Irish Feudal Barony's and their historical value as incorporeal heraditaments

[R***@gmail.com]

I write to say that it is about time that contributors to rec heraldry
stopped slanging Irish Feudal Baronies. Various ploys are used
including the repititious allegation that most, if not all, Irish
Feudal Baronies are phoney because they have a similar name to Irish
Administrative Baronies. Another favorite is the allegation, largely
justified but old hat, that the so-called "Statutory Declarations"
that often accompanied the sale of phony baronies, are worthless and
misleading and the last, but oft repeated criticism is that the
historical package tracing the history/succession of a given Irish
Feudal Barony is largely irrelevant and usually misleading. So where
does that leave us? Some contributors and this includes priimarily Mr.
Sean Murphy, have worked up such a fever in attempting to discredit
Irish Feudal Baronies that they hammer at it in an unreasoned and
repititious fashion apparently without a clear understanding of the of
historical records and of the enactment of laws in both Ireland and
England as they relate to Irish Feudal Baronies. That is not to imply
that I do either but it would be refreshing to hear the other side.
Perhaps Dr. Cox would be prepared to give some input.
It would be very helpful to have more light (illumata meo) and
fewer unsupported attacks on Irish Feudal Baronies. It is one thing
to warn the public about potential scams but another to relflexively
attack those who value Irish Feudal Baronies as incorporeal
herafditaments in the same way as Scottish Feudal Barons (without
caputs) value their Barony titles- albeit the Scots may have more
complete records. I will welcome some constructive comments about this
and other issues and I would very much appreciate some accurate and
constructive assessments of historical and legal evidence for Irish
Feudal Baronies. The abolition of Feudal Tenures Act of 1662, the
English Law of Property Act(s) circa 1922, and the Honours Prevention
of Abuses Act of 1925 and so on, seem to be quoted willy nilly but
without a full understanding of legal implications of these Acts. Not
too long ago there was a fuss on this site because there was reason to
believe-with dismay- that some aspects of Feudal Law perisist in
Ireland. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies! Ralph Mottram.

[Derek Howard]

Post by R***@gmail.com
I write to say that it is about time that contributors to rec heraldry
stopped slanging Irish Feudal Baronies. Various ploys are used
including the repititious allegation that most, if not all, Irish
Feudal Baronies are phoney because they have a similar name to Irish
Administrative Baronies. Another favorite is the allegation, largely
justified but old hat, that the so-called "Statutory Declarations"
that often accompanied the sale of phony baronies, are worthless and
misleading and the last, but oft repeated criticism is that the
historical package tracing the history/succession of a given Irish
Feudal Barony is largely irrelevant and usually misleading. So where
does that leave us? Some contributors and this includes priimarily Mr.
Sean Murphy, have worked up such a fever in attempting to discredit
Irish Feudal Baronies that they hammer at it in an unreasoned and
repititious fashion apparently without a clear understanding of the of
historical records and of the enactment of laws in both Ireland and
England as they relate to Irish Feudal Baronies. That is not to imply
that I do either but it would be refreshing to hear the other side.
Perhaps Dr. Cox would be prepared to give some input.
It would be very helpful to have more light (illumata meo) and
fewer unsupported attacks on Irish Feudal Baronies. It is one thing
to warn the public about potential scams but another to relflexively
attack those who value Irish Feudal Baronies as incorporeal
herafditaments in the same way as Scottish Feudal Barons (without
caputs) value their Barony titles- albeit the Scots may have more
complete records. I will welcome some constructive comments about this
and other issues and I would very much appreciate some accurate and
constructive assessments of historical and legal evidence for Irish
Feudal Baronies. The abolition of Feudal Tenures Act of 1662, the
English Law of Property Act(s) circa 1922, and the Honours Prevention
of Abuses Act of 1925 and so on, seem to be quoted willy nilly but
without a full understanding of legal implications of these Acts. Not
too long ago there was a fuss on this site because there was reason to
believe-with dismay- that some aspects of Feudal Law perisist in
Ireland. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies! Ralph Mottram.

A tedious return to the subject. Not one single Irish feudal barony
has been unequivocally shown to exist in the 20th century let alone
the 21st. Simply put they had all disappeared long before the time the
Tudor administrators chose to use the term for the subdivision of a
county.

However, rather than casting around hopefully for someone to provide
arguments to support the sale of these supposed titles, why not take
one of them and do some digging yourself. I am sure we would all be
interested in examining the details of what you find out.

I suggest that it will be very similar to the English feudal baronies
with the added spice that the landholdings, with very few exceptions,
have changed hands, by conquest and reconquest, by settlement, etc.,
so often that it is inconceivable that the tenure in the mid-17th
century was by virtue of a grant of the 12th century. As with the
English case, tenure by barony must be established before you can
argue the case. That disappeared at an early date if it ever existed
in Ireland and I no of no surviving contemporary evidence. Tenure by
military service was also abolished in the 1660s. Land tenure was
further reorganised a number of times in the 19th century and then
there is the regime change of the 20th.

The ball is firmly in the court of the fantasists who make the claims
to prove them. They seem disinclined to do so, prefering to rant
against the repetitions of those who have a clearer understanding of
Irish history and laws. Land is now freehold and not held per
baroniam, nor held by knight service. It is not possible to argue the
absurd position that a freeholder is the tenant in chief (of who in
Ireland?). A baron was only the term for a holder of a barony. No
barony, no baron. A barony in Ireland cannot not exist like a manor in
England, held in gross if supported by residual rights after its
separation from land. It stemmed, as in England, from the manner in
which it was feudally held.

The tenuous and tentative discussion about whether or not some very
minor aspects of feudalism may have survived has no bearing on the
case for tennurial baronies to have survived - in the same way that
the survival of a few English lordships of the manor has no bearing
whatsoever on the issue of 12-13th century English feudal baronies.
(Some manors survived in Ulster - so presumably in the southern
provinces also - at least to the 19th century and some of their
residual manorial rights may still lie with descendants of the then
owners but land reform has meant that they can scarecly be referred to
in the North as manors any more. But baronies certainly not).

As for the fantasists and the fraudsters unless they are "prepared to
present reasonable and balanced arguments", I think it is dishonest of
others not to accept that all Irish "feudal baronies" being touted for
sale are indeed bogus. You cannot make them real merely by repeated
attacks on those who rightly undermine the claims.

Keep up the good work Sean.

Derek Howard

[e***@verizon.net]

Post by Derek Howard

Post by R***@gmail.com
I write to say that it is about time that contributors to rec heraldry
stopped slanging Irish Feudal Baronies. Various ploys are used
including the repititious allegation that most, if not all, Irish
Feudal Baronies are phoney because they have a similar name to Irish
Administrative Baronies. Another favorite is the allegation, largely
justified but old hat, that the so-called "Statutory Declarations"
that often accompanied the sale of phony baronies, are worthless and
misleading and the last, but oft repeated criticism is that the
historical package tracing the history/succession of a given Irish
Feudal Barony is largely irrelevant and usually misleading. So where
does that leave us? Some contributors and this includes priimarily Mr.
Sean Murphy, have worked up such a fever in attempting to discredit
Irish Feudal Baronies that they hammer at it in an unreasoned and
repititious fashion apparently without a clear understanding of the of
historical records and of the enactment of laws in both Ireland and
England as they relate to Irish Feudal Baronies. That is not to imply
that I do either but it would be refreshing to hear the other side.
Perhaps Dr. Cox would be prepared to give some input.
It would be very helpful to have more light (illumata meo) and
fewer unsupported attacks on Irish Feudal Baronies. It is one thing
to warn the public about potential scams but another to relflexively
attack those who value Irish Feudal Baronies as incorporeal
herafditaments in the same way as Scottish Feudal Barons (without
caputs) value their Barony titles- albeit the Scots may have more
complete records. I will welcome some constructive comments about this
and other issues and I would very much appreciate some accurate and
constructive assessments of historical and legal evidence for Irish
Feudal Baronies. The abolition of Feudal Tenures Act of 1662, the
English Law of Property Act(s) circa 1922, and the Honours Prevention
of Abuses Act of 1925 and so on, seem to be quoted willy nilly but
without a full understanding of legal implications of these Acts. Not
too long ago there was a fuss on this site because there was reason to
believe-with dismay- that some aspects of Feudal Law perisist in
Ireland. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies! Ralph Mottram.

A tedious return to the subject. Not one single Irish feudal barony
has been unequivocally shown to exist in the 20th century let alone
the 21st. Simply put they had all disappeared long before the time the
Tudor administrators chose to use the term for the subdivision of a
county.
However, rather than casting around hopefully for someone to provide
arguments to support the sale of these supposed titles, why not take
one of them and do some digging yourself. I am sure we would all be
interested in examining the details of what you find out.
I suggest that it will be very similar to the English feudal baronies
with the added spice that the landholdings, with very few exceptions,
have changed hands, by conquest and reconquest, by settlement, etc.,
so often that it is inconceivable that the tenure in the mid-17th
century was by virtue of a grant of the 12th century. As with the
English case, tenure by barony must be established before you can
argue the case. That disappeared at an early date if it ever existed
in Ireland and I no of no surviving contemporary evidence. Tenure by
military service was also abolished in the 1660s. Land tenure was
further reorganised a number of times in the 19th century and then
there is the regime change of the 20th.
The ball is firmly in the court of the fantasists who make the claims
to prove them. They seem disinclined to do so, prefering to rant
against the repetitions of those who have a clearer understanding of
Irish history and laws. Land is now freehold and not held per
baroniam, nor held by knight service. It is not possible to argue the
absurd position that a freeholder is the tenant in chief (of who in
Ireland?). A baron was only the term for a holder of a barony. No
barony, no baron. A barony in Ireland cannot not exist like a manor in
England, held in gross if supported by residual rights after its
separation from land. It stemmed, as in England, from the manner in
which it was feudally held.
The tenuous and tentative discussion about whether or not some very
minor aspects of feudalism may have survived has no bearing on the
case for tennurial baronies to have survived - in the same way that
the survival of a few English lordships of the manor has no bearing
whatsoever on the issue of 12-13th century English feudal baronies.
(Some manors survived in Ulster - so presumably in the southern
provinces also - at least to the 19th century and some of their
residual manorial rights may still lie with descendants of the then
owners but land reform has meant that they can scarecly be referred to
in the North as manors any more. But baronies certainly not).
As for the fantasists and the fraudsters unless they are "prepared to
present reasonable and balanced arguments", I think it is dishonest of
others not to accept that all Irish "feudal baronies" being touted for
sale are indeed bogus. You cannot make them real merely by repeated
attacks on those who rightly undermine the claims.
Keep up the good work Sean.
Derek Howard

England has never had a "Tenure by Barony," Mr Howard. Barony has
always been an aspect of the nature of tenures held immediately of the
sovereign by knight-service, frankalmoign or grand serjeanty (after
the Abolition of Tenures Act 1660, by socage, too). Look to the
Constitutions of Clarnedon, 1164, as the first and most basic
redaction of England's feudal land law which is largely unchanged to
this day.

Thomas Shalford JurD MPA
formerly, St Thomas More Scholar
Marquette University School of Law

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by e***@verizon.net

Post by Derek Howard

Post by R***@gmail.com
I write to say that it is about time that contributors to rec heraldry
stopped slanging Irish Feudal Baronies. Various ploys are used
including the repititious allegation that most, if not all, Irish
Feudal Baronies are phoney because they have a similar name to Irish
Administrative Baronies. Another favorite is the allegation, largely
justified but old hat, that the so-called "Statutory Declarations"
that often accompanied the sale of phony baronies, are worthless and
misleading and the last, but oft repeated criticism is that the
historical package tracing the history/succession of a given Irish
Feudal Barony is largely irrelevant and usually misleading. So where
does that leave us? Some contributors and this includes priimarily Mr.
Sean Murphy, have worked up such a fever in attempting to discredit
Irish Feudal Baronies that they hammer at it in an unreasoned and
repititious fashion apparently without a clear understanding of the of
historical records and of the enactment of laws in both Ireland and
England as they relate to Irish Feudal Baronies. That is not to imply
that I do either but it would be refreshing to hear the other side.
Perhaps Dr. Cox would be prepared to give some input.
It would be very helpful to have more light (illumata meo) and
fewer unsupported attacks on Irish Feudal Baronies. It is one thing
to warn the public about potential scams but another to relflexively
attack those who value Irish Feudal Baronies as incorporeal
herafditaments in the same way as Scottish Feudal Barons (without
caputs) value their Barony titles- albeit the Scots may have more
complete records. I will welcome some constructive comments about this
and other issues and I would very much appreciate some accurate and
constructive assessments of historical and legal evidence for Irish
Feudal Baronies. The abolition of Feudal Tenures Act of 1662, the
English Law of Property Act(s) circa 1922, and the Honours Prevention
of Abuses Act of 1925 and so on, seem to be quoted willy nilly but
without a full understanding of legal implications of these Acts. Not
too long ago there was a fuss on this site because there was reason to
believe-with dismay- that some aspects of Feudal Law perisist in
Ireland. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies! Ralph Mottram.

A tedious return to the subject. Not one single Irish feudal barony
has been unequivocally shown to exist in the 20th century let alone
the 21st. Simply put they had all disappeared long before the time the
Tudor administrators chose to use the term for the subdivision of a
county.
However, rather than casting around hopefully for someone to provide
arguments to support the sale of these supposed titles, why not take
one of them and do some digging yourself. I am sure we would all be
interested in examining the details of what you find out.
I suggest that it will be very similar to the English feudal baronies
with the added spice that the landholdings, with very few exceptions,
have changed hands, by conquest and reconquest, by settlement, etc.,
so often that it is inconceivable that the tenure in the mid-17th
century was by virtue of a grant of the 12th century. As with the
English case, tenure by barony must be established before you can
argue the case. That disappeared at an early date if it ever existed
in Ireland and I no of no surviving contemporary evidence. Tenure by
military service was also abolished in the 1660s. Land tenure was
further reorganised a number of times in the 19th century and then
there is the regime change of the 20th.
The ball is firmly in the court of the fantasists who make the claims
to prove them. They seem disinclined to do so, prefering to rant
against the repetitions of those who have a clearer understanding of
Irish history and laws. Land is now freehold and not held per
baroniam, nor held by knight service. It is not possible to argue the
absurd position that a freeholder is the tenant in chief (of who in
Ireland?). A baron was only the term for a holder of a barony. No
barony, no baron. A barony in Ireland cannot not exist like a manor in
England, held in gross if supported by residual rights after its
separation from land. It stemmed, as in England, from the manner in
which it was feudally held.
The tenuous and tentative discussion about whether or not some very
minor aspects of feudalism may have survived has no bearing on the
case for tennurial baronies to have survived - in the same way that
the survival of a few English lordships of the manor has no bearing
whatsoever on the issue of 12-13th century English feudal baronies.
(Some manors survived in Ulster - so presumably in the southern
provinces also - at least to the 19th century and some of their
residual manorial rights may still lie with descendants of the then
owners but land reform has meant that they can scarecly be referred to
in the North as manors any more. But baronies certainly not).
As for the fantasists and the fraudsters unless they are "prepared to
present reasonable and balanced arguments", I think it is dishonest of
others not to accept that all Irish "feudal baronies" being touted for
sale are indeed bogus. You cannot make them real merely by repeated
attacks on those who rightly undermine the claims.
Keep up the good work Sean.
Derek Howard

England has never had a "Tenure by Barony," Mr Howard. Barony has
always been an aspect of the nature of tenures held immediately of the
sovereign by knight-service, frankalmoign or grand serjeanty (after
the Abolition of Tenures Act 1660, by socage, too). Look to the
Constitutions of Clarnedon, 1164, as the first and most basic
redaction of England's feudal land law which is largely unchanged to
this day.
Thomas Shalford JurD MPA
formerly, St Thomas More Scholar
Marquette University School of Law

At last, a name. Is this perchance 'Lord Shalford'?

Sean Murphy

[Derek Howard]

Post by e***@verizon.net
England has never had a "Tenure by Barony," Mr Howard. Barony has
always been an aspect of the nature of tenures held immediately of the
sovereign by knight-service, frankalmoign or grand serjeanty (after
the Abolition of Tenures Act 1660, by socage, too). Look to the
Constitutions of Clarnedon, 1164, as the first and most basic
redaction of England's feudal land law which is largely unchanged to
this day.

I assume your typo refers to the Constitutions of Clarendon - text at
<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cclarendon.html>.
This was designed to bring the church under royal control. It is not
what you claim. However, if you claim "England has never had a "Tenure
by Barony" " please see Article 11 of the Constitutions.

You will also wish to read not my words but the words of the authors I
have cited repeatedly in the English feudal barony threads on this
forum in the past couple of years, in particular Sidney Painter:
"Studies in the history of the English feudal baron" and Sanders:
"English Baronies". I doubt Sanders would have been able to identify
those honours held per baroniam if such did not exist!

If you do chose to read the copious correspondence on the English
feudal baronies threads, you will understand that barony was not and
could not be an aspect of tenure after 1660 (and, indeed, hand not
been for centuries before). I need not repeat the details which are
easily googleable.

Post by e***@verizon.net
Thomas Shalford JurD MPA
formerly, St Thomas More Scholar
Marquette University School of Law

Not sure why you put this information here. The MUSoL course
descriptions, at least this year, include nothing on feudalism. Is it
relevant? Is this meant to impress in the absence of argument?

Derek Howard

[Roger Connor]

Post by R***@gmail.com
I write to say that it is about time that contributors to rec heraldry
stopped slanging Irish Feudal Baronies.
<snip> long comment on rec.heraldry's comments on feudal baronies
It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies! Ralph Mottram.

As a mildly interested observer from the U.S., I find the commentary
here interesting, and fairly learned on the subject of feudal baronies.
As yet, however, I've seen no citations of legal opinion that would lead
me to believe that they still exist in the 21st century. I would think
that, like the "hereditary" right to serve wafers to the monarch at the
coronation dinner(?), such has become meaningless. For the most part, I
tend to equate the continued assurances of continuation like the
equivalent honors from the SCA- real only to the extent others are
willing to acknowledge them.

My 2 cents, your milage may vary.
Roger

[Graham Milne]

You will find some useful information on Irish feudal baronies in Burke's
'Extinct Peerage' (p. 627 et seq.). This starts: 'In addition to the
Peerages of Ireland by Creation, included in the body of this work, a MS.,
entitled Baronage of Ireland by Tenure (Ulster's Office), gives the
following lists of Barons of Ireland by Tenure, and by Writ of Summons.'
There follows a list of some three pages of Irish Baronies by Tenure,
followed by lists of writs of summons from 1302 to 1382. If you are
interested I can do a pdf file of the relevant pages.

Graham

Post by R***@gmail.com
I write to say that it is about time that contributors to rec heraldry
stopped slanging Irish Feudal Baronies. Various ploys are used
including the repititious allegation that most, if not all, Irish
Feudal Baronies are phoney because they have a similar name to Irish
Administrative Baronies. Another favorite is the allegation, largely
justified but old hat, that the so-called "Statutory Declarations"
that often accompanied the sale of phony baronies, are worthless and
misleading and the last, but oft repeated criticism is that the
historical package tracing the history/succession of a given Irish
Feudal Barony is largely irrelevant and usually misleading. So where
does that leave us? Some contributors and this includes priimarily Mr.
Sean Murphy, have worked up such a fever in attempting to discredit
Irish Feudal Baronies that they hammer at it in an unreasoned and
repititious fashion apparently without a clear understanding of the of
historical records and of the enactment of laws in both Ireland and
England as they relate to Irish Feudal Baronies. That is not to imply
that I do either but it would be refreshing to hear the other side.
Perhaps Dr. Cox would be prepared to give some input.
It would be very helpful to have more light (illumata meo) and
fewer unsupported attacks on Irish Feudal Baronies. It is one thing
to warn the public about potential scams but another to relflexively
attack those who value Irish Feudal Baronies as incorporeal
herafditaments in the same way as Scottish Feudal Barons (without
caputs) value their Barony titles- albeit the Scots may have more
complete records. I will welcome some constructive comments about this
and other issues and I would very much appreciate some accurate and
constructive assessments of historical and legal evidence for Irish
Feudal Baronies. The abolition of Feudal Tenures Act of 1662, the
English Law of Property Act(s) circa 1922, and the Honours Prevention
of Abuses Act of 1925 and so on, seem to be quoted willy nilly but
without a full understanding of legal implications of these Acts. Not
too long ago there was a fuss on this site because there was reason to
believe-with dismay- that some aspects of Feudal Law perisist in
Ireland. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies! Ralph Mottram.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

I just happen to have my copy of "Extinct Peerages" to hand.....

I think the opening paragraph says it all: ".... It would appear,
however, that these Writs of Summons did not, as in England, create
hereditary peerages descendible to heirs-general." In other words
they did not create any form of incorporeal property, as they would
have done in England if they had been followed by an actual sitting.

The list of barons by tenure and writ is interesting, if only
restricted in the main to the 14th century. Looking through them,
most do appear to be by tenure, eg. Thomas de Clare is listed as "Lord
of Thomond" because he obtained a grant of Thomond. Presumably if he
had been dispossessed of Thomond then he would cease to be Lord of
Thomond. There is no continuation of the lordships into the 15th and
17th centuries and beyond, so I am not quite sure what is the point
Graham is trying to prove here.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================



On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:04:02 +0100, "Graham Milne"

Post by Graham Milne
You will find some useful information on Irish feudal baronies in Burke's
'Extinct Peerage' (p. 627 et seq.). This starts: 'In addition to the
Peerages of Ireland by Creation, included in the body of this work, a MS.,
entitled Baronage of Ireland by Tenure (Ulster's Office), gives the
following lists of Barons of Ireland by Tenure, and by Writ of Summons.'
There follows a list of some three pages of Irish Baronies by Tenure,
followed by lists of writs of summons from 1302 to 1382. If you are
interested I can do a pdf file of the relevant pages.
Graham

Post by R***@gmail.com
I write to say that it is about time that contributors to rec heraldry
stopped slanging Irish Feudal Baronies. Various ploys are used
including the repititious allegation that most, if not all, Irish
Feudal Baronies are phoney because they have a similar name to Irish
Administrative Baronies. Another favorite is the allegation, largely
justified but old hat, that the so-called "Statutory Declarations"
that often accompanied the sale of phony baronies, are worthless and
misleading and the last, but oft repeated criticism is that the
historical package tracing the history/succession of a given Irish
Feudal Barony is largely irrelevant and usually misleading. So where
does that leave us? Some contributors and this includes priimarily Mr.
Sean Murphy, have worked up such a fever in attempting to discredit
Irish Feudal Baronies that they hammer at it in an unreasoned and
repititious fashion apparently without a clear understanding of the of
historical records and of the enactment of laws in both Ireland and
England as they relate to Irish Feudal Baronies. That is not to imply
that I do either but it would be refreshing to hear the other side.
Perhaps Dr. Cox would be prepared to give some input.
It would be very helpful to have more light (illumata meo) and
fewer unsupported attacks on Irish Feudal Baronies. It is one thing
to warn the public about potential scams but another to relflexively
attack those who value Irish Feudal Baronies as incorporeal
herafditaments in the same way as Scottish Feudal Barons (without
caputs) value their Barony titles- albeit the Scots may have more
complete records. I will welcome some constructive comments about this
and other issues and I would very much appreciate some accurate and
constructive assessments of historical and legal evidence for Irish
Feudal Baronies. The abolition of Feudal Tenures Act of 1662, the
English Law of Property Act(s) circa 1922, and the Honours Prevention
of Abuses Act of 1925 and so on, seem to be quoted willy nilly but
without a full understanding of legal implications of these Acts. Not
too long ago there was a fuss on this site because there was reason to
believe-with dismay- that some aspects of Feudal Law perisist in
Ireland. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies! Ralph Mottram.

[Graham Milne]

Patrick,

I was not trying to prove a point. I was merely mentioning a 'source' that I
happened to have noticed that I think others might have missed. It's up to
others what they make of the information. I don't have a yardtsick to judge
it by. All I will say is that someone who one would have thought was pretty
knowledgeable clearly believes that Irish feudal baronies did exist. That is
a starting point.

Graham

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
I just happen to have my copy of "Extinct Peerages" to hand.....
I think the opening paragraph says it all: ".... It would appear,
however, that these Writs of Summons did not, as in England, create
hereditary peerages descendible to heirs-general." In other words
they did not create any form of incorporeal property, as they would
have done in England if they had been followed by an actual sitting.
The list of barons by tenure and writ is interesting, if only
restricted in the main to the 14th century. Looking through them,
most do appear to be by tenure, eg. Thomas de Clare is listed as "Lord
of Thomond" because he obtained a grant of Thomond. Presumably if he
had been dispossessed of Thomond then he would cease to be Lord of
Thomond. There is no continuation of the lordships into the 15th and
17th centuries and beyond, so I am not quite sure what is the point
Graham is trying to prove here.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================
On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:04:02 +0100, "Graham Milne"

Post by Graham Milne
You will find some useful information on Irish feudal baronies in Burke's
'Extinct Peerage' (p. 627 et seq.). This starts: 'In addition to the
Peerages of Ireland by Creation, included in the body of this work, a MS.,
entitled Baronage of Ireland by Tenure (Ulster's Office), gives the
following lists of Barons of Ireland by Tenure, and by Writ of Summons.'
There follows a list of some three pages of Irish Baronies by Tenure,
followed by lists of writs of summons from 1302 to 1382. If you are
interested I can do a pdf file of the relevant pages.
Graham

Post by R***@gmail.com
I write to say that it is about time that contributors to rec heraldry
stopped slanging Irish Feudal Baronies. Various ploys are used
including the repititious allegation that most, if not all, Irish
Feudal Baronies are phoney because they have a similar name to Irish
Administrative Baronies. Another favorite is the allegation, largely
justified but old hat, that the so-called "Statutory Declarations"
that often accompanied the sale of phony baronies, are worthless and
misleading and the last, but oft repeated criticism is that the
historical package tracing the history/succession of a given Irish
Feudal Barony is largely irrelevant and usually misleading. So where
does that leave us? Some contributors and this includes priimarily Mr.
Sean Murphy, have worked up such a fever in attempting to discredit
Irish Feudal Baronies that they hammer at it in an unreasoned and
repititious fashion apparently without a clear understanding of the of
historical records and of the enactment of laws in both Ireland and
England as they relate to Irish Feudal Baronies. That is not to imply
that I do either but it would be refreshing to hear the other side.
Perhaps Dr. Cox would be prepared to give some input.
It would be very helpful to have more light (illumata meo) and
fewer unsupported attacks on Irish Feudal Baronies. It is one thing
to warn the public about potential scams but another to relflexively
attack those who value Irish Feudal Baronies as incorporeal
herafditaments in the same way as Scottish Feudal Barons (without
caputs) value their Barony titles- albeit the Scots may have more
complete records. I will welcome some constructive comments about this
and other issues and I would very much appreciate some accurate and
constructive assessments of historical and legal evidence for Irish
Feudal Baronies. The abolition of Feudal Tenures Act of 1662, the
English Law of Property Act(s) circa 1922, and the Honours Prevention
of Abuses Act of 1925 and so on, seem to be quoted willy nilly but
without a full understanding of legal implications of these Acts. Not
too long ago there was a fuss on this site because there was reason to
believe-with dismay- that some aspects of Feudal Law perisist in
Ireland. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies! Ralph Mottram.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:59:58 +0100, "Graham Milne"

Post by Graham Milne
Patrick,
I was not trying to prove a point. I was merely mentioning a 'source' that I
happened to have noticed that I think others might have missed. It's up to
others what they make of the information. I don't have a yardtsick to judge
it by. All I will say is that someone who one would have thought was pretty
knowledgeable clearly believes that Irish feudal baronies did exist. That is
a starting point.
Graham

Graham

Point taken!

Patrick


Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

[Biggar]

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:59:58 +0100, "Graham Milne"

Post by Graham Milne
Patrick,
I was not trying to prove a point. I was merely mentioning a 'source' that I
happened to have noticed that I think others might have missed. It's up to
others what they make of the information. I don't have a yardtsick to judge
it by. All I will say is that someone who one would have thought was pretty
knowledgeable clearly believes that Irish feudal baronies did exist. That is
a starting point.
Graham

Graham
Point taken!
Patrick
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetagewww.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

A major problem for me, as a bear of very little brain, is to
ascertain what exactly the law today *is*. What the drafters of the
law several centuries ago *wanted/intended* (or didn't want/intend!)
to do is one thing, what they actually *did* (or didn't) effect
*legally* is another; these two things may, indeed, on occasion, be
identical (wouldn't it be lovely if they always were?!), but the
various interpretations offered in this forum of how the law actually
stands today, seem to me to be just that, viz. "interpretations".
(Purely as an aside - alas, we must also recognise, that The House of
Lords in its rulings in the past, according to some commentators I
have read, made on occasion very biased ('political') judgements, not
based fairly and squarely on the law then obtaining - which
judgements,however, are law; well, no one is perfect, I suppose). De
jure (and we are here concerned with the law, are we not?) feudal
barons (to pick an example at random) *may* have still the right to
sit in Parliament, de facto we can forget it. What interests me
personally is not the de facto situation but the de jure one. Here, as
an absolute layman, I find it easier to follow G S-M's arguments (I do
not say I have found them conclusive yet) since they are of the "if it
ain't been clearly repealed, the law is as it is" type. It does seem
to me that law-makers in the past very often drafted very defective
laws i.e. terribly open to interpretation (and apparently they still
do it).
I am not pining for a seat in the House - but if I could show that
under the law it is my right, then I would be prepared to discuss
whether I should act as a responsible citizen and attend.

Whizzing into modern times, as an EU citizen, living outside UK, I
have no vote in UK elections; I also have no vote in the elections of
the EU country where I live. I'm voteless, but not stateless.... what
are the EU law-makers up to? Whaur's yur democracy noo? I suppose
they're just like the chaps in the 17th century.....sigh

[Sean J Murphy]

***@gmail.com wrote:

. . . . .

Post by R***@gmail.com
I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies!

When I see a real surviving Irish feudal barony, I will be able to give
a positive account of it. I have asked for evidence to show that Strutt
and Parker's latest offerings of the Baronies of Castleknock,
Clanwilliam and Carrigaline are authentic. The case studies on my
webpage at
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/feudaltitles.htm are
reasoned and referenced. Consider again the alleged Barony of Clare
offered for sale for Manorial Auctioneers, whereby an Irish
administrative barony was by sleight of hand associated with the
completely unrelated English Honour of Clare. Or the case of the
fabricated Lordship of the Manor of Mount Nagle emanating from Anthony
Boada Cartaya. Or the Barony of Knockgraffon, again offered for sale by
Manorial Auctioneers, which can be documented in medieval times but
cannot be shown to have survived into the modern period.

Sean Murphy

[Graham Milne]

You should not try to tar all Irish baronies with the same brush. While
there have undoubtedly been some fraudulent sales of non-existent baronies,
you have a problem getting round certain basic legal facts:

1. A barony is a creation of the Crown and it can only be destroyed by the
Crown. Once created, a barony continues to exist in law forever (I will
repeat that - FOREVER) until destroyed by another act of the Crown (e.g. an
Act of Parliament).
2. The Acts of 1660 (in England) and 1662 (in Ireland) specifically
preserved not only baronial titles but the also baronies by tenure. You get
confused between the abolition of tenure by barony and the continuance of
baronies by tenure; that tenure was free and common socage.
3. Irish feudal baronies have survived until today, which is why there is a
Bill under consideration which tries to abolish the feudal system (Clearly,
if the feudal system did not exist, there would be no need to abolish it -
rather telling I think).
4. Irish feudal baronies will surivive any attempt to abolish them because
they are property rights protected by the European Convention on Human
Rights (which is a huge annoyance to people who hate the things).

And that, gentlemen, in a nutshell, is that. Toodle pip!

Post by Sean J Murphy
. . . . .

Post by R***@gmail.com
I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies!

When I see a real surviving Irish feudal barony, I will be able to give a
positive account of it. I have asked for evidence to show that Strutt and
Parker's latest offerings of the Baronies of Castleknock, Clanwilliam and
Carrigaline are authentic. The case studies on my webpage at
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/feudaltitles.htm are
reasoned and referenced. Consider again the alleged Barony of Clare
offered for sale for Manorial Auctioneers, whereby an Irish administrative
barony was by sleight of hand associated with the completely unrelated
English Honour of Clare. Or the case of the fabricated Lordship of the
Manor of Mount Nagle emanating from Anthony Boada Cartaya. Or the Barony
of Knockgraffon, again offered for sale by Manorial Auctioneers, which can
be documented in medieval times but cannot be shown to have survived into
the modern period.
Sean Murphy

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by Graham Milne
You should not try to tar all Irish baronies with the same brush. While
there have undoubtedly been some fraudulent sales of non-existent

'Some' fraudulent sales? Can you cite even one properly documented Irish
feudal barony sold in recent years? Manorial Auctioneers has now removed
from its website at http://www.msgb.co.uk/Titles.html the names of the
titles it purveys, which hardly indicates confidence in their authenticity.

Post by Graham Milne
1. A barony is a creation of the Crown and it can only be destroyed by
the Crown. Once created, a barony continues to exist in law forever (I
will repeat that - FOREVER) until destroyed by another act of the Crown
(e.g. an Act of Parliament).
2. The Acts of 1660 (in England) and 1662 (in Ireland) specifically
preserved not only baronial titles but the also baronies by tenure. You
get confused between the abolition of tenure by barony and the
continuance of baronies by tenure; that tenure was free and common socage.
3. Irish feudal baronies have survived until today, which is why there
is a Bill under consideration which tries to abolish the feudal system
(Clearly, if the feudal system did not exist, there would be no need to
abolish it - rather telling I think).
4. Irish feudal baronies will surivive any attempt to abolish them
because they are property rights protected by the European Convention on
Human Rights (which is a huge annoyance to people who hate the things).
And that, gentlemen, in a nutshell, is that. Toodle pip!

We have been through this before: Section 13 of the Irish Tenures
Abolition Act 1662 was designed to protect the rights of peers, not to
open the door to claims based on redundant feudal titles. One area where
I have stated I have amended my position is the survival of residues of
feudalism in relation to ownership of land in the Republic of Ireland,
which are indeed currently being considered for abolition by the
legislators.

Sean Murphy

[Graham Milne]

I do not know the details of individual sales. I don't have to. The simple
fact of the matter is that all Irish feudal baronies ever created still
exist in law (until destroyed by an act of the Crown). As far as the 1662
Act is concerned, you simply will not accept the plain meaning of words
because they don't say what you want them to say. The 1660 Act stated that
the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any title of honour, feudal or other, by
which any person hath or might have right to sit in the Lords House of
Parliament, as to his or their title of honour, or sitting in Parliament,
and the privilege belonging to them as Peers'. I assume the 1662 act is
identical. The meaning of these words is quite clear; it quite specifically
states that the act does not infringe any feudal title by which a person
might have a right to sit in the House of Lords. To deny this is like saying
black is white; it is lying. It actually says 'any title of honour, feudal
or other'. It is quite plain that the intention of the act was to ensure
that the abolition of military tenures did not affect any right to sit in
the House of Lords attached to such tenures; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
WHATSOEVER to do with personal (as opposed to feudal) titles for the simple
reason that since they were not in any way affected by the Act, there was no
need to protect any right to sit attached to them. How simple does it have
to be, Mr. Murphy? Really, a child could work that out.

Post by Sean J Murphy

Post by Graham Milne
You should not try to tar all Irish baronies with the same brush. While
there have undoubtedly been some fraudulent sales of non-existent

'Some' fraudulent sales? Can you cite even one properly documented Irish
feudal barony sold in recent years? Manorial Auctioneers has now removed
from its website at http://www.msgb.co.uk/Titles.html the names of the
titles it purveys, which hardly indicates confidence in their
authenticity.

Post by Graham Milne
1. A barony is a creation of the Crown and it can only be destroyed by
the Crown. Once created, a barony continues to exist in law forever (I
will repeat that - FOREVER) until destroyed by another act of the Crown
(e.g. an Act of Parliament).
2. The Acts of 1660 (in England) and 1662 (in Ireland) specifically
preserved not only baronial titles but the also baronies by tenure. You
get confused between the abolition of tenure by barony and the
continuance of baronies by tenure; that tenure was free and common socage.
3. Irish feudal baronies have survived until today, which is why there is
a Bill under consideration which tries to abolish the feudal system
(Clearly, if the feudal system did not exist, there would be no need to
abolish it - rather telling I think).
4. Irish feudal baronies will surivive any attempt to abolish them
because they are property rights protected by the European Convention on
Human Rights (which is a huge annoyance to people who hate the things).
And that, gentlemen, in a nutshell, is that. Toodle pip!

We have been through this before: Section 13 of the Irish Tenures
Abolition Act 1662 was designed to protect the rights of peers, not to
open the door to claims based on redundant feudal titles. One area where I
have stated I have amended my position is the survival of residues of
feudalism in relation to ownership of land in the Republic of Ireland,
which are indeed currently being considered for abolition by the
legislators.
Sean Murphy

[Derek Howard]

Post by Graham Milne
I do not know the details of individual sales. I don't have to. The simple
fact of the matter is that all Irish feudal baronies ever created still
exist in law (until destroyed by an act of the Crown). As far as the 1662
Act is concerned, you simply will not accept the plain meaning of words
because they don't say what you want them to say. The 1660 Act stated that
the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any title of honour, feudal or other, by
which any person hath or might have right to sit in the Lords House of
Parliament, as to his or their title of honour, or sitting in Parliament,
and the privilege belonging to them as Peers'. I assume the 1662 act is
identical.

My transcription of the whole 1662 Irish Act is on Sean's website.
<http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/tenuresact.htm>.
"XIII. Provided also, that neither this act, nor any thing therein
contained, shall infringe or hurt any title of honour, foedal or
other, by which any person hath or may have right to sit in the lords
house of Parliament, as to his or their title of honour or sitting in
Parliament, and the privileges belonging to them as peers; this act or
any thing therein contained to the contrary in any wise
notwithstanding."

The 1660 English Act as printed in Statutes of the Realm: volume 5:
1628-80 (1819), pp. 259-66, is on-line at : <http://www.british-
history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=47272>.
X. Proviso touching Titles of Honour, Feodal, &c.
"Provided alsoe That neither this Act nor any thing therein contained
shall infringe or hurt any Title of Honour Feodall or other by which
any Person hath or may have right to sitt in the Lords of Parliament
as to his or their Title of Honour or sitting in Parliament, and the
priviledge belonging to them as Peeres. This Act or any thing therein
contained to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."

Post by Graham Milne
The meaning of these words is quite clear; it quite specifically
states that the act does not infringe any feudal title by which a person
might have a right to sit in the House of Lords. To deny this is like saying
black is white; it is lying. It actually says 'any title of honour, feudal
or other'. It is quite plain that the intention of the act was to ensure
that the abolition of military tenures did not affect any right to sit in
the House of Lords attached to such tenures; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
WHATSOEVER to do with personal (as opposed to feudal) titles for the simple
reason that since they were not in any way affected by the Act, there was no
need to protect any right to sit attached to them. How simple does it have
to be, Mr. Murphy? Really, a child could work that out.

We have been through this before extensively in relation to the
English case. Tenurial baronies did not create an entitlement to a
seat in the House of Lords. All members of the HoL in Ireland after
the 15th century were there by virtue of a peerage by writ, a peerage
by patent or being holders of an office. The Irish copied the English
legislation in respect of this proviso.

It is likely that the thinking in the English case behind the late
amendment to the bill that became this Section related to such offices
as the Constable and the Earl Marshal (IIRC these posts, when
required, were held in Commission). The office holders amongst the
Lords who approved the English bill were the Lord Treasurer, Lord
Steward, Lord Chamberlain and Lord Chancellor. None of the other
English lords then sat in the HoL by virtue of a feudal holding.

The Lords in the English case had wanted to amend the bill with the
proviso: "That neither this Act, nor any thing therein contained,
shall infringe or hurt any Title of Honour or other . . by which any
Person hath or may have Right to sit in the Lords House of Parliament,
notwithstanding the taking away of Tenures in Knights Service; but
that the said Honours shall remain in Force, to all Intents and
Purposes, as if the said Tenures in Knights Service had not been taken
away by this Act;". However, the Commons in reply resolved that "After
the Word "Parliament,"these Words be added, viz. "As to his or their
Title of Honour, or Sitting in Parliament, and the Privilege belonging
to them as Peers; this Act, or any thing therein contained to the
contrary in any wise notwithstanding:" And that the rest of the
Proviso be omitted" [Commons Journal]. That was the version - with the
removal of "said Honours shall remain in Force..." etc. - which was
enacted by the King - in person - in Parliament on 24 December 1660.
One can conclude that even where or if there may have hypothetically
been honours associated with a feudal holding, these were NOT to
remain in force.

Incidentally, citing the English Act, I may add that "And that all
Tenures by Knights service of the King, or of any other person and by
Knights service in Capite, and by Soccage in Capite of the King and
the fruits and consequents thereof happened or which shall or may
hereafter happen or arise thereupon or thereby be taken away and
discharged". Note "Soccage in Capite" is not free and common soccage.
The argument that you have put forward a number of times to the effect
that this is merely another form of holding in capite of the King is
silly.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by Graham Milne
1. A barony is a creation of the Crown and it can only be destroyed by
the Crown. Once created, a barony continues to exist in law forever (I
will repeat that - FOREVER) until destroyed by another act of the Crown
(e.g. an Act of Parliament).

Given that territorial baronies were not titles of honour, nor
dignities, they were/are not incorporeal hereditaments. They do not
float free of the land. They do not descend as dignities. What was
granted was (the accepted accademic presumtion, in the absence of the
original grants) a territory to be held by services, 'in baroniam' in
the English cases, with perhaps some franchises. Occasionally Irish
lords called themselves "baron" as a result (Normans often being more
egalitarian with each other in a colonial situation when the King was
nowhere to be seen). English lords were called "lord of the honour of
X".

Post by Graham Milne

Post by Graham Milne
2. The Acts of 1660 (in England) and 1662 (in Ireland) specifically
preserved not only baronial titles but the also baronies by tenure. You
get confused between the abolition of tenure by barony and the
continuance of baronies by tenure; that tenure was free and common socage.

You get confused between the survival of a land holding and the manner
of its tenure. As the holdings were henceforth to be by free and
common sokage, they were not held by tenure in baroniam nor any other
military tenure and so could not support the claim to be a barony. No
barony, no baron.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by Graham Milne
3. Irish feudal baronies have survived until today, which is why there is
a Bill under consideration which tries to abolish the feudal system
(Clearly, if the feudal system did not exist, there would be no need to
abolish it - rather telling I think).

The abolition of residual feudal elements is far removed from
baronies.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by Graham Milne
4. Irish feudal baronies will surivive any attempt to abolish them
because they are property rights protected by the European Convention on
Human Rights (which is a huge annoyance to people who hate the things).

They are not personal property and were not when they existed. It is
interesting that Burke, an Irish King of Arms, chose to put them in
his *Extinct* peerage to which you yourself have referred us.

Derek Howard

[Graham Milne]

1. The words of the Act are clear; they refer to 'titles of honour' feudal
or other' (thus, by the way, acknowledging that there is such a thing as a
feudal title of honour - but feudal baronies are referred to as titles of
honour by authoritative sources, quoted on my site, so there can be no
argument on that point). It is a rule of interpretation what when the words
of an Act are clear, that is the end of the matter. Recourse to debates in a
court can only be made where the words are unclear. The words in the Act, if
clear, are BY LAW taken to reflect the intention of Parliament; so you can
quote away, it doesn't make any difference. The law is the law. Your furious
digging into peripheral matters merely demonstrates your desperation. I will
sail on calmly in the meantime - and why not, since I know I am right?

2. Tenurial baronies did create a right to a seat in the House of Lords. The
consent of tenants in chief was required for extraordinary aids (i.e.
effectively all public taxation). Try running a government without any money
sometime. Read the Lords Reports on the Dignity of a Peer (p. 54 I seem to
remember).

3. You are getting confused about the effect of the Act. Feudal baronial
titles were preserved by the Act. There is nothing in the Act that
specifically states or necessarily implies that these titles were to become
personal titles, so they remained attached to the land, held by free and
common socage (which was the only tenure they could be held by). The same
thing happened to the honourable services of grand sergeantry. This latter
fact is undisputed but you don't seem to realize the implications.

4. Ergo. Feudal baronial titles were preserved by the Act, as was a right to
sit in the House of Lords, and the titles continued to be attached to the
land, held by free and common socage.

Next question.

Post by Derek Howard

Post by Graham Milne
I do not know the details of individual sales. I don't have to. The simple
fact of the matter is that all Irish feudal baronies ever created still
exist in law (until destroyed by an act of the Crown). As far as the 1662
Act is concerned, you simply will not accept the plain meaning of words
because they don't say what you want them to say. The 1660 Act stated that
the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any title of honour, feudal or other, by
which any person hath or might have right to sit in the Lords House of
Parliament, as to his or their title of honour, or sitting in Parliament,
and the privilege belonging to them as Peers'. I assume the 1662 act is
identical.

My transcription of the whole 1662 Irish Act is on Sean's website.
<http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/tenuresact.htm>.
"XIII. Provided also, that neither this act, nor any thing therein
contained, shall infringe or hurt any title of honour, foedal or
other, by which any person hath or may have right to sit in the lords
house of Parliament, as to his or their title of honour or sitting in
Parliament, and the privileges belonging to them as peers; this act or
any thing therein contained to the contrary in any wise
notwithstanding."
1628-80 (1819), pp. 259-66, is on-line at : <http://www.british-
history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=47272>.
X. Proviso touching Titles of Honour, Feodal, &c.
"Provided alsoe That neither this Act nor any thing therein contained
shall infringe or hurt any Title of Honour Feodall or other by which
any Person hath or may have right to sitt in the Lords of Parliament
as to his or their Title of Honour or sitting in Parliament, and the
priviledge belonging to them as Peeres. This Act or any thing therein
contained to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."

Post by Graham Milne
The meaning of these words is quite clear; it quite specifically
states that the act does not infringe any feudal title by which a person
might have a right to sit in the House of Lords. To deny this is like saying
black is white; it is lying. It actually says 'any title of honour, feudal
or other'. It is quite plain that the intention of the act was to ensure
that the abolition of military tenures did not affect any right to sit in
the House of Lords attached to such tenures; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
WHATSOEVER to do with personal (as opposed to feudal) titles for the simple
reason that since they were not in any way affected by the Act, there was no
need to protect any right to sit attached to them. How simple does it have
to be, Mr. Murphy? Really, a child could work that out.

We have been through this before extensively in relation to the
English case. Tenurial baronies did not create an entitlement to a
seat in the House of Lords. All members of the HoL in Ireland after
the 15th century were there by virtue of a peerage by writ, a peerage
by patent or being holders of an office. The Irish copied the English
legislation in respect of this proviso.
It is likely that the thinking in the English case behind the late
amendment to the bill that became this Section related to such offices
as the Constable and the Earl Marshal (IIRC these posts, when
required, were held in Commission). The office holders amongst the
Lords who approved the English bill were the Lord Treasurer, Lord
Steward, Lord Chamberlain and Lord Chancellor. None of the other
English lords then sat in the HoL by virtue of a feudal holding.
The Lords in the English case had wanted to amend the bill with the
proviso: "That neither this Act, nor any thing therein contained,
shall infringe or hurt any Title of Honour or other . . by which any
Person hath or may have Right to sit in the Lords House of Parliament,
notwithstanding the taking away of Tenures in Knights Service; but
that the said Honours shall remain in Force, to all Intents and
Purposes, as if the said Tenures in Knights Service had not been taken
away by this Act;". However, the Commons in reply resolved that "After
the Word "Parliament,"these Words be added, viz. "As to his or their
Title of Honour, or Sitting in Parliament, and the Privilege belonging
to them as Peers; this Act, or any thing therein contained to the
contrary in any wise notwithstanding:" And that the rest of the
Proviso be omitted" [Commons Journal]. That was the version - with the
removal of "said Honours shall remain in Force..." etc. - which was
enacted by the King - in person - in Parliament on 24 December 1660.
One can conclude that even where or if there may have hypothetically
been honours associated with a feudal holding, these were NOT to
remain in force.
Incidentally, citing the English Act, I may add that "And that all
Tenures by Knights service of the King, or of any other person and by
Knights service in Capite, and by Soccage in Capite of the King and
the fruits and consequents thereof happened or which shall or may
hereafter happen or arise thereupon or thereby be taken away and
discharged". Note "Soccage in Capite" is not free and common soccage.
The argument that you have put forward a number of times to the effect
that this is merely another form of holding in capite of the King is
silly.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by Graham Milne
1. A barony is a creation of the Crown and it can only be destroyed by
the Crown. Once created, a barony continues to exist in law forever (I
will repeat that - FOREVER) until destroyed by another act of the Crown
(e.g. an Act of Parliament).

Given that territorial baronies were not titles of honour, nor
dignities, they were/are not incorporeal hereditaments. They do not
float free of the land. They do not descend as dignities. What was
granted was (the accepted accademic presumtion, in the absence of the
original grants) a territory to be held by services, 'in baroniam' in
the English cases, with perhaps some franchises. Occasionally Irish
lords called themselves "baron" as a result (Normans often being more
egalitarian with each other in a colonial situation when the King was
nowhere to be seen). English lords were called "lord of the honour of
X".

Post by Graham Milne

Post by Graham Milne
2. The Acts of 1660 (in England) and 1662 (in Ireland) specifically
preserved not only baronial titles but the also baronies by tenure. You
get confused between the abolition of tenure by barony and the
continuance of baronies by tenure; that tenure was free and common socage.

You get confused between the survival of a land holding and the manner
of its tenure. As the holdings were henceforth to be by free and
common sokage, they were not held by tenure in baroniam nor any other
military tenure and so could not support the claim to be a barony. No
barony, no baron.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by Graham Milne
3. Irish feudal baronies have survived until today, which is why there is
a Bill under consideration which tries to abolish the feudal system
(Clearly, if the feudal system did not exist, there would be no need to
abolish it - rather telling I think).

The abolition of residual feudal elements is far removed from
baronies.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by Graham Milne
4. Irish feudal baronies will surivive any attempt to abolish them
because they are property rights protected by the European Convention on
Human Rights (which is a huge annoyance to people who hate the things).

They are not personal property and were not when they existed. It is
interesting that Burke, an Irish King of Arms, chose to put them in
his *Extinct* peerage to which you yourself have referred us.
Derek Howard

[h***@mail.ru]

Post by Graham Milne
4. Ergo. Feudal baronial titles were preserved by the Act, as was a right to
sit in the House of Lords, and the titles continued to be attached to the
land, held by free and common socage.
Next question.

Not particularly a question but more a matter of curiosity really:
I have often wondered why, when the possible loss of a saleable asset
for Scottish feudal barons caused deep thinking to prevent millions of
pounds worth of claims being advanced, not one hereditary peer has
sued for loss of a living (the lucrative right to claim expenses for
sitting in the upper house) and the loss to successive generations of
the right to be a participant in Government?

I am quite sure that the allowances for sitting in the upper house
would have been deeply missed by more than one peer; this may of
course be why we have, since 1999, seen one or two peers selling their
feudal baronies, they have to replace those lost expenses by
something!

Just thought of a question for you Graham:
Do you still maintain that you have a right to sit in parliament as a
Scottish baron, if so, which parliament and why?

Nicholas

[Graham Milne]

In practical terms the right to sit in the House of Lords is primarly a
constitutional right, not a property right as such, though peerages are a
form of property. On this basis an argument could be made to the effect that
the loss of the right to sit amounts to the loss of a personal property
right; the problem is that no court would accept such an argument,
regardless of its technical merits.

With regard to your second question, the right of feudal barons to sit in
the Scottish Parliament as barons existed at the time of union, so feudal
barons were peers of Scotland under clause 23 of the Act of Union. All peers
of Scotland became entitled to sit in the House of Lords as a result of the
Peerage Act 1963. So the answer to your question is that I believe that, in
law, Scottish feudal barons acquired the right to sit in the House of Lords
in 1963; the problem is that no court would accept such an argument,
regardless of its technical merits.

With regard to the Scottish Parliament, I understand that the final
pre-union Parliament was never formally dissolved and that the current
Parliament is regarded in law as a continuation of the pre-union Parliament.
Quite where this gets us is anyone's guess, though not into the Scottish
Parliament I would guess; the problem is that no court would accept such an
argument, regardless of its technical merits.

However, the fact that something is impossible merely spurs me on at
times.....

Yours,

Don ('Where's the next windmill?') Quixote

Post by h***@mail.ru

Post by Graham Milne
4. Ergo. Feudal baronial titles were preserved by the Act, as was a right to
sit in the House of Lords, and the titles continued to be attached to the
land, held by free and common socage.
Next question.

I have often wondered why, when the possible loss of a saleable asset
for Scottish feudal barons caused deep thinking to prevent millions of
pounds worth of claims being advanced, not one hereditary peer has
sued for loss of a living (the lucrative right to claim expenses for
sitting in the upper house) and the loss to successive generations of
the right to be a participant in Government?
I am quite sure that the allowances for sitting in the upper house
would have been deeply missed by more than one peer; this may of
course be why we have, since 1999, seen one or two peers selling their
feudal baronies, they have to replace those lost expenses by
something!
Do you still maintain that you have a right to sit in parliament as a
Scottish baron, if so, which parliament and why?
Nicholas

[Derek Howard]

Graham Milne wrote:
<snip> of most of the points which were made ad nauseam in the English
feudal baronies threads in previous years. Points which were
comprehensively examined and found to be inaccurate then, a year or
two has changed nothing.

Post by Graham Milne
2. Tenurial baronies did create a right to a seat in the House of Lords. The
consent of tenants in chief was required for extraordinary aids (i.e.
effectively all public taxation). Try running a government without any money
sometime. Read the Lords Reports on the Dignity of a Peer (p. 54 I seem to
remember).

Still repeating matters previously examined here in great detail and
where I provided many tens of pages of evidence that your assertions
were incorrect as to the right to sit and as to the requirement
regarding taxation.

Post by Graham Milne
3. You are getting confused about the effect of the Act. Feudal baronial
titles were preserved by the Act. There is nothing in the Act that
specifically states or necessarily implies that these titles were to become
personal titles, so they remained attached to the land, held by free and
common socage (which was the only tenure they could be held by). The same
thing happened to the honourable services of grand sergeantry. This latter
fact is undisputed but you don't seem to realize the implications.

They did not remain attached to the land. None remained in 1660 - I
have cited Selden a far better witness to contemporary matters of
title. We have examined this in great depth before. You are getting
tiring on this. You have even admitted previously that you liked
arguing for its own sake. No one has ever produced a grant of an
English territorial barony as a title of honour and no territorial
baron in England used them as such. See the evidence posted here
before, which you may wish to forget but others won't or can google
them easily.

This thread is in any case about Irish baronies and you are welcome to
bring forward new unexamined evidence (please do - your list of Irish
baronies from Burke's *Extinct* Peerage could be a start) but
incanting your mantra will not change the evidence I and others have
provided on this forum over the years.

<snip of repetitious rubbish>

Derek Howard

[Graham Milne]

You can provide 10,000 pages of 'evidence' but it doesn't alter the simple
meaning of English words. Your problem is that you won't acccept that
meaning, so you resort to every possible (red herring) argument, such as
claiming that feudal baronies were not titles of honour (nonsense - see the
Berkeley peerage case) or that feudal barons had no right to sit in the
House of Lords (they did - see The Lords Reports on the Dignity of a Peer),
or even, at one point, that feudal baronies never existed! Seriously, folks!
It's true! (Gor blimey! Who signed Magna Carta?) What you don't mention is
that it only takes a 2 line argument to dismiss your 10,000 pages of
evidence. Mind you, I am concerned that you are in danger of filling the
whole of cyberspace with your 'evidence'.

Post by Derek Howard
<snip> of most of the points which were made ad nauseam in the English
feudal baronies threads in previous years. Points which were
comprehensively examined and found to be inaccurate then, a year or
two has changed nothing.

Post by Graham Milne
2. Tenurial baronies did create a right to a seat in the House of Lords. The
consent of tenants in chief was required for extraordinary aids (i.e.
effectively all public taxation). Try running a government without any money
sometime. Read the Lords Reports on the Dignity of a Peer (p. 54 I seem to
remember).

Still repeating matters previously examined here in great detail and
where I provided many tens of pages of evidence that your assertions
were incorrect as to the right to sit and as to the requirement
regarding taxation.

Post by Graham Milne
3. You are getting confused about the effect of the Act. Feudal baronial
titles were preserved by the Act. There is nothing in the Act that
specifically states or necessarily implies that these titles were to become
personal titles, so they remained attached to the land, held by free and
common socage (which was the only tenure they could be held by). The same
thing happened to the honourable services of grand sergeantry. This latter
fact is undisputed but you don't seem to realize the implications.

They did not remain attached to the land. None remained in 1660 - I
have cited Selden a far better witness to contemporary matters of
title. We have examined this in great depth before. You are getting
tiring on this. You have even admitted previously that you liked
arguing for its own sake. No one has ever produced a grant of an
English territorial barony as a title of honour and no territorial
baron in England used them as such. See the evidence posted here
before, which you may wish to forget but others won't or can google
them easily.
This thread is in any case about Irish baronies and you are welcome to
bring forward new unexamined evidence (please do - your list of Irish
baronies from Burke's *Extinct* Peerage could be a start) but
incanting your mantra will not change the evidence I and others have
provided on this forum over the years.
<snip of repetitious rubbish>
Derek Howard

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

Post by Derek Howard
<snip> of most of the points which were made ad nauseam in the English
feudal baronies threads in previous years. Points which were
comprehensively examined and found to be inaccurate then, a year or
two has changed nothing.

Post by Graham Milne
2. Tenurial baronies did create a right to a seat in the House of Lords. The
consent of tenants in chief was required for extraordinary aids (i.e.
effectively all public taxation). Try running a government without any money
sometime. Read the Lords Reports on the Dignity of a Peer (p. 54 I seem to
remember).

Still repeating matters previously examined here in great detail and
where I provided many tens of pages of evidence that your assertions
were incorrect as to the right to sit and as to the requirement
regarding taxation.

Post by Graham Milne
3. You are getting confused about the effect of the Act. Feudal baronial
titles were preserved by the Act. There is nothing in the Act that
specifically states or necessarily implies that these titles were to become
personal titles, so they remained attached to the land, held by free and
common socage (which was the only tenure they could be held by). The same
thing happened to the honourable services of grand sergeantry. This latter
fact is undisputed but you don't seem to realize the implications.

They did not remain attached to the land. None remained in 1660 - I
have cited Selden a far better witness to contemporary matters of
title. We have examined this in great depth before. You are getting
tiring on this. You have even admitted previously that you liked
arguing for its own sake. No one has ever produced a grant of an
English territorial barony as a title of honour and no territorial
baron in England used them as such. See the evidence posted here
before, which you may wish to forget but others won't or can google
them easily.
This thread is in any case about Irish baronies and you are welcome to
bring forward new unexamined evidence (please do - your list of Irish
baronies from Burke's *Extinct* Peerage could be a start) but
incanting your mantra will not change the evidence I and others have
provided on this forum over the years.
<snip of repetitious rubbish>
Derek Howard

Why don't we just put the whole question to a vote?

Patrick

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

[Mark E Sievert]

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

Post by Derek Howard
<snip of repetitious rubbish>
Derek Howard

Why don't we just put the whole question to a vote?

Okay, I vote we start a rec.feudal.barony newsgroup.

MES

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Patrick
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

[Graham Milne]

We can't have that! I might win - and then I wouldn't have a lost cause to
fight for.

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

Post by Derek Howard
<snip> of most of the points which were made ad nauseam in the English
feudal baronies threads in previous years. Points which were
comprehensively examined and found to be inaccurate then, a year or
two has changed nothing.

Post by Graham Milne
2. Tenurial baronies did create a right to a seat in the House of Lords. The
consent of tenants in chief was required for extraordinary aids (i.e.
effectively all public taxation). Try running a government without any money
sometime. Read the Lords Reports on the Dignity of a Peer (p. 54 I seem to
remember).

Still repeating matters previously examined here in great detail and
where I provided many tens of pages of evidence that your assertions
were incorrect as to the right to sit and as to the requirement
regarding taxation.

Post by Graham Milne
3. You are getting confused about the effect of the Act. Feudal baronial
titles were preserved by the Act. There is nothing in the Act that
specifically states or necessarily implies that these titles were to become
personal titles, so they remained attached to the land, held by free and
common socage (which was the only tenure they could be held by). The same
thing happened to the honourable services of grand sergeantry. This latter
fact is undisputed but you don't seem to realize the implications.

They did not remain attached to the land. None remained in 1660 - I
have cited Selden a far better witness to contemporary matters of
title. We have examined this in great depth before. You are getting
tiring on this. You have even admitted previously that you liked
arguing for its own sake. No one has ever produced a grant of an
English territorial barony as a title of honour and no territorial
baron in England used them as such. See the evidence posted here
before, which you may wish to forget but others won't or can google
them easily.
This thread is in any case about Irish baronies and you are welcome to
bring forward new unexamined evidence (please do - your list of Irish
baronies from Burke's *Extinct* Peerage could be a start) but
incanting your mantra will not change the evidence I and others have
provided on this forum over the years.
<snip of repetitious rubbish>
Derek Howard

Why don't we just put the whole question to a vote?
Patrick
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

[Roger Connor]

Post by Graham Milne
I do not know the details of individual sales. I don't have to. The
simple fact of the matter is that all Irish feudal baronies ever created
still exist in law (until destroyed by an act of the Crown).

I'm not a lawyer, but, I would think that when the Crown ceased to be a
part of the government of Ireland -IE Ireland became independant- the
Crown's former creations ceased to exist as legal entities attached to
the Crown. The Crown cannot give what it doesn't own. As has happened in
other parts of the world under similar circumstances, unless
specifically provided for by the new jurisdiction, former Crown property
became the property of the newly established state. As an independant
country, the government of that country has a perfect right to declare
previously established laws, offices and organizations by any former
government null and void, and to dispose of any previously owned
property as it desires.

As this happens during changes in party control of a government even,
whatever would lead you to believe that it wouldn't in a change of
governments?

Regards,
Roger

[Graham Milne]

Quite correct. The government of Ireland is free to do as it likes
(generally). My understanding, from debates on this forum, is that the Irish
government has not abolished the feudal system or feudal titles. After all,
property rights survived 1922; that is, everyone was not suddenly deprived
of their property rights in 1922. The Irish government could have abolished
feudal baronies subsequently but they didn't. Now it is too late because
these rights are protected by ECHR. In this context 'Crown' must be taken to
include a successor authority.

Post by Roger Connor

Post by Graham Milne
I do not know the details of individual sales. I don't have to. The
simple fact of the matter is that all Irish feudal baronies ever created
still exist in law (until destroyed by an act of the Crown).

I'm not a lawyer, but, I would think that when the Crown ceased to be a
part of the government of Ireland -IE Ireland became independant- the
Crown's former creations ceased to exist as legal entities attached to the
Crown. The Crown cannot give what it doesn't own. As has happened in other
parts of the world under similar circumstances, unless specifically
provided for by the new jurisdiction, former Crown property became the
property of the newly established state. As an independant country, the
government of that country has a perfect right to declare previously
established laws, offices and organizations by any former government null
and void, and to dispose of any previously owned property as it desires.
As this happens during changes in party control of a government even,
whatever would lead you to believe that it wouldn't in a change of
governments?
Regards,
Roger

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by Graham Milne
I do not know the details of individual sales. I don't have to. The
simple fact of the matter is that all Irish feudal baronies ever created
still exist in law (until destroyed by an act of the Crown). As far as
the 1662 Act is concerned, you simply will not accept the plain meaning
of words because they don't say what you want them to say. The 1660 Act
stated that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any title of honour,
feudal or other, by which any person hath or might have right to sit in
the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their title of honour, or
sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging to them as Peers'. I
assume the 1662 act is identical. The meaning of these words is quite
clear; it quite specifically states that the act does not infringe any
feudal title by which a person might have a right to sit in the House of
Lords. To deny this is like saying black is white; it is lying. It
actually says 'any title of honour, feudal or other'. It is quite plain
that the intention of the act was to ensure that the abolition of
military tenures did not affect any right to sit in the House of Lords
attached to such tenures; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do
with personal (as opposed to feudal) titles for the simple reason that
since they were not in any way affected by the Act, there was no need to
protect any right to sit attached to them. How simple does it have to
be, Mr. Murphy? Really, a child could work that out.

It is an implausible proposition that legislators of the seventeenth or
any other century would facilitate claims to sit in the House of Lords
on the part of inheritors, or worse still purchasers of ancient feudal
titles. Derek Howard has reasonably suggested that the provision in
question may have been designed to protect the rights of holders of
certain high offices who sat in the Lords 'by virtue of a feudal holding'.

Sean Murphy

[Graham Milne]

Perhaps they were acting on the basis of principle, in that they were trying
to protect any legal rights that might already exist. This is not unusual.
Additionally, the intention of the act was to remove the onerous burdens of
military service, such as wardship; as lawyers, the drafters would have been
experienced in and careful to have saving clauses to protect things that
they did not intend to destroy (for the avoidance of doubt). You would have
thought that it was implausibe that the act would protect the honourable
services of grand sergeantry, such as holding the King's head while he was
crossing the channel (and various personal services that were deemed too
shocking to mention in the House of Lords); you would have thought that it
was implausible that the 2000 Act in Scotland would preserve feudal barons;
you would have thought that it was implausible that the 20th century
Property Acts would protect manorial rights that were just a nuisance to
most people, but there you go, that is exactly what they did. Perhaps you
should give the drafters credit for doing exactly what they were instructed
to do - abolish the onerous burdens of military service - and no more. It
was not their concern whether feudal baronies existed or not; it just wasn't
their job to destroy them if they did. This is how we get historical
anomolies.

Post by Sean J Murphy

Post by Graham Milne
I do not know the details of individual sales. I don't have to. The
simple fact of the matter is that all Irish feudal baronies ever created
still exist in law (until destroyed by an act of the Crown). As far as
the 1662 Act is concerned, you simply will not accept the plain meaning
of words because they don't say what you want them to say. The 1660 Act
stated that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any title of honour,
feudal or other, by which any person hath or might have right to sit in
the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their title of honour, or
sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging to them as Peers'. I
assume the 1662 act is identical. The meaning of these words is quite
clear; it quite specifically states that the act does not infringe any
feudal title by which a person might have a right to sit in the House of
Lords. To deny this is like saying black is white; it is lying. It
actually says 'any title of honour, feudal or other'. It is quite plain
that the intention of the act was to ensure that the abolition of
military tenures did not affect any right to sit in the House of Lords
attached to such tenures; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with
personal (as opposed to feudal) titles for the simple reason that since
they were not in any way affected by the Act, there was no need to
protect any right to sit attached to them. How simple does it have to be,
Mr. Murphy? Really, a child could work that out.

It is an implausible proposition that legislators of the seventeenth or
any other century would facilitate claims to sit in the House of Lords on
the part of inheritors, or worse still purchasers of ancient feudal
titles. Derek Howard has reasonably suggested that the provision in
question may have been designed to protect the rights of holders of
certain high offices who sat in the Lords 'by virtue of a feudal holding'.
Sean Murphy

[Greg]

Post by Graham Milne
Perhaps they were acting on the basis of principle, in that they were trying
to protect any legal rights that might already exist. This is not unusual.
Additionally, the intention of the act was to remove the onerous burdens of
military service, such as wardship; as lawyers, the drafters would have been
experienced in and careful to have saving clauses to protect things that
they did not intend to destroy (for the avoidance of doubt). You would have
thought that it was implausibe that the act would protect the honourable
services of grand sergeantry, such as holding the King's head while he was
crossing the channel (and various personal services that were deemed too
shocking to mention in the House of Lords); you would have thought that it
was implausible that the 2000 Act in Scotland would preserve feudal barons;
you would have thought that it was implausible that the 20th century
Property Acts would protect manorial rights that were just a nuisance to
most people, but there you go, that is exactly what they did. Perhaps you
should give the drafters credit for doing exactly what they were instructed
to do - abolish the onerous burdens of military service - and no more. It
was not their concern whether feudal baronies existed or not; it just wasn't
their job to destroy them if they did. This is how we get historical
anomolies.

Post by Sean J Murphy

Post by Graham Milne
I do not know the details of individual sales. I don't have to. The
simple fact of the matter is that all Irish feudal baronies ever created
still exist in law (until destroyed by an act of the Crown). As far as
the 1662 Act is concerned, you simply will not accept the plain meaning
of words because they don't say what you want them to say. The 1660 Act
stated that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any title of honour,
feudal or other, by which any person hath or might have right to sit in
the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their title of honour, or
sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging to them as Peers'. I
assume the 1662 act is identical. The meaning of these words is quite
clear; it quite specifically states that the act does not infringe any
feudal title by which a person might have a right to sit in the House of
Lords. To deny this is like saying black is white; it is lying. It
actually says 'any title of honour, feudal or other'. It is quite plain
that the intention of the act was to ensure that the abolition of
military tenures did not affect any right to sit in the House of Lords
attached to such tenures; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with
personal (as opposed to feudal) titles for the simple reason that since
they were not in any way affected by the Act, there was no need to
protect any right to sit attached to them. How simple does it have to be,
Mr. Murphy? Really, a child could work that out.

It is an implausible proposition that legislators of the seventeenth or
any other century would facilitate claims to sit in the House of Lords on
the part of inheritors, or worse still purchasers of ancient feudal
titles. Derek Howard has reasonably suggested that the provision in
question may have been designed to protect the rights of holders of
certain high offices who sat in the Lords 'by virtue of a feudal holding'.
Sean Murphy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
From what research I have done on this it is very much a subject that

is at the least - debatable. It seems that since 1661 such feudal
responsibilities have gone by the wayside. These days the only
holdings as such even recognized, although lightly, by the Irish
government are what are known as 'blood titles' dating to for instance
from the earl of Ormond and the earl of Desmond ca 1333. Any other
baronies /titles are pretty much ignored particularly by Britain-
these lands just are not the same and therefore left to the
speculative market, which is the driving force therein. For whatever
reason, these lands sell. The Manorial Society of Great Britain
www.msgb.co.uk/ is apparently THE marketer of such 'blood titles' and
hence the desired market position that others are aspiring to... Since
Ireland's titled lands are in such limbo the working description of
such property is clearly left to the current owners.

I think that what all of this is really about is the market. Titles,
manors, baronies etc are being traded as commodities and anybody with
an ego to match his money is the prey. The conservative views of
notables like Lord Lyon become more and more crystal clear as this
goes on.

Regards
Greg

[Greg]

Post by Greg

Post by Graham Milne
Perhaps they were acting on the basis of principle, in that they were trying
to protect any legal rights that might already exist. This is not unusual.
Additionally, the intention of the act was to remove the onerous burdens of
military service, such as wardship; as lawyers, the drafters would have been
experienced in and careful to have saving clauses to protect things that
they did not intend to destroy (for the avoidance of doubt). You would have
thought that it was implausibe that the act would protect the honourable
services of grand sergeantry, such as holding the King's head while he was
crossing the channel (and various personal services that were deemed too
shocking to mention in the House of Lords); you would have thought that it
was implausible that the 2000 Act in Scotland would preserve feudal barons;
you would have thought that it was implausible that the 20th century
Property Acts would protect manorial rights that were just a nuisance to
most people, but there you go, that is exactly what they did. Perhaps you
should give the drafters credit for doing exactly what they were instructed
to do - abolish the onerous burdens of military service - and no more. It
was not their concern whether feudal baronies existed or not; it just wasn't
their job to destroy them if they did. This is how we get historical
anomolies.

Post by Sean J Murphy

Post by Graham Milne
I do not know the details of individual sales. I don't have to. The
simple fact of the matter is that all Irish feudal baronies ever created
still exist in law (until destroyed by an act of the Crown). As far as
the 1662 Act is concerned, you simply will not accept the plain meaning
of words because they don't say what you want them to say. The 1660 Act
stated that the Act 'shall not infringe or hurt any title of honour,
feudal or other, by which any person hath or might have right to sit in
the Lords House of Parliament, as to his or their title of honour, or
sitting in Parliament, and the privilege belonging to them as Peers'. I
assume the 1662 act is identical. The meaning of these words is quite
clear; it quite specifically states that the act does not infringe any
feudal title by which a person might have a right to sit in the House of
Lords. To deny this is like saying black is white; it is lying. It
actually says 'any title of honour, feudal or other'. It is quite plain
that the intention of the act was to ensure that the abolition of
military tenures did not affect any right to sit in the House of Lords
attached to such tenures; it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with
personal (as opposed to feudal) titles for the simple reason that since
they were not in any way affected by the Act, there was no need to
protect any right to sit attached to them. How simple does it have to be,
Mr. Murphy? Really, a child could work that out.

It is an implausible proposition that legislators of the seventeenth or
any other century would facilitate claims to sit in the House of Lords on
the part of inheritors, or worse still purchasers of ancient feudal
titles. Derek Howard has reasonably suggested that the provision in
question may have been designed to protect the rights of holders of
certain high offices who sat in the Lords 'by virtue of a feudal holding'.
Sean Murphy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
From what research I have done on this it is very much a subject that

is at the least - debatable. It seems that since 1661 such feudal
responsibilities have gone by the wayside. These days the only
holdings as such even recognized, although lightly, by the Irish
government are what are known as 'blood titles' dating to for instance
from the earl of Ormond and the earl of Desmond ca 1333. Any other
baronies /titles are pretty much ignored particularly by Britain-
these lands just are not the same and therefore left to the
speculative market, which is the driving force therein. For whatever
reason, these lands sell. The Manorial Society of Great Britainwww.msgb.co.uk/is apparently THE marketer of such 'blood titles' and
hence the desired market position that others are aspiring to... Since
Ireland's titled lands are in such limbo the working description of
such property is clearly left to the current owners.
I think that what all of this is really about is the market. Titles,
manors, baronies etc are being traded as commodities and anybody with
an ego to match his money is the prey. The conservative views of
notables like Lord Lyon become more and more crystal clear as this
goes on.
Regards
Greg- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I don't know why my last post left off the opening words-- but here

Post by Greg
From what research I have done on this it is very much a subject that

is at the least - debatable. It seems that since 1661 such feudal
responsibilities have gone by the wayside. These days the only
holdings as such even recognized, although lightly, by the Irish
government are what are known as 'blood titles' dating to for instance
from the earl of Ormond and the earl of Desmond ca 1333. Any other
baronies /titles are pretty much ignored particularly by Britain-
these lands just are not the same and therefore left to the
speculative market, which is the driving force therein. For whatever
reason, these lands sell. The Manorial Society of Great Britain
www.msgb.co.uk/ is apparently THE marketer of such 'blood titles' and
hence the desired market position that others are aspiring to... Since
Ireland's titled lands are in such limbo the working description of
such property is clearly left to the current owners.

I think that what all of this is really about is the market. Titles,
manors, baronies etc are being traded as commodities and anybody with
an ego to match his money is the prey.

Regards
Greg

[h***@mail.ru]

Post by Graham Milne
From what research I have done on this it is very much a subject that
is at the least - debatable. It seems that since 1661 such feudal
responsibilities have gone by the wayside. These days the only
holdings as such even recognized, although lightly, by the Irish
government are what are known as 'blood titles' dating to for instance
from the earl of Ormond and the earl of Desmond ca 1333. Any other
baronies /titles are pretty much ignored particularly by Britain-
these lands just are not the same and therefore left to the
speculative market, which is the driving force therein. For whatever
reason, these lands sell. The Manorial Society of Great Britainwww.msgb.co.uk/is apparently THE marketer of such 'blood titles' and
hence the desired market position that others are aspiring to... Since
Ireland's titled lands are in such limbo the working description of
such property is clearly left to the current owners.
I think that what all of this is really about is the market. Titles,
manors, baronies etc are being traded as commodities and anybody with
an ego to match his money is the prey.
Regards
Greg- Hide quoted text -

Greg,
I am not sure if you do it on purpose to confuse us all or if you
yourself are confused.

In the above statement you introduce the term "Blood Titles" as being
the only titles recognised by the Irish Government and refer to Ormond
and Desmond by way of example. This leads the reader into the belief
that by "blood titles" you quite logically mean hereditary titles
passed down the bloodline. By their very nature such "blood titles"
can not be disposed of by way of sale. You then go on to confuse me
(or perhaps it is you who are confused) by stating that these "blood
titles" are sold (marketed) by MSGB [I presume you mean Manorial
Auctions thought the two are practically the same].

What are you attempting to say? Did you mean to say that the Irish
Government may recognise titles akin to Desmond and Ormond which are
hereditary but they do not recognise feudal titles? If this is so, I
think you may be mistaken. As I understand it, the Irish Government
does not recognise any titles anymore, not even chiefs, and the CHOI
will certainly not record feudal titles (or chiefs?) on its grants of
arms.

Clarification please.

Nicholas

[Greg]

Post by h***@mail.ru

Post by Graham Milne
From what research I have done on this it is very much a subject that
is at the least - debatable. It seems that since 1661 such feudal
responsibilities have gone by the wayside. These days the only
holdings as such even recognized, although lightly, by the Irish
government are what are known as 'blood titles' dating to for instance
from the earl of Ormond and the earl of Desmond ca 1333. Any other
baronies /titles are pretty much ignored particularly by Britain-
these lands just are not the same and therefore left to the
speculative market, which is the driving force therein. For whatever
reason, these lands sell. The Manorial Society of Great Britainwww.msgb.co.uk/isapparently THE marketer of such 'blood titles' and
hence the desired market position that others are aspiring to... Since
Ireland's titled lands are in such limbo the working description of
such property is clearly left to the current owners.
I think that what all of this is really about is the market. Titles,
manors, baronies etc are being traded as commodities and anybody with
an ego to match his money is the prey.
Regards
Greg- Hide quoted text -

Greg,
I am not sure if you do it on purpose to confuse us all or if you
yourself are confused.
In the above statement you introduce the term "Blood Titles" as being
the only titles recognised by the Irish Government and refer to Ormond
and Desmond by way of example. This leads the reader into the belief
that by "blood titles" you quite logically mean hereditary titles
passed down the bloodline. By their very nature such "blood titles"
can not be disposed of by way of sale. You then go on to confuse me
(or perhaps it is you who are confused) by stating that these "blood
titles" are sold (marketed) by MSGB [I presume you mean Manorial
Auctions thought the two are practically the same].
What are you attempting to say? Did you mean to say that the Irish
Government may recognise titles akin to Desmond and Ormond which are
hereditary but they do not recognise feudal titles? If this is so, I
think you may be mistaken. As I understand it, the Irish Government
does not recognise any titles anymore, not even chiefs, and the CHOI
will certainly not record feudal titles (or chiefs?) on its grants of
arms.
Clarification please.
Nicholas- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hi Nicholas,

Yes, 'blood titles' are hereditary titles in my example and such
titles are some 700 years old. The Irish government does not
recognize titles as you say, but they have been accepted as part of
Irish historical lands and are not disputed by any governmental
organizations - they are acknowledged would probably be the better
term. There isn't even a proper listing of said titled lands.

I'm not sure about the sale of said titles: any title can be
hereditary as property, so I'm not sure about historic 'blood
titles' (the rules seem to chnage quickly these days). But of the
more historically documented and known Irish titled land The Manorial
Society is supposed to be the prime mover: the link that I pasted does
come up as The Manorial Society of Great Britain, so as far as who
they might or might not be, I can't say.

Feudal titels no longer exist, so that doesn't compute, sorry...

I'm not confused about it at all. I think sometimes that yourself et
al might read between the lines and perhaps you're not, and if you get
confused I appologise.

The point that I as making is, Irish titles do not really carry much
weight in the real world and aren't officially recognized, and
peerages exist in a small number, but as you say that kind of title
cannot be sold. Although as I said, more well known lands are easy to
market and that is where the fool is sperated from his money.

Yaknow, I don't mean to sound flippant or disrespectful about Irish
Baronial lands, or Scottish for that matter. I feel bad about it
really. It seems that the market has driven the respect right out of
it and traditions and genealogical import take a back seat. The whole
concept gets abused by the commodities market and people get hurt,
embarrased, whatever, and I think that governments should take a more
proactive roll: these are resources, national monuments of sorts and
should be protected. These things represent the history of the land
and country. Quite frankly I would like to see such baronies etc,
that are not represented in parliament regain some of their
usefullness as part of the national trust and their owners should
perhaps be parts of governing bodies that are environmentally
reponsible, helping to manage the upkeep of local libraries etc.
There are all sorts of possiblities. If a given Baron can't keep up -
he forfeits: if someone can afford 200 large for a barony then he/ she
can afford to pay attention. The 1sq meter nonsense will disappear on
its own as well...

I went on too long, but, what the heck.

Regards
Greg

[Sean J Murphy]

A relevant excerpt from a committee deliberation concerning the Land and
Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2006 on 17 October 2006:

START QUOTE
Senator Tuffy: This issue may have been raised by other members. I was
requested by a person involved with an Irish genealogical society to ask
whether the 2006 Bill adequately removes feudal baronies and manorial
lordships. Apparently, they have been used as a scam in the past.

Professor Wylie: Yes. This area of the law is not well understood. I
suspect many people have been taken for a ride because they bought what
they thought were baronies and assumed they would automatically be given
rights to land. Almost certainly that is not the case because those
types of manorial rights never applied in Ireland. While people may have
had titles, they did not necessarily have land attached to those titles.

Under this Bill anybody who claims he or she has a title providing
rights to land must establish how that land was acquired. Simply stating
that one received a title will not be enough. One must show the land was
conveyed by virtue of a previous transfer of a leasehold or freehold
title. One must show not only that one has a title but also that one has
an estate or interest in the land. As I said at the beginning, a person
does not own the physical entity, but an estate or an interest in the
land, such as the freehold, a lease or fishing or turbary rights. The
person must be able to establish how he or she came by that by virtue of
a previous transaction. Merely having some title is not enough and never
has been in Ireland.

Mr. Carroll: We have received correspondence in the Department on this
matter but the solution proposed was the abolition of incorporeal
hereditaments. That simply is not feasible because it would abolish
profits and easements and other forms of rights over other people’s lands.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=JUJ20061017.xml&Ex=All&Page=3
END QUOTE

Sean Murphy

[Brian G. Hamilton.]

Post by Sean J Murphy
A relevant excerpt from a committee deliberation concerning the Land and
START QUOTE
Senator Tuffy: This issue may have been raised by other members. I was
requested by a person involved with an Irish genealogical society to ask
whether the 2006 Bill adequately removes feudal baronies and manorial
lordships. Apparently, they have been used as a scam in the past.
Professor Wylie: Yes. This area of the law is not well understood. I
suspect many people have been taken for a ride because they bought what
they thought were baronies and assumed they would automatically be given
rights to land. Almost certainly that is not the case because those
types of manorial rights never applied in Ireland. While people may have
had titles, they did not necessarily have land attached to those titles.
Under this Bill anybody who claims he or she has a title providing
rights to land must establish how that land was acquired. Simply stating
that one received a title will not be enough. One must show the land was
conveyed by virtue of a previous transfer of a leasehold or freehold
title. One must show not only that one has a title but also that one has
an estate or interest in the land. As I said at the beginning, a person
does not own the physical entity, but an estate or an interest in the
land, such as the freehold, a lease or fishing or turbary rights. The
person must be able to establish how he or she came by that by virtue of
a previous transaction. Merely having some title is not enough and never
has been in Ireland.
Mr. Carroll: We have received correspondence in the Department on this
matter but the solution proposed was the abolition of incorporeal
hereditaments. That simply is not feasible because it would abolish
profits and easements and other forms of rights over other people's lands.http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=JUJ20061017.xml&Ex=All&Pa...
END QUOTE
Sean Murphy

Now, that's what I like about Sean Murphy, when he comments about a
subject he knows about he is very good.

BGH

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

Post by Sean J Murphy
A relevant excerpt from a committee deliberation concerning the Land and
START QUOTE
Senator Tuffy: This issue may have been raised by other members. I was
requested by a person involved with an Irish genealogical society to ask
whether the 2006 Bill adequately removes feudal baronies and manorial
lordships. Apparently, they have been used as a scam in the past.
Professor Wylie: Yes. This area of the law is not well understood. I
suspect many people have been taken for a ride because they bought what
they thought were baronies and assumed they would automatically be given
rights to land. Almost certainly that is not the case because those
types of manorial rights never applied in Ireland. While people may have
had titles, they did not necessarily have land attached to those titles.
Under this Bill anybody who claims he or she has a title providing
rights to land must establish how that land was acquired. Simply stating
that one received a title will not be enough. One must show the land was
conveyed by virtue of a previous transfer of a leasehold or freehold
title. One must show not only that one has a title but also that one has
an estate or interest in the land. As I said at the beginning, a person
does not own the physical entity, but an estate or an interest in the
land, such as the freehold, a lease or fishing or turbary rights. The
person must be able to establish how he or she came by that by virtue of
a previous transaction. Merely having some title is not enough and never
has been in Ireland.
Mr. Carroll: We have received correspondence in the Department on this
matter but the solution proposed was the abolition of incorporeal
hereditaments. That simply is not feasible because it would abolish
profits and easements and other forms of rights over other people's lands.http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=JUJ20061017.xml&Ex=All&Pa...
END QUOTE
Sean Murphy

Now, that's what I like about Sean Murphy, when he comments about a
subject he knows about he is very good.
BGH

Always nice to be complimented, especially when it is undeserved,
because of course I confined myself in the above post to quoting the
expert Professor Wylie (author of 'Irish Land Law').

Sean Murphy

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:55:36 +0100, "Graham Milne"

Post by Graham Milne
You should not try to tar all Irish baronies with the same brush. While
there have undoubtedly been some fraudulent sales of non-existent baronies,
1. A barony is a creation of the Crown and it can only be destroyed by the
Crown. Once created, a barony continues to exist in law forever (I will
repeat that - FOREVER) until destroyed by another act of the Crown (e.g. an
Act of Parliament).

Graham

Looking purely at the Irish context, I am not sure you are right here.
Looking at the list of baronies in Burke's, it does seem that all
concerned had their title as "Lord of X" because they possessed the
area of the country known as "X", and that if they ceased to possess
"X", then they would cease to be lord of anything - in otherwise pure
baronies by tenure. There does not appear to be the creation of a
barony, as a thing in its own right, seperate to owning a chunk of
land.

This is in many ways aristocracy at its simplest.

Regards

Patrick

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

Post by Graham Milne
2. The Acts of 1660 (in England) and 1662 (in Ireland) specifically
preserved not only baronial titles but the also baronies by tenure. You get
confused between the abolition of tenure by barony and the continuance of
baronies by tenure; that tenure was free and common socage.
3. Irish feudal baronies have survived until today, which is why there is a
Bill under consideration which tries to abolish the feudal system (Clearly,
if the feudal system did not exist, there would be no need to abolish it -
rather telling I think).
4. Irish feudal baronies will surivive any attempt to abolish them because
they are property rights protected by the European Convention on Human
Rights (which is a huge annoyance to people who hate the things).
And that, gentlemen, in a nutshell, is that. Toodle pip!

Post by Sean J Murphy
. . . . .

Post by R***@gmail.com
I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies!

When I see a real surviving Irish feudal barony, I will be able to give a
positive account of it. I have asked for evidence to show that Strutt and
Parker's latest offerings of the Baronies of Castleknock, Clanwilliam and
Carrigaline are authentic. The case studies on my webpage at
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/feudaltitles.htm are
reasoned and referenced. Consider again the alleged Barony of Clare
offered for sale for Manorial Auctioneers, whereby an Irish administrative
barony was by sleight of hand associated with the completely unrelated
English Honour of Clare. Or the case of the fabricated Lordship of the
Manor of Mount Nagle emanating from Anthony Boada Cartaya. Or the Barony
of Knockgraffon, again offered for sale by Manorial Auctioneers, which can
be documented in medieval times but cannot be shown to have survived into
the modern period.
Sean Murphy

[Graham Milne]

Patrick,

I see what you say. I rather think that these Irish baronies were actually
probably much closer to the proper model of feudal baronies in the sense
that they were single areas of land and that the jurisdiction was a real one
(and all to bloody at times). So, yes, I think it was aristocracy as it
simplest. Given that, it seems to be less important whether they are called
lordships or baronies. Either way, they are clearly hugely historic and
should be valued for this reason.

Graham

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:55:36 +0100, "Graham Milne"

Post by Graham Milne
You should not try to tar all Irish baronies with the same brush. While
there have undoubtedly been some fraudulent sales of non-existent baronies,
1. A barony is a creation of the Crown and it can only be destroyed by the
Crown. Once created, a barony continues to exist in law forever (I will
repeat that - FOREVER) until destroyed by another act of the Crown (e.g. an
Act of Parliament).

Graham
Looking purely at the Irish context, I am not sure you are right here.
Looking at the list of baronies in Burke's, it does seem that all
concerned had their title as "Lord of X" because they possessed the
area of the country known as "X", and that if they ceased to possess
"X", then they would cease to be lord of anything - in otherwise pure
baronies by tenure. There does not appear to be the creation of a
barony, as a thing in its own right, seperate to owning a chunk of
land.
This is in many ways aristocracy at its simplest.
Regards
Patrick
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

Post by Graham Milne
2. The Acts of 1660 (in England) and 1662 (in Ireland) specifically
preserved not only baronial titles but the also baronies by tenure. You get
confused between the abolition of tenure by barony and the continuance of
baronies by tenure; that tenure was free and common socage.
3. Irish feudal baronies have survived until today, which is why there is a
Bill under consideration which tries to abolish the feudal system (Clearly,
if the feudal system did not exist, there would be no need to abolish it -
rather telling I think).
4. Irish feudal baronies will surivive any attempt to abolish them because
they are property rights protected by the European Convention on Human
Rights (which is a huge annoyance to people who hate the things).
And that, gentlemen, in a nutshell, is that. Toodle pip!

Post by Sean J Murphy
. . . . .

Post by R***@gmail.com
I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies!

When I see a real surviving Irish feudal barony, I will be able to give a
positive account of it. I have asked for evidence to show that Strutt and
Parker's latest offerings of the Baronies of Castleknock, Clanwilliam and
Carrigaline are authentic. The case studies on my webpage at
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/feudaltitles.htm are
reasoned and referenced. Consider again the alleged Barony of Clare
offered for sale for Manorial Auctioneers, whereby an Irish
administrative
barony was by sleight of hand associated with the completely unrelated
English Honour of Clare. Or the case of the fabricated Lordship of the
Manor of Mount Nagle emanating from Anthony Boada Cartaya. Or the Barony
of Knockgraffon, again offered for sale by Manorial Auctioneers, which can
be documented in medieval times but cannot be shown to have survived into
the modern period.
Sean Murphy

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by Sean J Murphy
. . . . .

Post by R***@gmail.com
I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies!

When I see a real surviving Irish feudal barony, I will be able to give
a positive account of it. I have asked for evidence to show that Strutt
and Parker's latest offerings of the Baronies of Castleknock,
Clanwilliam and Carrigaline are authentic. The case studies on my
webpage at
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/feudaltitles.htm are
reasoned and referenced. Consider again the alleged Barony of Clare
offered for sale for Manorial Auctioneers, whereby an Irish
administrative barony was by sleight of hand associated with the
completely unrelated English Honour of Clare. Or the case of the
fabricated Lordship of the Manor of Mount Nagle emanating from Anthony
Boada Cartaya. Or the Barony of Knockgraffon, again offered for sale by
Manorial Auctioneers, which can be documented in medieval times but
cannot be shown to have survived into the modern period.

To which I might add the recently FOI'd comments of Chief Herald O
Donoghue, written to Deputy Chief Herald Gillespie on 12 July 1999 as
the Mac Carthy Mór controversy was raging:

'In the light of the recent advice from the Attorney General's Office
about the disposal of baronies etc., and having regard to our newly
defined criteria for the grant of arms, and taking account of the
publicity etc. arising from the activities of MacCarthy Mór, I do not
think that it would be appropriate to refer in the text of the patent to
the acquisition of a Barony or, indeed, to any other title or
distinction that purports to have been granted by any person or
authority that is not widely accepted to have the right to make such
grants. In the same way, I do not think that it would be appropriate in
this or in any other similar case to include in the design any elements
(eg supporters) which would not normally appear. I realise that this may
cause difficulty and some embarrassment, but I see no alternative; to do
otherwise, would leave the Office open to futher allegations of
inconsistent conduct and even discrimination.'

Another AG's advice of which it would be good to see the full text, this
sort of legal record of course being exempt from FOI applications.

Sean Murphy

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

I think that you will find that of late what is being said is that
Irish adminsitrative baronies are not the same as Irish feudal
baronies.

Whilst the general opinion (i.e. everyone except one particular
person) is that English fedual baronies were abolished in the 17th
century, the jury appears to be out on whether the same happened to
Irish baronies.

Patrick

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

Post by R***@gmail.com
I write to say that it is about time that contributors to rec heraldry
stopped slanging Irish Feudal Baronies. Various ploys are used
including the repititious allegation that most, if not all, Irish
Feudal Baronies are phoney because they have a similar name to Irish
Administrative Baronies. Another favorite is the allegation, largely
justified but old hat, that the so-called "Statutory Declarations"
that often accompanied the sale of phony baronies, are worthless and
misleading and the last, but oft repeated criticism is that the
historical package tracing the history/succession of a given Irish
Feudal Barony is largely irrelevant and usually misleading. So where
does that leave us? Some contributors and this includes priimarily Mr.
Sean Murphy, have worked up such a fever in attempting to discredit
Irish Feudal Baronies that they hammer at it in an unreasoned and
repititious fashion apparently without a clear understanding of the of
historical records and of the enactment of laws in both Ireland and
England as they relate to Irish Feudal Baronies. That is not to imply
that I do either but it would be refreshing to hear the other side.
Perhaps Dr. Cox would be prepared to give some input.
It would be very helpful to have more light (illumata meo) and
fewer unsupported attacks on Irish Feudal Baronies. It is one thing
to warn the public about potential scams but another to relflexively
attack those who value Irish Feudal Baronies as incorporeal
herafditaments in the same way as Scottish Feudal Barons (without
caputs) value their Barony titles- albeit the Scots may have more
complete records. I will welcome some constructive comments about this
and other issues and I would very much appreciate some accurate and
constructive assessments of historical and legal evidence for Irish
Feudal Baronies. The abolition of Feudal Tenures Act of 1662, the
English Law of Property Act(s) circa 1922, and the Honours Prevention
of Abuses Act of 1925 and so on, seem to be quoted willy nilly but
without a full understanding of legal implications of these Acts. Not
too long ago there was a fuss on this site because there was reason to
believe-with dismay- that some aspects of Feudal Law perisist in
Ireland. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Murphy cares deeply about
these matters but unless he is prepared to present reasonable and
balanced arguments he may become a thwarted and unhappy "one trick
pony". I'd appreciate it if he were to choose one Irish Feudal Barony
and give us a reasoned, positive account of it. He never quite states
that they are all bogus but does his best to try to show that. Balance
is essential in any public forum. It is just as dishonest to
repeatedly claim that all Irish Feudal Baronies are bogus as it is to
merchandise bogus Irish Feudal Baronies! Ralph Mottram.