Talk:Sir Richard Strachan, 6th Baronet

6th baronet

I'm confused, why is he listed as 6th Baronet at the start of the article when the ODNB lists him as 4th Baronet, and just to increase the confusion the Clan Strachan website seems to say he was 8th Baronet. Is it something like Lord Lovat where members fo the family were attainted for their part in the Jacobite rebellions, so the family considers them to have held the title even though legally they did not do so? David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I originally named the article as 4th baronet, following the ODNB. Dabbler found a source saying he was the 6th baronet and duly moved the page. I then looked a bit closer and found the discrepancies as you have noted, plus another source which lists him as the 10th baronet. All rather confusing really. Benea (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the sources: There is a discrepancy over when the baronetcy was created. Clan Strachan claim it was in 1685, most other sources say 1625. Clan Strachan indicates that Richard's predecessor, by their reckoning was the third baronet, but later claim that Richard was the 8th. Some confusion about this may be the reason why 4th and 8th are mentioned. Moving on to the possibility of 6th and 10th. Thomas Wise's largely follows the family tree set out in the Burkes' list, but adds in a few members here and there, but in a rather confusing way. Since the two leading authorities on the British peerage, Burkes' and Debretts' seem to concur he was the 6th baronet, I suggest we go with that. Benea (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth giving some sort of overview in the article at least for 4th v 6th - ODNB is normally considered pretty standard reference too (though not in that specific area). David Underdown (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note, explaining the different listings. Hopefully that should suffice. Benea (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've attempted to clarify a few things by reference to the contemporary London Gazettes promotion to flag rank and beyond was at this time almost entirely on the basis of seniority, so we need to be very careful in drawing conclusions about the timing of promotions. Though some ranks contained modern looking designations such as rear-admiral, vice-admiral etc, the distinction of the squadron was alos very important. David Underdown (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1.95?

Not to be difficult here, but I still don't understand the meaning of "1.95" in connection with the Creevey Papers edited by Maxwell. It isn't a page reference, so what is it? Manxruler (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a document reference. The Creevy papers are a collection of letters, manuscripts, journal entries and many and varied other forms of documents that have been edited into the editions eventually published by Maxwell. In this case, document 95 (a letter(s) or similar from Graham Moore to John Moore, in which the former discusses Strachan), which is to be found in volume 1 of the 2 volume set published in 1904. Like a page reference but not, and not usually encountered outside of an academic environment. Benea (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. But is Wikipedia really an academic environment? Manxruler (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's the best we can do as a way of referencing, unless you have an alternative. We could leave it as just pointing to the papers, which sacrifices precision for clarity, I don't particularly mind. Benea (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Volume 1, No. 95? David Underdown (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about something more in line of that. Much clearer, just as precise. Manxruler (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How is ‘Strachan’ pronounced?

The verse quoted sugggests it is pronounced ‘strawn’, but there is nothing in the article. 213.205.240.72 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)