Talk:Clan Montgomery

crest badge

What is the origin of the crest? It appears in Google Images in many guises. I stumbled across one that I cannot now find that alleged to be the oldest extant: a stained glass window in a church. It depicted a buxom girl from the chest up, with a big grin on her face, holding up the severed head in her left hand, and what looked more like a grappling hook than an anchor in her right. --Pawyilee (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

the Clan Montgomery Scottish crest badge incorporates the personnel crest of the clan chief of Montgomery, this crest would represent the chief's title of the Earl of Eglinton, this crest being: a lady dressed in ancient apparel, azure, holding in her dexter hand an anchor, and in her sinister, the head of a savage couped suspended by the hair proper, see and see [link] to ref on page 466. Note the other crest (the dragon in crown) would represent the earls other title, the Earl of Winton. hope this helps. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Origins

I'm a bit confused by the emphasis in the "origins" section of the article. It seems like it emphasis that the clan isn't one of the original Anglo-Norman ones. Am I reading this correctly? Is the section trying to make the point that the clan is originally of Welsh origin and has nothing to do with the place name in Normandy besides having borrowed it for themselves? I'm not sure I understand the origin exactly; it's not nearly as clearly written as it could be is what I'm saying. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed it somewhat. I think it's clearer now.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So, just to make this clear, Robert of Mongtomery has no Norman connection to Roger de Montgomerie (1st Earl of Shrewsbury) besides having been a Celtic Welshman that adopted the name of the area in which he lived? Clan Montgomery has no blood origins in Normandy? --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement is just about showing that there is no familial-connection, and that the Scottish family and its name originated in Wales. That shouldn't be interpreted to mean that they were more 'Celtic', or less 'Norman', than the family of the that the earls belonged too.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Shrewsbury/Norman connection

Contrary to what the article states, it seems likely that they are descended from the aristocratic Anglo-Norman family, through Arnulf of Montgomery's son Philip the Welshman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.6.99 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Arnulf left "no verifiable descendants" [1]. Victorian sources, or family histories derived from them, aren't substitutes for modern scholarship.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

They are definitely Norman, but, like the Wallace family, descended probably from lesser knights who served more icon families, such as the FitzAlans._ The Mummy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.0.56 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clan Montgomery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726201953/http://www.clanchiefs.org/p/chiefs.html to http://www.clanchiefs.org/p/chiefs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In Continental Armies

@Agricolae: In seventeenth century were more than 20 Montgomeries in officers position's and 5 of general ranks. In my opinion this information have to be in this article, especially when we talk about line of counts Montgomery in France, captain's of Garde Scots. You could be right about that it was vastly UNDUE weight in part about branch in Sweden. But I haven't idea about to where, in which section input info about represents of clan in European Armies if you think it can't be named separately in connection with Continental Armies. Regards, Kravtz (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There may have been a couple of dozen people named Montgomery serving on the Continent, but this is only noteworthy if some secondary account of the Montgomerys has deigned to mention them. When all you can find is primary records to cite, or passing reference in histories of the time, the inclusion of the material definitely runs counter to policy. I know of a Swedish biographical dictionary that has an article on the Swedish Montgomerys - that is the kind of source that would give us guidance, bearing in mind that from the perspective of English Wikipedia, the Swedish Montgomerys would not have the same significance (and hence be covered in the same detail) as they do from the Swedish perspective. I will see if I can find that reference. Agricolae (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is that Swedish reference - even though it is a long entry, I would suggest that this justifies a paragraph (four or five sentences at most) on this Swedish family in this article, an indication that this group exists. Anything more would be WP:UNDUE (though it depends on the sentences). Agricolae (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. You cannot cite a muster roll - that is a primary source, and citing it represents a violation of WP:NOR. You can not pull names out of a database of soldiers - that too is a WP:NOR/WP:UNDUE problem. Someone needs to have published something on these soldiers, in the context of the Montgomery clan, for them to merit mention. Agricolae (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank You, now that's clear. But we can leave link to SSNE database of soldiers to that sentence about mercenaries in Continental Armies? And if I can ask just for my information what about line in France? Several were captains of the Scots Guards and one of them remembered for mortally injuring of King Henry. Regards, Kravtz (Kravtz) 21:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I just overlooked it. Depending on who compiled it, such a database entry may be a legitimate external link on a page about a soldier, but on a page about a family, providing a link to one database entry just has no place. Likewise, if we have a secondary source that provides significant coverage of an individual, we might add a primary source to supplement that secondary source, but a primary source alone cannot establish that the person in question merits notice. You clearly have an interest in this line in France and know a bit about it, but the individual interests of editors does not drive page content. What we need is some published work on the Montgomery family that mentions these French soldiers, not only because we need to be able to cite a source for them, but we need to be able to convince ourselves it is more than just trivia, that it is worth us taking note of because some published scholar has taken note of them. Agricolae (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I always thought the opposite, that first we need primary source if it was published or mentioned and only then we need/can use a secondary source to improuve the theory, kind of State of the Art. To use secondary sources as a sort of primary means professional knowledge of the topic. Thank You, Kravtz (Kravtz) 10:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)