Talk:Andrew Moray

Point of this?

Why is this underneath the picture of Wallace in Aberdeen: "A statue of William Wallace in Aberdeen, a Scottish city with which he has no proven connexion"

Not only is it spelt wrong it seems irrelevent. No proven connection? Wallace was guardian of Scotland and Aberdeen is a Scottish city....seems like a strong enough connection to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there is not any evidence that Wallace ever visited Aberdeen. There is a claim that he attacked the city and burned the harbour, but it all rests on Blind Harry's poem, and that is notoriously unreliable. So there is no historically proven connexion (and, yes, you can spell the word this way), hence my comment. I am seeking to draw arrention to the fact that that there is no statue to Andrew Moray in a city he would have certainly visited and is likely to have liberated. Jaygtee (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Given why William Wallace was fighting I would say he has a proven connection to every town in Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.59.95 (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there even a picture of Wallace in an article about Andrew Moray? Just because they were allies doesn't warrant more pictures of him then the actual subject of the article. Gloryify (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Guardian of Scotland?

Andrew de Moray, as far as I am aware,was never appointed Guardian of Scotland, a title extended to Wallace only late in 1297. No doubt Moray would have been named as joint Guardian-just as he was joint leader with Wallace of the army-but he died of the wounds he sustained at Stirling Bridge. Rcpaterson 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is in existence 2 copies of a letter sent by Moray and Wallace to the merchant towns of Germany shortly after Stirling Bridge. They signed it as Guardians of Scotland by consent of the realm on behalf of King John. PatGallacher 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

From memory I believe the letters to the Hanseatic towns were signed by Moray and Wallace as 'Leaders of the army of the Kingdom of Scotland and of the realm'. The first reference to the Guardianship as such comes in a charter to one Alexander Scrymgeour dated 29 March 1298, where Wallace appears as 'Sir William Wallace, Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland and General of the Army...' I know that history has been unjust to Moray, and I have no doubt that he would have been appointed as joint Guardian if he had lived; but on a pure point of information the actual office, as far as I can tell, was held by Wallace alone. Rcpaterson 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am have to agree with this comment: there is no surviving evidence that Andrew Moray was appointed to the Guardianship, tho he certainly was more than adequately qualified to hold that office. --Jaygtee 16:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We ought to find a way of disambiguating this person and his son, but is Andrew Moray and Sir Andrew Moray the best way of doing it? How about Andrew Moray and Andrew Moray junior? PatGallacher 22:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Death dates can be used, as in Andrew Moray (d. 2006). You wouldn't need to do it for all, just the less important Andrew Morays. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You will find the article on the son under Sir Andrew Murray. The name had metamorphosed from De Moravia to Moray and finally to Murray. Andrew Murray and Sir Andrew Murray, if you like; but please, please no 'junior': unhistorical, un-Scottish and horribly trivial! Rcpaterson 23:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Flemish descent?

Can anyone point me to proof that Moray was descended from a Flemish noble? I know that his anscestor, Freskyn, was given estates at Duffus in Moray by King David I as a reward for helping to depose the mormaer. Other Flemish nobles were attributed by the term "Flandrensis" in charters, but Freskyn was never referred to as such.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billreid (talk • contribs) 18/10/2006.

Trivia

Some very dubious content has been added under the heading of Trivia. This identifies Moray with a character in Braveheart named Morney. This identification is at best specious, trading solely on a very dubious similarity in the names. There is, in my opinion, no merit in this addition, as there is nothing in Morney's conduct with could even be identified with Andrew de Moray. Indeed, if anything Morney could be best identified with the 'Red' Comyn. I think that this identification adds absolutely nothing to the article, which has been improved significantly recently. I propose to delete this reference unless someone can suggest why it should be retained --Jaygtee 12:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's gone. But if anyone's really that interested, I've posted it below:

Trivia

• In the movie Braveheart a Scottish nobleman named "Mornay" fights with William Wallace at Battle of Stirling Bridge only to betray Wallace at Battle of Falkirk; later Mornay is killed by Wallace. It is unclear if "Lord Mornay" was based on "Andrew Moray".

Jaygtee 23:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Note on the etymology of the name Murray

There is some information in the main article under this heading realting to evolution of the name Murray. I'm not sure why it was tagged on here, but I think that it is a little out of context in an article about a Scottish mediaeval personality. I propose, therefore, to delete it, unless someone wants to post a valid reason that it should be retained. I'll leave this option open for the next ten days or so. --Jaygtee 22:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally removed:Jaygtee (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Murray is a common variation of the word Moray, an anglicisation of the Medieval Gaelic word Muireb (or Moreb); the b here was pronounced as v, hence the Latinization to Moravia. These names denote the district on the south shore of the Moray Firth. Murray is actually a direct transliteration of how Scottish people pronounce the word Moray.

Murray is no longer used for the geographical area, but it became the commonest form of the surname, especially among Scottish emigrants, to the extent that the surname Murray is now much more common than the original surname Moray.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 22:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OR issues

This article clearly contains original research. The death of Moray is a slightly murky issue, but the idea that the documents issued by Wallace in their joint names were acutally issued after Moray was dead is speculative and not one I have seen in any history. PatGallacher (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that there is some uncertainty about Moray's death, on the balance of probabilities it seems he died at the battle. This is established by the inquisition into his late uncle's affairs, which I have cited. This was accepted by Bain in the introduction to his Calendar and also Hume-Brown in his History of Scotland. Although this view may no longer be fashionable, that does not invalidate it and it has been included in a article published in History Scotland (which I have cited). I do not believe that this is OR, rather it is an less-commonly accepted perspective. Jaygtee (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Hume-Brown cited at all, maybe I missed it. Bain is from 1881! That leaves one recent journal article to back up this view. If, as you acknowledge, this is the less-commonly accepted perspective, then it is contrary to no original research (see section on undue weight). PatGallacher (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said that I cited Hume-Brown, I just pointed out he accepted the view of Moray's death occurring at the battle. And, yes, Bain published his Calendar in 1881, but it contains primary documents. And, as I state, no.1178 records Moray was "slain" at Stirling. Seems pretty firm evidence for me. And though this perspective is less-commonly held, it has more evidence to back it than the traditional view - i.e. he died sometime 1n the winter of 1297-98 - which solely rests on two surviving letters which were sent in his name. I can't see the problem with advancing an alternate view if that can be backed-up. Jaygtee (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In view of these comments, my objections are now more NPOV than OR, undue weight to a minority view. The article is also over-long and contains too much detail about the general history of the time, rather than Moray's individual life. PatGallacher (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is all getting very silly. My article stands as it is and if that's not good enough for Wikipedia, well ... *shrugs* Jaygtee (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a basic principle of Wikipedia that there is no personal ownership of articles. PatGallacher (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And I was never in any doubt that I do not personally own this article. But thanks, anyway, for pointing it out. I welcome anyone that wants to make constructive edits to this article. But I don't think its unreasonable for me to look for a little recognition that I have taken on the major role in editing this article - transforming it from little more than basic biography into something much more meaningful. Is it a long article? Yes. Does it refer to other events? Yes (but that's necessary to reference Moray's life and place it in context). What I object to is you simply coming on a tagging the article OR (when everything I have cited is in the public domain)or NPOV (when my article projects a balanced view of his life and the events in which he participated). I will continue to work on this article, and I would ask you to remove your tags. Obviously if you feel that what I do is of no value to Wikipedia, I am sure that ou'll be able to add another tag of some sort ... Jaygtee (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also a lot of good stuff in the article if albeit it isn't written in an encyclopedic way. Although the article mentions the possibility of Moray's death having been post-Stirling Bridge the article's favoured death seems to be that he was killed at Stirling Bridge. Modern historians, on the whole, believe Moray had survived into November. So the article should really reflect the presently held interpretations with the Bain citation used in a more balanced way. -Bill Reid | ^Talk 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Scots Peerage

"Parents Father: Sir Andrew Moray of Petty, d.c.1300; Mother: not known."

Forgive me if I'm not following Wikipedia protocol, but the following is more of a commentary and a question rather than a correction:

Comentary: The Wikipedia article does not give the specifics of Andrew's ancestry. Scots Peerage II:120-128, sub Moray, Lord of Bothwell, shows a descent as converted to Henry numbers below in which I have omitted siblings in each generation collateral to the last Andrew:

1. Freskin, said to be of Flemish origin who "must have d. bef. 1171" 1.1. William, of Stradbrok, Duffus, Rosisle, Inchikel, Machir, and Kintrai, d. ca. 1203 1.1.2. William de Moravia, Dominus de Pettyn, Brachlie and Boharm, d. bef. 5 Oct. 1226 1.1.2.1. Sir Walter de Moravia, Lord of Petyn, etc., d. ca. 1244 1.1.2.1.1. Sir William de Moravia of Petyn, d. bef. Mar. 1253, wife said to have been a dau. of Malcolm of Moray, Earl of Fife 1.1.2.1.1.1. Sir Walter de Moravia who "may" have married the heiress of NN Olifard, of Bothwell* and became 1st Lord of Bothwell (of the Moray line), d. ca. 1284 1.1.2.1.1.1.2. Sir Andrew de Moravia, (h. of his elder bro. Wm., 2nd lord of Bothwell who d.s.p.), m1. NN 4th dau. of Sir John Comyn of Badenoch (mother of his s. & h. Andrew)**, m2. Euphemia, widow of William Comyn of Kilbride 1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1. Sir Andrew Moray, 3rd Lord Bothwell, who is said to have d. at Battle of Stirling Bridge 11 Sep. 1297, but letters to the Mayors of Lubeck and Hamburg in Oct. 1297 and letters of protection to the Monks of Hexham in Nov. 1297 indicate he may survived the battle for a period of time. 1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1. Sir Andrew Moray, 4th Lord Bothwell, "Panetarius Scotiæ", Regent of Scotland, b. 1298, m. 1326 as 3rd husband, Christian, sister of King Robert the Bruce, d. 1338, bur. Dunfermline Abbey

• See the exchange on SocGenMedieval 1 Jan 2006, subject: Re: Helen of Strathearn, daughter of Joanna de Menteith (revisited), wherein the specifics of how Bothwell went from the Olifards to the Morays is discussed.

• • SP cited Wyntoun, _Chron._Bk. viii. c. vi. l. 1193.

Question: I note that SP is not listed as a reference for this article. Is it because more recent research has disproven it in re: Moray of Bothwell?

Respectfully submitted, --Curthofemann (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Scots peerage is largely invalidated by more up-to-date scholarship, Curthofemann. I'll post more on this later. Jaygtee (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern scholarship and detailed examination of surviving documents has invalidated much of what is written in Scots Peerage about the man described as "Sir Andrew Moray, 3rd Lord Bothwell", the subject of this wikipedia article. (1) There is no evidence that Moray was knighted. The Lubeck and Hexham letters simpley describe him as "Andrew Moray". He is not described in this letters as a knight (and neither is William Wallace, who is apprently knighted sometime in the winter of 1297-98).(2) There is also no evidence that he had succeeded to the lordship of Bothwell. Although an inquest of 1300 described him as his uncle's heir, he appears to have predeceased him. It is therefore more accurate to describe Moray's son, also Sir Andrew, as the third lord of Bothwell. I hope that his helps. Jaygtee (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Irreplaceable loss

"There was, however, one irreplaceable loss: Andrew Moray." I am not sure that statements such as this are allowable. It is merely an opinion. He was. of course, not 'irreplaceable'. Shipsview (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)