Talk:Robert de Brus, 6th Lord of Annandale

The Great Cause

I have corrected here, as elsewhere, (Robert Bruce, 5th Lord of Annandale) the serious misconception that Edward I manipulated the debates and judgements surrounding the Great Cause to advance his territorial ambitions: it is simply untrue. Judgement was fair and open. The fact that Edward then proceeded to take advantage of the feudal concessions he had gained in the affair does nothing to detract from this truth.

John, the Red Comyn, was Lord of Badenoch, not Earl of Buchan, a title that belonged to his kinsman. Rcpaterson 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert de Brus

There is a decrepency on the death of Robert de Brus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_I_of_Scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.195.168 (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

jure uxoris?

What does that mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awiseman (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Anyone? --AW 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

By marriage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Literally - "By right of one's wife"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brendandh (talk • contribs) 14:38, June 4, 2007 (UTC).

I just gave this sections, they aren't that well done, but I didn't wan't to screw around with the article too much as I just stumbled on here and am not an expert. Colin 8 21:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better with sections. Just skimming over, it still has a few factual inaccuracies (e.g. Neil/Niall de Brus is the second eldest son, not the fifth). I, incidentally, have a 19th century depiction of Robert and Countess Marjory I ought to upload sometime. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Niall de Brus

According to Duncan, Niall was almost certainly the second son of Robert, not the fifth son. See:

Bruce, Edward, earl of Carrick (c.1280–1318), soldier and claimant to the Irish throne, was the third, or possibly fourth, son of Robert VI de Brus (d. 1304), son of the claimant for the Scottish throne, and Marjory, countess of Carrick. He had two older brothers, Robert (King Robert I), and Neil, and was probably older than Alexander and Thomas; he also had four sisters, the oldest, Isabel, married to Erik II, king of Norway. A. A. M. Duncan, ‘Bruce, Edward, earl of Carrick (c.1280–1318)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 , accessed 22 Jan 2008 Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Leprosy

Do we have a reliable source that he died of leprosy? The only source I know of for this is Braveheart. PatGallacher (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates of Birth

Agree the dates are flaky, need a circa stuck in front of them, at the very least, but a few dates are known (If you'll accept those from Fordun or Baker), along with an approximate order e.g. from the ODoNB: For Edward - "He had two older brothers, Robert (King Robert I), and Neil, and was probably older than Alexander and Thomas...,; he also had four sisters, the oldest....", and there are several attempts, on the web, to piece together the known dates, biology and the biographical snippets into some order eg.

• geocities.com
• thepeerage.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.74 (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 

Flakey is an understatement, as medieval sources don't have of that information (the dates in old books are guesswork by old antiquaries which slowly became "fact" on retelling). Another problem is that Duncan in the current ODNB entry (and elsewhere) argues Neil was almost certainly the second eldest son, while you've put him as younger than Edward. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll reverse those two. When I have few min's to spare I plan to re-arrange the rest of the article into something semi-coherent. A couple of the paragraphs would probably fit better in the "Wars of Scottish Independence" and "Robert I" articles.

Title

The new title may have the merit of being unambiguous, but there is the problem that it appears to contradict the Wikipedia guideline that we refer to somebody by the most senior title they held in their lifetime. PatGallacher (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't earl of Carrick in his own right anyway (his son took the title when Marjorie died) and I'm not sure we have to worry about this kind of thing back for this period. We don't follow such guidelines when following them obscures things, e.g. why Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley and not Henry Stuart, Duke of Albany. I mean, it's no big deal. I was fine with the title until it got moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is not an "ongoing debate" about whether his son was born in Essex, the sources quote here are late 19th century! If anyone disputes what the Robert I of Scotland article says about this it should be raised there.

Did his son take the title when Marjorie died? What were the rules of "jure uxoris" succession at that time? I thought he might have passed it on to avoid swearing allegiance to King John. What does "in fee" mean here? PatGallacher (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never added any big text to this page, but I'll respond. I don't think we really know when this all happened. It would make more sense to me that Robert VII (king) became earl because his mother was dead and he was now regarded as being of age (he's 18 in Nov 1292); this looks like more like how it normally happened in Scotland. The trouble is that these older writers overformalize things and don't see reality from "law" - i.e. Scots of the time didn't distinguish a jure uxoris earl from an ordinary one (legally), when someone gets the king's consent to change something is not necessarily the time when it is changed, etc. Anyways, I guess it is possible he did it merely for this legal fiction too; the thing is, Earl of Carrick wasn't just an honorary title, it was a right to preside over a little state, and Robert VI had no such right beyond that of his wife, who was dead and who by 1292 had an adult son. The problem with this of course is that the Lord of Annandale was even more of a vassal of the king of Scots than the earl of Carrick. So this would explain why Robert V handed Annandale to Robert VI, not why Robert VI handed Carrick to Robert VII (clearly for the reasons I've given). In Fee is a pseudo-medievalism that's meant to mean "by feudal contract". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Report of link mistake in article

If you click on the link of the daughter of Robert de Brus, Margaret (born 1283) it puts you to Marjorie Brus (born 1296). Which of the two birthdays, particularly which of the two fathers is correct? Robert de Brus, 6th Lord of Annandale or Robert I, King of Scots? Can somebody help here, please? (124.121.41.224 (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Is there a connection between Robert De Brus and The Knights Templar

Is there a connection :

Robert De Brus was from france as were a large number of the knights templar they were both involved in the Eighth Crusade (launched by Louis IX, King of France, in 1270) and they were both in Acre at the same time (1271)

is it possible ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.175.226 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Knights Templar were a religious group that were formed in France. It wasn't until c.1330 that they actually moved to live in Scotland to escape the destruction of the group.

Yes the Scots knights would have fought alongside them in Acre, but were not Knights Templar themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darklleo (talk • contribs) 10:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Purging unencyclopedic material

I'm proposing to remove a lot of this article, on various grounds. On layout, it lacks well-defined sections and includes unacceptable lists, sometimes indented. On style, it reproduces chunks of primary sources and is not all in present-day English (those who want to use Latin or Gaelic will find Wikipedias for that purpose). On content, its main problems are the lack of reliable modern inline references, the use of outdated primary sources, the inclusion of unverified (possibly imaginary) dates and places, the quotation of legends and of dubious assertions from ill-informed editors or unreliable sources, and the inclusion of too much trivia (minor land transactions in rural Essex, while possibly of interest to students of local history, do not tell us anything about a man important on a European scale, who walked with kings).

The result will be a lot shorter, but hopefully sounder. Clifford Mill (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a bad idea - I'm getting rather concerned about your edits. There is hardly any Latin or Gaelic, and re your smararse comment, will anyone looking at the WPs in those languages find anything at all on this topic? I'd go more cautiously than you usually do. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Clifford Mill, the article as it is now is rather confusing. I translated it in italian and made it have the good article badge, perhaps someone can work on and improve it based on the current it.Wiki version. Cosma Seini (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)