Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [albanach] Scottish Titles (was: matriarchal titles??)

Expand Messages
  • Todd Wilkinson
    Sharon -- I am not the best in reading tones in e-mails, so sometimes I assume (and we know what happens then, eh?) that someone may be upset with me because
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 22, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Sharon -- I am not the best in "reading" tones in e-mails, so sometimes I assume (and we know what happens then, eh?) that someone may be upset with me because I cannot "hear" their tone -- as you said, I was only throwing it out as a general reference for the question of titles in general, and I should have prefaced it that way.

      No offence here, though.

      T.

      "Sharon L. Krossa" <skrossa-ml@...> wrote:
      At 6:12 PM -0700 6/20/05, Todd Wilkinson wrote:
      >Apologies, Sharon -- didn't mean to offend you by posting this site
      >for general reference.

      You didn't offend me, and I don't quite understand why you think you
      did, given what I posted.

      >Next time I will preface the link with a
      >disclaimer.

      In general it is a good idea to always give some indication of what
      people will find at a URL when posting it. That way people can decide
      for themselves whether they should take the time to visit the URL or
      whether it isn't really something they're interested in and so don't
      need to spend the time investigating it.

      In this particular case, the context in which you posted the URL in
      question (that is, the quoted posts you included and previous
      discussion) made it appear that you were offering it as an answer to
      a question that seemed to be about pre-1603 Scottish titles (and,
      indeed, the original questioner has now confirmed explicitly that was
      the intended question). So, since when I checked the URL I discovered
      it was actually about modern British (mainly English) titles, I
      posted pointing this out, so those who were looking for pre-1603
      Scottish titles would be alerted that it doesn't address this issue
      (which action, of course, also serves to alert those who _are_
      looking for info on modern British/English titles that that the web
      page _does_ address that issue).

      I have no way of knowing, and I really don't care, whether you
      intended your post as an answer to what you thought was a question
      about pre-1603 Scottish titles or whether you intended it as an
      answer to what you thought was a question about modern (rather than
      pre-1603) titles or whether you just intended it as an interesting
      reference about modern titles since the wider issue of titles had
      come up. Whatever, I assume you offered the information in good
      faith, just as I offered my additional information in good faith.
      There is no need to give or take offense over it.

      Sharon
      --
      Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...


      This is Albanach, a group devoted to the study and re-enactment of
      Scotland c. 503-1603 AD.



      ---------------------------------
      Yahoo! Groups Links

      To visit your group on the web, go to:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/albanach/

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      albanach-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




      "Happy to meet, sorry to part, happy to meet once more!"
      -- The Bon Accord, motto of Aberdeen, Scotland


      ---------------------------------
      Yahoo! Sports
      Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mai Christy Thao
      Thank you, Margaret. You ve just answered my most pressing questions. Much appreciated, Christy From: Julie Stackable, SCA Margaret Hepburn
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 22, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you, Margaret. You've just answered my most pressing questions.

        Much appreciated,
        Christy

        From: "Julie Stackable, SCA Margaret Hepburn" <malvoisine@...>
        Reply-To: albanach@yahoogroups.com
        To: albanach@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [albanach] Re: Found: matriarchal titles??
        Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 04:55:45 -0000

        Laird is simply another way to say 'Lord' & means basically the same
        thing. From the Dictionary of the Scottish Language again....

        Laird
        3. A landowner who was a tenant-in-chief of the sovereign, a baron
        or a freeholder; after the 14th c., chiefly or only one of the
        smaller barons or landowners
        From an early date applied only to the `smaller barons' or smaller
        landowners generally, as opposed to the greater or titled barons
        or `lords' (Lord n.): see espec. Dickinson Carnwath Baron Ct.
        (S.H.S.) xliv f.

        This is what is probably the most common meaning for Laird now.

        Master and Laird would be virtually interchangable, I think, for the
        usage you want. Laird & lady and Master & Mistress would be correct
        terms of address. Mistress, in Scotland, is specifically a title of
        respect for the wife the Laird or Master.

        In the context you are using, there is no title for head of the
        septs - that's not really a position at all. Septs are just
        offshoots of the main clan & they would still hold their allegiance
        to the Clan Chieftain.

        I highly recommend this online Dictionary to you Christy. It's very
        easy to use and like the OED, has citations for words going back to
        the earliest Scottish Literature.

        Cheers,
        Margaret Hepburn

        _________________________________________________________________
        Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
        http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.