EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Greetings To All Readers,

It is with a noted sense of pleasure that I join your group and
actively take part in a discussion I have monitored for many months.
Such lively debate is conducive to furthered understanding of what is,
certainly, a complex and intricate issue: that of feudal "titles."

We at EnglishFeudalTruth.com strive to supply our readers and visitors
with a wealth of information regarding this topic. It is our sincere
hope that the words found within are a benefit and formative in the
continued education of others. We welcome the thoughts and opinions
of all e-scholars and energetically incorporate these same arguments
into our own. Your input is most welcome.

We are specifically interested in the matter of manorial lordships.
Initially, it must be stated that most (nearly all) lordships of the
manor are in truly deplorable condition. Virtually all bought and
sold today lack official UK registration, any functional rights, a
shred of original manorial documentation, or anything else of
pertinent interest. Thus, a general (and, largely, deserved)
perception of lordships being second-rate has taken hold in the
opinions of many. Dozens of supposedly reputable salesmen strive
daily to extricate the hard-earned funds of semi-ignorant "investors"
in exchange for little more than a piece of paper off of a laser
printer. Lordships may not even be owned by those who sell them.
Lack of proof and documentation make titular decent almost impossible
to prove and verify.

However, not all lordships share the shabby nature of the majority.
An elite minority does exist where registration is in place (an
extreme rarity), rights are provable (only if mentioned, by name, in
the title extract from the UK Land Registry), and original
documentation exists. This minority of manorial lords has suffered
great detriment from the misdeeds and misinformation of others simply
by proximity. Such lordships are, as said previously, quite rare but
do come to market from time to time. It is within this slim cross-
section of the manorial market that our website, and those brokers
involved, work within. We strictly refrain from dealing with anything
but the very best of the best. While we actively abhor the actions of
less-than-reputable dealers, it is an honor to bring forth lordships
so complete that it honestly shocks those who see them. In truth,
the two titles currently available are the best lordships (in term of
quality) we have ever seen. We encourage you to look for yourself.
This is what a lordship of the manor SHOULD look like. Simply visit
the site and submit your name & email. Login information will be sent
within 24 hours.

As said before, we welcome the thoughts and opinions of others. Feel
free to submit any questions or queries you have for us here or,
directly, at the website. However, we ask that in dealing with a
subject where opinions are, often, passionate that such discussion be
done with a truly "noble" level of decorum and respect.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

ps. A question was put forth regarding the Lords Feudal logo on the
website. It must be noted that this is the registered trademark of
The Lords Feudal of Great Britain, a private publishing firm based in
London. This firm has published many of the works cited on this
website and, with express permission, we use their logo there. Beyond
this, I have little information regarding where, exactly, the design
came from. We hope this was something of an answer.

[Greg]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Greetings To All Readers,
It is with a noted sense of pleasure that I join your group and
actively take part in a discussion I have monitored for many months.
Such lively debate is conducive to furthered understanding of what is,
certainly, a complex and intricate issue: that of feudal "titles."
We at EnglishFeudalTruth.com strive to supply our readers and visitors
with a wealth of information regarding this topic. It is our sincere
hope that the words found within are a benefit and formative in the
continued education of others. We welcome the thoughts and opinions
of all e-scholars and energetically incorporate these same arguments
into our own. Your input is most welcome.
We are specifically interested in the matter of manorial lordships.
Initially, it must be stated that most (nearly all) lordships of the
manor are in truly deplorable condition. Virtually all bought and
sold today lack official UK registration, any functional rights, a
shred of original manorial documentation, or anything else of
pertinent interest. Thus, a general (and, largely, deserved)
perception of lordships being second-rate has taken hold in the
opinions of many. Dozens of supposedly reputable salesmen strive
daily to extricate the hard-earned funds of semi-ignorant "investors"
in exchange for little more than a piece of paper off of a laser
printer. Lordships may not even be owned by those who sell them.
Lack of proof and documentation make titular decent almost impossible
to prove and verify.
However, not all lordships share the shabby nature of the majority.
An elite minority does exist where registration is in place (an
extreme rarity), rights are provable (only if mentioned, by name, in
the title extract from the UK Land Registry), and original
documentation exists. This minority of manorial lords has suffered
great detriment from the misdeeds and misinformation of others simply
by proximity. Such lordships are, as said previously, quite rare but
do come to market from time to time. It is within this slim cross-
section of the manorial market that our website, and those brokers
involved, work within. We strictly refrain from dealing with anything
but the very best of the best. While we actively abhor the actions of
less-than-reputable dealers, it is an honor to bring forth lordships
so complete that it honestly shocks those who see them. In truth,
the two titles currently available are the best lordships (in term of
quality) we have ever seen. We encourage you to look for yourself.
This is what a lordship of the manor SHOULD look like. Simply visit
the site and submit your name & email. Login information will be sent
within 24 hours.
As said before, we welcome the thoughts and opinions of others. Feel
free to submit any questions or queries you have for us here or,
directly, at the website. However, we ask that in dealing with a
subject where opinions are, often, passionate that such discussion be
done with a truly "noble" level of decorum and respect.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com
ps. A question was put forth regarding the Lords Feudal logo on the
website. It must be noted that this is the registered trademark of
The Lords Feudal of Great Britain, a private publishing firm based in
London. This firm has published many of the works cited on this
website and, with express permission, we use their logo there. Beyond
this, I have little information regarding where, exactly, the design
came from. We hope this was something of an answer.

You're kidding...right?

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Greetings To All Readers,
It is with a noted sense of pleasure that I join your group and
actively take part in a discussion I have monitored for many months.
Such lively debate is conducive to furthered understanding of what is,
certainly, a complex and intricate issue: that of feudal "titles."
We at EnglishFeudalTruth.com strive to supply our readers and visitors
with a wealth of information regarding this topic. It is our sincere
hope that the words found within are a benefit and formative in the
continued education of others. We welcome the thoughts and opinions
of all e-scholars and energetically incorporate these same arguments
into our own. Your input is most welcome.
We are specifically interested in the matter of manorial lordships.
Initially, it must be stated that most (nearly all) lordships of the
manor are in truly deplorable condition. Virtually all bought and
sold today lack official UK registration, any functional rights, a
shred of original manorial documentation, or anything else of
pertinent interest. Thus, a general (and, largely, deserved)
perception of lordships being second-rate has taken hold in the
opinions of many. Dozens of supposedly reputable salesmen strive
daily to extricate the hard-earned funds of semi-ignorant "investors"
in exchange for little more than a piece of paper off of a laser
printer. Lordships may not even be owned by those who sell them.
Lack of proof and documentation make titular decent almost impossible
to prove and verify.
However, not all lordships share the shabby nature of the majority.
An elite minority does exist where registration is in place (an
extreme rarity), rights are provable (only if mentioned, by name, in
the title extract from the UK Land Registry), and original
documentation exists. This minority of manorial lords has suffered
great detriment from the misdeeds and misinformation of others simply
by proximity. Such lordships are, as said previously, quite rare but
do come to market from time to time. It is within this slim cross-
section of the manorial market that our website, and those brokers
involved, work within. We strictly refrain from dealing with anything
but the very best of the best. While we actively abhor the actions of
less-than-reputable dealers, it is an honor to bring forth lordships
so complete that it honestly shocks those who see them. In truth,
the two titles currently available are the best lordships (in term of
quality) we have ever seen. We encourage you to look for yourself.
This is what a lordship of the manor SHOULD look like. Simply visit
the site and submit your name & email. Login information will be sent
within 24 hours.
As said before, we welcome the thoughts and opinions of others. Feel
free to submit any questions or queries you have for us here or,
directly, at the website. However, we ask that in dealing with a
subject where opinions are, often, passionate that such discussion be
done with a truly "noble" level of decorum and respect.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com
ps. A question was put forth regarding the Lords Feudal logo on the
website. It must be noted that this is the registered trademark of
The Lords Feudal of Great Britain, a private publishing firm based in
London. This firm has published many of the works cited on this
website and, with express permission, we use their logo there. Beyond
this, I have little information regarding where, exactly, the design
came from. We hope this was something of an answer.

Of course 'feudal truth' is a matter not of florid prose, but of the
colour of your documentation. Which are the 'best of the very best'
manorial lordships to which you refer, and what is the documentation
which proves their continued existence?

Sean Murphy

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Gentlemen,

The two lordships available are quite unique. Full details are
available on our website for those who submit their email. However,
for the benefit of this discussion, I'll explain a bit about each.

Title #1:
a) Registered with the UK Land Registry
b) EXTENSIVE rights over, under, and in the land specifically
mentioned in the title extract (minerals, quarries, mines, and so on)
c) 84 original manorial documents including a number or royal charters
and letters patent.
1) Previously on loan to the Charlotte Museum of History and
appraised there for a value of over $187,000.00
2) Documents show continued titular decent from the year 1569 all
the way through the 20th century.
d) A lordship held in ancient demesne
1) This title was held directly of William (given to Matilda his
Queen) after The Conquest
2) This title is recorded in the Domesday Book where the King's
ownership is specifically referenced
e) The lordship has its own music
1) In 1991 Lindsay AJ Lafford, a licentiate of the Royal Academy
of Music, Fellow of Trinity College-London, Fellow of the Royal
College of Organists, and member of the Royal Society of Teachers
composed "The Lord de XXXX's Fanfare and March" this is a very
impessive organ piece and full audio is provided on our site.
f) Lordship over 2469 acres/999 hectares in Essex County, England
2) A town of over 700 residents, bearing the name of the
lordship, lives within this area

Title #2:
a) Registered with the UK Land Registry
b) One of a very few "grand serjeanties" that are still functional and
actually registered
1) With a potential commercial opportunity akin to the Earl of
Sandwhich's licensing out his name for a sandwhich shop chain.
2) The right of grand serjeanty is mentioned, specifically, in
the title extract and, thus, is provable
c) Of all the grand serjeanties, this one has taken part in eight
coronations which is more than any other grand serjeanty has ever done
historically.(Coronation Claims, 1910, G. Woods Wollaston, page 17)
d) Lordship over 628 acres of land in Essex County, England
1) Ordinance Survey Maps available

I hope this was of some benefit to readers. Again, we encourage you
to take a closer look for yourself on our website. Please bear in
mind that not all manorial lordships are completely void of worth. In
fact, some are quite "complete" and functional. While not a Peerage
title, these remnants of feudalism do have potentially lucrative
territorial rights that the elevated peers completely lack. Please,
bear in mind that we DO NOT work with any lordship that is not
registered with the UK Land Registry. We strictly avoid the "gray
area" that so many title dealers work so actively within. Though
bound by our own strict guidelines for quality, we deeply enjoy
showcasing a very few number of truly worthy lordships.

Again, we welcome your thoughts and opinions. Have a truly wonderful
day.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[Graham Milne]

Would you be able to identify yourself? I can't see why you shouldn't.

Graham

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Gentlemen,
The two lordships available are quite unique. Full details are
available on our website for those who submit their email. However,
for the benefit of this discussion, I'll explain a bit about each.
a) Registered with the UK Land Registry
b) EXTENSIVE rights over, under, and in the land specifically
mentioned in the title extract (minerals, quarries, mines, and so on)
c) 84 original manorial documents including a number or royal charters
and letters patent.
1) Previously on loan to the Charlotte Museum of History and
appraised there for a value of over $187,000.00
2) Documents show continued titular decent from the year 1569 all
the way through the 20th century.
d) A lordship held in ancient demesne
1) This title was held directly of William (given to Matilda his
Queen) after The Conquest
2) This title is recorded in the Domesday Book where the King's
ownership is specifically referenced
e) The lordship has its own music
1) In 1991 Lindsay AJ Lafford, a licentiate of the Royal Academy
of Music, Fellow of Trinity College-London, Fellow of the Royal
College of Organists, and member of the Royal Society of Teachers
composed "The Lord de XXXX's Fanfare and March" this is a very
impessive organ piece and full audio is provided on our site.
f) Lordship over 2469 acres/999 hectares in Essex County, England
2) A town of over 700 residents, bearing the name of the
lordship, lives within this area
a) Registered with the UK Land Registry
b) One of a very few "grand serjeanties" that are still functional and
actually registered
1) With a potential commercial opportunity akin to the Earl of
Sandwhich's licensing out his name for a sandwhich shop chain.
2) The right of grand serjeanty is mentioned, specifically, in
the title extract and, thus, is provable
c) Of all the grand serjeanties, this one has taken part in eight
coronations which is more than any other grand serjeanty has ever done
historically.(Coronation Claims, 1910, G. Woods Wollaston, page 17)
d) Lordship over 628 acres of land in Essex County, England
1) Ordinance Survey Maps available
I hope this was of some benefit to readers. Again, we encourage you
to take a closer look for yourself on our website. Please bear in
mind that not all manorial lordships are completely void of worth. In
fact, some are quite "complete" and functional. While not a Peerage
title, these remnants of feudalism do have potentially lucrative
territorial rights that the elevated peers completely lack. Please,
bear in mind that we DO NOT work with any lordship that is not
registered with the UK Land Registry. We strictly avoid the "gray
area" that so many title dealers work so actively within. Though
bound by our own strict guidelines for quality, we deeply enjoy
showcasing a very few number of truly worthy lordships.
Again, we welcome your thoughts and opinions. Have a truly wonderful
day.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by Graham Milne
Would you be able to identify yourself? I can't see why you shouldn't.
Graham

And indeed perhaps share with us the names of the 'manorial lordships'
in question. Registration with a registry of deeds or land is of course
seen more as a device to enhance status rather than any sort of
historical proof.

Sean Murphy

Post by Graham Milne

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Gentlemen,
The two lordships available are quite unique. Full details are
available on our website for those who submit their email. However,
for the benefit of this discussion, I'll explain a bit about each.
a) Registered with the UK Land Registry
b) EXTENSIVE rights over, under, and in the land specifically
mentioned in the title extract (minerals, quarries, mines, and so on)
c) 84 original manorial documents including a number or royal charters
and letters patent.
1) Previously on loan to the Charlotte Museum of History and
appraised there for a value of over $187,000.00
2) Documents show continued titular decent from the year 1569 all
the way through the 20th century.
d) A lordship held in ancient demesne
1) This title was held directly of William (given to Matilda his
Queen) after The Conquest
2) This title is recorded in the Domesday Book where the King's
ownership is specifically referenced
e) The lordship has its own music
1) In 1991 Lindsay AJ Lafford, a licentiate of the Royal Academy
of Music, Fellow of Trinity College-London, Fellow of the Royal
College of Organists, and member of the Royal Society of Teachers
composed "The Lord de XXXX's Fanfare and March" this is a very
impessive organ piece and full audio is provided on our site.
f) Lordship over 2469 acres/999 hectares in Essex County, England
2) A town of over 700 residents, bearing the name of the
lordship, lives within this area
a) Registered with the UK Land Registry
b) One of a very few "grand serjeanties" that are still functional and
actually registered
1) With a potential commercial opportunity akin to the Earl of
Sandwhich's licensing out his name for a sandwhich shop chain.
2) The right of grand serjeanty is mentioned, specifically, in
the title extract and, thus, is provable
c) Of all the grand serjeanties, this one has taken part in eight
coronations which is more than any other grand serjeanty has ever done
historically.(Coronation Claims, 1910, G. Woods Wollaston, page 17)
d) Lordship over 628 acres of land in Essex County, England
1) Ordinance Survey Maps available
I hope this was of some benefit to readers. Again, we encourage you
to take a closer look for yourself on our website. Please bear in
mind that not all manorial lordships are completely void of worth. In
fact, some are quite "complete" and functional. While not a Peerage
title, these remnants of feudalism do have potentially lucrative
territorial rights that the elevated peers completely lack. Please,
bear in mind that we DO NOT work with any lordship that is not
registered with the UK Land Registry. We strictly avoid the "gray
area" that so many title dealers work so actively within. Though
bound by our own strict guidelines for quality, we deeply enjoy
showcasing a very few number of truly worthy lordships.
Again, we welcome your thoughts and opinions. Have a truly wonderful
day.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[StephenP]

The IP address recorded for the posting is in Texas. The domain
holder's details are "protected" by PerfectPrivacy.com. Someone is
keeping things fairly close to their chest.

Whilst there is no reason why someone in the US should not have
knowledge of English law & history, the general set-up might lead some
to be a tad suspicious.

Yours aye

Stephen

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Gentlemen,

What a treat to speak with informed individuals as yourselves and,
also, those earnestly seeking to become so.

Manorial lordships are a unique form of, what is now classified as,
land ownership. Often, this fact is repeated ad nauseum in an attempt
to underscore the importance, past and present, of this form of
title. Though not a modern day peerage (those created after 1660),
these remnants of England's proud feudal past served as the building
blocks of nobility for over a millennium. After The Conquest, William
seized much of the lands of Saxon lords and parceled it out to loyal
followers. This arrangement strictly adhered to Norman "Iron Law":
Nulle terre sans dominus, Nulleus sans terre (No land without a lord;
No lord without land). You see, land ownership was the central
important feature of nobility previous to the year 1660. In fact,
modern peers even assume territorial designations in an attempt to
seem attached to the land. They are not and have none of the possible
rights over it that a very few "quality" lordships can claim.
Granted, the vast majority of lordships have deteriorated over the
centuries to a radical extent. Today, many bought and sold are
totally unprovable, unregistered, unverifiable, and subject to pseudo-
scholarly research into lineage. It is a deplorable thing indeed.
However, not all manors have fallen into disrepair. A few were
responsibly maintained to the modern day through continuous
inheritance and succession. It is this slim minority that I speak of
and the only I deign to be truly worthy of any discussion at all.

Scots baronies were, previously, one of the best options for titular
investment. The Lord Lyon would grant official recognition, letters
patent, and even a coat of arms with specific baronial additions (robe
and chapeau). However, after recent legislation, things have changed
dramatically. The legislation completely severed the baronial titles
from the lands that they have been attached to for hundreds of years.
Though the titles continue to exist and incorporeal hereditaments,
this separation has deeply wounded the significance and usefulness of
such titles. Further The Lord Lyon seems bent on no longer
recognizing such baronies with the addictaments they deserve as such
additions were only representations of a connection to the land that
is no longer there. Though this argument is logical, it seems sad to
see such a proud tradition extinguished.

English manorial lordships do still have a connection to the land
which their name represents. Though many are in horrible disrepair,
some enjoy official UK recognition. The UK Land Registry had
stringent requirements of proof for registry of a manor. Everything
listed on a title extract had to be proven beyond any doubt. Official
Ordinance Survey maps had to be researched and drawn up to verify
jurisdiction. In short, the whole process took months of research and
this is why a title extract from the Land Registry is admissible in a
court of law and considered 100% proof of all it implicitly states
within it. Registration is no longer possible as it was cut off in
2003. However, those already registered continue to be so and may be
transferred (by sale or inheritance) with relative ease.

Such registered manors often do not have many (if any) ancient feudal
rights mentioned in the title extract. Such rights can be highly
profitable and must be proved to have existed previously via original
manorial documentation and scholarly reference. As most have no such
documentation, they are awarded no recognized rights over, under, or
on the land. However, within the minority of registered lordships
lies an even smaller sub-minority of those with extensive
documentation and a large number of provable and enjoyable rights
considered as "overriding interests" by the UK gov't. Such rights
may include the right to minerals, quarries, woods, commons, right to
hold a fair and derive royalties from it, right to hold a market and
charge rents, right to fish and animals (i.e. fishing and sporting
rights that can be licensed out), and these are only just a few of the
many that some enjoy. Obviously, when dealing with areas as large as
999 hectares, mineral rights, alone, could be quite lucrative. Again,
proof of such rights is dependent on their mention in the official
title extract.

The titles available are two within this sub-minority and, likely, the
best two brought to public market in a great long while. They are so
complete, well researched, documented, and registered that their
quality makes even the most educated scholar blink and rub his eyes in
disbelief. What a pleasure to work with such fine examples of a
ancient tradition. We ask that those interested register with our
website directly to acquire access. A wealth of information lies
therein including copies of official title extracts, list of original
manorial documentation, and extensive history. Again, this is what
manorial lordships SHOULD look like.

On a separate issue, I understand your desire for personal
transparency. However, I am but one of a small team and all
communication is, truly, intended to be from the website and not from
any one specific individual. We strive to serve potential buyers and
our seller-clients with the highest degree of professionalism. Part
of this professionalism is respecting our client's wishes regarding
privacy. This is why we require email registration and why we do not
begin conversing as individuals with any except serious, and proven,
buyers. This is not to be taken as an insult. It is only an attempt
to safeguard the sanctity of personal privacy on the vast public forum
of the internet. You will find us much more open in personal
communication rather than public.

Again, we hope all is well with those who read this message and that
life is treating you gently. Have a great day.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

ps. Though we are not working in tandem with The Lords Feudal
publishing firm directly, we do have express permission to display
their logo as some of their work is contained within the site. I will
do some digging and see what I can find out about the exact specifics
regarding the origin of the logo. Again, best wishes.

[Graham Milne]

I think most people on this forum will be sympathetic to anyone who has an
interest in any subject related to heraldry - even feudal baronies. But if
you are not prepared to reveal your name, I do not think people will take
you seriously, and they might even question your motives. Why not just be a
public nuisance like me? If you are genuine, no-one will bite your head off
(apart from all the nutters on this forum who don't believe in English
feudal baronies of course).

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Gentlemen,
What a treat to speak with informed individuals as yourselves and,
also, those earnestly seeking to become so.
Manorial lordships are a unique form of, what is now classified as,
land ownership. Often, this fact is repeated ad nauseum in an attempt
to underscore the importance, past and present, of this form of
title. Though not a modern day peerage (those created after 1660),
these remnants of England's proud feudal past served as the building
blocks of nobility for over a millennium. After The Conquest, William
seized much of the lands of Saxon lords and parceled it out to loyal
Nulle terre sans dominus, Nulleus sans terre (No land without a lord;
No lord without land). You see, land ownership was the central
important feature of nobility previous to the year 1660. In fact,
modern peers even assume territorial designations in an attempt to
seem attached to the land. They are not and have none of the possible
rights over it that a very few "quality" lordships can claim.
Granted, the vast majority of lordships have deteriorated over the
centuries to a radical extent. Today, many bought and sold are
totally unprovable, unregistered, unverifiable, and subject to pseudo-
scholarly research into lineage. It is a deplorable thing indeed.
However, not all manors have fallen into disrepair. A few were
responsibly maintained to the modern day through continuous
inheritance and succession. It is this slim minority that I speak of
and the only I deign to be truly worthy of any discussion at all.
Scots baronies were, previously, one of the best options for titular
investment. The Lord Lyon would grant official recognition, letters
patent, and even a coat of arms with specific baronial additions (robe
and chapeau). However, after recent legislation, things have changed
dramatically. The legislation completely severed the baronial titles
from the lands that they have been attached to for hundreds of years.
Though the titles continue to exist and incorporeal hereditaments,
this separation has deeply wounded the significance and usefulness of
such titles. Further The Lord Lyon seems bent on no longer
recognizing such baronies with the addictaments they deserve as such
additions were only representations of a connection to the land that
is no longer there. Though this argument is logical, it seems sad to
see such a proud tradition extinguished.
English manorial lordships do still have a connection to the land
which their name represents. Though many are in horrible disrepair,
some enjoy official UK recognition. The UK Land Registry had
stringent requirements of proof for registry of a manor. Everything
listed on a title extract had to be proven beyond any doubt. Official
Ordinance Survey maps had to be researched and drawn up to verify
jurisdiction. In short, the whole process took months of research and
this is why a title extract from the Land Registry is admissible in a
court of law and considered 100% proof of all it implicitly states
within it. Registration is no longer possible as it was cut off in
2003. However, those already registered continue to be so and may be
transferred (by sale or inheritance) with relative ease.
Such registered manors often do not have many (if any) ancient feudal
rights mentioned in the title extract. Such rights can be highly
profitable and must be proved to have existed previously via original
manorial documentation and scholarly reference. As most have no such
documentation, they are awarded no recognized rights over, under, or
on the land. However, within the minority of registered lordships
lies an even smaller sub-minority of those with extensive
documentation and a large number of provable and enjoyable rights
considered as "overriding interests" by the UK gov't. Such rights
may include the right to minerals, quarries, woods, commons, right to
hold a fair and derive royalties from it, right to hold a market and
charge rents, right to fish and animals (i.e. fishing and sporting
rights that can be licensed out), and these are only just a few of the
many that some enjoy. Obviously, when dealing with areas as large as
999 hectares, mineral rights, alone, could be quite lucrative. Again,
proof of such rights is dependent on their mention in the official
title extract.
The titles available are two within this sub-minority and, likely, the
best two brought to public market in a great long while. They are so
complete, well researched, documented, and registered that their
quality makes even the most educated scholar blink and rub his eyes in
disbelief. What a pleasure to work with such fine examples of a
ancient tradition. We ask that those interested register with our
website directly to acquire access. A wealth of information lies
therein including copies of official title extracts, list of original
manorial documentation, and extensive history. Again, this is what
manorial lordships SHOULD look like.
On a separate issue, I understand your desire for personal
transparency. However, I am but one of a small team and all
communication is, truly, intended to be from the website and not from
any one specific individual. We strive to serve potential buyers and
our seller-clients with the highest degree of professionalism. Part
of this professionalism is respecting our client's wishes regarding
privacy. This is why we require email registration and why we do not
begin conversing as individuals with any except serious, and proven,
buyers. This is not to be taken as an insult. It is only an attempt
to safeguard the sanctity of personal privacy on the vast public forum
of the internet. You will find us much more open in personal
communication rather than public.
Again, we hope all is well with those who read this message and that
life is treating you gently. Have a great day.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com
ps. Though we are not working in tandem with The Lords Feudal
publishing firm directly, we do have express permission to display
their logo as some of their work is contained within the site. I will
do some digging and see what I can find out about the exact specifics
regarding the origin of the logo. Again, best wishes.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Gentlemen and Ladies,

As always, we hope those who read this do so having a good and
productive day. Best wishes to all readers.

Graham, your invitation makes sense and, again, we sympathize with
your frustrations. Also, we clearly see how one might assume
something is awry when names are not given immediately. Again, I
reference our earlier statements regarding privacy. Also, to be truly
honest, we are licensed agents of real property and still actively
working with our brokerage as to what their exact involvement in this
sale will be. As such, they have asked that we remain somewhat
ambiguous, on surface level, for the short-term. All I can assure you
of is that we have only the best intentions and the highest regard for
detail, scrutiny, and professionalism. It is our hope that you will
soon be able to address us as individuals. Until then, however,
please accept my apology for any misconceptions such silence may
cause.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

ps. Feudal baronies...a messy topic to be sure. While we have heard
some strong arguments for both sides but have not been convinced
either way. The argument is flawed in nature by those doing the
arguing. You've got scammsters and frauds on one side and biased
peers (with much to lose) on the other. It is hard to get a truly
neutral opinion on the issue. Instead, we have opted to stick with
that which can be proven implicitly; quality manorial lordships. Such
lordships are 100% secure if registered with the UK Land Registry and
this makes everything better for those involved. As said before, we
ARE NOT interested in working with anything besides the very best of
the very best. In a "market" where the norm is half-truths and sloppy
scholarship, we strive to set the bar very, very high. Warmest
regards to all.

[Greg]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Gentlemen and Ladies,
As always, we hope those who read this do so having a good and
productive day. Best wishes to all readers.
Graham, your invitation makes sense and, again, we sympathize with
your frustrations. Also, we clearly see how one might assume
something is awry when names are not given immediately. Again, I
reference our earlier statements regarding privacy. Also, to be truly
honest, we are licensed agents of real property and still actively
working with our brokerage as to what their exact involvement in this
sale will be. As such, they have asked that we remain somewhat
ambiguous, on surface level, for the short-term. All I can assure you
of is that we have only the best intentions and the highest regard for
detail, scrutiny, and professionalism. It is our hope that you will
soon be able to address us as individuals. Until then, however,
please accept my apology for any misconceptions such silence may
cause.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com
ps. Feudal baronies...a messy topic to be sure. While we have heard
some strong arguments for both sides but have not been convinced
either way. The argument is flawed in nature by those doing the
arguing. You've got scammsters and frauds on one side and biased
peers (with much to lose) on the other. It is hard to get a truly
neutral opinion on the issue. Instead, we have opted to stick with
that which can be proven implicitly; quality manorial lordships. Such
lordships are 100% secure if registered with the UK Land Registry and
this makes everything better for those involved. As said before, we
ARE NOT interested in working with anything besides the very best of
the very best. In a "market" where the norm is half-truths and sloppy
scholarship, we strive to set the bar very, very high. Warmest
regards to all.

I'm sorry. I fail to see the reason why you have posted here at
all... The only thing that I can see going on is that (you) have
chosen a particular time; one of which I'll bet has something to do
with a particular deal(s), and by appearing now with a "Hi we're here"
message - particularly in this newsgroup, only says that you're
seeking some sort of blessing from what is known as a very vocal
group...
The reason a poster's name is so important to this group is
because...anonimity is a bit insulting, particularly when one such as
yourself is broaching a very hot topic, that of titles for sale, of
any kind really.
You are obviously protecting your clients; fair enough, but again
since you can't really say anything except "how honest your company
is" etc etc, why say anything at all?

Perhaps your website is new and you want to test the virtual waters? I
dunno...

Regards
Greg

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Greg,

We appreciate your thoughts and opinions as we hope you do ours.

We have chosen to post something here for a few reasons. Allow me
elaborate on them for you.

1) Engage in lively discussion with intelligent individuals of like-
minded interest
2) Listen and Learn
3) Share that which we do know about: quality manorial lordships
a) Showcase the broad range in quality of lordships
b) Share examples of quality so intelligent comparisons may be
made.

It is true that we were interested in getting to know you all. We do
not seek a blessing but you are correct in that we were interested in
making ourselves, and the website, known to a group of e-scholars so
very interested in this subject matter as yourselves.

We had hoped that bringing such rare forms of quality lordships to
your attention would be appreciated. So often, those manors brought
to market are laughable and in terrible disrepair. If nothing else,
we thought you might earnestly enjoy the intellectual stimulation of
seeing such pristine examples of lordships surviving into the 21st
century. If, however, we were incorrect in this assertion, we do
apologize. It was never our intention to offer insult.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

::Tips Hat Courteously::

[Greg]

Courteousy accepted :.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Ah ha! Progress!

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Ah ha! Progress!

Not that much in fact. We have had problems with purveyors of titles who
refuse to disclose full documentation, but who at least provide their
names and the names of the titles for sale. You are withholding your own
name and the names of the manorial lordships you are advertising,
although other posters have indicated a possible connection with 'Lord
Shalford and Lord of Liston'. I see that this gentleman is offering the
Barony of Liston and a Coronation Office for $1-$2.5 million, which is a
snip really: http://lite.globalbx.com/Other_Real_Estate/listing242712.html

Sean Murphy

[Graham Milne]

I resent the implication that I might be an intelliegent individual of
like-minded interest.

(Joke)

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Greg,
We appreciate your thoughts and opinions as we hope you do ours.
We have chosen to post something here for a few reasons. Allow me
elaborate on them for you.
1) Engage in lively discussion with intelligent individuals of like-
minded interest
2) Listen and Learn
3) Share that which we do know about: quality manorial lordships
a) Showcase the broad range in quality of lordships
b) Share examples of quality so intelligent comparisons may be
made.
It is true that we were interested in getting to know you all. We do
not seek a blessing but you are correct in that we were interested in
making ourselves, and the website, known to a group of e-scholars so
very interested in this subject matter as yourselves.
We had hoped that bringing such rare forms of quality lordships to
your attention would be appreciated. So often, those manors brought
to market are laughable and in terrible disrepair. If nothing else,
we thought you might earnestly enjoy the intellectual stimulation of
seeing such pristine examples of lordships surviving into the 21st
century. If, however, we were incorrect in this assertion, we do
apologize. It was never our intention to offer insult.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

::chuckles accordingly::

[g***@wp.pl]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Greg,
We appreciate your thoughts and opinions as we hope you do ours.
We have chosen to post something here for a few reasons. Allow me
elaborate on them for you.
1) Engage in lively discussion with intelligent individuals of like-
minded interest
2) Listen and Learn
3) Share that which we do know about: quality manorial lordships
a) Showcase the broad range in quality of lordships
b) Share examples of quality so intelligent comparisons may be
made.
It is true that we were interested in getting to know you all. We do
not seek a blessing but you are correct in that we were interested in
making ourselves, and the website, known to a group of e-scholars so
very interested in this subject matter as yourselves.
We had hoped that bringing such rare forms of quality lordships to
your attention would be appreciated. So often, those manors brought
to market are laughable and in terrible disrepair. If nothing else,
we thought you might earnestly enjoy the intellectual stimulation of
seeing such pristine examples of lordships surviving into the 21st
century. If, however, we were incorrect in this assertion, we do
apologize. It was never our intention to offer insult.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

Dear Anonymous,
I appreciate your desire to get to know us. I would like to get to
know you and so would ask that you simply identify yourself and your
team by name so that I know who I am corresponding with. Anonimity is
discourteous in such a conversation. It is also unnecessary.
Given that you are selling your wares here I think it particularly
important to note that unless you reveal your identities any reader
should immediately dismiss the goods you sell on the basis that it is
imprudent to trust whom you do not know.
The lordships of the manor that you sell are indicated to be of higher
quality - but of course lordships of the manor are not titles of
nobility or titles at all but merely the inidcation of the ownership
of a particular type of archaic property. I appreciate that you say
your goods have greater intrinsic value and the paperwork is more
interesting from a historical perspective. The Lord of the Manor of X
is much like the Proprietor of the Dog Whistle Pub except that the
former is an incorporeal property (a bundle of archaic rights) and the
latter is real. The latter also quite usefully offers cold beer and
hearty fare.

George Lucki

[Alex Maxwell Findlater]

Proprietor of the Dog Whistle Pub....
The latter also quite usefully offers cold beer and
hearty fare.

Pig and Whistle is the usual conjunction I think and please remember
that in BrItain we serve warm beer, to the disgust of the rest of the
world.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

George,

Great to hear from you and thanks for your thoughts.

While not a peerage title, manorial lordships are "titles" by law and
practice. I refer you to the following site:

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf

I think the UK gov't is in a position of authority here and as
lordships are considered to be a form of land ownership the Land
Registry would be a pretty good authority to go by for strict
definitions.

Also, as discussed previously, a great deal has been said to muddy the
waters regarding lordships. It is true that lordships are a form of
land ownership. It was land ownership that was centrally important to
nobility after The Conquest (The Norman Iron Law). Land was given out
to the loyal followers by the new King, William (as he certainly had
no money to spare!). How else could a noble administrate justice and
the King's will yet maintain the trappings of "nobility?" Lordships
were the fundamental income-earning building block of most titles of
nobility in existence, within England, created before the year 1660.
After this year, nobles were created by writ and the idea of nobility
was purposefully separated from the land and those whom lived upon
it. This did not, however, keep such new nobles, styled "peers," from
assuming territorial styles over land which they had absolutely no
territorial jurisdiction.

The Duchy of Cornwall, one of the two "Royal Duchies," is an excellent
example of a noble title of this feudal nature. It was given by
Edward III to his son, The Black Prince, and is made of 17
assessionable manors held in right of the Crown. It is customarily
held by the eldest son of the Monarch who is heir apparent. It
functions to this day. The Duchy of Lancaster is the other Royal
Duchy. The Duch is, to this day, the remains of the family lands of
Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, who became King in 1399. His
ascension to the Crown meant the family lands would absorbed (forever)
into the lands of the Crown. To avoid this, Henry kept these lands
separate. It is now a great Honour which that contains several lesser
Honours, a great many smaller manors and sub-manors as well. Another
excellent example of feudal nobility and the fundamental importance of
manors that is now often glossed over by those more in love with the
pageantry of modern peerage.

Often when people refer to manors as being empty or much like calling
one's self "The Lord of Dog Whistle Pub" it is in regard to those
lordships who exist now with no registration and, even more often,
with no rights or lands attached. There are three parts of a lordship
(all discussed in the link given above) which are alienable from each
other. These parts include the lordship title and legal style (the
name), the manorial lands (within the territorial bounds of the manor
(or civil parish) and held either freehold or leasehold), and the
manorial rights. Often, over the centuries, these three parts have
become separated as lands were sold away and rights (say, mineral
rights) were sold to other interested parties to creat funds. The
vast majority of lordships bought and sold are only the first
component of the three; the legal styling of "Lord of So and So" and,
thus, arguably "empty." The two lordships available on our site have
both the first and the third components intact which, by comparison,
is rare, useful, and (potentially) lucrative. Notice, all the stories
one hears of pauper nobles are about families who sold away their
land. Land meant (and still means) money, status, and power (called
"overriding interests" when speaking of manorial rights). The fact
that a manorial title is based in land ownership is, we feel, not a
detriment but a true benefit when studied from an objective point of
view.

Read the link. Then, read it again.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com
ps. Again, we welcome any interested individuals to register with our
site to gain full details about the two registered lordships
available.
pps. You are right to see the value in the original manorial
documents attached to the title held in Ancient Demesne. Very rarely,
a lordship may be sold with a few crumbling documents but never before
has a collection of 84 original charters, deeds, and patents been
conveyed with the lordship from which they spring. Such a collection,
spanning the 16th to 20th centuries, in such high condition proves
titular decent and activity over four hundred years. The collection
was held at the Manorial Documents Register for many years and bears
registration stamps and seals from that organization. With the legal
style, abundant registered manorial rights, and 84 original documents
this could possibly be the most complete lordship brought to market in
recent memory.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

I've spent many months in the UK and don't mind the warm beer a bit.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

The Land Registry Act of 2002 is the legislation which currently
defines the nature of lordships. I refer you to this for
clarification.

[Greg]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
George,
Great to hear from you and thanks for your thoughts.
While not a peerage title, manorial lordships are "titles" by law and
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf
I think the UK gov't is in a position of authority here and as
lordships are considered to be a form of land ownership the Land
Registry would be a pretty good authority to go by for strict
definitions.
Also, as discussed previously, a great deal has been said to muddy the
waters regarding lordships. It is true that lordships are a form of
land ownership. It was land ownership that was centrally important to
nobility after The Conquest (The Norman Iron Law). Land was given out
to the loyal followers by the new King, William (as he certainly had
no money to spare!). How else could a noble administrate justice and
the King's will yet maintain the trappings of "nobility?" Lordships
were the fundamental income-earning building block of most titles of
nobility in existence, within England, created before the year 1660.
After this year, nobles were created by writ and the idea of nobility
was purposefully separated from the land and those whom lived upon
it. This did not, however, keep such new nobles, styled "peers," from
assuming territorial styles over land which they had absolutely no
territorial jurisdiction.
The Duchy of Cornwall, one of the two "Royal Duchies," is an excellent
example of a noble title of this feudal nature. It was given by
Edward III to his son, The Black Prince, and is made of 17
assessionable manors held in right of the Crown. It is customarily
held by the eldest son of the Monarch who is heir apparent. It
functions to this day. The Duchy of Lancaster is the other Royal
Duchy. The Duch is, to this day, the remains of the family lands of
Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, who became King in 1399. His
ascension to the Crown meant the family lands would absorbed (forever)
into the lands of the Crown. To avoid this, Henry kept these lands
separate. It is now a great Honour which that contains several lesser
Honours, a great many smaller manors and sub-manors as well. Another
excellent example of feudal nobility and the fundamental importance of
manors that is now often glossed over by those more in love with the
pageantry of modern peerage.
Often when people refer to manors as being empty or much like calling
one's self "The Lord of Dog Whistle Pub" it is in regard to those
lordships who exist now with no registration and, even more often,
with no rights or lands attached. There are three parts of a lordship
(all discussed in the link given above) which are alienable from each
other. These parts include the lordship title and legal style (the
name), the manorial lands (within the territorial bounds of the manor
(or civil parish) and held either freehold or leasehold), and the
manorial rights. Often, over the centuries, these three parts have
become separated as lands were sold away and rights (say, mineral
rights) were sold to other interested parties to creat funds. The
vast majority of lordships bought and sold are only the first
component of the three; the legal styling of "Lord of So and So" and,
thus, arguably "empty." The two lordships available on our site have
both the first and the third components intact which, by comparison,
is rare, useful, and (potentially) lucrative. Notice, all the stories
one hears of pauper nobles are about families who sold away their
land. Land meant (and still means) money, status, and power (called
"overriding interests" when speaking of manorial rights). The fact
that a manorial title is based in land ownership is, we feel, not a
detriment but a true benefit when studied from an objective point of
view.
Read the link. Then, read it again.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com
ps. Again, we welcome any interested individuals to register with our
site to gain full details about the two registered lordships
available.
pps. You are right to see the value in the original manorial
documents attached to the title held in Ancient Demesne. Very rarely,
a lordship may be sold with a few crumbling documents but never before
has a collection of 84 original charters, deeds, and patents been
conveyed with the lordship from which they spring. Such a collection,
spanning the 16th to 20th centuries, in such high condition proves
titular decent and activity over four hundred years. The collection
was held at the Manorial Documents Register for many years and bears
registration stamps and seals from that organization. With the legal
style, abundant registered manorial rights, and 84 original documents
this could possibly be the most complete lordship brought to market in
recent memory.

Scenario: I'm a foreigner; American. I have money to burn. I decide
I'd like to own a Manorial Lordship (because I met you at a party).
My lawyers look over all the documentation; they measure it against
any statutes etc that are covered in the UK. I sign the documents,
make the purchase. I own a manorial Lorship. I also own a 5500
equestrian estate and a home thereon of 18000 Sq Ft in North Carolina.
My kids won't have to worry for generations...

What is the Manorial Lorship doing for me?


Scenario: I - an American, sell and investment home; the only other
home I have. I buy a Manorial Lorship because I saw it on line.

What is a Manorial Lordship going to do for me?


Scenario: I'm looking to make money on market trends. I have
researched the titles markets and have found a way to exploit the
trend. I create a marketing campaign that allows the sale of titles
and winds its way through any loopholes in the systems whrerein I
operate. What I am doing is perfectly legal in all areas. I am
buying and selling titles like a comodity. I am using whatever means
necessary to presure legislative bodies to allow meritorious
enhancements (coats of arms etc) to be applied to my products (which
is what these titles are - let's face it). At the very least, I'm
exploiting a resource and whatering down its true meaning and dumbing
down the entire world of nobility.

What am I doing to the legitimacy of a 1000 year old tradition of
national pride and world recognition?


Regards
Greg

ps: I think you should identify yourself. We are trying to be polite
and it only stands to reason that you would reciprocate...
Also. Since your compny is not working in tandem with a publisher of
whose logo you present, there must be a tie of some sort: the logo is
not a link. I din't notice a link to said publisher, so one hand has
to washing the other here in some way...

[g***@wp.pl]

On May 8, 12:20 am, Alex Maxwell Findlater

Post by Alex Maxwell Findlater

Proprietor of the Dog Whistle Pub....
The latter also quite usefully offers cold beer and
hearty fare.

Pig and Whistle is the usual conjunction I think and please remember
that in BrItain we serve warm beer, to the disgust of the rest of the
world.

I prefer establishments that serve beer cold. The reference to Dog
Whistle Pub was in fairness probably a bit obscure (I thought I had
heard it used in a UK context as well) and it was intended as a
reference to the not so subtly couched innuendo with respect to M.
Sarkozy and the impact of his policies. There has been a lot happening
in the fearful world of the Dog Whistle set which quite seperately
also includes the language of the sales pitch used by these manorial
lordship salesmen.

But if the food is good at your Pig and Whistle and if you're buying I
can easily change the reference. I'll pass on the warm beer.

George Lucki

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

I'll buy the food, you provide the conversation.

Cheers,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[Mark E Sievert]

Post by Alex Maxwell Findlater

Proprietor of the Dog Whistle Pub....
The latter also quite usefully offers cold beer and
hearty fare.

Pig and Whistle is the usual conjunction I think and please remember
that in BrItain we serve warm beer, to the disgust of the rest of the
world.

Now is it truely warm, or cool from a cellar?

Rich and hearty beers (like Bass Ale, or Newcastle) drink well at 55 to 60
degrees Fahrenheit.


Mark E Sievert

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Gentlemen and Zog,

Greetings and, as always, a very good day to you all.

Mr. Murphy addresses continued interest in knowing the identity of the
lordships available. Sir, I have said now a dozen times that all this
information (and far, far more) is available to you for inspection
within the private portion of the website. All we ask is you register
there with your email address and we will quickly send you login
information. It is as simple as that. All the answers to your
questions (and many more) lie within.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Gentlemen,

As more and more of you register with our site (and as a few are
personally invited) the exact identity of the two lordships available
will soon become a topic of active discussion. In preparation for
this, we are making a temporary username and password to enter our
private portfolio section. Inside, you will find answers to all the
questions asked here and more. Check all the links. Read all
the .pdf files. Be thorough. We have tried dilligently to compile as
many references to these lordships and as many important files (both
private and public in origin) as could be found. Please, read them.

Login with this information:

username/email: googlegroup
password: heraldry

As you will soon read, the two lordships are, in fact, the lordships
of Shalford and Liston, Essex County (well done detectives!). They
are both registered and each is a unique form of lordship.

Shalford: A lordship held by lands in ancient demesne and royal
demesne. It was held by Matilda, William's Queen, directly after The
Conquest (cited in The Domesday Book as such). Has extensive ancient
manorial rights registered in the title extract. It also has 84
original manorial documents (previously held by the Manorial Documents
Register (UK)) to be conveyed with the purchase of the lordship. The
documents lend the lordship a collection of real, museum-grade
assets. Sometimes, more complete lordships may have a few of these in
poor state but never as many as 84 and never in this condition.

Liston: A lordship held by ancient services at Coronation in a manner
called "grand searjeanty." The Coronation right/duty is specifically
mentioned, in detail, within the official Land Registry title
extract. The Lords of Liston have taken active part in eight
different Coronations which is more than any other grand searjeanty
has ever been allowed to/been able to do in the history of England
("Coronation Claims," Wollaston. 1910).

There are many, many more details available for your inspection and
review. There is a lot to read but, surely, informed e-scholars as
yourselves would insist on reading everything through before making
further commentary or criticism. To do so, now that the avenue for
learning is open, would be far too plebian. Don't you agree?

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com
ps. our company has worked with the lordships of Shalford and Liston
(and their owner) for slightly more than six months. Previous
marketing attempts (those found online and discussed in previous
threads) were the half-hearted efforts of other brokers. These
previous brokers effected no sale as their efforts were cursory and
not nearly as deep or detailed as our own.

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Gentlemen,
As more and more of you register with our site (and as a few are
personally invited) the exact identity of the two lordships available
will soon become a topic of active discussion. In preparation for
this, we are making a temporary username and password to enter our
private portfolio section. Inside, you will find answers to all the
questions asked here and more. Check all the links. Read all
the .pdf files. Be thorough. We have tried dilligently to compile as
many references to these lordships and as many important files (both
private and public in origin) as could be found. Please, read them.
username/email: googlegroup
password: heraldry
As you will soon read, the two lordships are, in fact, the lordships
of Shalford and Liston, Essex County (well done detectives!). They
are both registered and each is a unique form of lordship. . . . . .

Well now, why didn't you say so in the first place? Some comments on the
PDF files at in relation to the purported Lordship of Shalford
(EnglishFeudalTruth.com, 'Private Portfolio'). Firstly, as to the Land
Registry extract concerning the 'Lordship or Reputed Lordship', it is
well known that title brokers exploit a weakness in the system which
does not allow the registrars to check the validity of 'incorporeal
hereditaments' mentioned in documents. The same device has been used in
the Irish Registry of Deeds, eg, the 1993 Barony of Carbury deed I
mentioned on 28 April. Secondly, while it would appear that there was an
historical Lordship of Shalford, the 84th and final document listed in
the calendar is dated 1920, begging the question as to what documents
survive from that period until the present?

Sean Murphy

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Mr. Murphy,

Greetings and, as always, a very good day to you, Sir. We hope is
well with you on your side of the computer monitor.

The entire reason why we were asked to keep specific information,
regarding the lordships, private was to maintain control of who had
access to the site. It was in this that we could monitor and meet the
expectations of potential buyers. Further, as such information is
often personal and private (addresses and the like) to the seller it
is best kept from wide open review on the World Wide Web. Do you see
the logic in this?

Enjoy access to the private portfolio and read as much as you can.
You will not, likely, see another lordship of such quality presented
in such a thorough manner. Certainly you will agree, the MSGB's
website doesn't provide information in this amount and depth. The
access information will be good until Friday. After this, we will
turn it off to keep others, those not actively involved in this
discussion, from anonymously crawling through private information.

You said in your comment:
"while it would appear that there was an historical Lordship of
Shalford..."

Of course there is a current, real, and provable Lordship of
Shalford. The title extract guarantees ownership and that's why the
bloody thing is admissible in a court of law! This is all discussed
in the Land Registration Act of 2002. As such, it is not a matter of
debate here, sir, but a fact of legislation. Bear in mind that the
vast, vast majority of lordships bought and sold have no registration
and, as it is no longer available, never will. Such registration, and
with such extensive rights mentioned, is an extreme rarity to be
appreciated. As far as we know, no other registered lordship has more
rights mentioned in the body of the extract.

We have been instructed to convey the 84 documents, referred to as
"The Shalford Chest," as part of the sale. Other documents may,
likely, be held at the Manorial Documents Register (MDR) in the UK.
We have heard that there may be other documents out there besides the
ones we have but this is a seperate issue from what we have been
contracted to do and has not been investigated. This 84 piece
collection is the entirety of that which was on loan to the Charlotte
Museum of History for several years, catalogued there, and appraised
as well. It is, hands down, the best collection of documents conveyed
with a lordship in recent memory.

Enjoy the reading and, truly, have a great and productive day.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[Derek Howard]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
The entire reason why we were asked to keep specific information,
regarding the lordships, private was to maintain control of who had
access to the site. It was in this that we could monitor and meet the
expectations of potential buyers. Further, as such information is
often personal and private (addresses and the like) to the seller it
is best kept from wide open review on the World Wide Web. Do you see
the logic in this?

If I were you I would not have the same worries. The extract from the
Land Registry, dated 9 Dec 2005, however gives the vendor's name as
"Thomas the lord of Shalford" which as we have seen elsewhere is not
his real name, and his address given in the register entry is 34
Buckingham Palace Road, No 67, London SW1W 0RH which, however, is in
any case is worthless, being a box number at Mail Boxes Etc.. No writ
could be served via MBE let alone would there be any invasion of
privacy. The LR info is in any case in the public domain so no privacy
issues there.

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Enjoy access to the private portfolio and read as much as you can.
You will not, likely, see another lordship of such quality presented
in such a thorough manner. Certainly you will agree, the MSGB's
website doesn't provide information in this amount and depth. The
access information will be good until Friday. After this, we will
turn it off to keep others, those not actively involved in this
discussion, from anonymously crawling through private information.

<snip>

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
We have been instructed to convey the 84 documents, referred to as
"The Shalford Chest," as part of the sale. Other documents may,
likely, be held at the Manorial Documents Register (MDR) in the UK.
We have heard that there may be other documents out there besides the
ones we have but this is a seperate issue from what we have been
contracted to do and has not been investigated. This 84 piece
collection is the entirety of that which was on loan to the Charlotte
Museum of History for several years, catalogued there, and appraised
as well. It is, hands down, the best collection of documents conveyed
with a lordship in recent memory.

Thank you for allowing in the inquisitive. I shall reserve my comments
on the scholarship of the site for today also on the rather
embellished statements on what is available and the, to my mind, over
ambitious pricing. In any case most of the inaccuracies are irrelevant
estate agent fluff to bulk out the sale and have little to do with
what is actually offered, which is a number of documents and a
registration which, were it not yet registered, could not now be
registered and for good reason.

I am more interested in one or two of the books for sale but the full
list of 200 is not where indicated. Assuming the "rare" ones listed
account for the bulk of the collection's value the museum's assessment
of value seems excessively and unreasonably optimistic though I notice
negotiation is hinted at. That asside leads me to worry about the
museum valuation of the 84 manuscripts. Even allowing for the
valuation being an insurance valuation at double the replacement value
it seems wildly excessive. While the 1569 (IIRC) charter looks a fine
specimen many of the documents are fairly standard and not exceptional
and would not to my mind remotely acheive the quoted value in the
market. However, that is a matter of supply and demand and not one of
scholarship. I have no trouble with a vendor of books or manuscripts
attempting to get the most for them. I would like to see the full
booklist and some reasonable prices on which one may base a
negotiation.

The latest conveyance of the Shalford manor in the manuscript
catalogue appears to be 17th century. I would like to know more about
the right to title following that. I would question whether all, or
any, of the rights listed in the Land Registry entry are exercisable
these days - I repeat that under the Administration of Justice Act
1977 manorial courts [baron] and courts leet, except the court leet
for the Manor of Laxton, have ceased to have any jurisdiction to hear
and determine legal proceedings, but any such court may continue to
sit and transact such other business, if any, as was customary for it
immediately before 17 October 1977. Shalford is not listed in Schedule
4 to the Act and therefore it would take some pretty convincing proof
that a court sat immediately before October 1977. There is none on the
englishfeudaltruth website to suggest this was the case. And if the
vendor is told he has rights of warren but is explicitly also told
that he has no right of physically going after the poor rabbits it is
surely a bit of a waste of time. The lack of exercise of the rights
means that they, like the provision of coronation biscuits (which I
understand have been consistently refused for many coronations past),
is no more than words.

Sorry if I remain cynical and unimpressed.

Derek Howard

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Derek,

The value of the documents and, also, the book collection comes, in
part, because they are together in such a large group. All these
documents would be valuable as individuals but, as a large collection,
they are worth far more. The effort required to assemble a comparable
collection would be tremendous. Further, as a collection, they show a
continued history that is not only interesting but applicable to the
lordship attached. With all humility and respect, I must assert that
a museum curator and PhD is in a far better place to make professional
opinions regarding these documents value. I appreciate your concern
and opinion but, seriously, working and valuing antiquities is what
this person does and, as the Curator of Collections, seems to do
pretty well.

The Lordship of Liston has taken part in eight different Coronations
since it was first made a grand searjeanty by Henry II in 1184. It
has been called upon more than any other grand searjeanty in the
history of England. The World loves to watch England's show of
medieval pomp. State weddings (Diana) are seen by tens of thousands
of tourists and is watched, on television, by the World. England's
royals and nobles are a continued and substantial income generator for
the Nation. Now, as a Coronation seems to be in the somewhat-near
future, don't you think England will polish up every (provable)
medieval trapping and feudal ornament to a high shine for all the
World to see? Every single bit is another photo op. It's another
souvenir sold. It's another hotel room rented. This is big business,
my friend. Given this understanding, I would say that such a lordship
(registered) has a pretty good chance of being involved or included
to one extent or another.

Further, as we have seen through the Earl of Sandwich's example, it is
quite possible to license one's feudal/noble status out for commercial
gain. The Earl licensed his name out to a sandwich shop chain to
great, and continued, commercial benefit. The Lordship of Liston
could, certainly, do something similar in the specialty food market.
If you were buying cookies for a special gathering (a tea?), would you
buy the ordinary package for .99 or the exact replicas of those to be
set before the Sovereign upon their impending coronation for, say, .
2.99? If presented attractively, and with a short history on the
back, they could be a very lucrative product.

I don't mind that you're not impressed Derek. You don't have to buy
them. I just wanted to share two very fine examples of lordships with
you in an effort to expand your understanding of them. Likely, you've
never seen one like these and, if you have, never presented with such
an abundance of information and verifiable sources. As an obvioulsy
interested individual, I just thought you'd like to take a look.

Enjoy and have a great day!

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[Graham Milne]

What is the honourable service by which the manor of Liston is held?

Graham

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Derek,
The value of the documents and, also, the book collection comes, in
part, because they are together in such a large group. All these
documents would be valuable as individuals but, as a large collection,
they are worth far more. The effort required to assemble a comparable
collection would be tremendous. Further, as a collection, they show a
continued history that is not only interesting but applicable to the
lordship attached. With all humility and respect, I must assert that
a museum curator and PhD is in a far better place to make professional
opinions regarding these documents value. I appreciate your concern
and opinion but, seriously, working and valuing antiquities is what
this person does and, as the Curator of Collections, seems to do
pretty well.
The Lordship of Liston has taken part in eight different Coronations
since it was first made a grand searjeanty by Henry II in 1184. It
has been called upon more than any other grand searjeanty in the
history of England. The World loves to watch England's show of
medieval pomp. State weddings (Diana) are seen by tens of thousands
of tourists and is watched, on television, by the World. England's
royals and nobles are a continued and substantial income generator for
the Nation. Now, as a Coronation seems to be in the somewhat-near
future, don't you think England will polish up every (provable)
medieval trapping and feudal ornament to a high shine for all the
World to see? Every single bit is another photo op. It's another
souvenir sold. It's another hotel room rented. This is big business,
my friend. Given this understanding, I would say that such a lordship
(registered) has a pretty good chance of being involved or included
to one extent or another.
Further, as we have seen through the Earl of Sandwich's example, it is
quite possible to license one's feudal/noble status out for commercial
gain. The Earl licensed his name out to a sandwich shop chain to
great, and continued, commercial benefit. The Lordship of Liston
could, certainly, do something similar in the specialty food market.
If you were buying cookies for a special gathering (a tea?), would you
buy the ordinary package for .99 or the exact replicas of those to be
set before the Sovereign upon their impending coronation for, say, .
2.99? If presented attractively, and with a short history on the
back, they could be a very lucrative product.
I don't mind that you're not impressed Derek. You don't have to buy
them. I just wanted to share two very fine examples of lordships with
you in an effort to expand your understanding of them. Likely, you've
never seen one like these and, if you have, never presented with such
an abundance of information and verifiable sources. As an obvioulsy
interested individual, I just thought you'd like to take a look.
Enjoy and have a great day!
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[Greg]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Derek,
The value of the documents and, also, the book collection comes, in
part, because they are together in such a large group. All these
documents would be valuable as individuals but, as a large collection,
they are worth far more. The effort required to assemble a comparable
collection would be tremendous. Further, as a collection, they show a
continued history that is not only interesting but applicable to the
lordship attached. With all humility and respect, I must assert that
a museum curator and PhD is in a far better place to make professional
opinions regarding these documents value. I appreciate your concern
and opinion but, seriously, working and valuing antiquities is what
this person does and, as the Curator of Collections, seems to do
pretty well.
The Lordship of Liston has taken part in eight different Coronations
since it was first made a grand searjeanty by Henry II in 1184. It
has been called upon more than any other grand searjeanty in the
history of England. The World loves to watch England's show of
medieval pomp. State weddings (Diana) are seen by tens of thousands
of tourists and is watched, on television, by the World. England's
royals and nobles are a continued and substantial income generator for
the Nation. Now, as a Coronation seems to be in the somewhat-near
future, don't you think England will polish up every (provable)
medieval trapping and feudal ornament to a high shine for all the
World to see? Every single bit is another photo op. It's another
souvenir sold. It's another hotel room rented. This is big business,
my friend. Given this understanding, I would say that such a lordship
(registered) has a pretty good chance of being involved or included
to one extent or another.
Further, as we have seen through the Earl of Sandwich's example, it is
quite possible to license one's feudal/noble status out for commercial
gain. The Earl licensed his name out to a sandwich shop chain to
great, and continued, commercial benefit. The Lordship of Liston
could, certainly, do something similar in the specialty food market.
If you were buying cookies for a special gathering (a tea?), would you
buy the ordinary package for .99 or the exact replicas of those to be
set before the Sovereign upon their impending coronation for, say, .
2.99? If presented attractively, and with a short history on the
back, they could be a very lucrative product.
I don't mind that you're not impressed Derek. You don't have to buy
them. I just wanted to share two very fine examples of lordships with
you in an effort to expand your understanding of them. Likely, you've
never seen one like these and, if you have, never presented with such
an abundance of information and verifiable sources. As an obvioulsy
interested individual, I just thought you'd like to take a look.
Enjoy and have a great day!
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

After a few days and a little bit of looking, I have decided that what
is going on here is:

1) Your English Feudal website is a side gig: you're moonlighting
with it, you guys work for another real estate company and you don't
wanna be found out; hence the 'anonimity'.

2) You have, through a connection, gained access to some UK
properties and you're hoping to spin it off into something.

3) I think you're using this newsgroup as an excercise to to tweak
your website and your knowlegde of titled property and the laws
therein.

You've sort of danced around for a number days: 1st everything was
secretive: can't expose our customers...and now the whole world can
log on and check out your stuff.

Hate to be so blunt, but that's the way it's carried itself off.

See ya

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Gentlemen,

Graham asked if we could shed any light on the historical importance
of the specific coronation duty owed by the Lord of Liston: that of
being The King's Waferer. Medieval wafers were a real delicacy and
far more important than we might commonly imagine now, in the 21st
century. Here is a link that sheds some serious light on the matter
and, also, spotlights the Lordship of Liston by name. It may be
downloaded at this link:

www.leeds.ac.uk/music/staff/grr/grr-thesis/volume-1.doc

This is a full thesis paper and quite long. Scroll to chapter six,
page 102, and read all about wafers and those who served them.

Also, here's another reference:

Legg, L. G. Wickham, English Coronation Records: Westminster, 1901,
pp. lxvi-lxxx, 47, 50, 53, 57, 139, 158, 197, 361 "The wine was
served while the King and Queen were eating a dish of wafers which had
just been presented by the Lord of the Manor of Liston in Essex."

Enjoy and have, as always, a good day.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Greg,

May I provide a response to your three assertions?

1) You are correct that this project is a seperate issue from our main
focus which is other forms of real property. We are still coming to
terms with our over-head brokerage about to which extent they wish to
be involved. This will likely be resolved shortly and, at that time,
we hope to offer full disclosure. Until then, we are bound by the
instructions of others and, despite our true wishes, are not permitted
to share many personal details.

2) Through a series of connections we met our client and, after some
time, were asked to market his titles. He has not had the benefit of
a full-scale marketing effort yet and, we hope, this will assist in
bringing about a successful conveyance. We were well aware (and read)
about the business of manorial lordships (and feudal titles, on a
whole) before meeting our client. However, we have never marketed any
form of title in the past. This is our first effort and the only
reason we are here is because of the quality of the lordships we
represent. If they had been "empty titles" and not registered we
never would have gotten involved in the first place.

3) We entered this discussion group for a few reasons. The first is
that we were already being discussed. In an effort to answer some
questions and prevent untrue speculation (due to ignorance) we made
our first comment. The second reason is that we wanted to present the
lordships to this group as a whole. We were interested in your
thoughts and opinions. Also, we very much like educating others about
something we already find fascinating ourselves. The last reason is
that which you suggested. We were interested in getting your advice
and criticism to streamline our efforts. This group has done much in
the past (McCarthy Mor) and has proven itself to be a fairly reliable
bank of e-scholars.

The information regarding the lordships was never a secret. All you
ever had to do was submit your email with the site to gain entry.
This is far easier (and cheaper) than ordering Strutt & Parker's or
the MSGB's expensive catalogue of available titles. It wasn't a
secret Greg, you just didn't take the easy steps to gain access.
There is a big difference. We provided you with an avenue to find out
all of this before, but you either never recognized this simple fact
or were to distracted to actually go do it. The fault doesn't lie
with us for your inaction. Further, the access information will only
be good for a few days so that you small group of individuals may gain
understanding. After that, everyone has to submit an email again to
get access. Full title disclosure was available the entire time.
You just never took it.

Have a great day and feel free to submit any questions or ideas.
We're always listening and earnestly interested in your words.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[Graham Milne]

I am intrigued by the coronation biscuit. What is the background? If you
could spare a few crumbs of information I would be most grateful.

Graham

Post by Derek Howard
The lack of exercise of the rights
means that they, like the provision of coronation biscuits (which I
understand have been consistently refused for many coronations past),
is no more than words.
Sorry if I remain cynical and unimpressed.
Derek Howard

[Derek Howard]

Post by Graham Milne

Post by Derek Howard
The lack of exercise of the rights
means that they, like the provision of coronation biscuits (which I
understand have been consistently refused for many coronations past),
is no more than words.
Sorry if I remain cynical and unimpressed.
Derek Howard

I am intrigued by the coronation biscuit. What is the background? If you
could spare a few crumbs of information I would be most grateful.
Graham

The alleged rights of the reputed manor of Liston are said to include
the right of making and placing the five wafers before the monarch at
his coronation banquet. This must be qualified in that it is insofar
as he is able to do so and insofar as such rights are now subsisting.
However, it was clear from the information posted on the web at the
time of the March 2004 attempted sale on e-bay that this right had not
been received by any coronation in the last quarter of a millenium. It
would most certainly be again refused next time as well. Indeed, it is
highly unlikely we shall have a coronation banquet again. The
anonymous poster's attempts to over-hype would probably get him into
trouble with trading standards officers, were he trading in the UK.

Derek Howard

[Graham Milne]

Thanks. I guess that takes the biscuit.

Post by Derek Howard

Post by Graham Milne

Post by Derek Howard
The lack of exercise of the rights
means that they, like the provision of coronation biscuits (which I
understand have been consistently refused for many coronations past),
is no more than words.
Sorry if I remain cynical and unimpressed.
Derek Howard

I am intrigued by the coronation biscuit. What is the background? If you
could spare a few crumbs of information I would be most grateful.
Graham

The alleged rights of the reputed manor of Liston are said to include
the right of making and placing the five wafers before the monarch at
his coronation banquet. This must be qualified in that it is insofar
as he is able to do so and insofar as such rights are now subsisting.
However, it was clear from the information posted on the web at the
time of the March 2004 attempted sale on e-bay that this right had not
been received by any coronation in the last quarter of a millenium. It
would most certainly be again refused next time as well. Indeed, it is
highly unlikely we shall have a coronation banquet again. The
anonymous poster's attempts to over-hype would probably get him into
trouble with trading standards officers, were he trading in the UK.
Derek Howard

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Derek,

It happened in 1901.

Read.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[Derek Howard]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Derek,
It happened in 1901.
Read.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

You refer of course to the publication date for the book you cite
rather than to the last presentation of the wakers at a coronation
banquet. If you do not and consider you have supperior knowledge, you
may wish to consider amending Wikipedia's article on coronation
banquets which reads: "Banquets have not been held since the
coronation of George IV in 1821. George IV's coronation was the most
elaborate in history; his brother and successor William IV eliminated
the banquet, and William's desire to eliminate the costly banquet has
now apparently become the custom. A banquet was considered in 1902 for
Edward VII but his sudden illness put a stop to the plans".

Derek Howard

[Derek Howard]

Post by Derek Howard

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Derek,
It happened in 1901.
Read.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

You refer of course to the publication date for the book you cite
rather than to the last presentation of the wafers at a coronation
banquet. If you do not and consider you have superior knowledge, you
may wish to consider amending Wikipedia's article on coronation
banquets which reads: "Banquets have not been held since the
coronation of George IV in 1821. George IV's coronation was the most
elaborate in history; his brother and successor William IV eliminated
the banquet, and William's desire to eliminate the costly banquet has
now apparently become the custom. A banquet was considered in 1902 for
Edward VII but his sudden illness put a stop to the plans".

To which I might add that the claims to perform service at a
coronation are subject to approval at the Court of Claims established
by Royal Proclamation before each coronation. For instance, in 1902 a
Claim was admitted if it had been admitted in 1838, provided the
person petitioning represented the successful claimant in 1838. The
Court is each time required to omit from consideration claims rejected
at the previous coronation. The 1902 Court of Claims instructions
included that the "Commissioners are required by the Proclamation to
exclude from their consideration such Claims as may be submitted to
them in respect of Rights or Services connected with the parts of the
Ceremonial heretofore performed in Westminster Hall and with the
Procession, the Ceremony being confined to Westminster Abbey". [London
Gazette 2 May 1902]. The 1952 and 1937 Courts instructions were merely
to not consider claims not allowed at the previous coronation (I
presume that for George V was similar). Thus, the Court of Claims has
not even considered any claim relating to the banquet in Westminster
Hall since at least 1838 and will not do so again. To claim that the
occasion may arise to capitalise on some obscure claim not exercised
for more than a couple of centuries, if not considerably longer, is
disingenuous at least, if not fraudulent.

Derek Howard

[Graham Milne]

Of course, one way to make sure that a legitmate claim is not allowed is to
refuse ot hear it; a familar and dishonest device (used in the Berkeley Case
of 1861, where the House of Lords refused to hear additional critical
evidence and ordered that it should 'lie on the table' (a euphemism if ever
there was one). But this does not alter for one second the validity of such
a claim. The fact that a court refuses to hear a claim might be taken to
indicate that the claim actually has some validity. You will have to do
better than that. I set no store by what you have said. The simple fact of
the matter is that if this service by grand sergeantry existed then it
continues to exist until abolished by statute. From the discussion so far it
seems that this service did indeed exist, so until someone satisfies me that
it has been legally destroyed I see no alternative but to accept that it
exists today. Am I right or am I right? Don't bother to answer that
question.

Graham

Post by Derek Howard

Post by Derek Howard

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Derek,
It happened in 1901.
Read.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

You refer of course to the publication date for the book you cite
rather than to the last presentation of the wafers at a coronation
banquet. If you do not and consider you have superior knowledge, you
may wish to consider amending Wikipedia's article on coronation
banquets which reads: "Banquets have not been held since the
coronation of George IV in 1821. George IV's coronation was the most
elaborate in history; his brother and successor William IV eliminated
the banquet, and William's desire to eliminate the costly banquet has
now apparently become the custom. A banquet was considered in 1902 for
Edward VII but his sudden illness put a stop to the plans".

To which I might add that the claims to perform service at a
coronation are subject to approval at the Court of Claims established
by Royal Proclamation before each coronation. For instance, in 1902 a
Claim was admitted if it had been admitted in 1838, provided the
person petitioning represented the successful claimant in 1838. The
Court is each time required to omit from consideration claims rejected
at the previous coronation. The 1902 Court of Claims instructions
included that the "Commissioners are required by the Proclamation to
exclude from their consideration such Claims as may be submitted to
them in respect of Rights or Services connected with the parts of the
Ceremonial heretofore performed in Westminster Hall and with the
Procession, the Ceremony being confined to Westminster Abbey". [London
Gazette 2 May 1902]. The 1952 and 1937 Courts instructions were merely
to not consider claims not allowed at the previous coronation (I
presume that for George V was similar). Thus, the Court of Claims has
not even considered any claim relating to the banquet in Westminster
Hall since at least 1838 and will not do so again. To claim that the
occasion may arise to capitalise on some obscure claim not exercised
for more than a couple of centuries, if not considerably longer, is
disingenuous at least, if not fraudulent.
Derek Howard

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Gentlemen,

The comment about 1901 was in regard to a claim submitted by
Lieutenant-Colonel W.M. Lambert, D.S.O., by tenure of Manor of
Liston. His father, and previous Lord of Liston, applied and was
officially recognized in 1838 and was given two seats in Westminster
Abbey at the Coronation in lieu of actually performing his duties. As
I understand it, Lieutenant-Colonel Lambert was given the same at the
coronation in 1902. I need to verify this with my source (Coronation
Claims. Wollaston. 1910) in my office tomorrow but will post a full
list of all the coronations the Lords of Liston have applied for and
both those they were allowed and refused.

Bear in mind that Elizabeth II did not allow any claims of grand
searjeanty during her coronation. She did this for two reasons. The
first was that large-scale pomp and grandeur are, simply, not her
style. The second reason is that the UK was still feeling a
significant economic crunch from its recovery and rebuilding after
WW2. The Queen, already disinclined to such displays of pageantry,
probably thought the expense of a coronation banquet to be superfluous
and overly costly (as some of her predecessors had before her).

However, in her letter published in The London Gazette on June, 6,
1952 specifically preserved the rights and honor of such tenures by
grand searjeanty.

"And We do hereby further graciously declare that such Dispensation
shall not interfere with the Rights and Privileges of any of Our
loving Subjects to claim the Performances of such several Services or
any of them at any future Coronation."

Yes, the coronation banquet was not allowed in 1952 (only services
historically performed in Westminister Abbey during the coronation
service were). However, the Queen, in her own words, allows special
provision that her dispensation of such rights for her coronation did
not, in any way, interfere with the right perform such ancient feudal
duties in "any future Coronation."

Any public display of Royal pageantry is big, big business. Should a
King wish to have a fully traditional, historically accurate
coronation, as his predecessors have done many times, there is no
reason why a legitimate claim from The Lord of Liston should not be
honored in some form or another. Further, such a large-scale display
would only serve as a huge money-maker in terms of tourist dollars.

All of this aside, the right to perform the ancient duties of grand
searjeanty is totally separate from whether or not a specific King/
Queen wishes to incorporate such ceremony in their personal coronation
(Graham is right!). The right of grand searjeanty is a very old and
honorable one; close in nature to The Crown. This is why the honor
was specifically preserved, by name, in the Abolition of Tenures
1660. It is unlikely that such a special form of tenure, so
frequently honored and preserved, would ever pose a threat or need be
abolished.

With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

To compare the right of ancient services performed at coronation to
that of, say, mineral rights of another manorr is incongruitous.
Disuse could, potentially, be argued if the Lord(s) of the Manor did
not exercise their right to minerals. However, THE ACT of
specifically performing these rights (seperate from the right itself)
is not up to the Lord but is up to the will of the King or Queen. As
such, non-performance of such ancient duties is not the fault of the
Lord (if he formally applied to do so) but that of the Sovereign.
Thereby, following Derek's logic, the real issue is if the Lords of
Liston have continually submitted formal requests and have APPLIED to
perform their ancient feudal duites at various coronations; not
whether they were allowed to (by the King/Queen) or not. The Lords of
Liston certainly have submitted formal applications in recent memory
and this is heavily documented as being so.

Does this make sense? Is the distinction clear?

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

~~clarification~~
(the word "CORONATION" was mistakenly left out of the previous
comment. It's absense changes the tone and meaning of the comment
and, so, it has been added and resubmitted (entirely) for you here
with corrections.


To compare the right of ancient services performed at coronation to
that of, say, mineral rights of another manorr is incongruitous.
Disuse could, potentially, be argued if the Lord(s) of the Manor did
not exercise their right to minerals. However, THE ACT of
specifically performing these CORONATION rights (seperate from the
right itself)
is not up to the Lord but is up to the will of the King or Queen. As
such, non-performance of such ancient duties is not the fault of the
Lord (if he formally applied to do so) but that of the Sovereign.
Thereby, following Derek's logic, the real issue is if the Lords of
Liston have continually submitted formal requests and have APPLIED to
perform their ancient feudal duites at various coronations; not
whether they were allowed to (by the King/Queen) or not. The Lords
of
Liston certainly have submitted formal applications in recent memory
and this is heavily documented as being so.

Does this make sense? Is the distinction clear?

[Derek Howard]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Gentlemen,
The comment about 1901 was in regard to a claim submitted by
Lieutenant-Colonel W.M. Lambert, D.S.O., by tenure of Manor of
Liston. His father, and previous Lord of Liston, applied and was
officially recognized in 1838 and was given two seats in Westminster
Abbey at the Coronation in lieu of actually performing his duties. As
I understand it, Lieutenant-Colonel Lambert was given the same at the
coronation in 1902. I need to verify this with my source (Coronation
Claims. Wollaston. 1910) in my office tomorrow but will post a full
list of all the coronations the Lords of Liston have applied for and
both those they were allowed and refused.
Bear in mind that Elizabeth II did not allow any claims of grand
searjeanty during her coronation. She did this for two reasons. The
first was that large-scale pomp and grandeur are, simply, not her
style. The second reason is that the UK was still feeling a
significant economic crunch from its recovery and rebuilding after
WW2. The Queen, already disinclined to such displays of pageantry,
probably thought the expense of a coronation banquet to be superfluous
and overly costly (as some of her predecessors had before her).
However, in her letter published in The London Gazette on June, 6,
1952 specifically preserved the rights and honor of such tenures by
grand searjeanty.
"And We do hereby further graciously declare that such Dispensation
shall not interfere with the Rights and Privileges of any of Our
loving Subjects to claim the Performances of such several Services or
any of them at any future Coronation."
Yes, the coronation banquet was not allowed in 1952 (only services
historically performed in Westminister Abbey during the coronation
service were). However, the Queen, in her own words, allows special
provision that her dispensation of such rights for her coronation did
not, in any way, interfere with the right perform such ancient feudal
duties in "any future Coronation."
Any public display of Royal pageantry is big, big business. Should a
King wish to have a fully traditional, historically accurate
coronation, as his predecessors have done many times, there is no
reason why a legitimate claim from The Lord of Liston should not be
honored in some form or another. Further, such a large-scale display
would only serve as a huge money-maker in terms of tourist dollars.
All of this aside, the right to perform the ancient duties of grand
searjeanty is totally separate from whether or not a specific King/
Queen wishes to incorporate such ceremony in their personal coronation
(Graham is right!). The right of grand searjeanty is a very old and
honorable one; close in nature to The Crown. This is why the honor
was specifically preserved, by name, in the Abolition of Tenures
1660. It is unlikely that such a special form of tenure, so
frequently honored and preserved, would ever pose a threat or need be
abolished.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

It appears that you and Milne may not actually have read my posts.
Nowhere did I state that grand searjeanty had ceased to exist. What I
question is the dubious sales patter about the commercial
possibilities of exploitation. While I found your info about
Lieutenant-Colonel W.M. Lambert interesting (should that be Lt.-Col.
W. J. Lambert, D.S.O.?), and would welcome verificable information on
when in fact they were last actually presented (given the original e-
bay auction details that this is well over two centuries ago), my
position remains that there is a cat in hell's chance of the wafer
ever being presentable at a coronation banquet. You might be better
wording your advertising pages to the effect that what is being sold
is tantamount to a lottery ticket or two to attend a future
coronation. If there was a reasonable expectation of a future
coronation allowing the claim such seats on the black market (ignoring
secruity controls on identification of ticket holder with the person
allocated them) would be likely to fetch many thousands of pounds.
However, despite the survival of grand searjeanty the realistic
expectation is that no such claim will be entertained this century.

Derek Howard

[Graham Milne]

The expression is 'NOT a cat in hell's chance'. But you are getting close to
the heart of quite an interesting issue, namely that the Royal Family have
deliberately distanced themselves from 'Society' (hence the ending of
Presentations at Court) in order to appear closer to the 'People' (sort of
Louis XIV in reverse). The policy in relation to grand sergeantries is a
part of this I think. My personal view is that what the royal family should
have done is to have gone back to what royalty used to do in the good old
days; they should have actually used the aristocracy as their personal
servants; I mean butlers and footmen and so on (Remember the Butlers, Earls
of Ormonde, who were originally butlers proper?) but they have become far
too grand for that I guess). In the great Scottish houses, the sons of local
nobs did act as footmen. This would have had two positive consequences; one,
it would have provided the amusing sight of aristocrats acting as servants
and, two, it would have prevented all those leaks from royal servants who
don't know the meaning of loyalty. Thus, some of the Royal Family's most
embarassing episodes might have been avoided. So, perhaps it would have been
a good idea to have revived the royal biscuit after all. An interesting
speculation for an idle 30 seconds.

Post by Derek Howard

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Gentlemen,
The comment about 1901 was in regard to a claim submitted by
Lieutenant-Colonel W.M. Lambert, D.S.O., by tenure of Manor of
Liston. His father, and previous Lord of Liston, applied and was
officially recognized in 1838 and was given two seats in Westminster
Abbey at the Coronation in lieu of actually performing his duties. As
I understand it, Lieutenant-Colonel Lambert was given the same at the
coronation in 1902. I need to verify this with my source (Coronation
Claims. Wollaston. 1910) in my office tomorrow but will post a full
list of all the coronations the Lords of Liston have applied for and
both those they were allowed and refused.
Bear in mind that Elizabeth II did not allow any claims of grand
searjeanty during her coronation. She did this for two reasons. The
first was that large-scale pomp and grandeur are, simply, not her
style. The second reason is that the UK was still feeling a
significant economic crunch from its recovery and rebuilding after
WW2. The Queen, already disinclined to such displays of pageantry,
probably thought the expense of a coronation banquet to be superfluous
and overly costly (as some of her predecessors had before her).
However, in her letter published in The London Gazette on June, 6,
1952 specifically preserved the rights and honor of such tenures by
grand searjeanty.
"And We do hereby further graciously declare that such Dispensation
shall not interfere with the Rights and Privileges of any of Our
loving Subjects to claim the Performances of such several Services or
any of them at any future Coronation."
Yes, the coronation banquet was not allowed in 1952 (only services
historically performed in Westminister Abbey during the coronation
service were). However, the Queen, in her own words, allows special
provision that her dispensation of such rights for her coronation did
not, in any way, interfere with the right perform such ancient feudal
duties in "any future Coronation."
Any public display of Royal pageantry is big, big business. Should a
King wish to have a fully traditional, historically accurate
coronation, as his predecessors have done many times, there is no
reason why a legitimate claim from The Lord of Liston should not be
honored in some form or another. Further, such a large-scale display
would only serve as a huge money-maker in terms of tourist dollars.
All of this aside, the right to perform the ancient duties of grand
searjeanty is totally separate from whether or not a specific King/
Queen wishes to incorporate such ceremony in their personal coronation
(Graham is right!). The right of grand searjeanty is a very old and
honorable one; close in nature to The Crown. This is why the honor
was specifically preserved, by name, in the Abolition of Tenures
1660. It is unlikely that such a special form of tenure, so
frequently honored and preserved, would ever pose a threat or need be
abolished.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

It appears that you and Milne may not actually have read my posts.
Nowhere did I state that grand searjeanty had ceased to exist. What I
question is the dubious sales patter about the commercial
possibilities of exploitation. While I found your info about
Lieutenant-Colonel W.M. Lambert interesting (should that be Lt.-Col.
W. J. Lambert, D.S.O.?), and would welcome verificable information on
when in fact they were last actually presented (given the original e-
bay auction details that this is well over two centuries ago), my
position remains that there is a cat in hell's chance of the wafer
ever being presentable at a coronation banquet. You might be better
wording your advertising pages to the effect that what is being sold
is tantamount to a lottery ticket or two to attend a future
coronation. If there was a reasonable expectation of a future
coronation allowing the claim such seats on the black market (ignoring
secruity controls on identification of ticket holder with the person
allocated them) would be likely to fetch many thousands of pounds.
However, despite the survival of grand searjeanty the realistic
expectation is that no such claim will be entertained this century.
Derek Howard

[Derek Howard]

Post by Derek Howard

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
As
I understand it, Lieutenant-Colonel Lambert was given the same at the
coronation in 1902. I need to verify this with my source (Coronation
Claims. Wollaston. 1910) in my office tomorrow but will post a full
list of all the coronations the Lords of Liston have applied for and
both those they were allowed and refused.

Have you had any luck in finding the reference?

Post by Derek Howard

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
The right of grand searjeanty is a very old and
honorable one; close in nature to The Crown. This is why the honor
was specifically preserved, by name, in the Abolition of Tenures
1660.

Correct: "nor to take away the honorary services of Grand Sergeantie
other then of Wardship Marriage and value of Forfeiture of Marriage
Escuage Voyages Royall and other charges incident to Tenure by Knights
Service and other then Aide pur faier fitz Chivalier and Aide pur file
marrier"

Post by Derek Howard

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
It is unlikely that such a special form of tenure, so
frequently honored and preserved, would ever pose a threat or need be
abolished.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

It appears that you and Milne may not actually have read my posts.
Nowhere did I state that grand searjeanty had ceased to exist. What I
question is the dubious sales patter about the commercial
possibilities of exploitation. While I found your info about
Lieutenant-Colonel W.M. Lambert interesting (should that be Lt.-Col.
W. J. Lambert, D.S.O.?), and would welcome verificable information on
when in fact they were last actually presented (given the original e-
bay auction details that this is well over two centuries ago), my
position remains that there is a cat in hell's chance of the wafer
ever being presentable at a coronation banquet. You might be better
wording your advertising pages to the effect that what is being sold
is tantamount to a lottery ticket or two to attend a future
coronation. If there was a reasonable expectation of a future
coronation allowing the claim such seats on the black market (ignoring
secruity controls on identification of ticket holder with the person
allocated them) would be likely to fetch many thousands of pounds.
However, despite the survival of grand searjeanty the realistic
expectation is that no such claim will be entertained this century.

Another point that is further away from matters heraldic than the
coronation, is that of ownership of mineral rights claimed to be
connected to Shalford and other manors. It is my understanding, from
my younger days when I was interested in Cornish tin mines and
Yorkshire lead mines, that the owner of the surface in England owns
everything to the centre of the earth, unless excepted in grant, with
the exclusion of gold and silver (which belong to the Crown by common
law), and oil and gas which belong to the Crown by statute, and coal
which has been nationalised and de-nationalised. [J C Stewart: History
and Practice of the Law of Mines and Minerals; 1987, 3].

Now, if a manor is held in gross, existing only supported by a few
rights, it is separated from the land. Whereas a grant (for instance)
in the 16th century from the Crown may have conveyed the mineral
rights to the new manorial grantee, it cannot be sufficient to show
the original title to claim the mineral rights are still attached. It
is most probable that the mineral rights have been conveyed away with
the land without this necessarily having been explicitly mentioned. It
is therefore important when considering whether to purchase such a
reputed manor to check not only the title to the reputed manor but
also the title to the land which used to be attached to it. Unless the
landholder was specifically excluded from the mineral rights he should
normally have them. I would be most interested in whether the vendor
of the manor of Shalford can show this.

As a consequence I am even more concerned that the claims being put
about are seriously misleading. Registration of a manor under a false
name citing a mail box address, claims to be able to hold courts which
cannot be substantiated and are probably wrong, claims to have a right
to present wafers which right has been long unexercised and in the
real world will not be exercised. Unenforceable rights of warren. A
load of waffle about land baronies - an attempt to persuade the unwary
that lordships of manors are something like a barony - and wholly
unconnected to the description of the manor as granted. I wonder what
unequivocal exercisable rights really exist. Without rights no manor
exists. No manor, no style (not title) of lord of the manor (note
correct usage of miniscule). The cat may after all, as Graham points
out, not have any chance in hell.

Derek Howard

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Mr. Howard,

As always, we appreciate your thoughts and opinions as, we're sure,
you appreciate ours.

You put forth a great deal of questions here and, bear with me, I'll
try to answer as many as I can.

Lordship of Liston Coronation Claims:
Here are the claims and dates for which you asked, beginning with the
earliest as taken from Wollaston's Coronation Claims, Second edition,
1910.

Richard III 1377 / claim by Richard Lyons, Lord of Lyston, Essex,
allowed

Henry IV 1399 / claim by William Vanour, Lord of Lyston, allowed

Henry V 1413 / claim by Dru Barramtyn; John and Thomas Harewell; and
John Sellman, Reverend John Clyfton, all as "oweners" of Lyston, no
decision recorded

James I 1603 / clam by William Clopton, Lord of Lyston, not
adjudicated

Charles II 1661 / claim by Thomas Clopton, Lord of Lyston, allowed

James II 1685 / claim by William Clopton, Lord of Lyston, allowed

William & Mary 1689 / claim by William Clopton, Lord of Lyston,
allowed

Anne 1782 / claim by William Clopton, Lord of Lyston, allowed

George I 1714 / claim by William Clopton, Lord of Lyston, allowed

George II 1727 / claim by Foley Clopton, Lord of Lyston, allowed

George IV 1823 / claim by John Campbell, Lord of Lyston, allowed

William IV 1831 / No claim made

Victoria 1838 / (((Already discussed in this thread))) Two seats in
Westminister were, apparently, given to the Lord of Liston in lieu of
his services.

Edward VII 1902 / claim by Lt Colonel W M Lambert, Lord of Lyston,
Excluded from jurisdiction of court as referring to Banquet. (No
banquet held)

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Issue #2: Proving Ancient Manorial Rights

Mr. Howard,

I don't know how many times I must reference this document before you
will actually read it.

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf

Contrary to what some without any actual knowledge of the process of
registration may believe, every jot and title of all that appears in
the "Lands and Estate" section of the official registry extract must
be proved to the registry examiner via original and contiguous
documentation. In this case it was a six month process, the most
difficult part of which was providing a provable Ordinance Survey (OS)
map of the territorial jurisdiction of the "manor" of Shalford.

The Land Registration Act of 2002 clearly states that registration of
a title with the UK Land Registry guarantees title ownership. This is
why the title extract is considered admissable in a court of law.
Everything on this extract has been proven to experts far, far
superior to you already. The legislation (2002) took care of this
nicely and, contrary to however much you wish to believe otherwise, it
is all there for you to read in black and white.

The following is a direct quote from the Land Registry document linked
above.

"4.3 Effect of LRA 2002
Under the LRA 2002 manorial rights are categorised as overriding
interests, so a landowner takes subject to them even if they are not
mentioned in their register. However, under s.117, LRA 2002 these
rights will lose their overriding status after 12 October 2013 (10
years after the Act came into force). Subsequently, the rights will
need to be mentioned in the register in order to bind buyers of the
land."

Here we see the UK gov't answer your question (for me) regarding how
owners of the surface are bound by the overriding interests of a lord
of the manor. Further, a registration that specifically mentions
these rights will be the only kind inforcable after 2013. The
registration of Shalford has quite a few rights mentioned by name. As
such, these rights will be provable and claimable even after the
October 12th, 2013 deadline. The UK government says so. Check it
out.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Issue #3: P.O. Box/Address in England

You refer to the registration being put under a false address. My
client's London address is kept because HM Land Registry requires a UK
address; foreign mail addresses are not permitted. My client owned a
successful international real estate brokerage for some time based out
of London, Hong Kong, and Florida. As such, he resided in England for
quite a long time. There is nothing false about this address. It is
functional to this day and capable of receiving mail.

Derek, you don't know everything about which you speak so
authoritatively about. This is not meant as an insult but a honest
comment. For instance, you didn't know why manorial rights override a
normal land-owner's rights. If you knew the specifics of what is
necessary to register a title you would have understood the answer to
this question before you asked it.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Issue #4: What is/was a Land Barony?

You really should read a bit more about the ancient nature of manors.
As I've stated previously, manors were the income generating, building
block of any feudal title (Baron, Earl, Duke, and so on) after the
Norman Conquest. The Duchies of Lancastire and Cornwall (The Royal
Duchies) are modern day examples of surviving noble titles made up,
entirely, of a collection of manors. Here, by studying these two
current ducal titles, you see how all noble titles were directly tied
to and dependent on land ownership of manors before 1660.

A frequent term, used by a variety of scholars, for a manor held
directly of The Crown (in chief) was a "land barony." A full
discussion of this is provided on our website with a large amount of
citations and direct quotes from scholarly works.

WE MAKE NO CLAIM that the Lordship of Shalford is, or is not, a modern
day "land barony" even though it is still held "in chief of the Crown"
to this day. The entire matter of English Feudal Baronies is far too
confusing and would only serve as a distraction to potential buyers.
The lordship is marketed as a manor. The legal style/title referenced
repeatedly is the Lord of Shalford. The registration says
"lordship." That is what can be proven legally and that is what we're
selling it as.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Issue #5: Coronation Rights by Grand Searjeanty

Derek,

Haven't we already discussed this?! For fear of repeating myself...

The legal right of grand searjeanty is totally seperate from whether
or not a Monarch decides to utilize the services in their own personal
coronation banquet. Just because the right isn't used by one or two
Monarchs doesn't mean that it simply ceases to exist. It would take
an Act of the Crown to abolish this ancient right (as Graham discussed
previously).

The fact that Edward VII didn't have a banquet was a personal choice.
The fact that Elizabeth II didn't was, largely due to her own modesty
and also the fact that her country was still recovering from WW2
economically. London had been heavily damaged during the war and the
powers that be/were decided that such an expense (that of a banquet)
was unneeded and imprudent. However, the Queen specifically said that
her omission of such would NOT affect grand searjeants from exercising
their rights at a future coronation. As we've seen in the previous
century, British pageantry is big business for tourism. Logic would
dictate that the more such pageantry available to be seen and enjoyed
by the general public, the more tourist dollars generated. From a
purely economic stance, such a banquet would likely be a very
profitable affair for the UK.

Again, a Monarch's usage of a grand searjeanty at any particular
coronation does not relate to the existence of that same right
legally. Further, if it is in the body of the UK Land Registry title
extract, it is (by the LRA 2002) legally provable and functional.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Issue #5: Coronation Rights by Grand Searjeanty

Derek,

Again the legal right of grand searjeanty is totally seperate from
whether or not a Monarch decides to utilize the services in their own
personal coronation banquet. Just because the right isn't used by one
or two Monarchs doesn't mean that it simply ceases to exist. It would
take an Act of the Crown to abolish this ancient right (as Graham
discussed previously).

The fact that Edward VII didn't have a banquet was a personal choice.
The fact that Elizabeth II didn't was, largely due to her own modesty
and also the fact that her country was still recovering from WW2
economically. London had been heavily damaged during the war and the
powers that be/were decided that such an expense (that of a banquet)
was unneeded and imprudent. However, the Queen specifically said that
her omission of such would NOT affect grand searjeants from exercising
their rights at a future coronation. As we've seen in the previous
century, British pageantry is big business for tourism. Logic would
dictate that the more such pageantry available to be seen and enjoyed
by the general public, the more tourist dollars generated. From a
purely economic stance, such a banquet would likely be a very
profitable affair for the UK.

Again, a Monarch's usage of a grand searjeanty at any particular
coronation does not relate to the existence of that same right
legally. Further, if it is in the body of the UK Land Registry title
extract, it is (by the LRA 2002) legally provable and functional.

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Issue #2: Proving Ancient Manorial Rights
Mr. Howard,
I don't know how many times I must reference this document before you
will actually read it.
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf

A most interesting official document. Here is another relevant one:
http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/public_guide_014.pdf
This is a guide 'aimed at members of the public considering responding
to websites advertising the sale of titles such as “Lord” and “Lady”
etc.', and 'explains that Land Registry has no connection with such
schemes other than registering any transfer of land involved in the
normal course of its statutory duties.'

Sean Murphy

[Graham Milne]

This document describes a scam whereby a title is literally invented. It has
nothing to do with the sale of a genuine manorial title. Again, you are
trying to tar different things with the same brush. This is highly
misleading and the document is not'relevant' in this context.

Graham

Post by Sean J Murphy

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Issue #2: Proving Ancient Manorial Rights
Mr. Howard,
I don't know how many times I must reference this document before you
will actually read it.
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf

http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/public_guide_014.pdf
This is a guide 'aimed at members of the public considering responding to
websites advertising the sale of titles such as “Lord” and “Lady” etc.',
and 'explains that Land Registry has no connection with such schemes other
than registering any transfer of land involved in the normal course of its
statutory duties.'
Sean Murphy

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Mr. Murphy,

Graham is 100% right. This document has NOTHING whatsoever to do with
lordships of the manor. It NEVER even says the word "manor" in the
entire document. It deals ONLY with schemes like simple name changes
and, what we have dubbed, "The One Square Foot Scam." Meaning, Lady
Sarah Farmer (I think that's what she's called) supposedly will sell
you one square foot of her land and, suddenly, you are supposed to
have a title of your choosing that seems an awful lot like a peerage
(Lord John Smith vs. John Smith, Lord of X. BIG difference). This
scheme, often duplicated, often says something about registry with HM
Land Registry. However, this has to do with the registration of a
small parcel of tangible land and NOT a recognized and historically
functional lordship of the manor and, potentially, those lordships
ALREADY registered. This seems similar to the "lairdship" scams that
seem to run unchecked in Scotland.

Good catch Graham!

With High Regard,
John
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

ps. Well, on the other hand, we've never seen this particular document
before (a rarity given our months of heavy research). In that regard,
thank you, Sean, for adding to our already massive collection.

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Mr. Murphy,
Graham is 100% right. This document has NOTHING whatsoever to do with
lordships of the manor. It NEVER even says the word "manor" in the
entire document. It deals ONLY with schemes like simple name changes
and, what we have dubbed, "The One Square Foot Scam." Meaning, Lady
Sarah Farmer (I think that's what she's called) supposedly will sell
you one square foot of her land and, suddenly, you are supposed to
have a title of your choosing that seems an awful lot like a peerage
(Lord John Smith vs. John Smith, Lord of X. BIG difference). This
scheme, often duplicated, often says something about registry with HM
Land Registry. However, this has to do with the registration of a
small parcel of tangible land and NOT a recognized and historically
functional lordship of the manor and, potentially, those lordships
ALREADY registered. This seems similar to the "lairdship" scams that
seem to run unchecked in Scotland.
Good catch Graham!
With High Regard,
John
EnglishFeudalTruth.com
ps. Well, on the other hand, we've never seen this particular document
before (a rarity given our months of heavy research). In that regard,
thank you, Sean, for adding to our already massive collection.

De nada, glad that my puny investigative efforts can in some way augment
your massive collection. As I have indicated, there is a large grey area
between truth and lies in the field of title selling, between real and
purported titles. The two Land Registry documents are therefore both
very relevant. Incidentally, why does your client refer to himself as
'Lord Shalford', implying a peerage title, rather than 'Lord of
Shalford', indicating a manorial one?

Sean Murphy

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by Graham Milne
This document describes a scam whereby a title is literally invented. It
has nothing to do with the sale of a genuine manorial title. Again, you
are trying to tar different things with the same brush. This is highly
misleading and the document is not'relevant' in this context.
Graham

Post by Sean J Murphy

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Issue #2: Proving Ancient Manorial Rights
Mr. Howard,
I don't know how many times I must reference this document before you
will actually read it.
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf

http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/public_guide_014.pdf
This is a guide 'aimed at members of the public considering responding
to websites advertising the sale of titles such as “Lord” and “Lady”
etc.', and 'explains that Land Registry has no connection with such
schemes other than registering any transfer of land involved in the
normal course of its statutory duties.'
Sean Murphy

You have indicated before, Graham, that you are not bothered by the
quantity of bogus titles on sale, as this clearly does not relate to
your pristine position. With respect, I continue to focus the debate on
the fact that both real and purported titles are being sold, and
therefore make no apologies for drawing attention to the second Land
Registry document. Again, I note that the 'Private Portfolio' on
EnglishFeudalTruth.com refers to Shalford as a 'Lordship or Reputed
Lordship'. There is a large grey area between truth and lies in the
matter of title selling, which the brokers exploit, and which of course
fuels our debates.

Sean Murphy

[Graham Milne]

Sean,

It is not that I am not bothered by the sale of bogus titles; I am bothered
but the activity does not affect the validity of genuine titles. My opinion
of people who sell bogus titles couldn't be lower; I think they tarnish
everyone else i.e. they don't give a stuff about the rest of us, as long as
they can get their hands on some money.

My view of manors is that it is correct for a Lord of a Manor to call
himself 'Lord of x' (as opposed to 'Lord of the Manor of x') and to refer to
a manor as a lordship.

Graham

Post by Sean J Murphy

Post by Graham Milne
This document describes a scam whereby a title is literally invented. It
has nothing to do with the sale of a genuine manorial title. Again, you
are trying to tar different things with the same brush. This is highly
misleading and the document is not'relevant' in this context.
Graham

Post by Sean J Murphy

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Issue #2: Proving Ancient Manorial Rights
Mr. Howard,
I don't know how many times I must reference this document before you
will actually read it.
http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg022.pdf

http://www.landreg.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/public_guide_014.pdf
This is a guide 'aimed at members of the public considering responding
to websites advertising the sale of titles such as “Lord” and “Lady”
etc.', and 'explains that Land Registry has no connection with such
schemes other than registering any transfer of land involved in the
normal course of its statutory duties.'
Sean Murphy

You have indicated before, Graham, that you are not bothered by the
quantity of bogus titles on sale, as this clearly does not relate to your
pristine position. With respect, I continue to focus the debate on the
fact that both real and purported titles are being sold, and therefore
make no apologies for drawing attention to the second Land Registry
document. Again, I note that the 'Private Portfolio' on
EnglishFeudalTruth.com refers to Shalford as a 'Lordship or Reputed
Lordship'. There is a large grey area between truth and lies in the matter
of title selling, which the brokers exploit, and which of course fuels our
debates.
Sean Murphy

[Martin Goldstraw]

Post by Sean J Murphy
I note that the 'Private Portfolio' on
EnglishFeudalTruth.com refers to Shalford as a 'Lordship or Reputed
Lordship'. There is a large grey area between truth and lies in the
matter of title selling, which the brokers exploit, and which of course
fuels our debates.
Sean Murphy-

Just a point that I feel is worth making (although Sean may already be
aware of this).

When a manor or a lordship is referred to as a *reputed* manor or
lordship, we must not interpret that term to mean accepted as true on
inconclusive grounds or supposed; it does not imply "a large grey area
between truth and lies".

The term *reputed manor* is one known to law and applies where demesne
lands of a manor are separated from the manor. In these cases the law
refers to said manor as a "reputed manor" or you may even see the term
"seigniory in gross" used to mean the same thing. In practice, the law
draws absolutely no distinction between a manor and a reputed manor
(Re: Box Hill Common [1980] ch 109; [1979] 2 WLR 177; [1979] 1 All ER
113). The example often quoted is where separate land is purchased by
the lord of the manor and treated thereafter as part of his manor -
the law appears to be that the land may in time become part and parcel
of the manor by "repute".

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Martin

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Sean,

I wonder, at times, if people see that which they wish to see. If you
look at both UK Land Registry title extracts you will see both
lordships described as "The lordship OR reputed lordship of...." Why
did you focus on only the second part of this phrase? Did the first
one not give you enough to argue about so you simply ignored it? The
UK Land Registry puts "The lordship or reputed lordship of..." in
front of every single manor they register.

I also don't know where you refer to when you say my client refers to
himself as "Lord Shalford." In all official documentation provided he
is referred to as Lord of Shalford. I'm, honestly, not sure where
this "Lord Shalford" appears but I do agree with you that the "of" is
the crucial component and very important when setting the distinction
between manors and peerage titles. Where, exactly, did you find this
reference on our website?

Again, I thank you for adding to our large library of UK gov't
documents. While this document was helpful, again, it has nothing to
do with the Lordships of Shalford and Liston. Further, it has nothing
to do with any manors at all. It deals with the Sarah Farmer "One
Square Foot Scam" where a title is actually invented by change of
name. It has nothing to do with, and does not even mention in the
entire document, one word about a manorial lordship. While such a
document is certainly important for all of us to read (for further
understanding) I must, again, assert that it only serves to distract
from that which this entire string has been about. Lordships of the
manor. If you want to talk about the lairdship or Lady Sarah Farmer
scams, please, start a new discussion so we may streamline our
thoughts and opinions. Also, I know it is not your intention to
confuse less educated e-scholars with misdirection and unrelated
government documentation. Surely not!

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Sean,
I wonder, at times, if people see that which they wish to see. If you
look at both UK Land Registry title extracts you will see both
lordships described as "The lordship OR reputed lordship of...." Why
did you focus on only the second part of this phrase? Did the first
one not give you enough to argue about so you simply ignored it? The
UK Land Registry puts "The lordship or reputed lordship of..." in
front of every single manor they register.
I also don't know where you refer to when you say my client refers to
himself as "Lord Shalford." In all official documentation provided he
is referred to as Lord of Shalford. I'm, honestly, not sure where
this "Lord Shalford" appears but I do agree with you that the "of" is
the crucial component and very important when setting the distinction
between manors and peerage titles. Where, exactly, did you find this
reference on our website?
Again, I thank you for adding to our large library of UK gov't
documents. While this document was helpful, again, it has nothing to
do with the Lordships of Shalford and Liston. Further, it has nothing
to do with any manors at all. It deals with the Sarah Farmer "One
Square Foot Scam" where a title is actually invented by change of
name. It has nothing to do with, and does not even mention in the
entire document, one word about a manorial lordship. While such a
document is certainly important for all of us to read (for further
understanding) I must, again, assert that it only serves to distract
from that which this entire string has been about. Lordships of the
manor. If you want to talk about the lairdship or Lady Sarah Farmer
scams, please, start a new discussion so we may streamline our
thoughts and opinions. Also, I know it is not your intention to
confuse less educated e-scholars with misdirection and unrelated
government documentation. Surely not!

The EnglishFeudalTruth.com website is once again restricted access. At
http://lite.globalbx.com/Other_Real_Estate/listing242712.html appears
'Seller is Lord Shalford and Lord of Liston'. The following interesting
correspondence between 'Thomas, Lord Shalford' and Colby College (in
Maine I believe) has been placed online at
http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/2004-October/041711.html:

START QUOTE
OT: Brit Landed Gentry 419ing, what next?
Jeff A. Earickson jaearick at COLBY.EDU
Tue Oct 19 15:15:21 IST 2004

* Previous message: Add an aditional header to spam mail.
* Next message: Add an aditional header to spam mail.
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

My Most Esteemed Collegues (ahem),

Totally off-topic here, but I'm sure Julian and others in the UK can
have a laugh at this one. The email below came into our College's
alumni relations/donors office, and was actually passed around as a
a legit opportunity before the College treasurer got it and asked me.

The Burkes Peerage AOL address is a laugh. And does Verizon provide
ISP service in the UK? Last I looked, 67.216.58.94 is a UUNET number
in the US. Perhaps his Lordship in on the lam from the British police?

Julian, perhaps this is **your** chance for title, land, nobility...

Jeff Earickson
Colby College

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Return-Path: <L.shalford at verizon.net>
Received: from out014.verizon.net (out014pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.46])
by basalt.colby.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/1.48') with ESMTP id
i9HLhBxp000642
for <deleted at colby.edu>; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:43:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [67.216.58.94] by out014.verizon.net
(InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with

ESMTP

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
for <deleted at colby.edu>; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:38:53 -0500
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:32 -0400
Subject: Proposed gift of partial proceeds from sale of English
hereditaments
From: "L.Shalford" <L.shalford at verizon.net>
To: <deleted at colby.edu>
Message-ID: <BD985E98.798C%L.shalford at verizon.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3180879512_1509085_MIME_Part"
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out014.verizon.net
from [67.216.58.94] at Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:38:52 -0500
X-Colby-MailScanner: ftbc
X-Colby-MailScanner-SpamScore: 1.06
X-MailScanner-From: l.shalford at verizon.net
X-UIDL: e$'!!9Vl!!6*e"!Bl4"!
Good morning, Ms. Tessler,
I have only the remotest connection to Colby College family, and my
proposal is very unusual; so it would be prudent to obtain assurances. I
suggest someone well-known and respected in such matters: Mr. Harold
Brooks-Baker, Publishing Director, Burkes Peerage, London. His e-mail
address is Burkespeer at aol.com
My proposed gift is not altruistic; it is motivated by a need to raise a
considerable amount of cash to pay unforeseen medical expenses for my
wife. I am, myself, in fragile health and seventy years of age. I have no
heirs capable of succeeding to one of two hereditaments I possess. If I
fail to assign (sell) it before my death it will escheat to The Crown and
be merged into the residue of Crown Lands and Offices. Moreover, it is
also uncertain if some future amendment of the Reform of the House of
Lords Act,1999, if any, might affect an assignment (sale) of either or
both hereditaments permitted, historically, by a 1350 statute of King
Edward III.
Specifically, I propose to give Colby College ten percent of the gross
proceeds of the assignment (sale) of these two singular and especially
valuable English hereditaments. Their nature and quality are generally
explained by one of the two PDFs attached: a feature story in the April
2004 issue of Country Life, England's leading up-market country property
magazine.
Each is listed with Her Majesty's Land Registry at a stated value of
£500,000. At today's currency exchange rate, £1.00 = $1.85, ten percent
equals $90,265 for one or $180,530 for both. The assignment (sale) price
is negotiable so the gift amount could be less. Colby College needs only
to identify, present and persuade an affluent alumnus or benefactor, or
someone known to an alumnus or benefactor, to accept assignment (purchase)
of one or both of them.
If you wish to pursue my offer and want to learn more, I have additional
UK government-sourced information in PDF format for evaluation by the
College's counsel and, if thought suitable, for presentation to one or
more prospective assignees (purchasers).
Sincerely,
Thomas, Lord Shalford
L.Shalford at Verizon.Net

END QUOTE

The mention of Mr Harold Brooks-Baker provides all the assurance required.

Sean Murphy

[Sean J Murphy]

What if any connection is there between Thomas, Lord (of) Shalford, and
Thomas J. Aaron? Given that the latest cited document relating to the
Lordship of Shalford is dated 1920, what is the provenance of the title
from that date until the present?

Sean Murphy

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Dear Sir,

Please check your email.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Sean,

Not that my client's personal business is any of your own but, all of
this was previously written about in a number of US papers in the late
1980's. As such, it is already a matter of public record and I'd be
happy to share, briefly, the story. It's quite an interesting tale!

Thomas Aaron is the given birth name of our client, Thomas, The Lord
of Shalford. The title of Lord of Shalford has been in his family for
generations and this is why the collection of manorial documents is so
complete. His paternal grandfather was a naturally born UK citizen,
as was Thomas' father. Thomas' grandfather held, owned, and
maintained the lordship as well as a substantial amount of land
holdings in the UK. However, Thomas' grandfather, and still very
young father, immigrated to the United States. To naturalize as US
citizens, Thomas' grandfather put the Lordship (as a form of land
ownership) in an active trust, with all the documents, in England for
his first US born heir to reclaim. In 1987, Thomas, as the first US
born decendent, was allowed to assume his grandfather's legacy and
reclaim his family's lordship which had been carefully maintained and
cared for in the interim. This is why there is a gap between 1920 and
1987 when Thomas reclaimed legal ownership. It was this succession of
lineage and the complete documentation that later allowed him to
register the manor with more provable ancient manorial rights (LRA
2002 "overriding interests") than any other registered lordship we've
seen.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Sean,

I'd like to make a point of saying that we came here to discuss two
lordships of the manor, forms of land ownership. Both are registered
properties and, under the LRA 2002, totally legal and provable.
However, the focus has continually turned into a public attack on my
client's character, health, and personal information. Further, many
of the things said are not only empty conjecture but highly insulting
and untrue. My client's registered lordships are that which we came
to share with you. If we knew you would doggedly and publicly
belittle our client (a man whom we respect both professionally and
personally) and air extremely private matters, such as health, we
never would have made contact. We assumed that despite the lively
debate found here, which we enjoy, you would still maintain a level of
dignity and decorum in respecting some of the most private aspects of
a person's life. It is ungentlemanly to go as far as you have and we
ask, politely, that you consider modifying your long post accordingly
and also your approach to further discussion. Will faithfully answer
your questions, as we always have, if submitted in in the same manner
which we answer them in. We wish only to act in a manner worthy of
such noble discussion and subject matter. As such, we earnestly
invite you to do the same.

Our client is of the highest character and quality, as are his
lordships. We are proud and honored to work with such an individual.
He is in NO way similar to scoundrels like Boada and McCarthy Mor.
Such insinuations are absolutely farcical. It never ceases to amaze
me how perfectly wonderful people will say the cruelest things, from
an ignorant standpoint, with full confidence and the faceless
anonymity found only on the internet. Please, Sir, both this subject
and you, yourself, are worthy of higher things than this.

With Humble Sincerity,
John
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

ps. You are welcome to register with the site to gain access as
everyone else does. We hope you do and eagerly await to send you
login information.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Sean,

I'd like to make a point of saying that we came here to discuss two
lordships of the manor, forms of land ownership. Both are registered
properties and, under the LRA 2002, totally legal and provable.
However, the focus has continually turned into a public attack on my
client's character, health, and personal information. Further, many
of the things said are not only empty conjecture but highly insulting
and untrue. My client's registered lordships are that which we came
to share with you. If we knew you would doggedly and publicly
belittle our client (a man whom we respect both professionally and
personally) and air extremely private matters, such as health, we
never would have made contact. We assumed that despite the lively
debate found here, which we enjoy, you would still maintain a level
of
dignity and decorum in respecting some of the most private aspects of
a person's life. It is ungentlemanly to go as far as you have and we
ask, politely, that you consider modifying your long post accordingly
and also your approach to further discussion. We will faithfully
answer
your questions, as we always have, if submitted in in the same manner
which we answer them in. We wish only to act in a manner worthy of
such noble discussion and subject matter. As such, we earnestly
invite you to do the same.


Our client is of the highest character and quality, as are his
lordships. We are proud and honored to work with such an individual.
He is in NO way similar to scoundrels like Boada and McCarthy Mor.
Such insinuations are absolutely farcical. It never ceases to amaze
me how perfectly wonderful people will say the cruelest things, from
an ignorant standpoint, with full confidence and the faceless
anonymity found only on the internet. Please, Sir, both this subject
and you, yourself, are worthy of higher things than this.


With Humble Sincerity,
John
EnglishFeudalTruth.com


ps. You are welcome to register with the site to gain access as
everyone else does. We hope you do and eagerly await to send you
login information.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Sean,

I'd like to make a point of saying that we came here to discuss two
lordships of the manor, forms of land ownership. Both are registered
properties and, under the LRA 2002, totally legal and provable.
However, the focus has continually turned into a public attack on my
client's character, health, and personal information. Further, many
of the things said are not only empty conjecture but highly insulting
and untrue. My client's registered lordships are that which we came
to share with you. If we knew you would doggedly and publicly
belittle our client (a man whom we respect both professionally and
personally) and air extremely private matters, such as health, we
never would have made contact. We assumed that despite the lively
debate found here, which we enjoy, you would still maintain a level of
dignity and decorum in respecting some of the most private aspects of
a person's life. It is ungentlemanly to go as far as you have and we
ask, politely, that you consider modifying your long post accordingly
and also your approach to further discussion. We will faithfully
answer your questions, as we always have, if submitted in the same
manner which we answer them in. We wish only to act in a manner
worthy of such noble discussion and subject matter. As such, we
earnestly invite you to do the same.

Our client is of the highest character and quality, as are his
lordships. We are proud and honored to work with such an individual.
He is in NO way similar to scoundrels like Boada and McCarthy Mor.
Such insinuations are absolutely farcical. It never ceases to amaze
me how perfectly wonderful people will say the cruelest things, from
an ignorant standpoint, with full confidence and the faceless
anonymity found only on the internet. Please, Sir, both this subject
and you, yourself, are worthy of higher things than this.


With Humble Sincerity,
John
EnglishFeudalTruth.com


ps. You are welcome to register with the site to gain access as
everyone else does. We hope you do and eagerly await to send you
login information.

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Sean,

We would like to send you some information, via email, that might help
you understand further. We have not been able to get through to you
on the email provided here. Is there another that is more effective?

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Sean,
We would like to send you some information, via email, that might help
you understand further. We have not been able to get through to you
on the email provided here. Is there another that is more effective?

Note that you should remove SPAMOUT from the address, which should then
work fine. I await your further information with interest.

Sean Murphy

[Sean J Murphy]

Excerpt from an article in the 'Central Kentucky News-Journal', 28
November 2003, at , which was noted on rec.heraldry on 5 March 2004:

START QUOTE
Lord Shalford's grandfather and father came to America around the turn
of the century. Upon arriving, his grandfather had to renounce his
lordship title to become a U.S. citizen. The U.S. does not recognize
titles of nobility.

The 3,500-acre Shalford and 600-acre Liston manors reverted to the
crown, awaiting the next descent to resume lordship. In England, the
majority of the property belongs to the crown. Everyone there is a
tenant of the royal family.

Lordships date back to William the Conqueror, who granted parcels of
land (known as manors or jurisdictional areas) to his people as a reward
for their service. Lords become "tenancies-in-chief" Lord Shalford said,
with the power to subdivide their land.

On Jan. 19, 1935, Thomas Aron was born. More than 50 years would pass
before his father would tell him of his unique ancestry.

"My father knew about this but he never talked about it," Lord Shalford
said.

In the late 1980s, his father, while suffering from an illness, finally
told him that he was the descendant of an English lord. Within a year
this U.S. born lawyer would become a lord.

Shalford said he was "surprised" by the revelation.

"Soon after, I began to take a lawyer's interest in it," Lord Shalford said.

"I've become one of the authorities on the subject."

Shalford resumed his family's lordship, which works the same as an
inheritance. Because the Shalfords have no children, Lord Shalford would
have to assign, or will, Shalford and Liston to someone in the event of
his and Lady Shalford's death. By law, if Lord Shalford dies first, Lady
Shalford would succeed him.

If they do not appoint an assignee, the land reverts to the crown.

Along with the two pieces of land, Lord Shalford also inherited several
historical documents pertaining to Shalford and Liston.

By the time he became Lord of Shalford and Liston, much of the powers
that accompanied the title had disappeared.

"I still retain some of the privileges and powers," Lord Shalford said.

"I can appoint my own court, although that court cannot preside over
legal matters. I can appoint a priest if there is a church."
END QUOTE

Again, the style is 'Lord Shalford', not 'Lord of Shalford'.

Sean Murphy

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Sean,

Good job on locating the article. I have a clipping of the original
on file in my office but no digital equivalent. Thanks for finding it
so quickly.

I can't account for why a reporter would make the mistake of calling
my client Lord Shalford instead of the proper Lord of Shalford. We
weren't involved until very recently (by comparison). Perhaps, this
was an innocent mistake made by a only semi-informed yankee newsman
who should have known better? Ever since we've dealt with our client
he as only referred to himself as The Lord of Shalford.

::shrugs visibly::

I don't know what to say except the legal style appropriate to the
lordship is that of "The Lord of Shalford" or "The Lord of the Manor
of Shalford." We are selling it as such and make reference to this on
the website. We don't make any claims that "Lord Shalford" is
correct.

Regards,
John
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[m***@googlemail.com]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Sean,
Good job on locating the article. I have a clipping of the original
on file in my office but no digital equivalent. Thanks for finding it
so quickly.
I can't account for why a reporter would make the mistake of calling
my client Lord Shalford instead of the proper Lord of Shalford. We
weren't involved until very recently (by comparison). Perhaps, this
was an innocent mistake made by a only semi-informed yankee newsman
who should have known better? Ever since we've dealt with our client
he as only referred to himself as The Lord of Shalford.
I don't know what to say except the legal style appropriate to the
lordship is that of "The Lord of Shalford" or "The Lord of the Manor
of Shalford." We are selling it as such and make reference to this on
the website. We don't make any claims that "Lord Shalford" is
correct.
Regards,
John
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

Did the title Lord of Liston ever get sold ?

[r***@gmail.com]

Don't think so. I know the owner, Thomas, died several years ago. I remember seeing an obituary. Would have to check The LR to verify.

[Graham Milne]

Frankly, I think it is disgusting the way you have tried to 'dig the dirt'
on an elderley person who is doing no more than trying to raise money for
medical treatment for himself and his wife by selling an asset to which he
has good title (actually GUARANTEED by the UK government under the Land
Registration Act for heaven's sake). If you had some valid reason for
questioning his title then there might be some grounds for raising a
question, but you are reduced to nit-picking about whether someone might
have called themselves 'Lord Shalford' instead of 'Lord of Shalford'. Thus,
you are attempting to publicly destroy someone's reputation over the use of
the word 'of'. If I have got my facts wrong please let me know, otherwise I
think you should post an apology.

Graham

Post by Sean J Murphy
Excerpt from an article in the 'Central Kentucky News-Journal', 28
START QUOTE
Lord Shalford's grandfather and father came to America around the turn of
the century. Upon arriving, his grandfather had to renounce his lordship
title to become a U.S. citizen. The U.S. does not recognize titles of
nobility.
The 3,500-acre Shalford and 600-acre Liston manors reverted to the crown,
awaiting the next descent to resume lordship. In England, the majority of
the property belongs to the crown. Everyone there is a tenant of the royal
family.
Lordships date back to William the Conqueror, who granted parcels of land
(known as manors or jurisdictional areas) to his people as a reward for
their service. Lords become "tenancies-in-chief" Lord Shalford said, with
the power to subdivide their land.
On Jan. 19, 1935, Thomas Aron was born. More than 50 years would pass
before his father would tell him of his unique ancestry.
"My father knew about this but he never talked about it," Lord Shalford
said.
In the late 1980s, his father, while suffering from an illness, finally
told him that he was the descendant of an English lord. Within a year this
U.S. born lawyer would become a lord.
Shalford said he was "surprised" by the revelation.
"Soon after, I began to take a lawyer's interest in it," Lord Shalford said.
"I've become one of the authorities on the subject."
Shalford resumed his family's lordship, which works the same as an
inheritance. Because the Shalfords have no children, Lord Shalford would
have to assign, or will, Shalford and Liston to someone in the event of
his and Lady Shalford's death. By law, if Lord Shalford dies first, Lady
Shalford would succeed him.
If they do not appoint an assignee, the land reverts to the crown.
Along with the two pieces of land, Lord Shalford also inherited several
historical documents pertaining to Shalford and Liston.
By the time he became Lord of Shalford and Liston, much of the powers that
accompanied the title had disappeared.
"I still retain some of the privileges and powers," Lord Shalford said.
"I can appoint my own court, although that court cannot preside over legal
matters. I can appoint a priest if there is a church."
END QUOTE
Again, the style is 'Lord Shalford', not 'Lord of Shalford'.
Sean Murphy

[Sean J Murphy]

Post by Graham Milne
Frankly, I think it is disgusting the way you have tried to 'dig the
dirt' on an elderley person who is doing no more than trying to raise
money for medical treatment for himself and his wife by selling an asset
to which he has good title (actually GUARANTEED by the UK government
under the Land Registration Act for heaven's sake). If you had some
valid reason for questioning his title then there might be some grounds
for raising a question, but you are reduced to nit-picking about whether
someone might have called themselves 'Lord Shalford' instead of 'Lord of
Shalford'. Thus, you are attempting to publicly destroy someone's
reputation over the use of the word 'of'. If I have got my facts wrong
please let me know, otherwise I think you should post an apology.
Graham

Sorry, Graham, but I won't be apologising just yet, and there is of
course more to this matter than a mere preposition. One thing I have
learned is to treat official documents mentioning titles with a healthy
scepticism, and always to seek corroboration. One thinks of the Irish
Chief Herald's certification of Terence MacCarthy's claim to chiefship
in 1992, which I was assured was a legal document which I would
challenge at my peril. Or indeed, the same Chief Herald's 1988 letter to
Harold Brooks-Baker giving assurances about MacCarthy's titles for sale.
In relation to the current debate, it has taken us quite a while to
establish the names firstly of the lordships on sale, Shalford and
Liston, then the name of the vendor, Thomas J Aaron. What I would
respectfully request now is the documentation showing the provenance of
the titles in the period from 1920 until the present.

Sean Murphy

[Graham Milne]

If a person is the registered owner then the state guarantees his ownership
of the property. You simply don't need to verify the transfer of ownership
from 1920 or any other year; the law says that a person is the owner and
that is that. From a historical point of view the deduction of title may be
interesting.

Post by Graham Milne
Frankly, I think it is disgusting the way you have tried to 'dig the
dirt' on an elderley person who is doing no more than trying to raise
money for medical treatment for himself and his wife by selling an asset
to which he has good title (actually GUARANTEED by the UK government
under the Land Registration Act for heaven's sake). If you had some valid
reason for questioning his title then there might be some grounds for
raising a question, but you are reduced to nit-picking about whether
someone might have called themselves 'Lord Shalford' instead of 'Lord of
Shalford'. Thus, you are attempting to publicly destroy someone's
reputation over the use of the word 'of'. If I have got my facts wrong
please let me know, otherwise I think you should post an apology.
Graham

Sorry, Graham, but I won't be apologising just yet, and there is of course
more to this matter than a mere preposition. One thing I have learned is
to treat official documents mentioning titles with a healthy scepticism,
and always to seek corroboration. One thinks of the Irish Chief Herald's
certification of Terence MacCarthy's claim to chiefship in 1992, which I
was assured was a legal document which I would challenge at my peril. Or
indeed, the same Chief Herald's 1988 letter to Harold Brooks-Baker giving
assurances about MacCarthy's titles for sale. In relation to the current
debate, it has taken us quite a while to establish the names firstly of
the lordships on sale, Shalford and Liston, then the name of the vendor,
Thomas J Aaron. What I would respectfully request now is the documentation
showing the provenance of the titles in the period from 1920 until the
present.
Sean Murphy

[StephenP]

I do not claim any knowledge or expertise in Manors & Lordships.
However, I will offer up the results of my investigations - which I
acknowledge cannot be claimed to be extensive;

The 1873 Returns of Owners of Land only records two individuals
surnamed Aaron owning land greater than one acre, both of the West
Riding, Yorkshire;

James Aaron of Newland, 26 acres with an estimated income of £57 pa
Sarah Aaron of Snaith, 34 acres with an estimated income of £48 pa

With regard to the Shalford in Essex, Kelly's directories records that
the Marriott family were the Lords of the Manor. The English Censuses
from 1841 to 1901 have the Marriotts as residents of Abbott's Hall,
Shalford. Incidentally, the entry for Marriott in the Returns of
Owners of Land is;

H R G Marriott of Shalford, 958 acres with an estimated income of
£1,431 pa.


Yours aye

Stephen

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by Sean J Murphy
Excerpt from an article in the 'Central Kentucky News-Journal', 28

I am sorry I missed this the first time; no wonder some Americans find it
difficult to understand their ancestral heritage when "journalists," whom one
might suppose to have more than a basic education, can happily display such
extraordinary ignorance!

Post by Sean J Murphy
START QUOTE
Lord Shalford's grandfather and father came to America around the turn
of the century. Upon arriving, his grandfather had to renounce his
lordship title to become a U.S. citizen. The U.S. does not recognize
titles of nobility.
The 3,500-acre Shalford and 600-acre Liston manors reverted to the
crown, awaiting the next descent to resume lordship. In England, the
majority of the property belongs to the crown. Everyone there is a
tenant of the royal family.
Lordships date back to William the Conqueror, who granted parcels of
land (known as manors or jurisdictional areas) to his people as a reward
for their service. Lords become "tenancies-in-chief" Lord Shalford said,
with the power to subdivide their land.
On Jan. 19, 1935, Thomas Aron was born. More than 50 years would pass
before his father would tell him of his unique ancestry.
"My father knew about this but he never talked about it," Lord Shalford
said.
In the late 1980s, his father, while suffering from an illness, finally
told him that he was the descendant of an English lord. Within a year
this U.S. born lawyer would become a lord.
Shalford said he was "surprised" by the revelation.
"Soon after, I began to take a lawyer's interest in it," Lord Shalford said.
"I've become one of the authorities on the subject."
Shalford resumed his family's lordship, which works the same as an
inheritance. Because the Shalfords have no children, Lord Shalford would
have to assign, or will, Shalford and Liston to someone in the event of
his and Lady Shalford's death. By law, if Lord Shalford dies first, Lady
Shalford would succeed him.
If they do not appoint an assignee, the land reverts to the crown.
Along with the two pieces of land, Lord Shalford also inherited several
historical documents pertaining to Shalford and Liston.
By the time he became Lord of Shalford and Liston, much of the powers
that accompanied the title had disappeared.
"I still retain some of the privileges and powers," Lord Shalford said.
"I can appoint my own court, although that court cannot preside over
legal matters. I can appoint a priest if there is a church."
END QUOTE
Again, the style is 'Lord Shalford', not 'Lord of Shalford'.
Sean Murphy

[Joseph McMillan]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by Sean J Murphy
Excerpt from an article in the 'Central Kentucky News-Journal', 28

I am sorry I missed this the first time; no wonder some Americans find it
difficult to understand their ancestral heritage when "journalists," whom one
might suppose to have more than a basic education, can happily display such
extraordinary ignorance!

Don't blame the journalist, blame his (or her) source - undoubtedly
"Lord Shalford."
It wouldn't be fair to expect the News-Journal to be more than it
claims to be--a small circulation, twice-weekly newspaper focusing on
news from a single rural county. We're not talking the New York Times
here.

Joseph McMillan

[Andrew Chaplin]

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by Sean J Murphy
Excerpt from an article in the 'Central Kentucky News-Journal', 28

I am sorry I missed this the first time; no wonder some Americans find it
difficult to understand their ancestral heritage when "journalists," whom one
might suppose to have more than a basic education, can happily display such
extraordinary ignorance!

Don't blame the journalist, blame his (or her) source - undoubtedly
"Lord Shalford."
It wouldn't be fair to expect the News-Journal to be more than it
claims to be--a small circulation, twice-weekly newspaper focusing on
news from a single rural county. We're not talking the New York Times
here.

In even more fairness to the News-Journal, even the "Gray Lady" gets this sort
of thing wrong half the time.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

I really do not see that the email quoted below is that far removed
from the annoying emails we all receive from Nigeria "My late husband
was a general in the Nigerian army and has left $10,000,000......".

On the basis that if it looks like a duck and it swims like a duck
and it quacks like a duck then it is a duck, isn't this just another
scam?. Doesn't it boil down to: "You help me to offload these
somewhat dubious items onto some unsuspecting mug and you can have 10%
of the take".

I think the use of "Thomas, Lord Shelford" says it all. This is not a
style that can be used by the holder of a manorial lordship. "Thomas
X, Lord of the Manor of Shelford" is the style accepted and used by
the College of Arms in their grants of arms and as such should be a
style acceptable to all.

All that waffle about " it will escheat to the Crown..."!! Talk about
trying to baffle people with pseudo-science, or, in this case,
pseudo-law!!

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



On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:09:49 +0100, Sean J Murphy

Post by Sean J Murphy

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Sean,
I wonder, at times, if people see that which they wish to see. If you
look at both UK Land Registry title extracts you will see both
lordships described as "The lordship OR reputed lordship of...." Why
did you focus on only the second part of this phrase? Did the first
one not give you enough to argue about so you simply ignored it? The
UK Land Registry puts "The lordship or reputed lordship of..." in
front of every single manor they register.
I also don't know where you refer to when you say my client refers to
himself as "Lord Shalford." In all official documentation provided he
is referred to as Lord of Shalford. I'm, honestly, not sure where
this "Lord Shalford" appears but I do agree with you that the "of" is
the crucial component and very important when setting the distinction
between manors and peerage titles. Where, exactly, did you find this
reference on our website?
Again, I thank you for adding to our large library of UK gov't
documents. While this document was helpful, again, it has nothing to
do with the Lordships of Shalford and Liston. Further, it has nothing
to do with any manors at all. It deals with the Sarah Farmer "One
Square Foot Scam" where a title is actually invented by change of
name. It has nothing to do with, and does not even mention in the
entire document, one word about a manorial lordship. While such a
document is certainly important for all of us to read (for further
understanding) I must, again, assert that it only serves to distract
from that which this entire string has been about. Lordships of the
manor. If you want to talk about the lairdship or Lady Sarah Farmer
scams, please, start a new discussion so we may streamline our
thoughts and opinions. Also, I know it is not your intention to
confuse less educated e-scholars with misdirection and unrelated
government documentation. Surely not!

The EnglishFeudalTruth.com website is once again restricted access. At
http://lite.globalbx.com/Other_Real_Estate/listing242712.html appears
'Seller is Lord Shalford and Lord of Liston'. The following interesting
correspondence between 'Thomas, Lord Shalford' and Colby College (in
Maine I believe) has been placed online at
START QUOTE
OT: Brit Landed Gentry 419ing, what next?
Jeff A. Earickson jaearick at COLBY.EDU
Tue Oct 19 15:15:21 IST 2004
* Previous message: Add an aditional header to spam mail.
* Next message: Add an aditional header to spam mail.
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
My Most Esteemed Collegues (ahem),
Totally off-topic here, but I'm sure Julian and others in the UK can
have a laugh at this one. The email below came into our College's
alumni relations/donors office, and was actually passed around as a
a legit opportunity before the College treasurer got it and asked me.
The Burkes Peerage AOL address is a laugh. And does Verizon provide
ISP service in the UK? Last I looked, 67.216.58.94 is a UUNET number
in the US. Perhaps his Lordship in on the lam from the British police?
Julian, perhaps this is **your** chance for title, land, nobility...
Jeff Earickson
Colby College

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Return-Path: <L.shalford at verizon.net>
Received: from out014.verizon.net (out014pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.46])
by basalt.colby.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/1.48') with ESMTP id
i9HLhBxp000642
for <deleted at colby.edu>; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:43:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [67.216.58.94] by out014.verizon.net
(InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with

ESMTP

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
for <deleted at colby.edu>; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:38:53 -0500
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.6
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:38:32 -0400
Subject: Proposed gift of partial proceeds from sale of English
hereditaments
From: "L.Shalford" <L.shalford at verizon.net>
To: <deleted at colby.edu>
Message-ID: <BD985E98.798C%L.shalford at verizon.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3180879512_1509085_MIME_Part"
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out014.verizon.net
from [67.216.58.94] at Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:38:52 -0500
X-Colby-MailScanner: ftbc
X-Colby-MailScanner-SpamScore: 1.06
X-MailScanner-From: l.shalford at verizon.net
X-UIDL: e$'!!9Vl!!6*e"!Bl4"!
Good morning, Ms. Tessler,
I have only the remotest connection to Colby College family, and my
proposal is very unusual; so it would be prudent to obtain assurances. I
suggest someone well-known and respected in such matters: Mr. Harold
Brooks-Baker, Publishing Director, Burkes Peerage, London. His e-mail
address is Burkespeer at aol.com
My proposed gift is not altruistic; it is motivated by a need to raise a
considerable amount of cash to pay unforeseen medical expenses for my
wife. I am, myself, in fragile health and seventy years of age. I have no
heirs capable of succeeding to one of two hereditaments I possess. If I
fail to assign (sell) it before my death it will escheat to The Crown and
be merged into the residue of Crown Lands and Offices. Moreover, it is
also uncertain if some future amendment of the Reform of the House of
Lords Act,1999, if any, might affect an assignment (sale) of either or
both hereditaments permitted, historically, by a 1350 statute of King
Edward III.
Specifically, I propose to give Colby College ten percent of the gross
proceeds of the assignment (sale) of these two singular and especially
valuable English hereditaments. Their nature and quality are generally
explained by one of the two PDFs attached: a feature story in the April
2004 issue of Country Life, England's leading up-market country property
magazine.
Each is listed with Her Majesty's Land Registry at a stated value of
£500,000. At today's currency exchange rate, £1.00 = $1.85, ten percent
equals $90,265 for one or $180,530 for both. The assignment (sale) price
is negotiable so the gift amount could be less. Colby College needs only
to identify, present and persuade an affluent alumnus or benefactor, or
someone known to an alumnus or benefactor, to accept assignment (purchase)
of one or both of them.
If you wish to pursue my offer and want to learn more, I have additional
UK government-sourced information in PDF format for evaluation by the
College's counsel and, if thought suitable, for presentation to one or
more prospective assignees (purchasers).
Sincerely,
Thomas, Lord Shalford
L.Shalford at Verizon.Net

END QUOTE
The mention of Mr Harold Brooks-Baker provides all the assurance required.
Sean Murphy

[Martin Goldstraw]

Post by Derek Howard
"Thomas
X, Lord of the Manor of Shelford" is the style accepted and used by
the College of Arms in their grants of arms //snip//

Sorry to be a pedant Patrick but is this correct? I was under the
strong impression from my own correspondence with the College (quoted
elsewhere on this forum) that they do not take note of manorial/feudal
titles at all. Do you know of any recent examples which might
contradict the advice I was given by the College and illustrate that
they do record Lords of Manors by their "style" on Letters Patent? I
do not think that they do.

Regards,
Martin

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

On 25 May 2007 00:28:04 -0700, Martin Goldstraw

Post by Martin Goldstraw

Post by Derek Howard
"Thomas
X, Lord of the Manor of Shelford" is the style accepted and used by
the College of Arms in their grants of arms //snip//

Sorry to be a pedant Patrick but is this correct? I was under the
strong impression from my own correspondence with the College (quoted
elsewhere on this forum) that they do not take note of manorial/feudal
titles at all. Do you know of any recent examples which might
contradict the advice I was given by the College and illustrate that
they do record Lords of Manors by their "style" on Letters Patent? I
do not think that they do.
Regards,
Martin

I know they ignore, quite rightly, non-existent feudal titles but if
they are also now not including manorial lordships then probably it's
a wise move and a case of keeping one's head below the parapet!

I'll ask Lancaster about this next week.

If you look back in "The Coat of Arms" there was some interesting
correspondence on manorial lordships between the late JBL and Robert
Smith of the Manorial Society.

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

[Chris Winkelmann]

Dear Sir or Madam, Whoever You Might Be;

I logged into the site (mainly to look at the list of old books and
documents).

The "long list" and "rare works" links are both pulling up the same
document. Could you please correct this?

Chris Winkelmann

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Chris,

EXCELLENT catch! I'll see if I can't get that worked out asap. Many
thanks for the constructive advice!

Regards,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

[u***@englishfeudaltruth.com]

Chris,

The error has been corrected. Please feel free to inspect the long,
17 page, document detailing all works available.

Thanks Again!

[Graham Milne]

I don't understand all this anonymity business. Who needs it? I mean I sign
myself Graham, but everyone knows that I am really The Great Zog, Lord and
Master of the Universe.

Zog

Post by g***@wp.pl

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Greg,
We appreciate your thoughts and opinions as we hope you do ours.
We have chosen to post something here for a few reasons. Allow me
elaborate on them for you.
1) Engage in lively discussion with intelligent individuals of like-
minded interest
2) Listen and Learn
3) Share that which we do know about: quality manorial lordships
a) Showcase the broad range in quality of lordships
b) Share examples of quality so intelligent comparisons may be
made.
It is true that we were interested in getting to know you all. We do
not seek a blessing but you are correct in that we were interested in
making ourselves, and the website, known to a group of e-scholars so
very interested in this subject matter as yourselves.
We had hoped that bringing such rare forms of quality lordships to
your attention would be appreciated. So often, those manors brought
to market are laughable and in terrible disrepair. If nothing else,
we thought you might earnestly enjoy the intellectual stimulation of
seeing such pristine examples of lordships surviving into the 21st
century. If, however, we were incorrect in this assertion, we do
apologize. It was never our intention to offer insult.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

Dear Anonymous,
I appreciate your desire to get to know us. I would like to get to
know you and so would ask that you simply identify yourself and your
team by name so that I know who I am corresponding with. Anonimity is
discourteous in such a conversation. It is also unnecessary.
Given that you are selling your wares here I think it particularly
important to note that unless you reveal your identities any reader
should immediately dismiss the goods you sell on the basis that it is
imprudent to trust whom you do not know.
The lordships of the manor that you sell are indicated to be of higher
quality - but of course lordships of the manor are not titles of
nobility or titles at all but merely the inidcation of the ownership
of a particular type of archaic property. I appreciate that you say
your goods have greater intrinsic value and the paperwork is more
interesting from a historical perspective. The Lord of the Manor of X
is much like the Proprietor of the Dog Whistle Pub except that the
former is an incorporeal property (a bundle of archaic rights) and the
latter is real. The latter also quite usefully offers cold beer and
hearty fare.
George Lucki

[Greg]

Post by u***@englishfeudaltruth.com
Gentlemen,
The two lordships available are quite unique. Full details are
available on our website for those who submit their email. However,
for the benefit of this discussion, I'll explain a bit about each.
a) Registered with the UK Land Registry
b) EXTENSIVE rights over, under, and in the land specifically
mentioned in the title extract (minerals, quarries, mines, and so on)
c) 84 original manorial documents including a number or royal charters
and letters patent.
1) Previously on loan to the Charlotte Museum of History and
appraised there for a value of over $187,000.00
2) Documents show continued titular decent from the year 1569 all
the way through the 20th century.
d) A lordship held in ancient demesne
1) This title was held directly of William (given to Matilda his
Queen) after The Conquest
2) This title is recorded in the Domesday Book where the King's
ownership is specifically referenced
e) The lordship has its own music
1) In 1991 Lindsay AJ Lafford, a licentiate of the Royal Academy
of Music, Fellow of Trinity College-London, Fellow of the Royal
College of Organists, and member of the Royal Society of Teachers
composed "The Lord de XXXX's Fanfare and March" this is a very
impessive organ piece and full audio is provided on our site.
f) Lordship over 2469 acres/999 hectares in Essex County, England
2) A town of over 700 residents, bearing the name of the
lordship, lives within this area
a) Registered with the UK Land Registry
b) One of a very few "grand serjeanties" that are still functional and
actually registered
1) With a potential commercial opportunity akin to the Earl of
Sandwhich's licensing out his name for a sandwhich shop chain.
2) The right of grand serjeanty is mentioned, specifically, in
the title extract and, thus, is provable
c) Of all the grand serjeanties, this one has taken part in eight
coronations which is more than any other grand serjeanty has ever done
historically.(Coronation Claims, 1910, G. Woods Wollaston, page 17)
d) Lordship over 628 acres of land in Essex County, England
1) Ordinance Survey Maps available
I hope this was of some benefit to readers. Again, we encourage you
to take a closer look for yourself on our website. Please bear in
mind that not all manorial lordships are completely void of worth. In
fact, some are quite "complete" and functional. While not a Peerage
title, these remnants of feudalism do have potentially lucrative
territorial rights that the elevated peers completely lack. Please,
bear in mind that we DO NOT work with any lordship that is not
registered with the UK Land Registry. We strictly avoid the "gray
area" that so many title dealers work so actively within. Though
bound by our own strict guidelines for quality, we deeply enjoy
showcasing a very few number of truly worthy lordships.
Again, we welcome your thoughts and opinions. Have a truly wonderful
day.
With High Regard,
EnglishFeudalTruth.com

Since it is probable that persons who know nothing about your market
will happen on this forum:

Can you tell us exactly what your Manorial Lorships are? How they
differ from say Scots baronies and what benefit is derived from
ownership?

By your explaination of the Logo, I understand then that your company
is working in tandem with The Lords Feudal of Great Britain? and if so
perhaps you might ask someone from the firm to tell us about the logo
design; it's design message, history etc...?


BTW a name would help us identify with you...

Regards
Greg