior to my 18 FAC nominations. I would suggest just nominating. If it breaks anything, blame your mentor. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
A couple of things.
Have you begged, bribed, threatened, or coerced every Wikipedian you know to review this? I recommend being totally shameless.
Re the (currently) last point. Maybe '
When slavery was abolished in 1833, the British government sent aside £20,000,000 (X in today's terms) to compensate slave owners. Grant's share amounted to claimed over £24,000 ... '?
No worries. All part of the learning curve. I’ve called in a favour and put down a marker myself, which should at least buy you a week to round up another reviewer. And don’t be shy about nagging existing reviewers to either support or identify more work that needs doing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
I just dropped notes on a couple of people's talk pages, and KJP1 has said that he'll take a look over the weekend, so hopefully it will get a bit of movement in the coming days. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)14:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't want to interrupt the FAC, but can someone expand on what "Her Scottish solicitors warned her that they were unconvinced that this English document would satisfy the requirements of Scots law." means? Do the sources say what the problem was?
I can think of two possibilities, but there may be more. As she was domiciled in Scotland, the lawyers may have been concerned that the Scottish courts would be in charge of administering her estate, and those courts may not have been satisfied with her as a Scottish person making an English will to deal with her Scottish assets. Additionally, or alternatively, perhaps there was a technical concern, that for example the will was not validly signed or witnessed in accordance with the requirements of Scottish law (such as signing each page) even if it met the requirements of English law, and so would not be considered valid in Scotland.
I'm afraid that none of the sources I have been able to find shed any more light on this than what is in the article. This isn't an area I have any particular expertise in, but I when I spoke to an academic about what the problem might have been, they speculated that it might have been due to the differences in how easy it is to challenge a will. Scots law, apparently, has a stronger presumption that an estate will stay within a family, and gives the close relatives of a deceased person a lot of freedom to challenge that person's will if it leaves the estate to someone outside the family - as Temple clearly would have been. My guess is that it's something along those lines, perhaps different forms of words would have had to be used to avoid any future challenge, but anything further I add to the article on this point would be guesswork, or SYNTH at best. GirthSummit (blether)18:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Swiftestcat, hi - sorry, I just noticed this comment. I think you mean with a capital P (MacPherson)? The sources aren't consistent, either in capitalisation or in spelling (which made searching for them a bit more complicated when I was writing the article!). I selected the variant that seemed to represent the most common way that sources handle this particular person's name (as opposed to the general name itself). I'm sure you could find a bunch of reliable counter-examples, but I think I could point to more reliable sources spelling/capitalising it this way. I'm not wedded to it, but I think it's currently in-line with WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)17:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
