Talk:Stone of Scone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The importance of the stone[edit]

I don't know much about this stone, but had heard about it through a friend. One thing I feel like is missing from this article is information about the stone's importance to Scottish nationalism. I understand that the article needs to remain objective, but it seems like part of the history of the stone is being omitted instead of written up objectively. I would undertake the changes myself, but I feel like I am completely the wrong person as I know so little on the topic.

Tdferro (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

It would be nice to get a justification for this apparently pointless move. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:06, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Not so pointless:-The Stone of Scone was moved from Stone of Destiny because it was listed on 'Clean Up' with a request that it be merged with Lia Fáil, an article about another stone which also claims to be the Stone of Destiny. Earlier versions of Stone of Scone also made references to the 'Lia Fáil' and confused the two as being the same stone. The external link from 'Lia Fáil' clearly demonstrates that one is in Ireland and a monolith the other is in Scotland and a square slab. Following debate on 'Wikipedia Clean Up' Stone of Destiny now disambuguates.Giano 08:27, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense. The only problem that I have with the move is that the commonest name of the Scottish stone is the "The Stone of Destiny" and it is the better known of the two worldwide, so it's not so good to have it at its alternate lesser known name. However on balance it's proably the right thing to do. It would have been nice to have some advance warning on the talk page for the article itself though rather than on some other page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:34, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Patriotic or nationalist?[edit]

"On Christmas Day 1950, a group of four patriotic students ... " The use of the term 'patriotic' here seems to suggest that the theft of the stone was an honourable thing, particularly to patriotic Scots. As a patriotic Scot myself, I'd rather not be associated with the theft and/or damage of any object, no matter what the political motives be. The said students were also Scottish nationalists, suggesting that patriotism and nationalism are hand in hand. While I don't doubt that the four students were "patriotic", I think it best to disassociate this term with the act, or at least highlight that the students believed it to be a patriotic act in their view. --Ayrshire--77 17:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's reasonable -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:52, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Spare stone[edit]

someone in the know should merge redirect Lia Fail Stone to the relevant stone article (I assume the picture is Scone). Also a check if the picture is usable and a once over its only linked article Navan Fort are probably needed. MeltBanana 01:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


Hi. I removed this article from Category:Politics of Scotland not in an attempt to say that the stone is not a matter of political interest (although I do strongly suspect, incidentally, that the move to Edinburgh has largely obviated the issue except among a few people who like being unhappy) — but no, I moved it simply because it's not like the other memebers of that category. If you look at that category's population right now, it includes politicians, political parties, political structures, constitutional dilemmas, and so forth. This article seemed to me to have a little "one of these things is not like the others" going on. Doops | talk 00:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Age of St. Edward's Chair?[edit]

This article implies that the chair was already old when the stone was first placed in it, whereas the St. Edward's Chair article states that the chair was specifically built to house the stone. Which is correct? 13:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Return of the Stone.[edit]

Edward may have informally agreed that the Stone of Scone should be returned to Scotland, but this does not form part of the Treaty of Northampton.

As for the Stone taken by the English in 1296 not being the authentic item, this must rank among the siller debates of Scottish history. If the 'real' stone was hidden it was so well hidden it could not be produced for subsequent Scottish coronations. It is really no surprise that it could not be dug up in time for Robert Bruce's rushed affair in 1306; but there is really no excuse for it missing that of his son, David, the first Scottish king to be anointed with full papal approval. Besides, why claim the Westminster stone back at all if it was a fake? The question is rhetorical. Please, please, no oddball answers! Rcpaterson 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created an article Westminster Stone theory which discusses the theory that the stone Edward took was not the real one. It also aims to present the arguments and counter-arguments. This alleviates the need for speculation on this page. Perhaps the existing speculation and theories could be removed from here? Gwinva 16:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed from main article: Please get all of the facts correct. The Stone Of Destiny was returned to Edinburgh Castle on St Andrews Day Saturday the 30th of November. The ceremony started at Holyrood Palace and went up the Royal Mile stopped at St Giles Cathedral for a service and blessing of the Stone then went on up to Edinburgh Castle to the building it is now on display. The reason I know all this is that I was the chauffuer driving the last Daimler Limmousine in the convoy which was 2 cars behind the Royal Rolls Royce which had HRH Prince Andrew inside. I do have a photograph of myself standing beside the Land Rover with the Stone Of Destiny just before the start of the ceremony. Robert Williamson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OTWiki (talkcontribs) 16:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia remove my entry under 'external links', please?[edit]

Could someone please give me the reasons why my contribution to 'External links' constantly gets removed?

It points to a site with various well researched articles about the Stone of Destiny, but it gets removed whenever I post the link. J 10:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Stone of Scone articles[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contribution to Stone of Scone. However the link you keep adding is not really appropriate for that article (see Wikipedia:External_links) as it presents an unusual and controversial view which is not represented in the main article.

It would be more appropriate if you were to contribute to the main article, or even better to its talk page or create a separate article, if you believe that you have something important or worthy to add. Thanks!

--Lost tourist 10:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message.

The view presented by the link IS in fact mentioned in the main article, right in the very beginning under the heading 'Tradition and history' - Quote: "Traditionally, it is supposed to be the pillow stone said to have been used by the Biblical Jacob."

I believe that the views presented by the linked page are relevant and definately worth including, since the articles found by following the link are backed by historical documents and for example, scientific analysis of chippings from the original stone. It is a group of articles dedicated to the history of the stone and since the same view that is presented by it IS represented and explicitly stated in the main article, I cannot see any reason why the link should not be included.

With all due respect, is it justified to remove it completely because it presents views not shared by Lost tourist? In the main article, other opposing views are allowed, but why not this one? I believe the link must be allowed, since it deals with the very first traditional view (that of it being Jacob's pillar stone) mentioned in the main article. What do others think about this, please?

Thank you for your consideration, any replies are welcome.

Retrieved from "" Jacquessmit 10:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about removed link[edit]

Dear Wibbble,

I recently added the link 'Jacob's Pillar Stone - articles & studies by JAH' and was hoping that you could please explain to me your reasons for removing the link and how you came to the conclusion of it being inappropriate, please? It is very unclear to me on what grounds it can be qualified as 'inappropriate' since the material found on the site contains in my opinion lots of highly relevant & actual information about the stone. Of course, that is my opinion - but even if one does not agree with that it still contains an interesting view, which is very well supported and well cited.

If you are interested in what is written about Jacob's Pillar in the Bible, you can find the relevant scriptures here.

There must be some way that this information could be made available on this page, and I hope that we can find a way to settle it.

Kind regards, and hoping to hear from you soon.

Jacquessmit 08:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Stone in Kent[edit]

Does anyone know something about this stone here: Athelstan of England?--Tresckow 08:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Are there anyone who has taken a picture of the stone at it's place in Edinburgh Castle? Or maybe anyone who took at the ceremony of placing it there? Or even a snapshot at the copy in Scone castle? Edwin Charles (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Or should we just have a painting of it? Edwin Charles (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A tourist picture of the stone at Edinburgh Castle is impossible, as no pictures is allowed for all the Scottish crown jewels. There may be official pictures on the Edinburgh Castle website, but I am not sure about copyright issues. (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a photo of the stone in the great hall on the day it was returned. My daughter was face-painted with the Saltire and was invited to touch the stone. My photo has her touching it. Is probably not what anyone would look for, but as you can imagine, for a Scot is something exceptionally rare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

theft of stone[edit]

simply saying they took the stone implies they might have had permission. Also, what happened to the students? Rds865 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

They didn't have permission, but neither did Edward I when he stole it. Westminster Abbey didn't own it.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm led to believe that the stone was accidentally broken by Suffragettes, not by Vernon, Mathieson, Hamilton and co.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I was also under that impression I'm going to chance it. --BRFC98 (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have Hamilton's book handy, but I'm certain he says that it broke when they were removing it. - TG —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It is quite possible that it was broken by suffragettes, repaired and then broken again along the same fault line when Hamilton took it. So both statements could be true. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a very famous stone —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

St Edward's Chair and coronations[edit]

The article said that St Edward's Chair was used for coronations of all English monarchs except Queen Mary I, Queen Mary II and King Edward VIII. King Edward VIII was not an English monarch and was not crowned at all so he had no place in that sentence but what about Mary I and Mary II? Why wasn't the chair used in their coronation ceremony? Is this information covered by the source provided in the article? Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaelic Name & Ltscotland[edit]

An Liath Fhàil is the name invariably used for the Stone of Destiny in colloquial Scottish Gaelic. Ltscotland is NOT (rather alarmingly!) a reliable source for Gaelic vocabulary. The term "Clach Sgain" (only source ltscotland) is a translation of an Anglo-English name which as Derek Ross has pointed out is not in common use in Scotland. Ltscotland appears to have a problem with Gaelic. Frequently Gaelic terms on ltscotland Gaelic consist of literal translations from etymologically different English terms instead (and presumably in ignorance of) Gaelic terms. For this reason "Clach Sgain" has been edited out. PEÓD 21.11.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Where the f*** are references (or a link) to the rest of the Scottish crown jewels?[edit]

Isn't the Stone of Scone one of the Honours of Scotland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


The Stone of Scone ( /ˈskuːn/; Scottish Gaelic: An Liath Fàil), more commonly known as the Stone of Destiny and often referred to in England as the Coronation Stone, is an oblong block of red sandstone, used for centuries in the coronation of the monarchs of Scotland, later the monarchs of England and since 1603, British monarchs. = How would that be possible? The first British monarch did not take to the throne until after the Kingdom of Great Britain had been created! That was in 1707. Before that there was a Kingdom of England and a Kingdom of Scotland. "British" refers to something or someone after the year 1707. (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I made a change to the wording to address this. Derekbd (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. The island of Britain existed before either the English or the Scots invaded it. Even before either England or Scotland existed the small kingdoms that later made them up were British kingdoms because they were kingdoms in Britain. So it is perfectly possible to be a British monarch without being the monarch of the whole of Britain. Hence both English and Scots monarchs were British monarchs because they were monarchs of kingdoms on the island of Britain. That is true before 1603 as well as after. Their Britishness is geographical, not political. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Doubts[edit] (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC) I've added a piece regarding doubts as to the stone's authenticity and quoting a letter to the Morning Chronicle of January 1819. This letter can be freely accessed as it's in the British Newspaper Library's online collection. I didn't include a link to it as not everyone will have access, so I have quoted it accurately and in full. This is hard evidence that the doubts are historic and not a modern phenomenon.

Wow! Interesting news story; do we know what happened to this stone? Are there any more references for the conclusion of the tests? AndrewJFulker (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

First, this story leaves the impression of incompleteness: "This curious stone has been shipped for London for the inspection of the scientific amateur, in order to discover its real quality." What happened to it? You'd think that if it ended up being of any interest at all, the "curious stone" and its story would be more famous. In any case, I think the story should be concluded somehow, even if it's just to say something like "Unfortunately, there are no more records about this 'curious stone'."

Second, with the inclusion of this story, the article contradicts itself, since the very next section, "Westminster Abbey", says "Some doubt exists over the stone captured by Edward I. The Westminster Stone theory posits that the monks at Scone Palace hid the real stone in the River Tay or buried it on Dunsinane Hill, and that the English troops were fooled into taking a substitute. Some proponents of the theory claim that historic descriptions of the stone do not match the present stone. If the monks did hide the stone, they hid it well; no other stone fitting its description has ever been found." (Emphasis mine.) But the previous section has just told us about the letter to the newspaper claiming there was a stone buried on Dunsinane Hill. This all needs to be reconciled somehow, instead of these two sections just appearing oblivious of each others' contents. M-1 (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Royal Title[edit]

James VI and 1 (Scottish title) assumed the titled of King of Great Britain in 1604, 1707 was only the union of the parliaments. Hence, while not statute it is reasonable to say 'British monarchs' after 1604. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And just as reasonable (as I pointed out above) before 1604. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

weighing about 500l (l = livre. so 244.8kg or 539.6 pounds)[edit]

I think there are some problems with this bit in the quotation from the Morning Chronicle. First, is the parenthesis part of the original text in the newspaper article? Probably not, I think, so it should use square brackets to show this as an editorial addition. Second, it seems that the editor who added the conversion is assuming that the L stands for the French livre. I see no reason why a London newspaper reporting on an event in Scotland would use a French unit that was obsolete or becoming obsolete at the time. More likely it was intended to be normal avoirdupois pounds. Third, "about 500" should not be converted to a number with four significant figures. So I plan to change this bit to "weighing about 500l [230 kg]". Indefatigable (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision of article - August 2014[edit]

Prior to my revision, it was evident that the article was written by a copyeditor(s) passionate about the subject—a non-encyclopedic tone was used and vague, obscure details were included. I have revised the entire article, but citations are still needed, so I have added an "Expert needed" template to the Refimprove template that has been there since 2011.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


The article claims that Walter Hemingford described the stone in Scotland in the 14th century. How could that be if the stone had been moved to Westminster Abbey in 1296?

Also, there's a long quote from a 1819 letter to the "Morning Chronicle", in an unspecified city, describing the finding of a "semi-metallic" stone buried in a vault. Clearly this can't be the Stone of Scone, which was sitting in Westminster Abbey at the time, so what is the relevance to this article? Mnudelman (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The 1819 letter is suggesting the Scots tricked the stupid Edward I into taking the wrong stone. The “real” one was then accidentally found in 1819 where it “had been hidden since 1296”. The claimed 14th century Walter Hemingford description seems to be unexplainable. PeterColdridge (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Letter to the editor of the Morning Chronicle, dated 2 January 1819[edit]

The article quotes at length a letter to the editor of the Morning Chronicle, dated 2 January 1819, casting doubt on the authenticity of the stone taken to England. It cites the web site, which does not appear to be a reliable source, though the anonymous editor who first added the quotation claims above to have seen the letter in an on-line newspaper archive. If the letter is authentic, the article should report what results, if any, ensued from it. If the letter is fraudulent, that should be reported, or the quotation should be deleted. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


I tagged the name clach-na-cinneamhain "not English", which Jac16888 reverted, saying, "(needs a sourced translation)". If she or he agrees that it needs a sourced translation, why revert my tag, which calls for just that? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not. The tag calls for an editor to translate it themselves, with something like this such a translation would be subjective and could affect the intended meaning
The "Not English" tag marks a passage that "would benefit from an English translation." See Template:Not_English-inline. Everything on Wikipedia is done by editors: where else does the writer think an accurate translation would come from? If an editor supplies an inaccurate translation, another editor can correct it. Simply deleting the tag won't prevent possible inaccuracy. I am restoring the tag. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Translation is an interpretation, meaning there a often multiple options, the correct once chosen based on context. As this is a name of something it already has an intended meaning, and as such for an editor to add a translation would be original research. Therefore a 3rd party source for a translation needs to be found--Jac16888 Talk 22:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No such translation may be available because of copyright issues. In addition invoking original research to prevent the translation of a three-word phrase (one word of which is a preposition) is nit-picking. Unsurprisingly, "clach" means "stone", "na" means "of" and "cinneamhain" means "destiny". -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
So 3 words is not OR, but can be a copyright violation? Cinneamhain could also mean "fate", or "lot" or a number of other things. This page (probably not a reliable source) suggests the meaning is "the fatal stone". Like I said, there are different interpretations--Jac16888 Talk 20:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Very unlikely to be a copyright violation either. And "Stone of Fate", "Stone of Destiny", yes, there are a few synonyms you could use. Even "lot", as in "it's your fate in life to do X", "it's your destiny in life to do X", "it's your lot in life to do X". But there's no disagreement on the underlying meaning of the word "cinneamhain" and plenty of third-party sources for it in the form of Gaelic-English dictionaries. OR doesn't forbid the use of synonyms. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The mere translation of a word or phrase, not in itself a creative work, is not subject to copyright, I'm reasonably sure. If there is academic debate over the meaning of clach-na-cinneamhain (something I'm not aware of), then the article should reflect that, and editors shouldn't presume to decide the question; but Jac16888 makes no such suggestion, and merely argues that translation = interpretation = OR. Virtually all translations require some subjective interpretation, which, by Jac16888's argument, would make any translation OR, unless supported by authority (other than, presumably, a bilingual dictionary). That's tantamount to saying that editors can't translate anything, and that use of the {Not English} tag is against Wikipedia policy, because it invites OR. I don't think that's correct. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Derek brought up the copyright issue, not me. Translating "John has a dog" is simple, translating a full paragraph or article is doable because you can understand the meaning of words from context. This is a name all by itself, the whole point I'm trying to make is that names can interpreted in different ways depending on the context, but whoever named the object did so with a specific meaning in mind. As shown above there are different ways this can be translated that give different meanings, "The Fatal Stone" is completely different to "The Stone of Destiny", but either could apply. It's not for us to choose which is correct, hence my recommendation of a 3rd party source--Jac16888 Talk 23:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem with "fatal" is that it has two meanings in English, one modern and one archaic. And only its rare archaic meaning means "cinneamhain". So to translate "the fatal stone" into Gaelic might be difficult because we might (in rare circumstances) be unsure whether it means "the death-dealing stone" or "the stone of fate" without some context such as the time at which the author was writing. But translating from Gaelic to English there is no doubt that "clach-na-cinneamhain" means "the stone of fate" because "cinneamhain" never means "death-dealing". In fact it's not even an adjective!
So why on Earth would anyone translate a noun with a single meaning by an adjective with two different meanings when synonyms with a single meaning are available. It's very much up to us to choose the words that make the meaning clearest for our readers. If it wasn't, we would not be able write a single original sentence in Wikipedia without being accused of OR. The OR policy is intended to prevent people from adding original concepts to our articles, not original wording. It was introduced to stop people advancing personal theories on physics, aliens, politics, etc. Not to forbid the novel expression of mainstream ideas. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
According to the article, there are even two ways to say "stone of destiny" in Gaelic: clach-na-cinneamhain and Lia Fàil. Fortunately for us, there is an accepted translation into English: Stone of Destiny. We don't need an authority for that, because it's part of common usage. It's what everybody calls the stone in English, so it doesn't matter that we could translate clach-na-cinneamhain some other way. I originally placed the tag that sparked this amazingly persistent discussion because I didn't realize that clach-na-cinneamhain and Lia Fàil meant the same thing.
As for the general point about translations, "John has a dog" may not be as simple as the editor suggests. Certainly it's not so simple in the other direction: for instance, Jan har en hund could be translated John has a dog, or John has a hound. Must we find a scholarly source to tell us which word to use? Language is inherently metaphorical and ambiguous, and all translations are subjective approximations. If there's a legitimate dispute over how to translate a word or phrase, then a RS may be needed to settle the question; but otherwise any editor can do it. That's why we have a {Not English} tag. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)