Talk:Clan Douglas

Clan Chief

Why can't the Marquess of Queensberry be head of the clan? john k 20:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, because that title is extinct? Longshot14 23:31,

7 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, no it's not. The current Marquess was born in 1929, and his son, born in 1967, is also alive, as the article indicates. john k 03:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this clan not currently have a chief ? I think it needs one.

Clan Douglas may well need a Chief...but there is none at this time. There are several who could apply for recognition as Chief but would have to give up their hyphenated surnames. And to them there is no value to do so. Mel 02:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

'Clan Douglas' may or may not have a chief, speculation really as there is no such thing as Clan Douglas! The House of Douglas on the other hand certainly has a chief of the name and following. He is the Duke of Hamilton, to surmount difficulties encountered by being the head of two Houses - Hamilton and Douglas, the Duke's younger brother Lord Selkirk takes responsibility for all relating to and regarding Bloody Heart matters.Brendandh 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A clan is a recognised entity under Scots Law. Both the Douglas-Home and Douglas-Hamiltons are barred from matriculating as chief due to the double-barrelled surname (a legal decision). Clan Douglas has a legally recognised history but as it has no chief it has no current legal standing. Were a chief to be recognised, the clan would then have a legal standing. Under Scots Law, the term clan and family are interchangeable and the habit of calling lowland families and highland clans is a Victorian invention. Historically, clan (or clann) was used for both Highland and Lowland clans. For more information have a look at http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/clans_families_septs.htm, it's a good article written by one of the four senior officers of the Lyon Court. The term 'House' is usually reserved for Royal Houses such as Stewart.(Nfras 03:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Not so, Concise OED gives the definition of House- "a Family, esp. a Royal Family, A Dynasty". The House of Douglas fits both 1 & 2 and through the marriage of Princess Mary of Scotland to George, 1st Earl of Angus there is Royal Stewart in the veins of the Heirs Male. Furthermore, through Sir William Douglas the Hardy's wife Eleanor de Lovaine, all descendants of William Douglas, 1st Earl of Douglas can trace their line back through Charlemagne to Charles Martel.

• To to top off that if the descent through Stewarts is followed then via Isobel of Huntingdon the line of the Douglas can be traced back through-

• 1. the House of Wessex via Alfred the Great to Cerdic first King of the West Saxons (apparently 5 generations from Woden).
• 2. the tradional Scots King lists to Fergus mor and then through him to Niall of the Nine Hostages on to Conn of the Hundred Battles to Eochaid Feidlech, father of Queen Medb of Connacht

So as well as having Royal connections the House of Douglas has at least two Divine ones. I think that qualifies the use of House. Brendandh 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the article title to Clan Douglas to match the naming convention used on all Clan articles. I have also added in the fact that it is also referred to as the House of Douglas for those that wish to refer to it as that. Nfras 03:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Debrett's People of Today has the following:

MORTON, 21 Earl of (S 1458);, John Charles Sholto Douglas; also Lord Aberdour (no actual cr, but designation of the eld s & h, incorporated with the Earldom in a charter of 1638, where the Earls of Morton are described as domini Abirdour); head of the male line of the Douglas family This seems a better claim than most to me!Shipsview (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Morton can claim descent through the Douglases of Dalkeith, who were seperated from the main branch at a very early date, prior to William the Hardy or the Good Sir James, and only latterly started using the Bloody Heart on their Harness. The fact is that both Red and Black lines of Douglas started in bastardy, their lordship was pragmatically recognised by the crown &c., and since the black line has been extinguished, the chief of Douglas is undoubtably the Duke of Hamilton, in his guise as Marquis of Douglas and Earl of Angus. Brendandh (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that only royal members of Clan Stewart, are members of the House of Stuart, which actually could be said to be two dynasties. so a royal connection does not make the whole clan into a royal house. The reason the Clan has no chief involves complicated and vague law. In order to be Chief of the Name and Arms, one has to have the right to the undifferenced arms of that name. Inheritance of arms varies in Scotland, but it undifferenced arms is supposed to go to the senior(mostly male) line. Paternally, his grace would be a Douglas, had not his ancestor changed his name. since arms and names are connected, the Hamilton-Douglass can't claim the arms of Douglass. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

Well that naming convention is wrong. Googling produces 850 for the correct House of Douglas, 951 for the incorrect Clan Douglas. 980 hits however, for the 'Douglas Clan', which IS an acceptable way of referring to the following of a lowland chief. The Douglases were not culturally Gaels. Brendandh 12:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for community input from the rest of the Clans of Scotland contributors. Depending on the response we will make a final decision. I am willing to abide by it and will not make further changes to the article until a decision is reached.

My opinion is that the Wikipedia convention is to have Clan X, not House of X, not X Clan. (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions). There are over 150 articles using this convention and your own assertion above proves that Clan Douglas is "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" (quote from Wikipedia naming conventions article). It is also Wikipedia policy to have the name of the article first followed by other names. As the title of the article is Clan Douglas I suggest -

Clan Douglas also referred to as House of Douglas. Nfras 00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of Google or however some people wish to present themselves now, there is a distinction betwix an Historical House of Douglas under an extinct Scottish nobility versus a modern legally recognised royal house under the present Westminster system. Only the Lord Lyon can legalise claims to chiefship and only the House of Lords can determine questions of peerage and thus whether there exists a House able to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom. The Scottish crown has been absorbed and as such succession to it is extinct, therefore the usage of the term House in Scotland is extinct, excepting where it is now an equivilant UK House. There would be a better claim to succession from the Stuart decendands who live in Germany, although, not being Anglican they can not legally be enthroned.petedavo 02:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the Clan Douglas is an established and well-respected Scottish Clan. The naming convention is used by the Clan Douglas Society of North America,[1] as well as by MyClan.com.[2] And we use it for all the clans. So does everyone else who lives in the real world. Just how it goes. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 09:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I've been researching it and only in a historical sense a house of Douglas ever existed. The current modern day Houses or Dynastic Families of the UK are defined by the Act of Settlement. Currently Douglas can exist as a clan nay a house unless we are recording it as a historical entity only. petedavo 10:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A rethink...After viewing House of Stuart and Clan Stuart I am now of the opinion that we could have a entry for the historical House of Douglas for the former Kingdom of Scotland and a current entry for the modern Clan Douglas of the United Kingdom, if the seperate enteries were to follow a similar format to the two Stuart enteries if the family ever held the crown or was in direct line of succession to a crown thus making them a house at sometime.petedavo 10:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave it over the weekend for additional comment but as of Monday I'll change it back to Clan Douglas. Nfras 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any assertion upon the article that anyone of the surname Douglas was an actual King and has real prospect of any current hereditory right to a Crown anywhere. The best I could find was a couple of Regents, Earls, etc, thus noble but doesn't make it as a Royal House as yet, therefore this argument seems voided. The article must revert to describe Douglas as a Clan in absence of proof.petedavo 08:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Brendandh writes: "Douglas ain't an Erseman, he's Flemish/Strathclyde Brythonic and parlant in Inglis, so no Clan mullarkeys here". Oh dear! You have got a bee in your bonnet about this, haven't you? Clans have nothing to do with being Irish - OK something, but not everything. Try looking up Clan in Wikipedia - or are you planning to re-write that too? You have also to recognise that terminology changes with the generations - faster, even, with modern communications. If 'Clan Douglas' is acceptable to the majority, then we should accept that - not ridicule it. On a personal note, I think it is probably true that the Douglases were not a clan, but they are now! Shipsview (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Erseman in Scots denotes (slightly perjoratively!) one who is Gaelic speaking, from the Highlands and Islands or Ireland. The Douglases were not of those places but of Lanarkshire and Flanders, thouroughly P-Celtic/Germanic. Latterly in Southern Scotland, Kindreds were known as Names and the Graynes thereof, similarly to Highland Clans and their Septs. But they were not Gaels so therefore should not be referred to as such.

There is admittedly the Clan Douglas society of North America, but that does not mean that the historic kindred of the Douglas were a Clan, merely that the Douglas diaspora has chosen to take the Victorian revivalist attitude to Scottishness. The House of Douglas was the most powerful in Scotland during the 14th-15thc , and were within grasp of the throne, massively important in western European diplomacy at the time and in effective control of southern Scotland. If you are referring to the diaspora ,yes Clan Douglas, but in reference to the historic dynasty, it is the House of Douglas that one should refer to. The 2nd D in Brendandh, is Douglas btw. Brendandh (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It should definatley be called Clan Douglas. The idea that only highlanders had clans and that lowlanders were families is a 19th century idea. The fact of the matter is that the historical evidence shows that both the lowlanders and highlanders lived in "clans". An Act of the Scottish Parliament of 1597 talks of the "Chiftanis and chieffis of all clannis...duelland in the hielands or bordouris" - thus using the word clan and chief to describe both Highland and Border families. The act goes on to list the various Lowland clans. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Brendandh - that explains your prodigious knowledge on the family - sorry clan. It is interesting that the 1597 statute does not appear to list the Douglases. The following are listed: MIDDLE MARCH: Elliot, Armstrong, Nixon, Crosier; WEST MARCH: Scott, Bates, Little, Thomson, Glendenning, Irvine, Bell, Carruthers, Graham, Johnstone, Jardine, Moffat and Latimer. No Douglas! Shipsview (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Earl of Angus is mentioned before that particular list as the one of the thirteen landlords of the Middle March who had 'broken men' living on their lands. The list you quoted is of the clans that dwell on those lands that sometimes follow their chiefs against their landlords. I just noticed that Scott should read Scott of Ewesdale.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason there is no Douglas on the list is that a large portion of the Riding names and Graynes thereof mentioned owed allegiance to the Earl of Douglas until his attainder of 1455, and following that mostly to the Earl of Angus, as their feudal superior, he being tenant in chief to the Scottish Crown for his properties. Although following 1455, some such as the Scotts and Ker(r)s increased their landholdings by being granted forfeited Douglas territories as tenants in chief, to the point that their heidsmen were ennobled. Scott and the Fernieherst Kerrs in 1606, and the Cessford Kers in 1616. Brendandh (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Momento

If petedavo had cared to read the above, regarding the OED definition of "house" here, or that of dynasty here,then perhaps he would not be so confused. The history of the House of Douglas is a mirror of that of the Kingdom of Scotland, it does not require a regnal seat to qualify for the accolade of a "regnal" style. If one were to read Froissart, there is ample testament to the Noble and Puissant Princes that have been so styled from the 14th century, of both Douglas and Angus lines. In the later Middle Ages and Early Modern period members were the Power brokers of Scotland. The history of the chiefs of this house, and their cadets is enormously notable within medieval and early modern Scots history, and while the aspirations of the contemporary N. American organisations such as the CDSNA are maybe to be encouraged, they do not have a monopoly on real fact. The House of Douglas is not and was not a 'Clan', they were not Gaels, they may be referred to informally as a 'clan', a parallel differentiation can be made between the Proper and common nouns, 'Conservative' and 'conservative'. This from the 9th living heir male in direct line from William I, Lord of Douglas . Brendandh 18:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if one were to read any published and accredited experts on the subject, Michael Brown (historian), Herbert Maxwell, Gordon Donaldson, James Balfour Paul, G. W. S. Barrow to name a few, there is no mention of Clan Douglas. This is purely an invention of the diaspora during the late 19th/20th centuries, as can be attested by the amount of non-UK sites using the erroneous term. If a 'Clan Douglas' (as with others such as 'Clan Home', 'Clan Bruce', 'Clan Kerr', 'Clan Scott' etc.), article is to be correct, it should reflect the history of that diaspora since going hence from these shores, and not impose reverse Cultural imperialism on the non Gaelic families of Scotland. Brendandh 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I read what you wrote above, however, I don't agree with your assertion that Clan Douglas is an incorrect usage. I take my cue from the Court of the Lord Lyon who is the final arbiter on all arms in Scotland and all documents from the court refer to Clan Douglas, not House. What you also need to take into account is that the Douglas-Hamiltons are barred from matriculation as chiefs of Clan Douglas, but if they can style themselves as head of the House of Douglas they sidestep the legalities of their position. I do not doubt or underplay the importance that the Douglases played throughout Scottish history, but you seem to be confusing their eminence with their current status. If you feel the need to write an article documenting the 'House of Douglas please go ahead, but I think you will be largely repeating information that is in this article and adding very little. Nfras 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see below

Douglas Territories

Copied from User talk:Christina Kaye Sorry, but you're wrong as far as that map goes on the rather arcane Clan Douglas Page. It does not show any of the Douglas lands in Angus, Moray, Aberdeenshire, West Lothian, and in fact on closer inspection it does not even include Douglasdale the historic heartland! Funny that as well it is called ClanKerrMap, a Border family that lived in a relatively small area of the Borderland until they were made Marquesses of Lothian. It is going to be removed until someone can find something a little bit more accurate. CheersBrendandh 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by wrong. I agree that this map is incomplete and therefore of limited worth, but it does appear to be accurate in so far as goes. It shows Douglas lands in Nithsdale, Upper Teviotdale, and in the Lammermuirs. It also shows Douglasdale itself - albeit chopped in half. Obviously it doesn't show the Douglas territories in Angus, Moray, Aberdeenshire & West Lothian as it doesn't extend that far. However, I'd have thought an incomplete map was better than no map, although hopefully it will be replaced it with something more comprehensive in due course. Christina Kaye 11:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC) PS. If you find the map too awful, I won't object further if its removed.

If you go here: http://www.burkes-peerage.net/articles/scotland/cmindex.aspx you can view the entire map, with other Douglas territories. The peice used on the Clan Douglas page shows the largest area. Could do with a better map. However the infomation on the Clan Douglas page is excellent but could perhaps do with an improved layout. Psycotics1454 12:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Profile The right column shows 'Region' 'Borders'. 'Region' is hyperlinked to Highlands and Islands. Given the spread of the Douglases from Orkney to Wigton, can this be cleaned up?Shipsview (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Kelso Abbey, the Barony of Holydean, and a black & grey tartan

Hello all. Here are my fool ramblings for those so inclined to care. Though not pictured in the Clan Douglas article, there is another Douglas tartan which is black and grey. It was from this that Clan Moffat took its modern tartan by adding a thin red stripe to it respectively as a token of allegiance to Clan Douglas ("The Moffats," by Moffat of that Ilk). I could be mistaken, and I often am, but if I recall correctly there are indeed connections with the Barony and Lordship of Holydean and Clan Douglas, but the clan was greater than its involvement in Kelso, it being a very large and powerful clan. Having become somewhat of an expert on the Barony and Lordship of Holydean, I have seen little history in the old records regarding a clan that is proportionately too great for so little historical record in Kelso. Thus, with humility I say it is my opinion that the honourable Clan Douglas should not limit its origins to Kelso but the clan historians should consider a broader scope of origination. Kind regards, Holydean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holydean (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

Care to explain why you think this article needs a rewrite? Nfras 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it is a mass of unreferenced near gobbledegook with no consistent chronological flow. Further, the whole article is simplistic and naive in its interpretation of various major players within the Kingdom of Scots, Gaels or no . Did you actually Read what I previously posted? While the article does contain information that should be useful for a student of Scots history, it cannot be verified, and therefore cannot be useful as such, a major no-no for a supposedly serious encyclopaedia. Please remember this is not Shortbread, Nessie and Brigadoon. Brendandh 02:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen Sir, I do not intend to carry this on much further and regret the insinuations that you seem to be making. The Court of the Lord Lyon, albeit the oldest extant of its type in the Western world, takes a line that those of the diaspora of Scotland, as that is rather where its major source of business comes from, need to be confirmed as "Real" Scots, from "Real Clans", regardless of whether this is accurate or not. For example see the Court's interest in "Clan Tartan", the wearing of the modern Kilt, a military convention, worn now by civilians, a distant cousin of the Breacan Feile, is seen as the standard Scots dress. This despite the discredited Vestiarium Scoticum of the Sobieski Stuarts. As I previously have mentioned, the article for Clan Douglas, a modern invention alongside many other 'Neo'-Clans should refer to the undoubted exploits of the descendants of the Douglas, beyond these shores. This article, Clan Douglas, repeats and regurgitates misinformation from dubious sources, that relate to important historic personages, who are not here to defend themselves but if they were.... Further, this is not about the aggrandising of one particular branch of the present day House, that of Angus, Morton or Queensberry, but proper factual information. Brendandh 02:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think the article is a "mass of unreferenced near gobbledegook with no consistent chronological flow", then please, by all means rewrite it. I would have no objections to the article being rewritten, I was asking because I didn't know why you wanted it rewritten. You added the re-write tag but didn't say why. Regarding the insinuations, I am making no insinuations. I merely stated that I am taking the stance of the Court of the Lord Lyon as the definitive source (as it is the legal arbiter in these matters). Regarding the exploits of the descendants of Douglas outside Scotland, I have no objection to this and feel it would add greatly to the article. Many other Clan articles reference overseas achievements (Barclay is one that springs to mind - The De Tolley-Barclay line for example). If you want to rewrite the article then I would be very happy to work collaboratively to rewrite it with you. To be honest, I think we both want the same outcome but are going at it from two different viewpoints which is counter-productive. I'm not looking for an argument, I am trying to get a consistent approach across all Clan articles and create a useful repository of information on the Clans of Scotland. You obviously have a lot of knowledge regarding the Douglases and have a lot to contribute but this bickering is getting us nowhere. Nfras 05:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the infomation is actually in chronological order. As for references I'm sure a 'good' book on the Clan Douglas will do the trick Psycotics1454

There is a good book about the Douglas family, it is by Dr. Michael Brown and it is called 'The Black Douglases'. It is the definitive work on the medieval Douglas family and is unlikley to be bettered anytime soon. The idea of a 'Clan Douglas' is not good history, just victorian sentimentality; a better usage would be 'family' or 'kin' or perhaps 'affinity', but 'clan' is just silly. 217.43.69.36 (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Och it's aye been wi' the guid book. Brendandh (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have re-wrote and added some references to much of the content of this article. The Douglases can be considerd a clan. Its not just a victorian idea that the Lowlanders were clans. They did historically live in large clans. QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Modern era" section

A notice has been placed in the Modern era section saying that the article should not contain any "miscellaneous" information. This could be correct as the article is supposed to be about the "Clan Douglas" and much of that info might not be clan related. So is it fair to delete this section ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe certain things could be deleted, but the 'modern era' should be covered within the article. Just because there aren't Douglases reivers romping across the borders on horseback doesn't mean the clan ceases to exist. The Douglases are represented at the The Gathering 2009 as i type this.--Celtus (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agee, there should be a modern era section as long as its accurate and well sourced. Just becuase a person is called 'Douglas' does not mean they must have a connection with the clans' history. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening lines

I disagree with the statement in the opening paragraph about the Clan Douglas being "one of the smallest 21st century clans". Firstly there are not any actual "clans" anymore so I presume the statement is refering to the clan association or society, and if this is the case it should be stated so. Also there is no actual chief of the Clan Douglas, so is there an actual "official society or association" anyway ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a Clan Douglas Society of North America. Though maybe the editor is thinking of numbers of the surname in Scotland or worldwide, or something like that. Either way it is an opinion unless backed-up, right? The chiefship thing seems to be only a technicality. From the SCOSC website: "The Douglas-Hamiltons are the heirs to the house of Douglas but cannot assume their titles since the Lord Lyon requires them to assume the single name Douglas". Maybe Douglas-Hamiltons are an extremely small family!--Celtus (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Septs

It is disappointing to not see Kirkpatrick listed as a sept of Clan Douglas. Among many(amateur)Kirkpatrick historians/genealogists, the lowlands dwelling Kirkpatrick family would have been closely aligned with the Douglases (as opposed to the highlands Colquhouns)and their inclusion as a sept under the more powerful Douglas Clan would be reasonable. Hweha (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the term "Septs" in this article since it was jargon. This reference actually says "septs" is an incorrect term. SomeRandomFilmArticleEditor (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think electricscotland.com would not come under the standard of WP:RS; see Talk:Scottish clan#Peer review May 2009 section Accuracy & Neutrality. electricscotland.com as a source was also disused at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland/Archive 1#Clan Martin and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland/Archive 1#Clan Martin and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland/Archive 1#excessive or improper use of copyrighted material and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland/Archive 1#Clan Duncan. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Treachery at Teba

"Alfonso kept his army back from the attack; likely in some arrangement with his cousin Edward who could never beat the Douglas in combat."

This comment seems to be based on a highly speculative interpretation of a passage in Le Bel's Chronique (repeated in Froissart) which describes Douglas, having misunderstood an adjustment in the allied battle line, charging unsupported into the midst of the Granadan army. He had assumed the whole Christian army was about to attack but was 'profoundly mistaken', as LeBel puts it, for not one man moved. As a result, Sir James and his whole company were overwhelmed and killed. In LeBel's view, failing to support Douglas once he had committed this error was, 'a great shame and a great failure on the part of the Spanish' but neither he or any other 14th century source mentions treachery on the part of the King of Castile.

It is arguable that this train of events, which is only one among several versions of how Douglas died, demonstrates as much a degree of good sense and discipline among the Christian troops. Even Barbour, who does not say Douglas advanced in error, mentions (without any further comment) Alfonso's provision of liaison officers to brief the Scots in the local ways of war on the Frontera. Barbour does not question the need for such advice and his description of Douglas pressing forward in pursuit of a retreating enemy is ambiguous. However, immediately he realises that he is advancing unsupported, Douglas is shown prudently turning back to re-group and it is only his decision to aid a comrade in trouble that seals his fate. Thus Barbour can emphasis Douglas' loyalty and valour, echoing his loyalty to Bruce, and highlight that as the cause of his death rather than any rashness or lack of caution in fighting an unfamiliar enemy.

This passage really ought to be cut but for now, in case there is a creditable published commentary I am unaware of, I shall tag it 'citation needed' —Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

inconsistency

How come Clan Hamilton has a Chief, but not Douglas? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)