Scottish Feudal Barony titles

[R***@gmail.com]

The sale of Scottish Feudal Barony titles is the biggest scam of all.
Everyone was making money, the sellers, the brokers, the lawyers, the
genealogists, on the way to bilking the purchasers of these
meaningless monikers. The last vestiges of these once meaningful
titles were legislated out of existence following the abolition of
feudal tenures. The legal maneuver of attaching the titles to a post-
stamp caput has been thwarted and the titles now exist on paper only
with no nominal link between the land and title name. The remanants
of any legal rights have been finally abolished. Nothing is left but a
paper trail.
These "titles" can be sold to foreigners but without grants of
Scottish Arms. The rather unusual heraldic additiments that once
graced the arms of Scottish Feudal Barons are no longer being granted
by the Lord Lyon, a decision that will be contested in the Court of
Session there being little hope of a positive outcome since Mr.
Sellers is a highly trained lawyer who has great authority on heraldic
matters. Fools continue to pay in excess of 50,000 BPS for these
vanity titles; often shamed into silence when they realise that the
"titles'" exist only in their imagination. No legal jurisdictions, no
Courts Baron, no Baron Baillies, no connexion to the land, no heraldic
additiments, no Scottish grants of arms to citizens of other countries
such as Australians or Canadians who have a Scottish Heritage and who
purchase one of these vanity titles. Much like Irish Feudal Barons!
By the way, are the Irish still granting bogus Arms? Ralph Mottram.

[Brian G. Hamilton.]

"....... The last vestiges of these once meaningful
titles were legislated out of existence following the abolition of
feudal tenures."

Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000
63 (1) Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege incidental
to, barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but nothing in
this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office
(whether or not of feudal origin).

The Scottish Parliament

[R***@gmail.com]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

"....... The last vestiges of these once meaningful
titles were legislated out of existence following the abolition of
feudal tenures."

Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000
63 (1) Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege incidental
to, barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but nothing in
this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office
(whether or not of feudal origin).
The Scottish Parliament

Comment: The phrase "dignity of a Baron" when carefully examined,
means virtually nothing. A title with no jurisdiction, no legal
authority and no scottish grant of arms or heraldic additiments
befitting a pre AFT Scottish Baron is a paper "Dignity"- a dignity in
form but not function. 50,000 BPS is a lot of money to pay for what
may be accurately referred to as a "Paper Dignity". The fact that the
dignity of the Barony of Cartsburn has been on the market for about 6
months with no takers may mean that the public is wising up to the
fact that the "dignity" is without dignity. Ralph.

[Greg]

Post by R***@gmail.com

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

"....... The last vestiges of these once meaningful
titles were legislated out of existence following the abolition of
feudal tenures."

Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000
63 (1) Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege incidental
to, barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but nothing in
this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office
(whether or not of feudal origin).
The Scottish Parliament

Comment: The phrase "dignity of a Baron" when carefully examined,
means virtually nothing. A title with no jurisdiction, no legal
authority and no scottish grant of arms or heraldic additiments
befitting a pre AFT Scottish Baron is a paper "Dignity"- a dignity in
form but not function. 50,000 BPS is a lot of money to pay for what
may be accurately referred to as a "Paper Dignity". The fact that the
dignity of the Barony of Cartsburn has been on the market for about 6
months with no takers may mean that the public is wising up to the
fact that the "dignity" is without dignity. Ralph.

Yes Ralph,

You’re exactly right. However, you could tell us how you really feel
about it…
It is an extraordinary market. Very legal, but the word: ‘legitimate’
begins to surface a lot now doesn’t it?
I think that the Lyon’s Office has seen this coming for some time and
the necessary arrangements were made to head this thing off at the
pass, and like you – and many many others, I’m glad he did.
I believe that even though ‘public’ (paper) baronies have been reduced
to; an expensive piece of paper, those families who have had these
titles for generations should be protected from the market and I hope
that Lyon Sellers will do all he can to that end – they and Scotland
deserve better.
The only other thing to tie up is this business of what are
essentially fake TDs - through a ‘name change’ of all things.
Personally I find it rather distasteful that grown men will not only
spend way too much on what is effectively a toy but then add insult to
injury with a phony Territorial Designation. And then they manipulate
the Scottish legal system to have it their way. That’s’ bad.
I’m hoping that the new Lord Lyon, although pretty much forced to
accept a name in the (form) of a TD, might place a two- word tag on
those letters patents and into the Register that will – tattoo- these
things so that they can be discerned from legitimate TDs. I think
that pigeon holing this stuff is the best thing to do to make them go
away.

[Joseph McMillan]

Post by R***@gmail.com
The sale of Scottish Feudal Barony titles is the biggest scam of all.

OK, if you say so, but what new information in this post requires
raising it yet again for the zillionth time (give or take an
umptillion)? It's been done to death and no one's opinion is going to
be changed by rehashing the same old arguments.

Post by R***@gmail.com
By the way, are the Irish still granting bogus Arms?

No, they're still granting real arms.

Joseph McMillan

[StephenP]

It is a good thing Ralph did not mention English Feudal Baronies.
Ooops!

[Greg]

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by R***@gmail.com
The sale of Scottish Feudal Barony titles is the biggest scam of all.

OK, if you say so, but what new information in this post requires
raising it yet again for the zillionth time (give or take an
umptillion)?  It's been done to death and no one's opinion is going to
be changed by rehashing the same old arguments.

Post by R***@gmail.com
By the way, are the Irish still granting bogus Arms?

No, they're still granting real arms.
Joseph McMillan

I think that it's a good idea to keep things like this on the surface
so that the general public can take note and hopefully it will sink in
and become a part of common knowledge. These baronies are advertised
for alot of money and it's a good thing to have this subject as a
study-aid for those who are considering it. The more informed can
make better decisions. If you have something constructive to add,
please do.

[Greg]

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by R***@gmail.com
The sale of Scottish Feudal Barony titles is the biggest scam of all.

OK, if you say so, but what new information in this post requires
raising it yet again for the zillionth time (give or take an
umptillion)?  It's been done to death and no one's opinion is going to
be changed by rehashing the same old arguments.

Post by R***@gmail.com
By the way, are the Irish still granting bogus Arms?

No, they're still granting real arms.
Joseph McMillan

It's a good idea to keep this part of the subject on the surface.
These baronies are marketed for alot of money and the general public
should know what they're getting into - it's only fair. By doing this
we may be able to get this into common knowledge which would be a good
thing.
If you have something constructive to contribute - please do.

[JSF]

Post by Greg
It's a good idea to keep this part of the subject on the surface.
These baronies are marketed for alot of money and the general public
should know what they're getting into - it's only fair.  By doing this
we may be able to get this into common knowledge which would be a good
thing.

Greg and Ralph,

Is it fair to say that you object to the commercialization of
baronies, not the baronies themselves? You have to agree that there’s
been a trade in baronies since the time of the first grants. They may
be something of an anachronism these days but, hey, why shouldn’t the
trade go on?

I like your point about full knowledge. Perhaps you could help me
better understand the commodity and the market. Consider that a
barony sells for, say, GBP 50,000 whereas a manorial lordship sells
for, say, 1/10th of that. Of course there are material differences
between these comparables but, once you remove a barony from it’s
landed context, remove certainty of title through registration, remove
heraldic privilege, shut the door on the whole Scots’ diaspora … I
could go on but my point is that the commodity that is a barony has
recently lost key attributes which you would expect to adversely
impact its value … if purchasers (and sellers) are knowledgeable.

So, with full knowledge, how would you value the average “dignity” of
a barony: less than GBP 50,000? More than GBP 5,000? I suspect that
there’s very few trades these days but find it very hard to track the
market. Any thoughts?

Regards, Scott Ferguson

[Greg]

Post by JSF

Post by Greg
It's a good idea to keep this part of the subject on the surface.
These baronies are marketed for alot of money and the general public
should know what they're getting into - it's only fair.  By doing this
we may be able to get this into common knowledge which would be a good
thing.

Greg and Ralph,
Is it fair to say that you object to the commercialization of
baronies, not the baronies themselves?  You have to agree that there’s
been a trade in baronies since the time of the first grants.  They may
be something of an anachronism these days but, hey, why shouldn’t the
trade go on?
I like your point about full knowledge.  Perhaps you could help me
better understand the commodity and the market.  Consider that a
barony sells for, say, GBP 50,000 whereas a manorial lordship sells
for, say, 1/10th of that.  Of course there are material differences
between these comparables but, once you remove a barony from it’s
landed context, remove certainty of title through registration, remove
heraldic privilege, shut the door on the whole Scots’ diaspora … I
could go on but my point is that the commodity that is a barony has
recently lost key attributes which you would expect to adversely
impact its value … if purchasers (and sellers) are knowledgeable.
So, with full knowledge, how would you value the average “dignity” of
a barony: less than GBP 50,000?  More than GBP 5,000?  I suspect that
there’s very few trades these days but find it very hard to track the
market.  Any thoughts?
Regards, Scott Ferguson

Hello Scott,

“shut the door on the whole Scots’ diaspora”:
It is about tradition. It is about the integrity of Scotland and its
heraldry. How can one trade a human quality? In the year 2008, what
might - no, should have been a continuing tradition of purpose is not
an easily understood concept. The “dignity” has become just a word
(title) with no other meaning in the commercial world than “lake–front
property”: it shows nice. It does nothing for purpose or the quality
of tradition – nowadays… Baronys are only as valuable as the
controlling interests want them to be. (therein lies the rub) Now,
what is value…? Is it – Clann tradition, or is it McDonalds?
A baronet has more meaning in this sense because a baronet is easy to
understand. A barony is a part of structure and must not be confused
with a market. Scotland is hell-bent on quality. Don’t confuse
quality with money…

[barrassie]

Post by Greg

Post by JSF

Post by Greg
It's a good idea to keep this part of the subject on the surface.
These baronies are marketed for alot of money and the general public
should know what they're getting into - it's only fair.  By doing this
we may be able to get this into common knowledge which would be a good
thing.

Greg and Ralph,
Is it fair to say that you object to the commercialization of
baronies, not the baronies themselves?  You have to agree that there’s
been a trade in baronies since the time of the first grants.  They may
be something of an anachronism these days but, hey, why shouldn’t the
trade go on?
I like your point about full knowledge.  Perhaps you could help me
better understand the commodity and the market.  Consider that a
barony sells for, say, GBP 50,000 whereas a manorial lordship sells
for, say, 1/10th of that.  Of course there are material differences
between these comparables but, once you remove a barony from it’s
landed context, remove certainty of title through registration, remove
heraldic privilege, shut the door on the whole Scots’ diaspora … I
could go on but my point is that the commodity that is a barony has
recently lost key attributes which you would expect to adversely
impact its value … if purchasers (and sellers) are knowledgeable.
So, with full knowledge, how would you value the average “dignity” of
a barony: less than GBP 50,000?  More than GBP 5,000?  I suspect that
there’s very few trades these days but find it very hard to track the
market.  Any thoughts?
Regards, Scott Ferguson

Hello Scott,
It is about tradition.  It is about the integrity of Scotland and its
heraldry.   How can one trade a human quality?  In the year 2008, what
might - no, should have been a continuing tradition of purpose is not
an easily understood concept.  The “dignity” has become just a word
(title) with no other meaning in the commercial world than “lake–front
property”: it shows nice. It does nothing for purpose or the quality
of tradition – nowadays…   Baronys are only as valuable as the
controlling interests want them to be. (therein lies the rub)  Now,
what is value…?  Is it – Clann tradition, or is it McDonalds?
A baronet has more meaning in this sense because a baronet is easy to
understand.  A barony is a part of structure and must not be confused
with a market.  Scotland is hell-bent on quality. Don’t confuse
quality with money…- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Greg,
Re 'TD look alikes' that are not based on land, Tle Lord Lyon would/
could just not place them on the Edinburgh Gazettee notices under Lyon
Court; Chiefs of Names and Heads of Territorial Houses.
I have noticed some French names with 'de' in the middle not appearing
but one or two being gazetted, for example Joly de Lotbiniere, a
member of this family was a senior and prominent 1st Gulf War
Brittish Army officer.
With regard to 'change of name' certificates, I had one drawn up for a
friend who already had Arms, if he had been more patient he could have
waited for his grant of a Guidon, in which case it would have saved
the fees of about £120. On another occaission I obtained a change of
nsame certificate for three generations, in order that the nominated
heir apparent and his descendants would be enable to succeeed to the
headship of an old Territorial House. In the latter case the fee was
the same as before but covered several persons. Why do some stick at
just a stye lookalike for a TD and not for example add the forename of
Count, if they had a wife the wife could add the name Countess! Those
in the know would laugh at them. In fact when I was in Germany some
years ago I noticed a wealthy Baron, losing rather than gaining
status, the Germans just could not understand that the man could just
buy himself a title, and asked me if this was true. He was placed well
down the table! It is a pity that he did not just use the Territorial
Designation, that he was entitled to.
Charles

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by barrassie
With regard to 'change of name' certificates, I had one drawn up for a
friend who already had Arms, if he had been more patient he could have
waited for his grant of a Guidon, in which case it would have saved
the fees of about £120.

This of course recognises, as does the recent law ruling, that all
TD's (ancient or modern) are just names - nothing more.
It has always slightly amused me that heraldic writers (and I include
Innes of Learney and MacKinnon of Dunakin) went to great lengths to
persuade their eager public that these names which included a
territorial marker were in fact titles; even Debrett's were persuaded
to make mention of these territorial designations being titles in
their Peerage and Baronetage thus giving credence to the myth.

The very thought that someone could purchase an estate of land, and
thereby award themselves a title is bizarre. Titles should emanate
from the Crown and not be self awarded. I have absolutely no
difficulty with anyone using a TD but I must admit to smirking to
myself if they are so deluded as to think that they sport a title;
unfortunately many of thm do.

Post by barrassie
On another occaission I obtained a change of
nsame certificate for three generations, in order that the nominated
heir apparent and his descendants would be enable to succeeed to the
headship of an old Territorial House. In the latter case the fee was
the same as before but covered several persons.

I also find this to be bizarre but it is certainly in keeping with a
number of Scotland's legal fictions. Presumably, in the case in point,
the territorial designation had been abandoned as being of little
importance three generations ago. It is weird that Lyon can presume to
change the name of anyone who is deceased - by what authority or writ
does he have to posthumously change someones name?

The recent ruling clearly sets out that Lyon has no authority to
change someones name and the only discretion he has is to acknowledge
that a name HAS already been changed.

I have seen on occasion those who sport TD's recognised by Lyon
stating proudly that theirs has been "Granted" by Lyon (I believe that
there is presently such a post on the HSS forum); this of course is
self delusion. Lyon can not grant names or territorial designations
but can only acknowledge them when they are used.

He certainly can not grant titles.

As referred to by Charles, Lyon Court periodically publishes in the
Gazette lists of those it calls Chiefs, minor barons and Heads of
Territorial Houses. [Whether they will continue to publish the names
of minor barons remains to be seen but in light of the saving clause
in the AFT we ought to expect that they will - I won't loose any sleep
if they don't]. However, even this list has, in the past, been
mercilessly devalued. I know of at least two recent examples published
in this list who are (American) gentlemen who purchases a couple of
acres of swamp land in Scotland, changed the name of the land (or else
gave it a name) and were successful in petitioning Lyon for Scottish
armorial bearings (as Scottish land owners) and were not only
successful in gaining arms but also had a TD "granted" along with the
seemingly necessary guidon. These gentlemen, who do not even possess
British passports, promptly formed the (American) Society of Scottish
Armigers and regularly put themselves about (in full Scots national
dress) as Scottish Armigers. Further, they are recorded in the Gazette
as being Heads of Territorial Houses as approved and noted by Lord
Lyon.

Let's get this into perspective. TD's are NOT titles, they never were
titles. Court cases have shown that they are names. The Lyon Cour
gazette announcement states that the three words (i.e. surname + of +
designation) when used consistently become the ordinary sure (name) of
the user. As such therefore they are no different to armorial bearings
- some armorial bearings have a history attached and some are newly
minted but they are still equally armorial bearings.

Names whether sporting a TD or not are just names - some have a
history attached to them others do not; some are ancient and some are
newly assumed. But that is all they are, names it is the history
behind them that carries the weight and all, at some point in time,
were newly minted.

Edward

[Joseph McMillan]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The recent ruling clearly sets out that Lyon has no authority to
change someones name and the only discretion he has is to acknowledge
that a name HAS already been changed.

I agree with everything Edward has written. However, someone recently
called to my attention this saving provision in section 14(5) of the
Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995:

"The repeal of certain provisions of the Lyon King of Arms Act 1672
(provided for in Schedule 5 to this Act) shall not affect any right of
a person to add a territorial designation to his signature **or the
jurisdiction of the Lord Lyon King of Arms in relation to any such
designation.**"

This seems to muddy the waters considerably. One wonders why this
section doesn't seem to have been brought up in the judicial review of
the cases of Kerr at al to which Edward refers. It suggests that Lyon
*does* have some kind of jurisdiction over TDs, but whence that
jurisdiction derives is not apparent. It is not contained in the
provisions of the 1672 act that are repealed by schedule 5.

Joseph McMillan

[Greg]

Post by barrassie

Post by Greg

Post by JSF

Post by Greg
It's a good idea to keep this part of the subject on the surface.
These baronies are marketed for alot of money and the general public
should know what they're getting into - it's only fair.  By doing this
we may be able to get this into common knowledge which would be a good
thing.

Greg and Ralph,
Is it fair to say that you object to the commercialization of
baronies, not the baronies themselves?  You have to agree that there’s
been a trade in baronies since the time of the first grants.  They may
be something of an anachronism these days but, hey, why shouldn’t the
trade go on?
I like your point about full knowledge.  Perhaps you could help me
better understand the commodity and the market.  Consider that a
barony sells for, say, GBP 50,000 whereas a manorial lordship sells
for, say, 1/10th of that.  Of course there are material differences
between these comparables but, once you remove a barony from it’s
landed context, remove certainty of title through registration, remove
heraldic privilege, shut the door on the whole Scots’ diaspora … I
could go on but my point is that the commodity that is a barony has
recently lost key attributes which you would expect to adversely
impact its value … if purchasers (and sellers) are knowledgeable.
So, with full knowledge, how would you value the average “dignity” of
a barony: less than GBP 50,000?  More than GBP 5,000?  I suspect that
there’s very few trades these days but find it very hard to track the
market.  Any thoughts?
Regards, Scott Ferguson

Hello Scott,
It is about tradition.  It is about the integrity of Scotland and its
heraldry.   How can one trade a human quality?  In the year 2008, what
might - no, should have been a continuing tradition of purpose is not
an easily understood concept.  The “dignity” has become just a word
(title) with no other meaning in the commercial world than “lake–front
property”: it shows nice. It does nothing for purpose or the quality
of tradition – nowadays…   Baronys are only as valuable as the
controlling interests want them to be. (therein lies the rub)  Now,
what is value…?  Is it – Clann tradition, or is it McDonalds?
A baronet has more meaning in this sense because a baronet is easy to
understand.  A barony is a part of structure and must not be confused
with a market.  Scotland is hell-bent on quality. Don’t confuse
quality with money…- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Greg,
Re 'TD look alikes' that are not based on land, Tle Lord Lyon would/
could just not place them on the Edinburgh Gazettee notices under Lyon
Court; Chiefs of Names and Heads of Territorial Houses.
I have noticed some French names with 'de' in the middle not appearing
but one or two being gazetted, for example Joly de Lotbiniere, a
member of this family was a senior and prominent  1st Gulf War
Brittish Army officer.
With regard to 'change of name' certificates, I had one drawn up for a
friend who already had Arms, if he had been more patient he could have
waited for his grant of a Guidon, in which case it would have saved
the fees of about £120. On another occaission I obtained a change of
nsame certificate for three generations, in order that the nominated
heir apparent and his descendants would be enable to succeeed to the
headship of an old Territorial House. In the latter case the fee was
the same as before but covered several persons. Why do some stick at
just a stye lookalike for a TD and not for example add the forename of
Count, if they had a wife the wife could add the name Countess! Those
in the know would laugh at them. In fact when I was in Germany some
years ago I noticed a wealthy Baron, losing rather than gaining
status, the Germans just could not understand that the man could just
buy himself a title, and asked me if this was true. He was placed well
down the table! It is a pity that he did not just use the Territorial
Designation, that he was entitled to.
Charles- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

(>Those in the know would laugh at them)

That’s’ really the whole point isn’t? I think that in the case of
these new (TDs) the ones propagating this sort of thing; as though it
is in a real sense; some sort of elevation (which they truly believe
because it comes across so strongly in everything they comment on and
publish) does tend to almost drag Scottish heraldry into the sphere of
caricature: particularly for those who are trying to learn it and may
be considering involvement. This – attitude – also opens up the route
for the likes of this Howe individual and creates linguistic places
for them to hide (technicalities). That is not to say that some
standard could make the Howe types disappear, but it would certainly
make it more difficult…
And here we come to the prerogatives of heraldic additions: although
some additaments are of a recent design, the pure romancing and, well-
coveting of these (ladders) dilutes that traditions of hereditary
placements. They become no longer what they were intended to be and
this of course adds more confusion to the soup. Because as has been
pointed out, these are not titles in the true sense, but they could
easily stand as the title of an artistic work: “The Baron”.

I dunno, I hate to say it, and I hope that it will be taken in the
spirit that is intended, but this whole thing is almost a sort of
prostitution, and I wish others who really know better would step up
to the plate on this issue. One of the troubles is that the Barony
market is legal; has been for centuries I guess, but the problem today
is the people getting into it are from a very non-traditional place:
so it is indeed a bit like McDonald’s (notice it’s not Macdonald’s?).
And because the market of baronies is legal, (and as the late 12th
Duke of Argyll once said in reference to his tartan: “purveyors of
this ‘other’ material”…) trying to untangle the issue for posterity
has become something of an up-hill battle, and Lord Lyon has been put
right in the middle of it. I think the whole thing is very unfair,
particularly to Lyon.

A gentleman’s letters patent is a very special thing that is a
hallmark of Scotland: Scotland by it’s / they’re very nature has
always stood out, it’s rather a pride that has been bestowed on
Scotland through recognition – even the salmon fishing! I for one
would like to see the “authorities” take on this issue and make sure
that this long overdue perspective is placed at the head of the table.

[barrassie]

Post by Greg

Post by barrassie

Post by Greg

Post by JSF

Post by Greg
It's a good idea to keep this part of the subject on the surface.
These baronies are marketed for alot of money and the general public
should know what they're getting into - it's only fair.  By doing this
we may be able to get this into common knowledge which would be a good
thing.

Greg and Ralph,
Is it fair to say that you object to the commercialization of
baronies, not the baronies themselves?  You have to agree that there’s
been a trade in baronies since the time of the first grants.  They may
be something of an anachronism these days but, hey, why shouldn’t the
trade go on?
I like your point about full knowledge.  Perhaps you could help me
better understand the commodity and the market.  Consider that a
barony sells for, say, GBP 50,000 whereas a manorial lordship sells
for, say, 1/10th of that.  Of course there are material differences
between these comparables but, once you remove a barony from it’s
landed context, remove certainty of title through registration, remove
heraldic privilege, shut the door on the whole Scots’ diaspora … I
could go on but my point is that the commodity that is a barony has
recently lost key attributes which you would expect to adversely
impact its value … if purchasers (and sellers) are knowledgeable.
So, with full knowledge, how would you value the average “dignity” of
a barony: less than GBP 50,000?  More than GBP 5,000?  I suspect that
there’s very few trades these days but find it very hard to track the
market.  Any thoughts?
Regards, Scott Ferguson

Hello Scott,
It is about tradition.  It is about the integrity of Scotland and its
heraldry.   How can one trade a human quality?  In the year 2008, what
might - no, should have been a continuing tradition of purpose is not
an easily understood concept.  The “dignity” has become just a word
(title) with no other meaning in the commercial world than “lake–front
property”: it shows nice. It does nothing for purpose or the quality
of tradition – nowadays…   Baronys are only as valuable as the
controlling interests want them to be. (therein lies the rub)  Now,
what is value…?  Is it – Clann tradition, or is it McDonalds?
A baronet has more meaning in this sense because a baronet is easy to
understand.  A barony is a part of structure and must not be confused
with a market.  Scotland is hell-bent on quality. Don’t confuse
quality with money…- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Greg,
Re 'TD look alikes' that are not based on land, Tle Lord Lyon would/
could just not place them on the Edinburgh Gazettee notices under Lyon
Court; Chiefs of Names and Heads of Territorial Houses.
I have noticed some French names with 'de' in the middle not appearing
but one or two being gazetted, for example Joly de Lotbiniere, a
member of this family was a senior and prominent  1st Gulf War
Brittish Army officer.
With regard to 'change of name' certificates, I had one drawn up for a
friend who already had Arms, if he had been more patient he could have
waited for his grant of a Guidon, in which case it would have saved
the fees of about £120. On another occaission I obtained a change of
nsame certificate for three generations, in order that the nominated
heir apparent and his descendants would be enable to succeeed to the
headship of an old Territorial House. In the latter case the fee was
the same as before but covered several persons. Why do some stick at
just a stye lookalike for a TD and not for example add the forename of
Count, if they had a wife the wife could add the name Countess! Those
in the know would laugh at them. In fact when I was in Germany some
years ago I noticed a wealthy Baron, losing rather than gaining
status, the Germans just could not understand that the man could just
buy himself a title, and asked me if this was true. He was placed well
down the table! It is a pity that he did not just use the Territorial
Designation, that he was entitled to.
Charles- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

(>Those in the know would laugh at them)
That’s’ really the whole point isn’t?  I think that in the case of
these new (TDs) the ones propagating this sort of thing; as though it
is in a real sense; some sort of elevation (which they truly believe
because it comes across so strongly in everything they comment on and
publish) does tend to almost drag Scottish heraldry into the sphere of
caricature: particularly for those who are trying to learn it and may
be considering involvement. This – attitude –  also opens up the route
for the likes of this Howe individual and creates linguistic places
for them to hide (technicalities).  That is not to say that some
standard could make the Howe types disappear, but it would certainly
make it more difficult…
And here we come to the prerogatives of heraldic additions: although
some additaments are of a recent design, the pure romancing and, well-
coveting of these (ladders) dilutes that traditions of hereditary
placements.  They become no longer what they were intended to be and
this of course adds more confusion to the soup.  Because as has been
pointed out, these are not titles in the true sense, but they could
easily stand as the title of an artistic work: “The Baron”.
I dunno, I hate to say it, and I hope that it will be taken in the
spirit that is intended, but this whole thing is almost a sort of
prostitution, and I wish others who really know better would step up
to the plate on this issue.  One of the troubles is that the Barony
market is legal; has been for centuries I guess, but the problem today
so it is indeed a bit like McDonald’s (notice it’s not Macdonald’s?).
And because the market of baronies is legal, (and as the late 12th
Duke of Argyll once said in reference to his tartan: “purveyors of
this ‘other’ material”…)  trying to untangle the issue for posterity
has become something of an up-hill battle, and Lord Lyon has been put
right in the middle of it.  I think the whole thing is very unfair,
particularly to Lyon.
A gentleman’s letters patent is a very special thing that is a
hallmark of Scotland: Scotland by it’s / they’re very nature has
always stood out, it’s rather a pride that has been bestowed on
Scotland through recognition – even the salmon fishing!  I for one
would like to see the “authorities” take on this issue and make sure
that this long overdue perspective is placed at the head of the table.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament recognised
Territorial Names as titles, since that word was includded in the act,
the law stated that they could not sign by the designation alone but
with full name with Christian name or initials.
The 'change of name for the 3 generations on the one certificate, was
to one recognise the heir apparent with his maternal sid surname plus
designation, and his children and their children to take the maternal
side surname, without the designation, untill they in turn succeeded.
The Territorial Designation had been regularly used, and the daughter
had succed her father instead of her elder brother, her heir a much
older cousin was nominated as her heoir presumptive but required to
have to surname belonging to the Arms.
In the past peerrages were 'sold', Irish peerages were less expensive
than English ones, I am unmaware or the Scottish peerages, but King
James VI trying to make a person accept a baronetcy stated that if
accepted a peerage would in due corse be granted him. Feuadl bnaronies
were titles and could be sold providing the crown approvee, this
changed in the 19th century after which crown approval was no longer
rquired, on the other hand coats of Arms although attracting fees
could and can not be purchased. Up to WWI Peerages and Knighthoods
also required fees to be paid. After WWI the fees were abolished.
Lloyd gaeprge through his 'agent, Maundy Gregory sold peerages and
lesser honours including K
Charles

[Joseph McMillan]

Post by barrassie
My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament recognised
Territorial Names as titles, since that word was includded in the act,
the law stated that they could not sign by the designation alone but
with full name with Christian name or initials.

Charles, I think you're mistaken in suggesting that the Parliament
equated territorial names with titles. The act actually said (before
the 1995 repeal):

"And his Maiestie with consent forsaid Declaires that it is onlie
allowed for Noblemen and Bishopes to subscrive by their titles And
that all others shall subscrive their Christened names or the initiall
letter therof with there Sirnames and may if they please adject the
designations of their Lands prefixing the word Of to the saids
designations." The word "title" is included only with respect to
noblemen and bishops, not with respect to TDs.

Joseph McMillan

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by barrassie
My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament recognised
Territorial Names as titles, since that word was includded in the act,
the law stated that they could not sign by the designation alone but
with full name with Christian name or initials.

Charles, I think you're mistaken in suggesting that the Parliament
equated territorial names with titles.  The act actually said (before
"And his Maiestie with consent forsaid Declaires that it is onlie
allowed for Noblemen and Bishopes to subscrive by their titles And
that all others shall subscrive their Christened names or the initiall
letter therof with there Sirnames and may if they please adject the
designations of their Lands prefixing the word Of to the saids
designations."   The word "title" is included only with respect to
noblemen and bishops, not with respect to TDs.
Joseph McMillan

Joseph,
You beat me to it. I was just looking up the act to point out the very
thing to Charles and when I returned to rec h you had already done
it.

I am sorry to say that there are many who, like Charles, are under the
mistaken impression that a TD is a title. Innes of Learney did nothing
to disabuse them of this thought and even went on (somewhere in his
many writings) to say that it is quite acceptable (and indeed proper)
to call the wife of a "laird" or minor baron Lady Baronyname. He used
an example of (IIRC) his mother being referred to as Lady Learney and
cited this as irrefutable evidence of the fact. What he failed to
point out, or simply chose to ignore, was that there was of course a
time in history when practically all landowners and influential men
would be referred to as a matter of deference as "your lordship" (and
thereby also their wives as her ladyship) regardless of their actual
rank - this would also have been the case of lords of English manors
way back in history but it no more made a lord out of a lord of a
manor than it made a Lady out of the wife of a Scottish laird or minor
baron. Just because his mother was referred to in such a way did not
make it right nor did it make it a legal form of address. It may have
been a courteous form of address but I believe that it was outmoded
and had no legal basis.


This myth is also now broadcast on the website of the Convention of
the Baronage of Scotland and they would have the world believe that
the wife of a minor (ex feudal) baron has the right to be called Lady
Baronyname. This is an almost outrageous usurpation of a form of
address which rightly belongs to the wives (and in some cases
daughters) of Peers, Baronets and Knights.

I am afraid that Innes of Learney has a lot to answer for and I really
believe that had it not been for his unbridled enthusiasm such things
a feudal baronies and territorial designations would have died a
natural death years ago.

Edward

[Greg]

Post by barrassie

Post by Greg

Post by barrassie

Post by Greg

Post by JSF

Post by Greg
It's a good idea to keep this part of the subject on the surface.
These baronies are marketed for alot of money and the general public
should know what they're getting into - it's only fair.  By doing this
we may be able to get this into common knowledge which would be a good
thing.

Greg and Ralph,
Is it fair to say that you object to the commercialization of
baronies, not the baronies themselves?  You have to agree that there’s
been a trade in baronies since the time of the first grants.  They may
be something of an anachronism these days but, hey, why shouldn’t the
trade go on?
I like your point about full knowledge.  Perhaps you could help me
better understand the commodity and the market.  Consider that a
barony sells for, say, GBP 50,000 whereas a manorial lordship sells
for, say, 1/10th of that.  Of course there are material differences
between these comparables but, once you remove a barony from it’s
landed context, remove certainty of title through registration, remove
heraldic privilege, shut the door on the whole Scots’ diaspora … I
could go on but my point is that the commodity that is a barony has
recently lost key attributes which you would expect to adversely
impact its value … if purchasers (and sellers) are knowledgeable.
So, with full knowledge, how would you value the average “dignity” of
a barony: less than GBP 50,000?  More than GBP 5,000?  I suspect that
there’s very few trades these days but find it very hard to track the
market.  Any thoughts?
Regards, Scott Ferguson

Hello Scott,
It is about tradition.  It is about the integrity of Scotland and its
heraldry.   How can one trade a human quality?  In the year 2008, what
might - no, should have been a continuing tradition of purpose is not
an easily understood concept.  The “dignity” has become just a word
(title) with no other meaning in the commercial world than “lake–front
property”: it shows nice. It does nothing for purpose or the quality
of tradition – nowadays…   Baronys are only as valuable as the
controlling interests want them to be. (therein lies the rub)  Now,
what is value…?  Is it – Clann tradition, or is it McDonalds?
A baronet has more meaning in this sense because a baronet is easy to
understand.  A barony is a part of structure and must not be confused
with a market.  Scotland is hell-bent on quality. Don’t confuse
quality with money…- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Greg,
Re 'TD look alikes' that are not based on land, Tle Lord Lyon would/
could just not place them on the Edinburgh Gazettee notices under Lyon
Court; Chiefs of Names and Heads of Territorial Houses.
I have noticed some French names with 'de' in the middle not appearing
but one or two being gazetted, for example Joly de Lotbiniere, a
member of this family was a senior and prominent  1st Gulf War
Brittish Army officer.
With regard to 'change of name' certificates, I had one drawn up for a
friend who already had Arms, if he had been more patient he could have
waited for his grant of a Guidon, in which case it would have saved
the fees of about £120. On another occaission I obtained a change of
nsame certificate for three generations, in order that the nominated
heir apparent and his descendants would be enable to succeeed to the
headship of an old Territorial House. In the latter case the fee was
the same as before but covered several persons. Why do some stick at
just a stye lookalike for a TD and not for example add the forename of
Count, if they had a wife the wife could add the name Countess! Those
in the know would laugh at them. In fact when I was in Germany some
years ago I noticed a wealthy Baron, losing rather than gaining
status, the Germans just could not understand that the man could just
buy himself a title, and asked me if this was true. He was placed well
down the table! It is a pity that he did not just use the Territorial
Designation, that he was entitled to.
Charles- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

(>Those in the know would laugh at them)
That’s’ really the whole point isn’t?  I think that in the case of
these new (TDs) the ones propagating this sort of thing; as though it
is in a real sense; some sort of elevation (which they truly believe
because it comes across so strongly in everything they comment on and
publish) does tend to almost drag Scottish heraldry into the sphere of
caricature: particularly for those who are trying to learn it and may
be considering involvement. This – attitude –  also opens up the route
for the likes of this Howe individual and creates linguistic places
for them to hide (technicalities).  That is not to say that some
standard could make the Howe types disappear, but it would certainly
make it more difficult…
And here we come to the prerogatives of heraldic additions: although
some additaments are of a recent design, the pure romancing and, well-
coveting of these (ladders) dilutes that traditions of hereditary
placements.  They become no longer what they were intended to be and
this of course adds more confusion to the soup.  Because as has been
pointed out, these are not titles in the true sense, but they could
easily stand as the title of an artistic work: “The Baron”.
I dunno, I hate to say it, and I hope that it will be taken in the
spirit that is intended, but this whole thing is almost a sort of
prostitution, and I wish others who really know better would step up
to the plate on this issue.  One of the troubles is that the Barony
market is legal; has been for centuries I guess, but the problem today
so it is indeed a bit like McDonald’s (notice it’s not Macdonald’s?).
And because the market of baronies is legal, (and as the late 12th
Duke of Argyll once said in reference to his tartan: “purveyors of
this ‘other’ material”…)  trying to untangle the issue for posterity
has become something of an up-hill battle, and Lord Lyon has been put
right in the middle of it.  I think the whole thing is very unfair,
particularly to Lyon.
A gentleman’s letters patent is a very special thing that is a
hallmark of Scotland: Scotland by it’s / they’re very nature has
always stood out, it’s rather a pride that has been bestowed on
Scotland through recognition – even the salmon fishing!  I for one
would like to see the “authorities” take on this issue and make sure
that this long overdue perspective is placed at the head of the table.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament recognised
Territorial Names as titles, since that word was includded in the act,
the law stated that they could not sign by the designation alone but
with full name with Christian name or initials.
The 'change of name for the 3 generations on the one certificate, was
to one recognise the heir apparent with his maternal sid surname plus
designation, and his children and their children to take the maternal
side surname, without the designation, untill they in turn succeeded.
The Territorial Designation had been regularly used, and the daughter
had succed her father instead of her elder brother, her heir a much
older cousin was nominated as her heoir presumptive but required to
have to surname belonging to the Arms.
In the past peerrages were 'sold', Irish peerages were less expensive
than English ones, I am unmaware or the Scottish peerages, but King
James VI trying to make a person accept a baronetcy stated that if
accepted a peerage would in due corse be granted him. Feuadl bnaronies
were titles and could be sold providing the crown approvee, this
changed in the 19th century after which crown approval was no longer
rquired, on the other hand coats of Arms although attracting fees
could and can not be purchased. Up to WWI Peerages and Knighthoods
also required fees to be paid. After WWI the fees were abolished.
Lloyd gaeprge through his 'agent, Maundy Gregory sold peerages and
lesser honours including K
Charles- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My understanding is that the Scottish Parliament recognised
Territorial Names as titles

Is not (here we go) a title only that by crown appointment, as in the
erection of a barony?
Now, as to the generational aspect of this: if a barony / title (so
appointed) is passed down via inheritance and rematriculated - as I
understand things, all heraldic privileges go with that barony as well
as the dignity of the (sitting) office if any in times past. It’s a
link in other words. But once a barony leaves the possession of the
original bearers, the title ceases to have any effect whatsoever and
the barony enters the commodities market and stays there. And I read
your point about the surname requirement: I believe this point is the
best example: the title and the name should match as surname was often
the land save most patronymics and TDs were actually a signal of
function rather than some supposed recognition – and that’s the way,
in my view, it should remain as much as possible.

Now, you say Peerages were sold: these peerages were functioning yes?
And since Ireland was more troubled it stands to reason that those
peerages would be cheaper: an Irish acre was larger too. Now as to
King James offering a peerage to a baronetcy – this too is a come-on
to get people motivated to get involved – yet again the baronet would
advance to a function.
You note that coats of arms can not be sold: so should not – any
function of the crown, but that’s just my opinion :)

[Brian G. Hamilton.]

On May 8, 11:53 pm, Greg <***@comcast.net> wrote:


Without getting into your debate about what a barony is now what is
very clear is that you have no idea at all what a barony was in former
times. It is not considered to be cheating to read up on a subject
before writing about it. Voltaire has been quoted here before.

Brian G. Hamilton

[barrassie]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.
Without getting into your debate about what a barony is now what is
very clear is that you have no idea at all what a barony was in former
times.  It is not considered to be cheating to read up on a subject
before writing about it.  Voltaire has been quoted here before.
Brian G. Hamilton

Joseph,
I found the act and read same, I see what you imply. My territorial
surname has resulted from a Royal Land Grant to the 1st Laird my
ancestor in 1602 by James VI of Scots for his good deeds done and to
be done, it includes a minor juristiction. Laird's wives were styeled
Lady or Ledy Glensmith, also , nut now really obsolete styled The Much
Honoured. Are these territorial designation titles or styles when
originating from a Royal Land Grant not an honour of some kind, when I
had my passport renewed they told me it had to go through the titled
section, then when renewed as an EEC style passport I had a job
persuading the authorities thart it was my legal name and not a title
for page 3! I look forward to yr reply.
Yrs aye,
Charles

[Greg]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.
Without getting into your debate about what a barony is now what is
very clear is that you have no idea at all what a barony was in former
times.  It is not considered to be cheating to read up on a subject
before writing about it.  Voltaire has been quoted here before.
Brian G. Hamilton

Sorry Brian, but I don't think you're right, I've studied on this
subject for some time. If you wish to correct me, please do, or you
may email me and argue your case. (I'm not intersed in arguing here
either, it's unproductive).

[Brian G. Hamilton.]

Post by Greg
Sorry Brian, but I don't think you're right, I've studied on this
subject for some time. If you wish to correct me, please do, or you
may email me and argue your case. (I'm not intersed in arguing here
either, it's unproductive).

You confuse studying with reading uninformed comment on the internet!

BGH

[Greg]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

Post by Greg
Sorry Brian, but I don't think you're right, I've studied on this
subject for some time. If you wish to correct me, please do, or you
may email me and argue your case. (I'm not intersed in arguing here
either, it's unproductive).

You confuse studying with reading uninformed comment on the internet!
BGH

Please Brian, if you can't be contsructive, and cite your meaning and
make a case then, why bother, you're just throwing rocks?

[Brian G. Hamilton.]

Post by Greg

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.
You confuse studying with reading uninformed comment on the internet!
BGH

Please Brian, if you can't be contsructive, and cite your meaning and
make a case then, why bother, you're just throwing rocks?

OK then, tell us what you have read that enables you to say "I've
studied".

BGH

[e***@gnucnu.com]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

Post by Greg

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.
You confuse studying with reading uninformed comment on the internet!
BGH

Please Brian, if you can't be contsructive, and cite your meaning and
make a case then, why bother, you're just throwing rocks?

OK then, tell us what you have read that enables you to say "I've
studied".
BGH

The last episode of "The Baron", a reality TV programme, about three
minor celebrities competing to be "elected to the aristocracy" by
winning the title of the Baron of Troup was broadcast in the UK last
night. The Barony was bought by the TV programme makers from the 12th
Baron Ian Cruickshank, of Broughty Ferry, Tayside, who inherited the
title from his late uncle, Alexander Garden, the 11th Laird of Troup.
The winner, Mike Reid, an actor and comedian (who died before the
programme was broadcast), was duly elected by a few villagers in
Gardenstown, Banffshire and their children, beating off competition
from legendary Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren and TV personality
Suzanne Shaw to the title, which he referred to as the Baronship.

The title of The Baron is, apparently, of huge importance to the
locals, many of whom belong to the Closed Brethren and have staunch
religious beliefs and traditional values rarely seen in modern days.
They were, predictably, ridiculed and insulted by the contestants and
the voice over. Many were driven to tears by what has been described
as a “tirade of pure evil” delivered by Malcolm McLaren during his
election campaign.
http://www.banffshire-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/1274/TV_star%92s_'tirade_of_evil%92.html

It is a fallacy that the acquisition of a feudal barony by any means
automatically elevates the new owner to the aristocracy, as the
programme seems to imply, but rumour has it that the vendor made more
than he would have done on the open market by enabling a TV company to
make a show that has been described by critics as "breathtakingly
weird, hilarious, offensive, disgracefully manipulative, a serious
case of reality TV crossing the line", which "led to frighteningly
violent chaos. All in the name of light entertainment... After seizing
a golden opportunity to rip the p*ss out of amusing provincial people
who, unbelievably, believe in God, ITV's string-pulling clever-dicks
came dangerously close to causing a full riot.."

The villagers were not the only people to be manipulated, as another

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.
Another variant on the standard celebs-in-unfamiliar-territory fare in which three reasonably famous people (though nobody - even the other celebs - seems to recognise Malcolm McLaren) descend upon the Aberdeenshire fishing village of Gardenstown to compete for the courtesy title "Baron of Troup", the winner to be decided by the locals.
The village is, so we are told, "one of Britain's most isolated communities". It should be pointed out (since the programme itself completely fails to) that this isolation is a state of mind rather than a fact of geography. In reality, Gardenstown is well-connected and has several large towns almost on the doorstep. Oh, and contrary to many listings, it's not in the Highlands either (wrong side of the Grampians altogether). To someone who knows the area, it's intriguing to ponder just how much the celebs (and the journalists flown in to cover the filming for the Sunday papers) were really told about where they were. They must have at least picked up a bit from talking to the villagers, but the production company appears to have gone to some lengths to maintain the illusion of remoteness (90 minutes to travel from Aberdeen airport by coach? That must have been one circuitous route), and will have been helped by the fact that even though the fairly large town of Banff is only about 4 miles away, the local geography hides it (and its lesser twin, Macduff) from view.
Fiona Allen's commentary also tells us that Gardenstown is in crisis after the last Baron relinquished his title. She doesn't tell us that it's a figurehead role without any actual power, or that he relinquished it because the production company made him a generous financial offer for it. Scottish baronies are the only British honours that can be legally traded, but one of the first acts of the new Scottish Parliament was to abolish what remained of the old Scottish feudal system, with the upshot that the title doesn't actually confer any land or special rights.<

What effect, if any, this undignified and dishonest fiasco will have
on the barony market remains to be seen.

EAJM

[Greg]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

Post by Greg

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.
You confuse studying with reading uninformed comment on the internet!
BGH

Please Brian, if you can't be contsructive, and cite your meaning and
make a case then, why bother, you're just throwing rocks?

OK then, tell us what you have read that enables you to say "I've
studied".
BGH

Innes, Nisbet, on line articles, as well as much off air
corrispondense. Currently I found time for Marc Bloch, next will come
McAndrews ( I keep diving in and out of McAndrews; it's a thick read
but I'm gathering as much info as I can so that when I get to it I'll
have a greater understanding of what he refers to).

Brian, I wish you wouldn't just try to find something that you can
slam somebody with, I think we'd all rather that you offer a
constructive opinion.

[am]

The last episode of "The Baron", a reality TV programme, about three
minor celebrities competing to be "elected to the aristocracy" by
winning the title of the Baron of Troup was broadcast in the UK last
night. The Barony was bought by the TV programme makers from the 12th
Baron Ian Cruickshank, of Broughty Ferry, Tayside, who inherited the
title from his late uncle, Alexander Garden, the 11th Laird of Troup.
The winner, Mike Reid, an actor and comedian (who died before the
programme was broadcast), was duly elected by a few villagers in
Gardenstown, Banffshire and their children, beating off competition
from legendary Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren and TV personality
Suzanne Shaw to the title, which he referred to as the Baronship.

The title of The Baron is, apparently, of huge importance to the
locals, many of whom belong to the Closed Brethren and have staunch
religious beliefs and traditional values rarely seen in modern days.
They were, predictably, ridiculed and insulted by the contestants and
the voice over. Many were driven to tears by what has been described
as a “tirade of pure evil” delivered by Malcolm McLaren during his
election campaign.
http://www.banffshire-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/1274/TV_star%92s_'tirade_of_evil%92.html

It is a fallacy that the acquisition of a feudal barony by any means
automatically elevates the new owner to the aristocracy, as the
programme seems to imply, but rumour has it that the vendor made more
than he would have done on the open market by enabling a TV company to
make a show that has been described by critics as "breathtakingly
weird, hilarious, offensive, disgracefully manipulative, a serious
case of reality TV crossing the line", which "led to frighteningly
violent chaos. All in the name of light entertainment... After seizing
a golden opportunity to rip the p*ss out of amusing provincial people
who, unbelievably, believe in God, ITV's string-pulling clever-dicks
came dangerously close to causing a full riot.."

The villagers were not the only people to be manipulated, as another

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.
Another variant on the standard celebs-in-unfamiliar-territory fare in which three reasonably famous people (though nobody - even the other celebs - seems to recognise Malcolm McLaren) descend upon the Aberdeenshire fishing village of Gardenstown to compete for the courtesy title "Baron of Troup", the winner to be decided by the locals.
The village is, so we are told, "one of Britain's most isolated communities". It should be pointed out (since the programme itself completely fails to) that this isolation is a state of mind rather than a fact of geography. In reality, Gardenstown is well-connected and has several large towns almost on the doorstep. Oh, and contrary to many listings, it's not in the Highlands either (wrong side of the Grampians altogether). To someone who knows the area, it's intriguing to ponder just how much the celebs (and the journalists flown in to cover the filming for the Sunday papers) were really told about where they were. They must have at least picked up a bit from talking to the villagers, but the production company appears to have gone to some lengths to maintain the illusion of remoteness (90 minutes to travel from Aberdeen airport by coach? That must have been one circuitous route), and will have been helped by the fact that even though the fairly large town of Banff is only about 4 miles away, the local geography hides it (and its lesser twin, Macduff) from view.
Fiona Allen's commentary also tells us that Gardenstown is in crisis after the last Baron relinquished his title. She doesn't tell us that it's a figurehead role without any actual power, or that he relinquished it because the production company made him a generous financial offer for it. Scottish baronies are the only British honours that can be legally traded, but one of the first acts of the new Scottish Parliament was to abolish what remained of the old Scottish feudal system, with the upshot that the title doesn't actually confer any land or special rights.<

What effect, if any, this undignified and dishonest fiasco will have
on the "baronship" market remains to be seen.

EAJM

[James Dempster]

Post by e***@gnucnu.com
What effect, if any, this undignified and dishonest fiasco will have
on the "baronship" market remains to be seen.

At least the villagers picked the right one rather than a right one.
Below from the Aberdeen Press & Journal on Tuesday 6th May

"He fell in love with the small coastal community and had hoped to
raise £10,000 to buy land for a community centre.

Mrs Reid and the star’s former agent, David Hanh, have vowed to build
the centre in his memory and are currently looking for a plot of land
for the project.

More than £15,000 has been raised so far, through the collection at Mr
Reid’s funeral and a donation from the Comedians Golfing Society.

Mrs Reid and Mr Hanh will also link up with the society for a
celebrity golf match to make Mr Reid’s dream become a reality.

Mr Hanh believes that up to £100,000 could be raised as Mr Reid’s
celebrity friends have vowed to back his idea for a community centre.

Every penny from the golf tournament, the Mike Reid Classic, will go
towards the Gardenstown project."

James
James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

[Greg]

 The last episode of "The Baron", a reality TV programme, about three
minor celebrities competing to be "elected to the aristocracy" by
winning the title of the Baron of Troup was broadcast in the UK last
night.  The Barony was bought by the TV programme makers from the 12th
Baron Ian Cruickshank, of Broughty Ferry, Tayside, who inherited the
title from his late uncle, Alexander Garden, the 11th Laird of Troup.
The winner, Mike Reid, an  actor and comedian (who died before the
programme was broadcast), was duly elected by a few villagers in
Gardenstown, Banffshire and their children, beating off competition
from legendary Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren and TV personality
Suzanne Shaw to the title, which he referred to as the Baronship.
The title of The Baron is, apparently, of huge importance to the
locals, many of whom belong to the Closed Brethren and have staunch
religious beliefs and traditional values rarely seen in modern days.
They were, predictably, ridiculed and insulted by the contestants and
the voice over. Many were driven to tears by what has been described
as a “tirade of pure evil” delivered by Malcolm McLaren during his
election campaign.http://www.banffshire-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/1274/TV_st...
It is a fallacy that the acquisition of a feudal barony by any means
automatically elevates the new owner to the aristocracy, as the
programme seems to imply, but rumour has it that the vendor made more
than he would have done on the open market by enabling a TV company to
make a show that has been described by critics as "breathtakingly
weird, hilarious, offensive, disgracefully manipulative, a serious
case of reality TV crossing the line", which "led to frighteningly
violent chaos. All in the name of light entertainment... After seizing
a golden opportunity to rip the p*ss out of amusing provincial people
who, unbelievably, believe in God, ITV's string-pulling clever-dicks
came dangerously close to causing a full riot.."
The villagers were not the only people to be manipulated, as another

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.
Another variant on the standard celebs-in-unfamiliar-territory fare in which three reasonably famous people (though nobody - even the other celebs - seems to recognise Malcolm McLaren) descend upon the Aberdeenshire fishing village of Gardenstown to compete for the courtesy title "Baron of Troup", the winner to be decided by the locals.
The village is, so we are told, "one of Britain's most isolated communities". It should be pointed out (since the programme itself completely fails to) that this isolation is a state of mind rather than a fact of geography. In reality, Gardenstown is well-connected and has several large towns almost on the doorstep. Oh, and contrary to many listings, it's not in the Highlands either (wrong side of the Grampians altogether). To someone who knows the area, it's intriguing to ponder just how much the celebs (and the journalists flown in to cover the filming for the Sunday papers) were really told about where they were. They must have at least picked up a bit from talking to the villagers, but the production company appears to have gone to some lengths to maintain the illusion of remoteness (90 minutes to travel from Aberdeen airport by coach? That must have been one circuitous route), and will have been helped by the fact that even though the fairly large town of Banff is only about 4 miles away, the local geography hides it (and its lesser twin, Macduff) from view.
Fiona Allen's commentary also tells us that Gardenstown is in crisis after the last Baron relinquished his title. She doesn't tell us that it's a figurehead role without any actual power, or that he relinquished it because the production company made him a generous financial offer for it. Scottish baronies are the only British honours that can be legally traded, but one of the first acts of the new Scottish Parliament was to abolish what remained of the old Scottish feudal system, with the upshot that the title doesn't actually confer any land or special rights.<

What effect, if any, this undignified and dishonest fiasco will have
on the "baronship" market remains to be seen.
EAJM

It's too bad Mr. Reid passed away: I hope the family is okay. But
this presentation on the current affair rings the: "ya just made my
point" bell rather loudly...

Uh, Brian?

[Brian G. Hamilton.]

It's too bad Mr. Reid passed away: I hope the family is okay.  But
this presentation on the current affair rings the: "ya just made my
point" bell rather loudly...
Uh, Brian?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And how much have you raised for charity recently?

BGH

[Greg]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

It's too bad Mr. Reid passed away: I hope the family is okay.  But
this presentation on the current affair rings the: "ya just made my
point" bell rather loudly...
Uh, Brian?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And how much have you raised for charity recently?
BGH

Thousands - For years. Don't talk to me about charity. I spend my
Christmas Eves going from house to house to give gifts to families
with children who have nothing.

[Greg]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

It's too bad Mr. Reid passed away: I hope the family is okay.  But
this presentation on the current affair rings the: "ya just made my
point" bell rather loudly...
Uh, Brian?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And how much have you raised for charity recently?
BGH

Thousands - For years. Don't talk to me about charity.  I spend my
Christmas Eves going from house to house to give gifts to families
with children who have nothing.

And Brian? If you have nothing to offer this duscussion, I'm not
going to mess with you anymore.

[barrassie]

Post by Greg

Post by Greg
It's a good idea to keep this part of the subject on the surface.
These baronies are marketed for alot of money and the general public
should know what they'regetting into - it's only fair.  By doing this
we may be able to get this into common knowledge which would be a good
thing.

Gregand Ralph,
Is it fair to say that you object to the commercialization of
baronies, not the baronies themselves?  You have to agree that there’s
been a trade in baronies since the time of the first grants.  They may
be something of an anachronism these days but, hey, why shouldn’t the
trade go on?
I like your point about full knowledge.  Perhaps you could help me
better understand the commodity and the market.  Consider that a
barony sells for, say, GBP 50,000 whereas a manorial lordship sells
for, say, 1/10th of that.  Of course there are material differences
between these comparables but, once you remove a barony from it’s
landed context, remove certainty of title through registration, remove
heraldic privilege, shut the door on the whole Scots’ diaspora … I
could go on but my point is that the commodity that is a barony has
recently lost key attributes which you would expect to adversely
impact its value … if purchasers (and sellers) are knowledgeable.
So, with full knowledge, how would you value the average “dignity” of
a barony: less than GBP 50,000?  More than GBP 5,000?  I suspect that
there’s very few trades these days but find it very hard to track the
market.  Any thoughts?
Regards, Scott Ferguson

Hello Scott,
It is about tradition.  It is about the integrity of Scotland and its
heraldry.   How can one trade a human quality?  In the year 2008, what
might - no, should have been a continuing tradition of purpose is not
an easily understood concept.  The “dignity” has become just a word
(title) with no other meaning in the commercial world than “lake–front
property”: it shows nice. It does nothing for purpose or the quality
of tradition – nowadays…  Baronysare only as valuable as the
controlling interests want them to be. (therein lies the rub)  Now,
what is value…?  Is it – Clann tradition, or is it McDonalds?
A baronet has more meaning in this sense because a baronet is easy to
understand.  A barony is a part of structure and must not be confused
with a market.  Scotland is hell-bent on quality. Don’t confuse
quality with money…- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

With reference to the title of Lady for the wife of a Laird, Chief,
chieftain, quite appart from references to this in the Scots
Dictionary, there are also a number of pre Learney uses of the title
of Lady plus designation name, one being Lady Barrowfield, mother of
Clementina Walkinshaw of Barrowfield, Countess Alberstroff, mother of
Prince Charles (Charles III) daughter Charlotte Duchess of Albany,
another being The Lady Mackintosh wife of Mackintosh of Mackintosh
(her husband became her

[barrassie]

Post by barrassie

Post by Greg

Post by Greg
It's a good idea to keep this part of the subject on the surface.
These baronies are marketed for alot of money and the general public
should know what they'regetting into - it's only fair.  By doing this
we may be able to get this into common knowledge which would be a good
thing.

Gregand Ralph,
Is it fair to say that you object to the commercialization of
baronies, not the baronies themselves?  You have to agree that there’s
been a trade in baronies since the time of the first grants.  They may
be something of an anachronism these days but, hey, why shouldn’t the
trade go on?
I like your point about full knowledge.  Perhaps you could help me
better understand the commodity and the market.  Consider that a
barony sells for, say, GBP 50,000 whereas a manorial lordship sells
for, say, 1/10th of that.  Of course there are material differences
between these comparables but, once you remove a barony from it’s
landed context, remove certainty of title through registration, remove
heraldic privilege, shut the door on the whole Scots’ diaspora … I
could go on but my point is that the commodity that is a barony has
recently lost key attributes which you would expect to adversely
impact its value … if purchasers (and sellers) are knowledgeable.
So, with full knowledge, how would you value the average “dignity” of
a barony: less than GBP 50,000?  More than GBP 5,000?  I suspect that
there’s very few trades these days but find it very hard to track the
market.  Any thoughts?
Regards, Scott Ferguson

Hello Scott,
It is about tradition.  It is about the integrity of Scotland and its
heraldry.   How can one trade a human quality?  In the year 2008, what
might - no, should have been a continuing tradition of purpose is not
an easily understood concept.  The “dignity” has become just a word
(title) with no other meaning in the commercial world than “lake–front
property”: it shows nice. It does nothing for purpose or the quality
of tradition – nowadays…  Baronysare only as valuable as the
controlling interests want them to be. (therein lies the rub)  Now,
what is value…?  Is it – Clann tradition, or is it McDonalds?
A baronet has more meaning in this sense because a baronet is easy to
understand.  A barony is a part of structure and must not be confused
with a market.  Scotland is hell-bent on quality. Don’t confuse
quality with money…- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

With reference to the title of Lady for the wife of a Laird, Chief,
chieftain, quite appart from references to this in the Scots
Dictionary, there are also a number of pre Learney uses of the title
of Lady plus designation name, one being Lady Barrowfield, mother of
Clementina Walkinshaw of Barrowfield, Countess Alberstroff, mother of
Prince Charles  (Charles III) daughter Charlotte Duchess of Albany,
another being The Lady Mackintosh wife of Mackintosh of Mackintosh
(her husband became her- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Apologies message sent early before finished!
(her husband became her POW she had raised her husband's clan for
Prince Charles R, hence she was styled Col Anne!
No you can not lay the door to Learney for inventing titles, or even
inventing coats of Arms and untitled nobility in Scotland, all of
which appeared long before he was on the scene! I was even ticked off
by The Ldy Blank when on the telephone I asked if I were talking to
Lady Blank, I later explained how and when The was suitable and quoted
my own wife's use of the title with and without The, however I think
Madam better, in case of being mistaken for the wife of a new Knight
instead of an old TD! A newspaper reporter though once politely
corrected me and said my wife was known as May, and I agreed, in this
instance I was wrong!
Charles

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by barrassie
With reference to the title of Lady for the wife of a Laird, Chief,
chieftain, quite appart from references to this in the Scots
Dictionary, there are also a number of pre Learney uses of the title
of Lady plus designation name, one being Lady Barrowfield, mother of
Clementina Walkinshaw of Barrowfield, Countess Alberstroff, mother of
Prince Charles  (Charles III) daughter Charlotte Duchess of Albany,
another being The Lady Mackintosh wife of Mackintosh of Mackintosh
(her husband became her-

As I believe I said in my earlier post, these were no more than
(archaic) common forms of courtesy address (even lords of manors and
their wives would, in the dim and distant past, have been called "your
lordship" and "your ladyship") and serve now only to confuse. I have
no doubt that Mackintosh of Mackintosh is held in great esteem but
nevertheless, he remains of no greater rank than esquire at best and
for his wife (who is no doubt equally cherished and esteemed) to be
nowadays addressed as Lady Mackintosh serves only to confuse the man
on the Edinburgh omnibus who would rightly think that anyone referred
to as Lady Mackintosh would be either a peeress in her own right or
the wife of a peer/baronet/knight. Bad enough for the wife of a chief
to be referred to as Lady X - far worse for someone who merely sports
a territorial designation as an integral part of the name to presume
to such a title.

There is a clearly accepted list of those who are entitled to sport
titles and the holders of nothing more than territorial designations
as part of their name and their wives (including chiefs and their
wives) are not amongst them. Many things that were accepted in the
past without question have, rightly, remained there.

I have noticed that we Scots are fond of "talking up" our status and
out of curiosity I looked up Mackintosh in the Scottish Clan and
Family Encyclopedia only to find one such example - "On the death of
the 28th Chief in 1938, the *title* passed to his cousin .... " . It
would seem that, in this book at least, the position of Chief has now
become a title. It seems to me that when one succeeds to the headship
of a family and therefore becomes its Chief one has succeeded to a
position (which I will admit carries with it a certain status) not a
title.

Edward Stewart

[Don Aitken]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by barrassie
With reference to the title of Lady for the wife of a Laird, Chief,
chieftain, quite appart from references to this in the Scots
Dictionary, there are also a number of pre Learney uses of the title
of Lady plus designation name, one being Lady Barrowfield, mother of
Clementina Walkinshaw of Barrowfield, Countess Alberstroff, mother of
Prince Charles  (Charles III) daughter Charlotte Duchess of Albany,
another being The Lady Mackintosh wife of Mackintosh of Mackintosh
(her husband became her-

As I believe I said in my earlier post, these were no more than
(archaic) common forms of courtesy address (even lords of manors and
their wives would, in the dim and distant past, have been called "your
lordship" and "your ladyship") and serve now only to confuse. I have
no doubt that Mackintosh of Mackintosh is held in great esteem but
nevertheless, he remains of no greater rank than esquire at best and
for his wife (who is no doubt equally cherished and esteemed) to be
nowadays addressed as Lady Mackintosh serves only to confuse the man
on the Edinburgh omnibus who would rightly think that anyone referred
to as Lady Mackintosh would be either a peeress in her own right or
the wife of a peer/baronet/knight. Bad enough for the wife of a chief
to be referred to as Lady X - far worse for someone who merely sports
a territorial designation as an integral part of the name to presume
to such a title.

Not the *very* distant past, though. Certainly it was common form in
the 17th century, in both Scotland and England, for those of quite
moderate status to be "My Lord" and "My Lady", as can be seen in any
collection of letters of the period. I don't believe this had any
necessary connection with lordship of manors.

[Greg]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by barrassie
With reference to the title of Lady for the wife of a Laird, Chief,
chieftain, quite appart from references to this in the Scots
Dictionary, there are also a number of pre Learney uses of the title
of Lady plus designation name, one being Lady Barrowfield, mother of
Clementina Walkinshaw of Barrowfield, Countess Alberstroff, mother of
Prince Charles  (Charles III) daughter Charlotte Duchess of Albany,
another being The Lady Mackintosh wife of Mackintosh of Mackintosh
(her husband became her-

As I believe I said in my earlier post, these were no more than
(archaic) common forms of courtesy address (even lords of manors and
their wives would, in the dim and distant past, have been called "your
lordship" and "your ladyship") and serve now only to confuse. I have
no doubt that Mackintosh of Mackintosh is held in great esteem but
nevertheless, he remains of no greater rank than esquire at best and
for his wife (who is no doubt equally cherished and esteemed) to be
nowadays addressed as Lady Mackintosh serves only to confuse the man
on the Edinburgh omnibus who would rightly think that anyone referred
to as Lady Mackintosh would be either a peeress in her own right or
the wife of a peer/baronet/knight. Bad enough for the wife of a chief
to be referred to as Lady X - far worse for someone who merely sports
a territorial designation as an integral part of the name to presume
to such a title.
There is a clearly accepted list of those who are entitled to sport
titles and the holders of nothing more than territorial designations
as part of their name and their wives (including chiefs and their
wives) are not amongst them. Many things that were accepted in the
past without question have, rightly, remained there.
I have noticed that we Scots are fond of "talking up" our status and
out of curiosity I looked up Mackintosh in the Scottish Clan and
Family Encyclopedia only to find one such example - "On the death of
the 28th Chief in 1938, the *title* passed to his cousin .... " . It
would seem that, in this book at least, the position of Chief has now
become a title. It seems to me that when one succeeds to the headship
of a family and therefore becomes its Chief one has succeeded to a
position (which I will admit carries with it a certain status) not a
title.
Edward Stewart
On the death of the 28th Chief in 1938, the *title* passed to his >cousin .... " . It would seem that, in this book at least, the position of Chief >has now become a title

I thnk that perhaps the very word 'title' and it's applications might
be the crux of the missed-information that goes on with this type of
discusion.

Let's remember that Clan Chiefs were around for a lot longer than the
organized English Crown. In times passed the Clan chief WAS the king,
and so it went with the tribes of pre-England as well.

My impression of a "Title" refers to a Crown grant. (in the Case of
Chief, that too is a title, not necessarily by grant - outside of
Lyon's office. But within the Scots social structure it is an
important seat). A crown grant implies a title of function as in
court: Clan Chiefs did and do I think still serve in government and
therefore by vurtue of the Title of Chief, wheather he/she serves or
not, they are still a Chief.

Lord Lyon cannot however grant a Title: this application blurs the
line in my view. Barons who were not seated in governing fuction - as
the purpose of their grant, do not posess the act of the Title -
unless - the barony is handed down through hereditary means - father
to son etc. The 'unseated market barony' does not have the act of
Crown Granbt to back it up, therefore it cannot be seen in my view as
a functioning title. (As I'm writing this, it occurs to me that what's
happening is that like the self- applied TD, the word "Title" has been
undergoing a forced recognition battle through the same sort of
manipulations).

Now, if I am absolutely wrong in my assessment please point that out.
If one can, I'd appreciate an effort to seperate what is right from
what is off so that the matter can be made correct, because I think
that it will go a long way toward a good understanding of these
discussions as we wait for more on the Uist decision. I think that the
(words): Barony and Title and Territorial Designation have been the
real issue all along. The poles have been attempting define the
"VALUE" of these words for what each side believes is proper
placement...

[JSF]

Post by Greg
Now, if I am absolutely wrong in my assessment please point that out.
If one can, I'd appreciate an effort to seperate what is right from
what is off so that the matter can be made correct, because I think
that it will go a long way toward a good understanding of these
discussions as we wait for more on the Uist decision. I think that the
(words): Barony and Title and Territorial Designation have been the
real issue all along.  The poles have been attempting define the
"VALUE" of these words for what each side believes is proper
placement...

Hello Greg,

I relate to your comment above. Discussions based on principles are
more informative than discussions based on vested interests. I think
it would serve the forum well if participants could lay out the basis
of legitimacy for the honours and styles they claim. That way the
discussion could focus on competing principles.

For example, is it controversial to assert that the UK crown is the
sole current legitimate source of UK honours? If this is the
principle, then any UK based “honour” must derive its current
legitimacy from its historical basis in a UK crown grant or
confirmation. So, I would ask:
1) Of what import is a heraldic authority’s recognition of Mr. X as
“chief of the name X”?
2) Would you argue that a “name change” from “X” to “X of Y” that the
Ct of Session forces Lyon to register is an honour?
3) Would you argue that the “dignity” of a barony is not an
(anachronistic) honour (of at least some degree)?

My current view is that, if the Queen’s office wouldn’t recognize you
(or your chief) by a given title or style, I shouldn’t have to
either. Hope this helps to progress the discussion.

Kind regards, Scott Ferguson

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by JSF
My current view is that, if the Queen’s office wouldn’t recognize you
(or your chief) by a given title or style, I shouldn’t have to
either.  Hope this helps to progress the discussion.
Kind regards, Scott Ferguson

This is not an unreasonable view and it is one I have some sympathy
with. It may be possible to enforce that personal view with perhaps a
lady who calls herself Lady without justification or someone who calls
himself Lord Peeragetitle or baron of Greatermoorside (even though in
Scots law he is in fact baron of Greatermoorside when he has purchased
the dignity regardless of whether or not he has sought recognition by
Lyon) in the same way that one is not forced to call a duke, peer,
baronet or knight by his title but could if one wished to be really
awkward call him by his given name alone.

However, Lord Uist has shown quite clearly that in his view names with
territorial designations are nothing more or less than names and, if
that is so, where a person holds a passport, driving licence and pays
tax to HM Revenue & Customs in his chosen name it is rather difficult
for any of us to argue that the Crown or the relevant "Queen's
Officer" has not recognised that person in their chosen name. IIRC in
the Uist cases it has come to light that Lyon in fact wrote to one of
the petitioners stating that his chosen name, including a TD, was
accepted as being his name (but rather bizarrely wasn't "officially"
recognised). Without getting into the arguments as to why Lyon, once
accepting the name of the petitioner, chose not to record that name in
the Register - this is after all the purpose of the court hearings -
it is apparent that Lyon himself accepts that the name of the
petitioner is as chosen. Given that, if we choose not to address a man
by his chosen name, when that is the name in which he pays his tax and
national insurance then perhaps the only option is not to address him
at all - and that is likely to simply appear to be rude.

I think that we need to separate the two things here - titles and
names - it has been established that a name with a TD is just a name.
That being so, as I think I said earlier, a man can call himself what
he likes and no matter how grand the name may sound, he is simply a
man with a name. It is the history of the name which makes it grand or
plain. It doesn't really bother me what a man calls himself. If I like
him I like him if I don't I don't. If he changes his name it won't
change the man behind it (in my eyes at least). But if a man (or a
lady) pretends to a title (and feudal barons don't really pretend to a
title as long as they don't try to deceive people into thinking they
are peers) such as King of Man or The Count of Frogonia then he
deserves whatever stick he gets.


Edward Stewart

[am]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
However, Lord Uist has shown quite clearly that in his view names with
territorial designations are nothing more or less than names and, if
that is so, where a person holds a passport, driving licence and pays
tax to HM Revenue & Customs in his chosen name it is rather difficult
for any of us to argue that the Crown or the relevant "Queen's
Officer" has not recognised that person in their chosen name.

I understand that Lord Uist's judgement is to be appealed by the
Crown.
Notice was given to the parties on the very last day. This means that
the case
will go to the Inner house of the Court of Session. It is likely that,
as before,
it will take a considerable time before the matter is resolved.

EAJM

[barrassie]

Post by am

Post by r***@yahoo.com
However, Lord Uist has shown quite clearly that in his view names with
territorial designations are nothing more or less than names and, if
that is so, where a person holds a passport, driving licence and pays
tax to HM Revenue & Customs in his chosen name it is rather difficult
for any of us to argue that the Crown or the relevant "Queen's
Officer" has not recognised that person in their chosen name.

I understand that Lord Uist's judgement is to be appealed by the
Crown.
Notice was given to the parties on the very last day. This means that
the case
will go to the Inner house of the Court of Session. It is likely that,
as before,
it will take a considerable time before the matter is resolved.
EAJM

Scottish titles were originally granted by the UK Crown which did not
then exist.
CMKH

[barrassie]

Post by barrassie

Post by am

Post by r***@yahoo.com
However, Lord Uist has shown quite clearly that in his view names with
territorial designations are nothing more or less than names and, if
that is so, where a person holds a passport, driving licence and pays
tax to HM Revenue & Customs in his chosen name it is rather difficult
for any of us to argue that the Crown or the relevant "Queen's
Officer" has not recognised that person in their chosen name.

I understand that Lord Uist's judgement is to be appealed by the
Crown.
Notice was given to the parties on the very last day. This means that
the case
will go to the Inner house of the Court of Session. It is likely that,
as before,
it will take a considerable time before the matter is resolved.
EAJM

Scottish titles were originally granted by the UK Crown which did not
then exist.
CMKH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text

That is Scottish titles were granted by a Scottish Crown which
existed centuries before a UK Crown.
With another reference to the title Lady The Lady for wife pf a Laird,
in fact I was repremaned when telephoning I asked if I were talking to
Lady X, I was put in my place and told The Lady X, that is not the
wife of a baronet of knight.
If you refer to the Scots dictionary you will read that the title of
Lady plus estate name is used. This is also in the up to date Scots
dictionary, so not in the distant past. One new small landowner was
reprimanded for using the style Madam or the Madam for his wife so
reverted to Lady plus estate name, so perhaps preference should be
given to the style The Madam to show wife of a chief/chieftain of old
standing to difference from a new landowner or other new titles!
The word title covers a lot of ground, as in the word job title, so a
designation is a title just as Lady or General or Doctor or
Proffessor, they are all titles of some form before a person's name.
CMKH

[Greg]

Post by barrassie

Post by am

Post by r***@yahoo.com
However, Lord Uist has shown quite clearly that in his view names with
territorial designations are nothing more or less than names and, if
that is so, where a person holds a passport, driving licence and pays
tax to HM Revenue & Customs in his chosen name it is rather difficult
for any of us to argue that the Crown or the relevant "Queen's
Officer" has not recognised that person in their chosen name.

I understand that Lord Uist's judgement is to be appealed by the
Crown.
Notice was given to the parties on the very last day. This means that
the case
will go to the Inner house of the Court of Session. It is likely that,
as before,
it will take a considerable time before the matter is resolved.
EAJM

Scottish titles were originally granted by the UK Crown which did not
then exist.
CMKH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text

That is Scottish titles were granted by a Scottish Crown  which
existed centuries before a UK Crown.
With another reference to the title Lady The Lady for wife pf a Laird,
in fact I was repremaned when telephoning I asked if I were talking to
Lady X, I was put in my place and told The Lady X, that is not the
wife of a baronet of knight.
If you refer to the Scots dictionary you will read that the title of
Lady plus estate name is used. This is also in the up to date Scots
dictionary, so not in the distant past. One new small landowner was
reprimanded for using the style Madam or the Madam for his wife so
reverted to Lady plus estate name, so perhaps preference should be
given to the style The Madam to show wife of a chief/chieftain of old
standing to difference from a new landowner or other new titles!
The word title covers a lot of ground, as in the word job title, so a
designation is a title just as Lady or General or Doctor or
Proffessor, they are all titles of some form before a person's name.
CMKH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The word title covers a lot of ground, as in the word job title, so a
designation is a title just as Lady or General or Doctor or
Proffessor, they are all titles of some form before a person's name.

Hello Charles,

In the context of crown appointments, I think that I see your point
that “they are all titles”. Elected representatives are addressed with
the title of their office, yet “Mr.” is in effect a title as well. So
the question is how do we for the sake of separation class the form of
title that applies to crown grants?

[Greg]

Post by Greg

Post by barrassie

Post by am

Post by r***@yahoo.com
However, Lord Uist has shown quite clearly that in his view names with
territorial designations are nothing more or less than names and, if
that is so, where a person holds a passport, driving licence and pays
tax to HM Revenue & Customs in his chosen name it is rather difficult
for any of us to argue that the Crown or the relevant "Queen's
Officer" has not recognised that person in their chosen name.

I understand that Lord Uist's judgement is to be appealed by the
Crown.
Notice was given to the parties on the very last day. This means that
the case
will go to the Inner house of the Court of Session. It is likely that,
as before,
it will take a considerable time before the matter is resolved.
EAJM

Scottish titles were originally granted by the UK Crown which did not
then exist.
CMKH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text

That is Scottish titles were granted by a Scottish Crown  which
existed centuries before a UK Crown.
With another reference to the title Lady The Lady for wife pf a Laird,
in fact I was repremaned when telephoning I asked if I were talking to
Lady X, I was put in my place and told The Lady X, that is not the
wife of a baronet of knight.
If you refer to the Scots dictionary you will read that the title of
Lady plus estate name is used. This is also in the up to date Scots
dictionary, so not in the distant past. One new small landowner was
reprimanded for using the style Madam or the Madam for his wife so
reverted to Lady plus estate name, so perhaps preference should be
given to the style The Madam to show wife of a chief/chieftain of old
standing to difference from a new landowner or other new titles!
The word title covers a lot of ground, as in the word job title, so a
designation is a title just as Lady or General or Doctor or
Proffessor, they are all titles of some form before a person's name.
CMKH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The word title covers a lot of ground, as in the word job title, so a
designation is a title just as Lady or General or Doctor or
Proffessor, they are all titles of some form before a person's name.

Hello Charles,
In the context of crown appointments, I think that I see your point
that “they are all titles”. Elected representatives are addressed with
the title of their office, yet “Mr.” is in effect a title as well.  So
the question is how do we for the sake of separation class the form of
title that applies to crown grants?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I thought I would add this to the mix:

When feudal tenure ceased all effects past and present went with it.
Within the Dublin Armorial ca:1585 there are many examples of Earls
(peers) who's arms feature the cornet below the helm, but a cornet
nontheless. When we continue into the area of the Lords; all of them
feudal (yes?) we see supporters only - and nothing else (in this
volume). Baronies as functional areas of government all but ceased to
exist in the 19th century: their disfuction begining in the 18th
century. Baronies apparently then went into seclusion except within
the sphere of hereditary entitlements as a function of lineage. Feudal
baronies were of course still around, but their status was negligable
with regard to public perception. Fast foward to Innes of Learney and
his dramatic approach breathed new life into the feudal arena by way
of heraldic additaments. Enter the modern market... Fast Forward to
AFT - it's all over. The guilding of the lily is all that's left.
These "extras" are what the arguments seem to be all about. The "Pros"
want to see them continue, the "Cons" say: "continue what? There's
nothing left".

I would love to see a book come out after this legal event is complete
so that this can be on the record. Anything that I've stated is not to
be taken as declarative - just reasoned opinion based on what I have
seen to be objective facts, so please - let me know where I'm wrong.

[barrassie]

Post by am

Post by r***@yahoo.com
However, Lord Uist has shown quite clearly that in his view names with
territorial designations are nothing more or less than names and, if
that is so, where a person holds a passport, driving licence and pays
tax to HM Revenue & Customs in his chosen name it is rather difficult
for any of us to argue that the Crown or the relevant "Queen's
Officer" has not recognised that person in their chosen name.

I understand that Lord Uist's judgement is to be appealed by the
Crown.
Notice was given to the parties on the very last day. This means that
the case
will go to the Inner house of the Court of Session. It is likely that,
as before,
it will take a considerable time before the matter is resolved.
EAJM

Perhaps it should be stated that there is no requirement for a
landowner in Scotland to add the designation of his estate to seek
Lord Lyon's aproval unless he petitions for Arms, I can think of a
number of chieftains/lairds who have never matriculatated Arms but
used their designation for centuries and addressed as such by Lord
Lyon.
CMKH

[am]

Post by barrassie

Post by am

Post by r***@yahoo.com
However, Lord Uist has shown quite clearly that in his view names with
territorial designations are nothing more or less than names and, if
that is so, where a person holds a passport, driving licence and pays
tax to HM Revenue & Customs in his chosen name it is rather difficult
for any of us to argue that the Crown or the relevant "Queen's
Officer" has not recognised that person in their chosen name.

I understand that Lord Uist's judgement is to be appealed by the
Crown.
Notice was given to the parties on the very last day. This means that
the case
will go to the Inner house of the Court of Session. It is likely that,
as before,
it will take a considerable time before the matter is resolved.
EAJM

Perhaps it should be stated that there is no requirement for a
landowner in Scotland to add the designation of his estate to seek
Lord Lyon's aproval unless he petitions for Arms, I can think of a
number of chieftains/lairds who have never matriculatated Arms but
used their designation for centuries and addressed as such by Lord
Lyon.
CMKH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

What about people who don't own any land in Scotland or live there
either, whether they have matriculated arms in Scotland or not? Is
there any tradition of people who are not lairds or chieftains adding
a designation of a non-existent estate and being addressed as such by
Lord Lyon?

EAJM

[barrassie]

Post by barrassie

Post by am

Post by r***@yahoo.com
However, Lord Uist has shown quite clearly that in his view names with
territorial designations are nothing more or less than names and, if
that is so, where a person holds a passport, driving licence and pays
tax to HM Revenue & Customs in his chosen name it is rather difficult
for any of us to argue that the Crown or the relevant "Queen's
Officer" has not recognised that person in their chosen name.

I understand that Lord Uist's judgement is to be appealed by the
Crown.
Notice was given to the parties on the very last day. This means that
the case
will go to the Inner house of the Court of Session. It is likely that,
as before,
it will take a considerable time before the matter is resolved.
EAJM

Perhaps it should be stated that there is no requirement for a
landowner in Scotland to add the designation of his estate to seek
Lord Lyon's aproval unless he petitions for Arms, I can think of a
number of chieftains/lairds who have never matriculatated Arms but
used their designation for centuries and addressed as such by Lord
Lyon.
CMKH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

 What about people who don't own any land in Scotland or live there
either, whether they have matriculated arms in Scotland or not?  Is
there any tradition of people who are not lairds or chieftains adding
a designation of a non-existent estate and being addressed as such by
Lord Lyon?
EAJM- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Not for non existant estates as far as I know, but for example Sweeney
of Bolger's Park, is gazetted under Chiefs of Names and Heads of
Territorial Houses, as also Joly de Lotbiniere, Brig Joly de
Lotbiniere (the prominent Brittish field Officer Gulf War I) who is I
beleive now a representer of this House or Family, both these are
Candaian, one French Canadian. Notwithstanding the phrase used on the
Gazette notice it takes 82 years plus 3 generations to found a House
Territorial or otherwise.
I did find an Eastern European designation recognised also but can not
now find same. I have also noted a French nameappearing to be a
designation with the particule de in the middle of the name, it
appears in the Ordinary of Arms, but NOT gazetted. It used to be the
cae that an estate owner i the colonies or Commonwealth could record a
Territorial Designation, I have seen two others one in the north of
England the other in Cornwall, both in the Ordinary of Arms
(Scottish), but did not look up the Gazette. If I remember them I will
look up the Gazette or the pre 1948 list for the Lord Chamberlain's
Office that goes back to mid 19th century.
Charles

[Greg]

Post by JSF

Post by Greg
Now, if I am absolutely wrong in my assessment please point that out.
If one can, I'd appreciate an effort to seperate what is right from
what is off so that the matter can be made correct, because I think
that it will go a long way toward a good understanding of these
discussions as we wait for more on the Uist decision. I think that the
(words): Barony and Title and Territorial Designation have been the
real issue all along.  The poles have been attempting define the
"VALUE" of these words for what each side believes is proper
placement...

Hello Greg,
I relate to your comment above.  Discussions based on principles are
more informative than discussions based on vested interests.  I think
it would serve the forum well if participants could lay out the basis
of legitimacy for the honours and styles they claim.  That way the
discussion could focus on competing principles.
For example, is it controversial to assert that the UK crown is the
sole current legitimate source of UK honours?  If this is the
principle, then any UK based “honour” must derive its current
legitimacy from its historical basis in a UK crown grant or
1) Of what import is a heraldic authority’s recognition of Mr. X as
“chief of the name X”?
2) Would you argue that a “name change” from “X” to “X of Y” that the
Ct of Session forces Lyon to register is an honour?
3) Would you argue that the “dignity” of a barony is not an
(anachronistic) honour (of at least some degree)?
My current view is that, if the Queen’s office wouldn’t recognize you
(or your chief) by a given title or style, I shouldn’t have to
either.  Hope this helps to progress the discussion.
Kind regards, Scott Ferguson
1) Of what import is a heraldic authority’s recognition of Mr. X as
“chief of the name X”?
2) Would you argue that a “name change” from “X” to “X of Y” that the
Ct of Session forces Lyon to register is an honour?
3) Would you argue that the “dignity” of a barony is not an
(anachronistic) honour (of at least some degree)?

1) In Scotland, I would think it very important, as Chief's and heads
of recognized (noble) families have histories that must be protected
and recorded. These [families] have been a great part of the
infrastructure of Scotland back beyond Malcom I and they have earned
their rights of Regognition [laterally as well], first by the Crown
(Scots and then English) and then by Lyon's office.

2&3) Forcing Lyon to Recognize (record) one's name that has been
changed to reflect (key word) a dignity - where one ordinarily did not
exist for the new owner does enter into a bit of Title Anarchy. I
must say that I interpret the word "dignity" herein as belong to an
officer /noble so appointed by the crown: erection of Baronies that
had courts etc i.e. functional. The Vanity Barony cannot, in my view,
be considered a Dignity in that since of the word; what we there is
really nothing more than semantics: sort of a legal "paint by numbers"
argument. The proponents of these vanity baronies have been unable to
successfully argue anything else. Yet when they continue to do so,
they only succeed in confusing the matter even further: another lawyer
tactic of "deflecting attention" - just read this thread :)
I would argue that Vanity Baronies are not "hounors" at all, because
they do not fall into the catigory of socially useful anymore, they
are instead only useful as some sort of minor investment kept on life-
support due to the principle of Lyon's Office alone.

And now we of course find that Uist's decision will indeed be
appealed, so our side is holding fast...

[Brian G. Hamilton.]

Post by Greg
And now we of course find that Uist's decision will indeed be
appealed, so our side is holding fast...- >

"Our side"? What is this; a football match?

BGH

[Greg]

Post by Greg
And now we of course find that Uist's decision will indeed be
appealed, so our side is holding fast...- >

"Our side"?  What is this; a football match?
BGH
"Our side"? What is this; a football match?

Yeah, a slightly missplaced phrase: sorry about that. I think I'm
making reference to what appears to be two schools of thought on the
issue. I should offer up this disclaimer; although I believe that the
subject should be in the spotlight - for the novice; as a source of
reference. I am endlessly facisnated with this subject - because of
the fluidness that it has taken. Learny apparently began the process
with his (desire) for the Baronial additaments and then it has
followed all the way to AFT. And then there's the market. This
subject has become a bit of a sub-hobby for me, and there appears to
be no shortage really of people interested - from whatever opinion.

So, some (opinions) in this might be bolstered by an appeal: I'd love
to know what the grounds are... (that could be better than the actual
case).

[Brian G. Hamilton.]

Yeah, a slightly missplaced phrase: sorry about that.  I think I'm
making reference to what appears to be two schools of thought on the
issue. I should offer up this disclaimer;  although I believe that the
subject should be in the spotlight - for the novice; as a source of
reference.  I am endlessly facisnated with this subject - because of
the fluidness that it has taken.  Learny apparently began the process
with his (desire) for the Baronial additaments and then it has
followed all the way to AFT.  And then there's the market.  This
subject has become a bit of a sub-hobby for me, and there appears to
be no shortage really of people interested - from whatever opinion.
So, some (opinions) in this might be bolstered by an appeal: I'd love
to know what the grounds are... (that could be better than the actual
case).

Someone has given the above post five stars; I wonder who that was?
BGH

[John A. Duncan]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

Yeah, a slightly missplaced phrase: sorry about that.  I think I'm
making reference to what appears to be two schools of thought on the
issue. I should offer up this disclaimer;  although I believe that the
subject should be in the spotlight - for the novice; as a source of
reference.  I am endlessly facisnated with this subject - because of
the fluidness that it has taken.  Learny apparently began the process
with his (desire) for the Baronial additaments and then it has
followed all the way to AFT.  And then there's the market.  This
subject has become a bit of a sub-hobby for me, and there appears to
be no shortage really of people interested - from whatever opinion.
So, some (opinions) in this might be bolstered by an appeal: I'd love
to know what the grounds are... (that could be better than the actual
case).

Someone has given the above post five stars; I wonder who that was?
BGH

Greg, what are the post nominals after your name? (NVB)

John

[Brian G. Hamilton.]

Post by John A. Duncan
Greg, what are the post nominals after your name? (NVB)

John, you have to understand modern technology. Google is probably
the most advanced technological company in the world. It has
programmes that can mecipher quite ordinary writings and catorgise
them. Clearly it has looked at Gregs postings and awarded them
'NVB' (Not Very Bright).

Pleased to be of help.

Brian G. Hamilton.

[Greg]

Post by John A. Duncan

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

Yeah, a slightly missplaced phrase: sorry about that.  I think I'm
making reference to what appears to be two schools of thought on the
issue. I should offer up this disclaimer;  although I believe that the
subject should be in the spotlight - for the novice; as a source of
reference.  I am endlessly facisnated with this subject - because of
the fluidness that it has taken.  Learny apparently began the process
with his (desire) for the Baronial additaments and then it has
followed all the way to AFT.  And then there's the market.  This
subject has become a bit of a sub-hobby for me, and there appears to
be no shortage really of people interested - from whatever opinion.
So, some (opinions) in this might be bolstered by an appeal: I'd love
to know what the grounds are... (that could be better than the actual
case).

Someone has given the above post five stars; I wonder who that was?
BGH

Greg, what are the post nominals after your name? (NVB)
John- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

This (NVB) doesn't show up until Brian added it in on 16 May. I just
took it back out in this post.

As usual, your opinions in this subject are not backed up by objective
facts and thereby both of you have nothing to contribute and you
resort to picking again.

[barrassie]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

Yeah, a slightly missplaced phrase: sorry about that.  I think I'm
making reference to what appears to be two schools of thought on the
issue. I should offer up this disclaimer;  although I believe that the
subject should be in the spotlight - for the novice; as a source of
reference.  I am endlessly facisnated with this subject - because of
the fluidness that it has taken.  Learny apparently began the process
with his (desire) for the Baronial additaments and then it has
followed all the way to AFT.  And then there's the market.  This
subject has become a bit of a sub-hobby for me, and there appears to
be no shortage really of people interested - from whatever opinion.
So, some (opinions) in this might be bolstered by an appeal: I'd love
to know what the grounds are... (that could be better than the actual
case).

Someone has given the above post five stars; I wonder who that was?
BGH

My post for 21st May is behind at 46.
At the end of the day a bought barony is just as much a Dignity or
honour and noble title as one granted to an ancestor for good deads
done and to be done, by the crown raising the estate to a barony, but
that being said a bought barony does not give the same status to a
person as one inherited, hence when in Germany I was asked was it
really possible that anyone could actually buy a barony? I said yes
that it was perfectly legal, none the less the poor baron though
wealthy was placed at a rather low table, perhaps he would have fared
better if he had just relied on his own self, he was a kindly
thoughtful man. On the other hand another who had acquired a
designation for work in the community for his name/clan was received
with respect by the same persons from Germany.
CMKH.

[barrassie]

Post by Brian G. Hamilton.

Yeah, a slightly missplaced phrase: sorry about that.  I think I'm
making reference to what appears to be two schools of thought on the
issue. I should offer up this disclaimer;  although I believe that the
subject should be in the spotlight - for the novice; as a source of
reference.  I am endlessly facisnated with this subject - because of
the fluidness that it has taken.  Learny apparently began the process
with his (desire) for the Baronial additaments and then it has
followed all the way to AFT.  And then there's the market.  This
subject has become a bit of a sub-hobby for me, and there appears to
be no shortage really of people interested - from whatever opinion.
So, some (opinions) in this might be bolstered by an appeal: I'd love
to know what the grounds are... (that could be better than the actual
case).

Someone has given the above post five stars; I wonder who that was?
BGH

My  post for 21st May is behind at 46.
At the end of the day a bought barony is just as much a Dignity or
honour and noble title  as one granted to an ancestor for good deads
done and to be done, by the crown raising the estate to a barony, but
that being said a bought barony does not give the same status to a
person as one inherited, hence when in Germany I was asked was it
really possible that anyone could actually buy a barony? I said yes
that it was perfectly legal, none the less the poor baron though
wealthy was placed at a rather low table, perhaps he would have fared
better if he had just relied on his own self, he was a kindly
thoughtful man. On the other hand another who had acquired a
designation for work in the community for his name/clan was received
with respect by the same persons from Germany.
CMKH.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

When feudal tenure ceased all effects past and present went with it.
Within the Dublin Armorial ca:1585 there are many examples of Earls
(peers) who's arms feature the cornet below the helm, but a cornet
nontheless. When we continue into the area of the Lords; all of them

Dear Greg,
Irish Peerage barons, Scottish Lords of Prliament (Peers and possibly
English Peerage barons a;lso were not entitled to Coronets. King
Charles II granted coronets to the Scottish Lords of Parliament who
were peers of the Realm this after 1660, I am presently unaware of the
situation of the English Peerage Barons.
As far as the Peers of Ireland, Barons are/were concerned they were
not and never have been granted the right to coronets by a sovereign
King or Parliament recognised by the de facto Brittish Crown. They
were however granted the right by King James VII and II while he was
de facto and de jure King of Ireland, His Majesty also granted a
Peerage during this time and the noble concerened was addressed as
such by the usurping Williamite forces, however the de facto King
William and his government did not reconise an honours granted by King
James in Ireland after leaving England. I understand the right was
entered in the books of Ulster Office and not removed, but those
Irfish peers use coronets by long user and in Jacobite eyes by right,
Jacobites would not recognise the userping dinasty. On the other hand
Napolean I granted titles during the Hungred Days after he left Elba
and before his final defeat at Waterloo, these titles however are
recognised .
Bet wishes,
Charles

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by barrassie
As far as the Peers of Ireland, Barons are/were concerned they were
not and never have been granted the right to coronets by a sovereign
King or Parliament recognised by the de facto Brittish Crown.

========
Hello Hillhouse,

What about the Right Honorable Godfrey James Macdonald of Macdonald?
His ancestor, Sir Alexander Macdonald, was raised to the Irish
Peerage in 1776 with the barony of "Slate" in Ireland ("Slate" is a
legal fiction -- and is how Sleat is pronounced on Skye). Lord
Macdonald (8th Baron) bears a baron's coronet ensigning his shield:
http://www.clandonald.org.uk/chiefs/macdonald.html

Would Lord Macdonald's coronet be considered ancient usage even though
it dates from George III and not James VII & II?

Thank you very much,
--Guy Power

[barrassie]

wrote:> As far as the Peers of Ireland, Barons are/were concerned they were

Post by barrassie
not and never have been granted the right to coronets by a sovereign
King or Parliament recognised by the de facto Brittish Crown.

========
Hello Hillhouse,
What about the Right Honorable Godfrey James Macdonald of Macdonald?
His ancestor, Sir Alexander Macdonald,  was raised to the Irish
Peerage in 1776 with the barony of "Slate" in Ireland ("Slate" is a
legal fiction -- and is how Sleat is pronounced on Skye).  Lord
Macdonald (8th Baron) bears a baron's coronet ensigning his shield:http://www.clandonald.org.uk/chiefs/macdonald.html
Would Lord Macdonald's coronet be considered ancient usage even though
it dates from George III and not James VII & II?
Thank you very much,
--Guy Power

Dear Guy,
To the best of my knowlege something like one hundred years of usage
would be adequate. Several years ago I checked a 'title' covered by
the crown office, which I was told was allowed since it had been used
for about that sort of time without chalenge so that it had become
officially acceptable according to the Crown Office, and would
therefore have been accepted by the Lod Lyon if there were a Petition
for Arms.
Yrs aye,
Charles

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

On Sat, 24 May 2008 00:23:49 -0700 (PDT), barrassie

Post by barrassie

wrote:> As far as the Peers of Ireland, Barons are/were concerned they were

Post by barrassie
not and never have been granted the right to coronets by a sovereign
King or Parliament recognised by the de facto Brittish Crown.

========
Hello Hillhouse,
What about the Right Honorable Godfrey James Macdonald of Macdonald?
His ancestor, Sir Alexander Macdonald,  was raised to the Irish
Peerage in 1776 with the barony of "Slate" in Ireland ("Slate" is a
legal fiction -- and is how Sleat is pronounced on Skye).  Lord
Macdonald (8th Baron) bears a baron's coronet ensigning his shield:http://www.clandonald.org.uk/chiefs/macdonald.html
Would Lord Macdonald's coronet be considered ancient usage even though
it dates from George III and not James VII & II?
Thank you very much,
--Guy Power

Dear Guy,
To the best of my knowlege something like one hundred years of usage
would be adequate. Several years ago I checked a 'title' covered by
the crown office, which I was told was allowed since it had been used
for about that sort of time without chalenge so that it had become
officially acceptable according to the Crown Office, and would
therefore have been accepted by the Lod Lyon if there were a Petition
for Arms.
Yrs aye,
Charles

This is the first time I have heard that any peer within the five
Peerages might no be allowed the use of a coronet appropriate to
his/her degree.

As far as I am aware the College of Arms allows all peers of the
degree of baron, whichever peerage they are from, the use of the
appropriate coronet.

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

[barrassie]

On May 24, 8:48 am, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
On Sat, 24 May 2008 00:23:49 -0700 (PDT), barrassie

Post by barrassie

wrote:> As far as the Peers of Ireland, Barons are/were concerned they were

Post by barrassie
not and never have been granted the right to coronets by a sovereign
King or Parliament recognised by the de facto Brittish Crown.

========
Hello Hillhouse,
What about the Right Honorable Godfrey James Macdonald of Macdonald?
His ancestor, Sir Alexander Macdonald,  was raised to the Irish
Peerage in 1776 with the barony of "Slate" in Ireland ("Slate" is a
legal fiction -- and is how Sleat is pronounced on Skye).  Lord
Macdonald (8th Baron) bears a baron's coronet ensigning his shield:http://www.clandonald.org.uk/chiefs/macdonald.html
Would Lord Macdonald's coronet be considered ancient usage even though
it dates from George III and not James VII & II?
Thank you very much,
--Guy Power

Dear Guy,
To the best of my knowlege something like one hundred years of usage
would be adequate. Several years ago I checked a 'title' covered by
the crown office, which I was told was allowed since it had been used
for about that sort of time without chalenge so that it had become
officially acceptable according to the Crown Office, and would
therefore have been accepted by the Lod Lyon if there were a Petition
for Arms.
Yrs aye,
Charles

This is the first time I have heard that any peer within the five
Peerages might no be allowed the use of a coronet appropriate to
his/her degree.
As far as I am aware the College of Arms allows all peers of the
degree of baron, whichever peerage they are from, the use of the
appropriate coronet.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetagewww.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I should have said that I do not state not allowed, but never granted
and recognised as sucH CMKH

[StephenP]

Post by barrassie
I should have said that I do not state not allowed, but never granted
and recognised as sucH CMKH

Would that sort of equate to Irish Peers being referred to by their
"main" Irish title in the House of Lords but who actually sat there as
a result of an "inferior" UK title? (Before the removal of the
hereditary peers of course.)

Yours aye

Stephen

[Derek Howard]

Post by StephenP

Post by barrassie
I should have said that I do not state not allowed, but never granted
and recognised as sucH CMKH

Would that sort of equate to Irish Peers being referred to by their
"main" Irish title in the House of Lords but who actually sat there as
a result of an "inferior" UK title? (Before the removal of the
hereditary peers of course.)
Yours aye
Stephen

There used to be a nice example of a photograph on the web of an Irish
(non-feudal) baron - Arthur Kenlis Maxwell, 11th Baron Farnham and an
Irish representative peer - with his coronet. (It was formerly posted
at http://lafayette.150m.com/far7017.html but is no longer there).
IIRC the original photo was in the V&A and had been taken for the 1911
coronation. If the Earl Marshal gave the nod to Irish peers wearing
their coronets to a coronation it may represent some form of
recognition.

Derek Howard

[barrassie]

Post by Derek Howard

Post by StephenP

Post by barrassie
I should have said that I do not state not allowed, but never granted
and recognised as sucH CMKH

Would that sort of equate to Irish Peers being referred to by their
"main" Irish title in the House of Lords but who actually sat there as
a result of an "inferior" UK title? (Before the removal of the
hereditary peers of course.)
Yours aye
Stephen

There used to be a nice example of a photograph on the web of an Irish
(non-feudal) baron - Arthur Kenlis Maxwell, 11th Baron Farnham and an
Irish representative peer - with his coronet. (It was formerly posted
athttp://lafayette.150m.com/far7017.htmlbut is no longer there).
IIRC the original photo was in the V&A and had been taken for the 1911
coronation. If the Earl Marshal gave the nod to Irish peers wearing
their coronets to a coronation it may represent some form of
recognition.
Derek Howard- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The Irish Barons (peers) use a coronet and have done for cemturies but
were never granted the right exceping that by King Jmes and his Irish
Parliament whose acts were later not recognised, but those peers have
every right to coronets nor by long interrupted usage, I have just
looked up the Irish peers in my Debbretts of 1826 and there they are
with coronets, my guess is they have used them since the grant by King
James though the act was not recognised.
CMKH

[barrassie]

Post by barrassie

Post by Derek Howard

Post by StephenP

Post by barrassie
I should have said that I do not state not allowed, but never granted
and recognised as sucH CMKH

Would that sort of equate to Irish Peers being referred to by their
"main" Irish title in the House of Lords but who actually sat there as
a result of an "inferior" UK title? (Before the removal of the
hereditary peers of course.)
Yours aye
Stephen

There used to be a nice example of a photograph on the web of an Irish
(non-feudal) baron - Arthur Kenlis Maxwell, 11th Baron Farnham and an
Irish representative peer - with his coronet. (It was formerly posted
athttp://lafayette.150m.com/far7017.htmlbutis no longer there).
IIRC the original photo was in the V&A and had been taken for the 1911
coronation. If the Earl Marshal gave the nod to Irish peers wearing
their coronets to a coronation it may represent some form of
recognition.
Derek Howard- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The Irish Barons (peers) use a coronet and have done for cemturies but
were never granted the right exceping that by King Jmes and his Irish
Parliament whose acts were later not recognised, but those peers have
every right to coronets nor by long interrupted usage, I have just
looked up the Irish peers in my Debbretts of 1826 and there they are
with coronets, my guess is they have used them since the grant by King
James though the act was not recognised.
CMKH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Would that sort of equate to Irish Peers being referred to by their
"main" Irish title in the House of Lords but who actually sat there
as
a result of an "inferior" UK title? (Before the removal of the
hereditary peers of course.)

Dear Stephen, No to that one, but perhaps there just might be a
possibility that the coronets were used by representitive peers/
barons, but think not since the Act of Union was in 1802 and they
would have been using them well before.
Charles