Lost Scottish Feudal Baronies

[koka]

Can anyone clarify the following point:

If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?

[jetlounge smith]

Post by koka
If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?

I would say that Brian Hamilton would be the one who could anser that.

[JSF]

Post by koka
If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?

Do you have a specific case in mind?

Regards, JSF

[Graham Milne]

Post by koka
If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?

Yes. Pay my fee of £10,000 and I'll tell you how.

[Louis Epstein]

koka <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: Can anyone clarify the following point:
:
: If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
: and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
: still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?

I think the "Scottish Parliament" passed a law nullifying all feudal
rights (an excellent argument for its own abolition!).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by Louis Epstein
: If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
: and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
: still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?
I think the "Scottish Parliament" passed a law nullifying all feudal
rights (an excellent argument for its own abolition!).
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Except the dignity of baron.

BGH

[jetlounge smith]

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Louis Epstein
: If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
: and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
: still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?
I think the "Scottish Parliament" passed a law nullifying all feudal
rights (an excellent argument for its own abolition!).
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Except the dignity of baron.
BGH

But what about the original question? It is an interesting scenario.

[Turenne]

But what about the original question?  It is an interesting scenario.

I thought the whole thing was pretty straightforward:

1. A barony disappears from the Sasines register..

2. Brian Hamilton 'revives' it...

3. Flogs it...

RL

[jetlounge smith]

Post by Turenne

But what about the original question?  It is an interesting scenario.

1. A barony disappears from the Sasines register..
2. Brian Hamilton 'revives' it...
3. Flogs it...
RL

(chuckle)

Even if it is "just a dignity" can it be resurrected? That's the OP
question. That's why I suggested Brian: he may have encountered
something like like that . . .

[Joseph McMillan]

Post by koka
If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?

There is nothing left to baronies except the dignity of baron and
whatever heraldic privileges go with it (recently defined as a steel
helm garnished with gold). To get this privilege, you have to
persuade Lord Lyon that you're the lawful owner of the dignity. You
can't do that by going back into the mists of time, uncovering a
barony that seems to have disappeared from sight, and then claiming
finders keepers. You'd have to show to a fairly high standard of
proof that you are the legal heir of the last documented owner of the
barony.

Joseph McMillan

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by koka
If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?

There is nothing left to baronies except the dignity of baron and
whatever heraldic privileges go with it (recently defined as a steel
helm garnished with gold).  To get this privilege, you have to
persuade Lord Lyon that you're the lawful owner of the dignity.  You
can't do that by going back into the mists of time, uncovering a
barony that seems to have disappeared from sight, and then claiming
finders keepers.  You'd have to show to a fairly high standard of
proof that you are the legal heir of the last documented owner of the
barony.
Joseph McMillan

Now how is Graham Milne going to get his £10,000?

[Joseph McMillan]

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by koka
If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?

There is nothing left to baronies except the dignity of baron and
whatever heraldic privileges go with it (recently defined as a steel
helm garnished with gold).  To get this privilege, you have to
persuade Lord Lyon that you're the lawful owner of the dignity.  You
can't do that by going back into the mists of time, uncovering a
barony that seems to have disappeared from sight, and then claiming
finders keepers.  You'd have to show to a fairly high standard of
proof that you are the legal heir of the last documented owner of the
barony.
Joseph McMillan

Now how is Graham Milne going to get his £10,000?- Hide quoted text -

I'll give him his 10% finder's fee when I collect.

[n***@gmail.com]

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by koka
If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?

There is nothing left to baronies except the dignity of baron and
whatever heraldic privileges go with it (recently defined as a steel
helm garnished with gold).  To get this privilege, you have to
persuade Lord Lyon that you're the lawful owner of the dignity.  You
can't do that by going back into the mists of time, uncovering a
barony that seems to have disappeared from sight, and then claiming
finders keepers.  You'd have to show to a fairly high standard of
proof that you are the legal heir of the last documented owner of the
barony.
l heir
Joseph McMillan

Presumably you could find the Barony in the register, then do some
extreme genealogical research to find the rightful heir(s). Eventually
you'll find a rightful heir whose willing to sell cheap because he
doesn't know the value of what he's got. Then you merely convince the
LL you bought from the rightful heir, which should be easy as you
spent all that time doing research.

But you're probably better off simply buying a Barony from Hamilton.

Nick

[jetlounge smith]

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by koka
If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?

There is nothing left to baronies except the dignity of baron and
whatever heraldic privileges go with it (recently defined as a steel
helm garnished with gold).  To get this privilege, you have to
persuade Lord Lyon that you're the lawful owner of the dignity.  You
can't do that by going back into the mists of time, uncovering a
barony that seems to have disappeared from sight, and then claiming
finders keepers.  You'd have to show to a fairly high standard of
proof that you are the legal heir of the last documented owner of the
barony.
l heir
Joseph McMillan

Presumably you could find the Barony in the register, then do some
extreme genealogical research to find the rightful heir(s). Eventually
you'll find a rightful heir whose willing to sell cheap because he
doesn't know the value of what he's got. Then you merely convince the
LL you bought from the rightful heir, which should be easy as you
spent all that time doing research.
But you're probably better off simply buying a Barony from Hamilton.
Nick- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

(chuckle)

If it's "disappeared from the register to begin with, how are you
going to find it (in the register)??


The password is "unfur": go ahead, you have thirty seconds. Opps! no,
I'm sorry, you don't win the Quiezanart. Now a word form our sponsor:

Brian?

[Graham Milne]

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by Joseph McMillan

Post by koka
If a historic barony disappears from the Sasines register over time,
and there is no evidence of it being surrendered to the crown, does it
still legally exist and can it be revived/reclaimed?

There is nothing left to baronies except the dignity of baron and
whatever heraldic privileges go with it (recently defined as a steel
helm garnished with gold).  To get this privilege, you have to
persuade Lord Lyon that you're the lawful owner of the dignity.  You
can't do that by going back into the mists of time, uncovering a
barony that seems to have disappeared from sight, and then claiming
finders keepers.  You'd have to show to a fairly high standard of
proof that you are the legal heir of the last documented owner of the
barony.
l heir
Joseph McMillan

Presumably you could find the Barony in the register, then do some
extreme genealogical research to find the rightful heir(s). Eventually
you'll find a rightful heir whose willing to sell cheap because he
doesn't know the value of what he's got. Then you merely convince the
LL you bought from the rightful heir, which should be easy as you
spent all that time doing research.
But you're probably better off simply buying a Barony from Hamilton.
Nick- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That's pretty much it. Just identify the caput (chief building
usually) of the barony and trace descent of ownership. The fact that
the barony isn't mentioned is irrelevant; it will still descend with
ownership of the caput. Exactly this happened to me; there was no
mention of the barony for almost 400 years. Didn't make a jot of
difference because baronies are legally indestructible (I repeat -
indestructible). Can I have my £10,000 now? Just pay my Paypal
account. Gosh! That was a quick way to get a nice villa holiday in
Greece. I can see myself lounging about in the swimming pool....

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by Graham Milne
That's pretty much it. Just identify the caput (chief building
usually) of the barony and trace descent of ownership. The fact that
the barony isn't mentioned is irrelevant; it will still descend with
ownership of the caput. Exactly this happened to me; there was no
mention of the barony for almost 400 years. Didn't make a jot of
difference because baronies are legally indestructible (I repeat -
indestructible). Can I have my £10,000 now? Just pay my Paypal
account. Gosh! That was a quick way to get a nice villa holiday in
Greece. I can see myself lounging about in the swimming pool....-

In 1636 Thomas Ramsay, Minister at Foulden was granted a Crown
Charter

"of the town and lands of Nether Mordington with the manor and
mill ... lately built by the said Mr. Thomas which belonged
previously to the said Mr. Thomas as proprietor and was held
immediately of our beloved cousin and counsellor William Earl of
Morton, Lord Dalkeith and Aberdour with right of superiority (etc.
etc. etc.) along with the right and privilege of regality over the
said lands ..." In the dispositive clause there is no mention of
mesuage, caput etc. Further on in the charter one penny a year feu
duty is to be paid, if asked, "on the ground of the said land" note
that, not at a nominated caput but stated in the same terms as you
would expect to see for any ordinary non baronial crown charter.

Again the last Crown Charter 21st April 1856 has no mention of barony
or caput. We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether a
grant of regality confers barony but I will pass on that. It is quite
common to have a grant of barony without a caput and you can also find
baronies with their caputt in some other barony. The Duke of Argyll
had something like 25 separate baronies all with their caput at one
place. When Nether Mordington was part of the Lordship of Dalkeith
etc one would have expected the caput to be at Lord Dalkeiths place in
Fife not in Berwick. The 1636 charter alienates Nether Mordington
from the Regality in Fife and it is at this point, if it was the
Crown's intention to create a new caput it would have been done; the
charter is silent.

If there is no nominated caput for a barony (if in fact the lands are
a barony) how does one own the barony by buying a house?

Sorry Graham but someone had to tell you.

BGH

[StephenP]

Post by B G. Hamilton.
If there is no nominated caput for a barony (if in fact the lands are
a barony) how does one own the barony by buying a house?
Sorry Graham but someone had to tell you.
BGH

Brian

Are you saying that if the feudal barony of Mordington were to be
offered for sale it is unlikely that you would be happy to put it on
your "books"?

Stephen

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by StephenP

Post by B G. Hamilton.
If there is no nominated caput for a barony (if in fact the lands are
a barony) how does one own the barony by buying a house?
Sorry Graham but someone had to tell you.
BGH

Brian
Are you saying that if the feudal barony of Mordington were to be
offered for sale it is unlikely that you would be happy to put it on
your "books"?
Stephen

The first point to note is that Lord Lyon Blair has recognised Graham
as a feudal baron.

When I offer a feudal dignity for re-assignation I guarantee that if I
cause wasted costs (legal fees) I will meet those costs. You will not
be surprised to hear that I am risk averse.

Regards,

BGH

[StephenP]

Brian

Reverting to the original question regarding “lost” or forgotten
feudal baronies; one of the baronies in which I have a vague
genealogical interest is that of Oliver Castle in Tweedsmuir. The
castle itself has been in ruins for centuries, with two houses (one
replacing the other) being built nearby during the 17th & 18th
centuries.

Let us assume that the caput moved with the baron into each subsequent
property built near the castle ending up in Oliver House. (Correct me
if I am wrong) My understanding is that if the house was sold before
the appointed day then the barony remained “with” the house. However,
if the sale was after the appointed day then the barony remained with
the vendor unless specifically included within the sale. In the
latter case the previous owner is wandering around with a free
floating barony above him. With the passage of time it will be
difficult to identify who the barony is floating behind.

If the caput did not move, then whoever owns a particular part of a
Tweedmuir hillside holds the barony.

Yours aye

Stephen

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by StephenP
Brian
Reverting to the original question regarding “lost” or forgotten
feudal baronies; one of the baronies in which I have a vague
genealogical interest is that of Oliver Castle in Tweedsmuir.  The
castle itself has been in ruins for centuries, with two houses (one
replacing the other) being built nearby during the 17th & 18th
centuries.
Let us assume that the caput moved with the baron into each subsequent
property built near the castle ending up in Oliver House.  (Correct me
if I am wrong)  My understanding is that if the house was sold before
the appointed day then the barony remained “with” the house.  However,
if the sale was after the appointed day then the barony remained with
the vendor unless specifically included within the sale.  In the
latter case the previous owner is wandering around with a free
floating barony above him.  With the passage of time it will be
difficult to identify who the barony is floating behind.
If the caput did not move, then whoever owns a particular part of a
Tweedmuir hillside holds the barony.
Yours aye
Stephen

Stephen,

There is a lot of nonsense written about caputs. Caputs were our
modern equivalent of a company's registered office. Rent and feu
duties were paid there and legal business conducted there. However,
not all baronies had a nominated caput while for others it was
competent to conduct barony business “on any part of the lands hereby
granted”. Other baronies had their caput outside of the barony. I
know of two cases where the caput was sold but subsequent Crown
Charters continued to nominate the sold castle as the caput of the
barony; there being a clause excluding the castle from the barony.
Institutional writers explain that as lands are sold (not feued) from
a barony the sold lands are no longer part of the barony and what
remains is the barony. It is true that it is not necessary for the
word ‘barony’ to be part of a disposition conveying a barony
(pre-2004) but the lands conveyed must have been the barony lands to
carry the dignity of baron. So what you are looking for is to
identify the baronial estate and then to see who owns what is left of
it always providing that previously there has not been a disposition
specifically conveying the dignity with some of the land. Lest anyone
think that they can make a quick buck by buying the last piece of land
left in a barony that avenue was closed by the ‘Abolition Act’ of
2000. Baronial dignities cannot now be assigned by way of a
conveyance of land. It requires a clear an unambiguous assignation of
the dignity to create a valid right to the barony title.

I hope this helps.

BGH

[Graham Milne]

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne
That's pretty much it. Just identify the caput (chief building
usually) of the barony and trace descent of ownership. The fact that
the barony isn't mentioned is irrelevant; it will still descend with
ownership of the caput. Exactly this happened to me; there was no
mention of the barony for almost 400 years. Didn't make a jot of
difference because baronies are legally indestructible (I repeat -
indestructible). Can I have my £10,000 now? Just pay my Paypal
account. Gosh! That was a quick way to get a nice villa holiday in
Greece. I can see myself lounging about in the swimming pool....-

In 1636 Thomas Ramsay, Minister at Foulden was granted a Crown
Charter
"of the town and lands of Nether Mordington with the manor and
mill  ... lately built by the said Mr. Thomas which belonged
previously to the said Mr. Thomas as proprietor and was held
immediately of our beloved cousin and counsellor William Earl of
Morton, Lord Dalkeith and Aberdour with right of superiority (etc.
etc. etc.) along with the right and privilege of regality over the
said lands ..."  In the dispositive clause there is no mention of
mesuage, caput etc.  Further on in the charter one penny a year feu
duty is to be paid, if asked, "on the ground of the said land" note
that, not at a nominated caput but stated in the same terms as you
would expect to see for any ordinary non baronial crown charter.
Again the last Crown Charter 21st April 1856 has no mention of barony
or caput.   We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether a
grant of regality confers barony but I will pass on that.  It is quite
common to have a grant of barony without a caput and you can also find
baronies with their caputt in some other barony.  The Duke of Argyll
had something like 25 separate baronies all with their caput at one
place.  When Nether Mordington was part of the Lordship of Dalkeith
etc one would have expected the caput to be at Lord Dalkeiths place in
Fife not in Berwick.  The 1636 charter alienates Nether Mordington
from the Regality in Fife and it is at this point, if it was the
Crown's intention to create a new caput it would have been done; the
charter is silent.
If there is no nominated caput for a barony (if in fact the lands are
a barony) how does one own the barony by buying a house?
Sorry Graham but someone had to tell you.
BGH

Croft Dickinson, acknowledged by Learney (then Lord Lyon) as the
greatest authority on feudal baronies, contradicts you. Your problem
is that in your entire career you were involved simply in concocting
modern legal wrangles and you have no expertise in actual feudal
baronial law. You are out of your depth - the Lord Lyon agreed with
me. Sorry, Brian, someone had to tell you. PS A grant of regality does
create a barony (even Agnew says that) - but let's pass on that.

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne
That's pretty much it. Just identify the caput (chief building
usually) of the barony and trace descent of ownership. The fact that
the barony isn't mentioned is irrelevant; it will still descend with
ownership of the caput. Exactly this happened to me; there was no
mention of the barony for almost 400 years. Didn't make a jot of
difference because baronies are legally indestructible (I repeat -
indestructible). Can I have my £10,000 now? Just pay my Paypal
account. Gosh! That was a quick way to get a nice villa holiday in
Greece. I can see myself lounging about in the swimming pool....-

In 1636 Thomas Ramsay, Minister at Foulden was granted a Crown
Charter
"of the town and lands of Nether Mordington with the manor and
mill  ... lately built by the said Mr. Thomas which belonged
previously to the said Mr. Thomas as proprietor and was held
immediately of our beloved cousin and counsellor William Earl of
Morton, Lord Dalkeith and Aberdour with right of superiority (etc.
etc. etc.) along with the right and privilege of regality over the
said lands ..."  In the dispositive clause there is no mention of
mesuage, caput etc.  Further on in the charter one penny a year feu
duty is to be paid, if asked, "on the ground of the said land" note
that, not at a nominated caput but stated in the same terms as you
would expect to see for any ordinary non baronial crown charter.
Again the last Crown Charter 21st April 1856 has no mention of barony
or caput.   We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether a
grant of regality confers barony but I will pass on that.  It is quite
common to have a grant of barony without a caput and you can also find
baronies with their caputt in some other barony.  The Duke of Argyll
had something like 25 separate baronies all with their caput at one
place.  When Nether Mordington was part of the Lordship of Dalkeith
etc one would have expected the caput to be at Lord Dalkeiths place in
Fife not in Berwick.  The 1636 charter alienates Nether Mordington
from the Regality in Fife and it is at this point, if it was the
Crown's intention to create a new caput it would have been done; the
charter is silent.
If there is no nominated caput for a barony (if in fact the lands are
a barony) how does one own the barony by buying a house?
Sorry Graham but someone had to tell you.
BGH

Croft Dickinson, acknowledged by Learney (then Lord Lyon) as the
greatest authority on feudal baronies, contradicts you. Your problem
is that in your entire career you were involved simply in concocting
modern legal wrangles and you have no expertise in actual feudal
baronial law. You are out of your depth - the Lord Lyon agreed with
me. Sorry, Brian, someone had to tell you. PS A grant of regality does
create a barony (even Agnew says that) - but let's pass on that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have no problem with being proved wrong as long as I learn something
from my mistake. Perhaps you would be so good as to supply me with a
reference from Croft Dickinson (book and page please) that gives you
authority to use a house which is not the nominated caput to enable
you to lay a claim to the baronial dignity.

BGH

[Graham Milne]

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne
That's pretty much it. Just identify the caput (chief building
usually) of the barony and trace descent of ownership. The fact that
the barony isn't mentioned is irrelevant; it will still descend with
ownership of the caput. Exactly this happened to me; there was no
mention of the barony for almost 400 years. Didn't make a jot of
difference because baronies are legally indestructible (I repeat -
indestructible). Can I have my £10,000 now? Just pay my Paypal
account. Gosh! That was a quick way to get a nice villa holiday in
Greece. I can see myself lounging about in the swimming pool....-

In 1636 Thomas Ramsay, Minister at Foulden was granted a Crown
Charter
"of the town and lands of Nether Mordington with the manor and
mill  ... lately built by the said Mr. Thomas which belonged
previously to the said Mr. Thomas as proprietor and was held
immediately of our beloved cousin and counsellor William Earl of
Morton, Lord Dalkeith and Aberdour with right of superiority (etc.
etc. etc.) along with the right and privilege of regality over the
said lands ..."  In the dispositive clause there is no mention of
mesuage, caput etc.  Further on in the charter one penny a year feu
duty is to be paid, if asked, "on the ground of the said land" note
that, not at a nominated caput but stated in the same terms as you
would expect to see for any ordinary non baronial crown charter.
Again the last Crown Charter 21st April 1856 has no mention of barony
or caput.   We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether a
grant of regality confers barony but I will pass on that.  It is quite
common to have a grant of barony without a caput and you can also find
baronies with their caputt in some other barony.  The Duke of Argyll
had something like 25 separate baronies all with their caput at one
place.  When Nether Mordington was part of the Lordship of Dalkeith
etc one would have expected the caput to be at Lord Dalkeiths place in
Fife not in Berwick.  The 1636 charter alienates Nether Mordington
from the Regality in Fife and it is at this point, if it was the
Crown's intention to create a new caput it would have been done; the
charter is silent.
If there is no nominated caput for a barony (if in fact the lands are
a barony) how does one own the barony by buying a house?
Sorry Graham but someone had to tell you.
BGH

Croft Dickinson, acknowledged by Learney (then Lord Lyon) as the
greatest authority on feudal baronies, contradicts you. Your problem
is that in your entire career you were involved simply in concocting
modern legal wrangles and you have no expertise in actual feudal
baronial law. You are out of your depth - the Lord Lyon agreed with
me. Sorry, Brian, someone had to tell you. PS A grant of regality does
create a barony (even Agnew says that) - but let's pass on that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have no problem with being proved wrong as long as I learn something
from my mistake. Perhaps you would be so good as to supply me with a
reference from Croft Dickinson (book and page please) that gives you
authority to use a house which is not the nominated caput to enable
you to lay a claim to the baronial dignity.
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No. Get your own copy. He says that every barony had to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput. By the
way, if you are questioning the validity of the barony it is for you
to explain your reasons. Please go ahead.

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne
That's pretty much it. Just identify the caput (chief building
usually) of the barony and trace descent of ownership. The fact that
the barony isn't mentioned is irrelevant; it will still descend with
ownership of the caput. Exactly this happened to me; there was no
mention of the barony for almost 400 years. Didn't make a jot of
difference because baronies are legally indestructible (I repeat -
indestructible). Can I have my £10,000 now? Just pay my Paypal
account. Gosh! That was a quick way to get a nice villa holiday in
Greece. I can see myself lounging about in the swimming pool....-

In 1636 Thomas Ramsay, Minister at Foulden was granted a Crown
Charter
"of the town and lands of Nether Mordington with the manor and
mill  ... lately built by the said Mr. Thomas which belonged
previously to the said Mr. Thomas as proprietor and was held
immediately of our beloved cousin and counsellor William Earl of
Morton, Lord Dalkeith and Aberdour with right of superiority (etc.
etc. etc.) along with the right and privilege of regality over the
said lands ..."  In the dispositive clause there is no mention of
mesuage, caput etc.  Further on in the charter one penny a year feu
duty is to be paid, if asked, "on the ground of the said land" note
that, not at a nominated caput but stated in the same terms as you
would expect to see for any ordinary non baronial crown charter.
Again the last Crown Charter 21st April 1856 has no mention of barony
or caput.   We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether a
grant of regality confers barony but I will pass on that.  It is quite
common to have a grant of barony without a caput and you can also find
baronies with their caputt in some other barony.  The Duke of Argyll
had something like 25 separate baronies all with their caput at one
place.  When Nether Mordington was part of the Lordship of Dalkeith
etc one would have expected the caput to be at Lord Dalkeiths place in
Fife not in Berwick.  The 1636 charter alienates Nether Mordington
from the Regality in Fife and it is at this point, if it was the
Crown's intention to create a new caput it would have been done; the
charter is silent.
If there is no nominated caput for a barony (if in fact the lands are
a barony) how does one own the barony by buying a house?
Sorry Graham but someone had to tell you.
BGH

Croft Dickinson, acknowledged by Learney (then Lord Lyon) as the
greatest authority on feudal baronies, contradicts you. Your problem
is that in your entire career you were involved simply in concocting
modern legal wrangles and you have no expertise in actual feudal
baronial law. You are out of your depth - the Lord Lyon agreed with
me. Sorry, Brian, someone had to tell you. PS A grant of regality does
create a barony (even Agnew says that) - but let's pass on that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have no problem with being proved wrong as long as I learn something
from my mistake. Perhaps you would be so good as to supply me with a
reference from Croft Dickinson (book and page please) that gives you
authority to use a house which is not the nominated caput to enable
you to lay a claim to the baronial dignity.
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No. Get your own copy. He says that every barony had to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput. By the
way, if you are questioning the validity of the barony it is for you
to explain your reasons. Please go ahead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have The Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath with the hundred page
introduction by William Croft Dickinson, a book often quoted by you.
I could not find the passage that says every barony has to have a
caput and I have told you that I know of baronies that do not have a
caput. One of those baronies is Nether Mordington according to the
terms of the Nether Mordington Crown Charters. I will explain my
reason that I feel able to question the validity of your claim to the
dignity of the Barony of Nether Mordington. It appears that you have
personally nominated your former home as the caput of the barony; I
have already gone through the charters and explained that no caput was
nominated by the Crown. On the basis of your personal nomination you
and your wife have then recorded an a non domino disposition to
yourself of inter alia the baronial dignity.

Regards,

BGH

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne
That's pretty much it. Just identify the caput (chief building
usually) of the barony and trace descent of ownership. The fact that
the barony isn't mentioned is irrelevant; it will still descend with
ownership of the caput. Exactly this happened to me; there was no
mention of the barony for almost 400 years. Didn't make a jot of
difference because baronies are legally indestructible (I repeat -
indestructible). Can I have my £10,000 now? Just pay my Paypal
account. Gosh! That was a quick way to get a nice villa holiday in
Greece. I can see myself lounging about in the swimming pool....-

In 1636 Thomas Ramsay, Minister at Foulden was granted a Crown
Charter
"of the town and lands of Nether Mordington with the manor and
mill  ... lately built by the said Mr. Thomas which belonged
previously to the said Mr. Thomas as proprietor and was held
immediately of our beloved cousin and counsellor William Earl of
Morton, Lord Dalkeith and Aberdour with right of superiority (etc.
etc. etc.) along with the right and privilege of regality over the
said lands ..."  In the dispositive clause there is no mention of
mesuage, caput etc.  Further on in the charter one penny a year feu
duty is to be paid, if asked, "on the ground of the said land" note
that, not at a nominated caput but stated in the same terms as you
would expect to see for any ordinary non baronial crown charter.
Again the last Crown Charter 21st April 1856 has no mention of barony
or caput.   We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether a
grant of regality confers barony but I will pass on that.  It is quite
common to have a grant of barony without a caput and you can also find
baronies with their caputt in some other barony.  The Duke of Argyll
had something like 25 separate baronies all with their caput at one
place.  When Nether Mordington was part of the Lordship of Dalkeith
etc one would have expected the caput to be at Lord Dalkeiths place in
Fife not in Berwick.  The 1636 charter alienates Nether Mordington
from the Regality in Fife and it is at this point, if it was the
Crown's intention to create a new caput it would have been done; the
charter is silent.
If there is no nominated caput for a barony (if in fact the lands are
a barony) how does one own the barony by buying a house?
Sorry Graham but someone had to tell you.
BGH

Croft Dickinson, acknowledged by Learney (then Lord Lyon) as the
greatest authority on feudal baronies, contradicts you. Your problem
is that in your entire career you were involved simply in concocting
modern legal wrangles and you have no expertise in actual feudal
baronial law. You are out of your depth - the Lord Lyon agreed with
me. Sorry, Brian, someone had to tell you. PS A grant of regality does
create a barony (even Agnew says that) - but let's pass on that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have no problem with being proved wrong as long as I learn something
from my mistake. Perhaps you would be so good as to supply me with a
reference from Croft Dickinson (book and page please) that gives you
authority to use a house which is not the nominated caput to enable
you to lay a claim to the baronial dignity.
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No. Get your own copy. He says that every barony had to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput. By the
way, if you are questioning the validity of the barony it is for you
to explain your reasons. Please go ahead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have The Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath with the hundred page
introduction by William Croft Dickinson, a book often quoted by you.
I could not find the passage that says every barony has to have a
caput and I have told you that I know of baronies that do not have a
caput.  One of those baronies is Nether Mordington according to the
terms of the Nether Mordington Crown Charters.  I will explain my
reason that I feel able to question the validity of your claim to the
dignity of the Barony of Nether Mordington.  It appears that you have
personally nominated your former home as the caput of the barony; I
have already gone through the charters and explained that no caput was
nominated by the Crown.  On the basis of your personal nomination you
and your wife have then recorded an a non domino disposition to
yourself of inter alia the baronial dignity.
Regards,
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Graham,

I have just come across something you wrote on your web site; I don't
know if it is still there.

"These lands of Edrington (now Cawderstanes) were held by the Lauders
of Bass for hundreds of years but were subsequently, in 1632,
incorporated into the Barony of Beill - but, I believe, subsequently
dissolved from the barony, the caput of which was in Haddingtonshire."

So, you accept that the caput of a barony may be elsewhere (land in
Berwick, caput in Haddingtonshire). Could the caput of Nether
Mordington, if there is one, be in Dalkeith?

BGH

[Graham Milne]

Post by JSF

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne
That's pretty much it. Just identify the caput (chief building
usually) of the barony and trace descent of ownership. The fact that
the barony isn't mentioned is irrelevant; it will still descend with
ownership of the caput. Exactly this happened to me; there was no
mention of the barony for almost 400 years. Didn't make a jot of
difference because baronies are legally indestructible (I repeat -
indestructible). Can I have my £10,000 now? Just pay my Paypal
account. Gosh! That was a quick way to get a nice villa holiday in
Greece. I can see myself lounging about in the swimming pool....-

In 1636 Thomas Ramsay, Minister at Foulden was granted a Crown
Charter
"of the town and lands of Nether Mordington with the manor and
mill  ... lately built by the said Mr. Thomas which belonged
previously to the said Mr. Thomas as proprietor and was held
immediately of our beloved cousin and counsellor William Earl of
Morton, Lord Dalkeith and Aberdour with right of superiority (etc.
etc. etc.) along with the right and privilege of regality over the
said lands ..."  In the dispositive clause there is no mention of
mesuage, caput etc.  Further on in the charter one penny a year feu
duty is to be paid, if asked, "on the ground of the said land" note
that, not at a nominated caput but stated in the same terms as you
would expect to see for any ordinary non baronial crown charter.
Again the last Crown Charter 21st April 1856 has no mention of barony
or caput.   We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether a
grant of regality confers barony but I will pass on that.  It is quite
common to have a grant of barony without a caput and you can also find
baronies with their caputt in some other barony.  The Duke of Argyll
had something like 25 separate baronies all with their caput at one
place.  When Nether Mordington was part of the Lordship of Dalkeith
etc one would have expected the caput to be at Lord Dalkeiths place in
Fife not in Berwick.  The 1636 charter alienates Nether Mordington
from the Regality in Fife and it is at this point, if it was the
Crown's intention to create a new caput it would have been done; the
charter is silent.
If there is no nominated caput for a barony (if in fact the lands are
a barony) how does one own the barony by buying a house?
Sorry Graham but someone had to tell you.
BGH

Croft Dickinson, acknowledged by Learney (then Lord Lyon) as the
greatest authority on feudal baronies, contradicts you. Your problem
is that in your entire career you were involved simply in concocting
modern legal wrangles and you have no expertise in actual feudal
baronial law. You are out of your depth - the Lord Lyon agreed with
me. Sorry, Brian, someone had to tell you. PS A grant of regality does
create a barony (even Agnew says that) - but let's pass on that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have no problem with being proved wrong as long as I learn something
from my mistake. Perhaps you would be so good as to supply me with a
reference from Croft Dickinson (book and page please) that gives you
authority to use a house which is not the nominated caput to enable
you to lay a claim to the baronial dignity.
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No. Get your own copy. He says that every barony had to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput. By the
way, if you are questioning the validity of the barony it is for you
to explain your reasons. Please go ahead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have The Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath with the hundred page
introduction by William Croft Dickinson, a book often quoted by you.
I could not find the passage that says every barony has to have a
caput and I have told you that I know of baronies that do not have a
caput.  One of those baronies is Nether Mordington according to the
terms of the Nether Mordington Crown Charters.  I will explain my
reason that I feel able to question the validity of your claim to the
dignity of the Barony of Nether Mordington.  It appears that you have
personally nominated your former home as the caput of the barony; I
have already gone through the charters and explained that no caput was
nominated by the Crown.  On the basis of your personal nomination you
and your wife have then recorded an a non domino disposition to
yourself of inter alia the baronial dignity.
Regards,
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Graham,
I have just come across something you wrote on your web site; I don't
know if it is still there.
"These lands of Edrington (now Cawderstanes) were held by the Lauders
of Bass for hundreds of years but were subsequently, in 1632,
incorporated into the Barony of Beill - but, I believe, subsequently
dissolved from the barony, the caput of which was in Haddingtonshire."
So, you accept that the caput of a barony may be elsewhere (land in
Berwick, caput in Haddingtonshire).  Could the caput of Nether
Mordington, if there is one, be in Dalkeith?
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No. Because there were no lands of the Barony in Dalkeith. A barony
could consist of several disjointed parcels of land and the caput
would be in one of the parts. Mordington has always been a single
parcel of land. Keep looking!

[Graham Milne]

Post by JSF

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne
That's pretty much it. Just identify the caput (chief building
usually) of the barony and trace descent of ownership. The fact that
the barony isn't mentioned is irrelevant; it will still descend with
ownership of the caput. Exactly this happened to me; there was no
mention of the barony for almost 400 years. Didn't make a jot of
difference because baronies are legally indestructible (I repeat -
indestructible). Can I have my £10,000 now? Just pay my Paypal
account. Gosh! That was a quick way to get a nice villa holiday in
Greece. I can see myself lounging about in the swimming pool....-

In 1636 Thomas Ramsay, Minister at Foulden was granted a Crown
Charter
"of the town and lands of Nether Mordington with the manor and
mill  ... lately built by the said Mr. Thomas which belonged
previously to the said Mr. Thomas as proprietor and was held
immediately of our beloved cousin and counsellor William Earl of
Morton, Lord Dalkeith and Aberdour with right of superiority (etc.
etc. etc.) along with the right and privilege of regality over the
said lands ..."  In the dispositive clause there is no mention of
mesuage, caput etc.  Further on in the charter one penny a year feu
duty is to be paid, if asked, "on the ground of the said land" note
that, not at a nominated caput but stated in the same terms as you
would expect to see for any ordinary non baronial crown charter.
Again the last Crown Charter 21st April 1856 has no mention of barony
or caput.   We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether a
grant of regality confers barony but I will pass on that.  It is quite
common to have a grant of barony without a caput and you can also find
baronies with their caputt in some other barony.  The Duke of Argyll
had something like 25 separate baronies all with their caput at one
place.  When Nether Mordington was part of the Lordship of Dalkeith
etc one would have expected the caput to be at Lord Dalkeiths place in
Fife not in Berwick.  The 1636 charter alienates Nether Mordington
from the Regality in Fife and it is at this point, if it was the
Crown's intention to create a new caput it would have been done; the
charter is silent.
If there is no nominated caput for a barony (if in fact the lands are
a barony) how does one own the barony by buying a house?
Sorry Graham but someone had to tell you.
BGH

Croft Dickinson, acknowledged by Learney (then Lord Lyon) as the
greatest authority on feudal baronies, contradicts you. Your problem
is that in your entire career you were involved simply in concocting
modern legal wrangles and you have no expertise in actual feudal
baronial law. You are out of your depth - the Lord Lyon agreed with
me. Sorry, Brian, someone had to tell you. PS A grant of regality does
create a barony (even Agnew says that) - but let's pass on that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have no problem with being proved wrong as long as I learn something
from my mistake. Perhaps you would be so good as to supply me with a
reference from Croft Dickinson (book and page please) that gives you
authority to use a house which is not the nominated caput to enable
you to lay a claim to the baronial dignity.
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No. Get your own copy. He says that every barony had to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput. By the
way, if you are questioning the validity of the barony it is for you
to explain your reasons. Please go ahead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have The Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath with the hundred page
introduction by William Croft Dickinson, a book often quoted by you.
I could not find the passage that says every barony has to have a
caput and I have told you that I know of baronies that do not have a
caput.  One of those baronies is Nether Mordington according to the
terms of the Nether Mordington Crown Charters.  I will explain my
reason that I feel able to question the validity of your claim to the
dignity of the Barony of Nether Mordington.  It appears that you have
personally nominated your former home as the caput of the barony; I
have already gone through the charters and explained that no caput was
nominated by the Crown.  On the basis of your personal nomination you
and your wife have then recorded an a non domino disposition to
yourself of inter alia the baronial dignity.
Regards,
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Graham,
I have just come across something you wrote on your web site; I don't
know if it is still there.
"These lands of Edrington (now Cawderstanes) were held by the Lauders
of Bass for hundreds of years but were subsequently, in 1632,
incorporated into the Barony of Beill - but, I believe, subsequently
dissolved from the barony, the caput of which was in Haddingtonshire."
So, you accept that the caput of a barony may be elsewhere (land in
Berwick, caput in Haddingtonshire).  Could the caput of Nether
Mordington, if there is one, be in Dalkeith?
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

PPS The lands of Edrington were never within the Barony of Mordington.
The manor place of Nether Mordington was renamed Edrington House
because Edrington Castle was abandoned and the owners of the two
estates of Nether Mordington and Edrington moved into Edrington House.
But the lands of Edrington were never in the barony. Caught out again
Brian! Confusing, I know - but do try to do your research properly.

[B G. Hamilton.]

In your posting of 5th August you write "He says that every barony had
to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput." In
your posting today at 01.13 you write "2. You are wrong that the caput
had to be nominated. What is your authority for that statement?" The
logic of the two postings implies that you think anyone owning a piece
of a barony may nominate his land as the caput. If that is right the
owners of Edrington Mains who have a disposition from the same lady
you received yours from and in the same general terms, regality etc.
could also claim the barony, after all you had 12.93 acres and they
have about 220 acres. I don't say that the caput had to be nominated;
indeed I say that many baronies had no nominated caput. What I do say
is that if you are claiming that the caput is in one particular place
then you need to show authority for that especially if you are
claiming the barony on that basis. The Nether Mordington charter say
that sasine may be taken on 'any part of the ground'. That gives the
owners of Edrington Mains, using your argument, as much justification
to claim the barony as you. You suggest that I have not seen all of
the writs and charters; perhaps that is right. However, I have seen
the Keepers Search sheets that show Nether Mordington (the house12.93
acres) and the farm (about 220 acres) above referred to was purchased
by Miss Robertson in January 1962, that also show the house you owned
was sold out of the estate by Miss Robertson in April 1962 and re-
purchased by her in January 1963. Following institutional writers on
baronies I deduce from that that your house left the barony in 1962
and what remained (Mains of Edrington) was the barony.

BGH

[Graham Milne]

Post by B G. Hamilton.
In your posting of 5th August you write "He says that every barony had
to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput."  In
your posting today at 01.13 you write "2. You are wrong that the caput
had to be nominated. What is your authority for that statement?"  The
logic of the two postings implies that you think anyone owning a piece
of a barony may nominate his land as the caput.  If that is right the
owners of Edrington Mains who have a disposition from the same lady
you received yours from and in the same general terms, regality etc.
could also claim the barony, after all you had 12.93 acres and they
have about 220 acres.  I don't say that the caput had to be nominated;
indeed I say that many baronies had no nominated caput.  What I do say
is that if you are claiming that the caput is in one particular place
then you need to show authority for that especially if you are
claiming the barony on that basis.  The Nether Mordington charter say
that sasine may be taken on 'any part of the ground'.  That gives the
owners of Edrington Mains, using your argument, as much justification
to claim the barony as you.  You suggest that I have not seen all of
the writs and charters; perhaps that is right.  However, I have seen
the Keepers Search sheets that show Nether Mordington (the house12.93
acres) and the farm (about 220 acres) above referred to was purchased
by Miss Robertson in January 1962, that also show the house you owned
was sold out of the estate by Miss Robertson in April 1962 and re-
purchased by her in January 1963.  Following institutional writers on
baronies I deduce from that that your house left the barony in 1962
and what remained (Mains of Edrington) was the barony.
BGH

You deduce wrong; the Lord Lyon ruled and Sir Crispin Agnew of
Lochnaw, leading counsel, and Professor Rennie, Professor of Law at
Glasgow University, have both stated in written opinions that the
barony went with Edrington House in 1963. So that's the Lord Lyon,
leading counsel and a leading professor of property law saying you are
wrong. Do crawl back under your stone Mr. Hamilton. Perhaps this
little foray of yours will tell the world exactly what to think of
your 'expertise' in feudal baronial law. I suggest that we leave this
thread here for all the world to see and judge you accordingly, both
your knowledge and your character. There's more punishment for you to
come if you really want. It's up to you. I couldn't give a damn; I'm
happy to dish it out.

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.
In your posting of 5th August you write "He says that every barony had
to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput."  In
your posting today at 01.13 you write "2. You are wrong that the caput
had to be nominated. What is your authority for that statement?"  The
logic of the two postings implies that you think anyone owning a piece
of a barony may nominate his land as the caput.  If that is right the
owners of Edrington Mains who have a disposition from the same lady
you received yours from and in the same general terms, regality etc.
could also claim the barony, after all you had 12.93 acres and they
have about 220 acres.  I don't say that the caput had to be nominated;
indeed I say that many baronies had no nominated caput.  What I do say
is that if you are claiming that the caput is in one particular place
then you need to show authority for that especially if you are
claiming the barony on that basis.  The Nether Mordington charter say
that sasine may be taken on 'any part of the ground'.  That gives the
owners of Edrington Mains, using your argument, as much justification
to claim the barony as you.  You suggest that I have not seen all of
the writs and charters; perhaps that is right.  However, I have seen
the Keepers Search sheets that show Nether Mordington (the house12.93
acres) and the farm (about 220 acres) above referred to was purchased
by Miss Robertson in January 1962, that also show the house you owned
was sold out of the estate by Miss Robertson in April 1962 and re-
purchased by her in January 1963.  Following institutional writers on
baronies I deduce from that that your house left the barony in 1962
and what remained (Mains of Edrington) was the barony.
BGH

You deduce wrong; the Lord Lyon ruled and Sir Crispin Agnew of
Lochnaw, leading counsel, and Professor Rennie, Professor of Law at
Glasgow University, have both stated in written opinions that the
barony went with Edrington House in 1963. So that's the Lord Lyon,
leading counsel and a leading professor of property law saying you are
wrong. Do crawl back under your stone Mr. Hamilton. Perhaps this
little foray of yours will tell the world exactly what to think of
your 'expertise' in feudal baronial law. I suggest that we leave this
thread here for all the world to see and judge you accordingly, both
your knowledge and your character. There's more punishment for you to
come if you really want. It's up to you. I couldn't give a damn; I'm
happy to dish it out.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

As I said earlier I don't mind being proved wrong provided I learn
something. It is a bit rich of you praying in aid of an Opinion from
Sir Crispin when you have been more than critical of him on many other
occasions. Not having seen the information you provided Senior
Counsel and the Professor with to enable them to give you Opinions I
cannot comment on that aspect. As for being 'punished' for having the
temerity to disagree with you I think that says more about your
character than mine.

And finally to the gentleman who has awarded all of those five stars
to me and the one star awards to Graham they have not improved the
quality of this debate.

Regards,

BGH

[Graham Milne]

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.
In your posting of 5th August you write "He says that every barony had
to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput."  In
your posting today at 01.13 you write "2. You are wrong that the caput
had to be nominated. What is your authority for that statement?"  The
logic of the two postings implies that you think anyone owning a piece
of a barony may nominate his land as the caput.  If that is right the
owners of Edrington Mains who have a disposition from the same lady
you received yours from and in the same general terms, regality etc.
could also claim the barony, after all you had 12.93 acres and they
have about 220 acres.  I don't say that the caput had to be nominated;
indeed I say that many baronies had no nominated caput.  What I do say
is that if you are claiming that the caput is in one particular place
then you need to show authority for that especially if you are
claiming the barony on that basis.  The Nether Mordington charter say
that sasine may be taken on 'any part of the ground'.  That gives the
owners of Edrington Mains, using your argument, as much justification
to claim the barony as you.  You suggest that I have not seen all of
the writs and charters; perhaps that is right.  However, I have seen
the Keepers Search sheets that show Nether Mordington (the house12.93
acres) and the farm (about 220 acres) above referred to was purchased
by Miss Robertson in January 1962, that also show the house you owned
was sold out of the estate by Miss Robertson in April 1962 and re-
purchased by her in January 1963.  Following institutional writers on
baronies I deduce from that that your house left the barony in 1962
and what remained (Mains of Edrington) was the barony.
BGH

You deduce wrong; the Lord Lyon ruled and Sir Crispin Agnew of
Lochnaw, leading counsel, and Professor Rennie, Professor of Law at
Glasgow University, have both stated in written opinions that the
barony went with Edrington House in 1963. So that's the Lord Lyon,
leading counsel and a leading professor of property law saying you are
wrong. Do crawl back under your stone Mr. Hamilton. Perhaps this
little foray of yours will tell the world exactly what to think of
your 'expertise' in feudal baronial law. I suggest that we leave this
thread here for all the world to see and judge you accordingly, both
your knowledge and your character. There's more punishment for you to
come if you really want. It's up to you. I couldn't give a damn; I'm
happy to dish it out.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

As I said earlier I don't mind being proved wrong provided I learn
something.  It is a bit rich of you praying in aid of an Opinion from
Sir Crispin when you have been more than critical of him on many other
occasions.  Not having seen the information you provided Senior
Counsel and the Professor with to enable them to give you Opinions I
cannot comment on that aspect.  As for being 'punished' for having the
temerity to disagree with you I think that says more about your
character than mine.
And finally to the gentleman who has awarded all of those five stars
to me and the one star awards to Graham they have not improved the
quality of this debate.
Regards,
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The lesson you should learn is to get your facts straight and make
sure you know what you are talking about before opening your mouth.
Oh, and the other lesson is don't take me on - I am always right (I
give the Pope lessons in infallibility).

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.
In your posting of 5th August you write "He says that every barony had
to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput."  In
your posting today at 01.13 you write "2. You are wrong that the caput
had to be nominated. What is your authority for that statement?"  The
logic of the two postings implies that you think anyone owning a piece
of a barony may nominate his land as the caput.  If that is right the
owners of Edrington Mains who have a disposition from the same lady
you received yours from and in the same general terms, regality etc.
could also claim the barony, after all you had 12.93 acres and they
have about 220 acres.  I don't say that the caput had to be nominated;
indeed I say that many baronies had no nominated caput.  What I do say
is that if you are claiming that the caput is in one particular place
then you need to show authority for that especially if you are
claiming the barony on that basis.  The Nether Mordington charter say
that sasine may be taken on 'any part of the ground'.  That gives the
owners of Edrington Mains, using your argument, as much justification
to claim the barony as you.  You suggest that I have not seen all of
the writs and charters; perhaps that is right.  However, I have seen
the Keepers Search sheets that show Nether Mordington (the house12.93
acres) and the farm (about 220 acres) above referred to was purchased
by Miss Robertson in January 1962, that also show the house you owned
was sold out of the estate by Miss Robertson in April 1962 and re-
purchased by her in January 1963.  Following institutional writers on
baronies I deduce from that that your house left the barony in 1962
and what remained (Mains of Edrington) was the barony.
BGH

You deduce wrong; the Lord Lyon ruled and Sir Crispin Agnew of
Lochnaw, leading counsel, and Professor Rennie, Professor of Law at
Glasgow University, have both stated in written opinions that the
barony went with Edrington House in 1963. So that's the Lord Lyon,
leading counsel and a leading professor of property law saying you are
wrong. Do crawl back under your stone Mr. Hamilton. Perhaps this
little foray of yours will tell the world exactly what to think of
your 'expertise' in feudal baronial law. I suggest that we leave this
thread here for all the world to see and judge you accordingly, both
your knowledge and your character. There's more punishment for you to
come if you really want. It's up to you. I couldn't give a damn; I'm
happy to dish it out.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

As I said earlier I don't mind being proved wrong provided I learn
something.  It is a bit rich of you praying in aid of an Opinion from
Sir Crispin when you have been more than critical of him on many other
occasions.  Not having seen the information you provided Senior
Counsel and the Professor with to enable them to give you Opinions I
cannot comment on that aspect.  As for being 'punished' for having the
temerity to disagree with you I think that says more about your
character than mine.
And finally to the gentleman who has awarded all of those five stars
to me and the one star awards to Graham they have not improved the
quality of this debate.
Regards,
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The lesson you should learn is to get your facts straight and make
sure you know what you are talking about before opening your mouth.
Oh, and the other lesson is don't take me on - I am always right (I
give the Pope lessons in infallibility).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The facts I have stated are a matter of public record; I stand by my
conclusions.

BGH

[Graham Milne]

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.
In your posting of 5th August you write "He says that every barony had
to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput."  In
your posting today at 01.13 you write "2. You are wrong that the caput
had to be nominated. What is your authority for that statement?"  The
logic of the two postings implies that you think anyone owning a piece
of a barony may nominate his land as the caput.  If that is right the
owners of Edrington Mains who have a disposition from the same lady
you received yours from and in the same general terms, regality etc.
could also claim the barony, after all you had 12.93 acres and they
have about 220 acres.  I don't say that the caput had to be nominated;
indeed I say that many baronies had no nominated caput.  What I do say
is that if you are claiming that the caput is in one particular place
then you need to show authority for that especially if you are
claiming the barony on that basis.  The Nether Mordington charter say
that sasine may be taken on 'any part of the ground'.  That gives the
owners of Edrington Mains, using your argument, as much justification
to claim the barony as you.  You suggest that I have not seen all of
the writs and charters; perhaps that is right.  However, I have seen
the Keepers Search sheets that show Nether Mordington (the house12.93
acres) and the farm (about 220 acres) above referred to was purchased
by Miss Robertson in January 1962, that also show the house you owned
was sold out of the estate by Miss Robertson in April 1962 and re-
purchased by her in January 1963.  Following institutional writers on
baronies I deduce from that that your house left the barony in 1962
and what remained (Mains of Edrington) was the barony.
BGH

You deduce wrong; the Lord Lyon ruled and Sir Crispin Agnew of
Lochnaw, leading counsel, and Professor Rennie, Professor of Law at
Glasgow University, have both stated in written opinions that the
barony went with Edrington House in 1963. So that's the Lord Lyon,
leading counsel and a leading professor of property law saying you are
wrong. Do crawl back under your stone Mr. Hamilton. Perhaps this
little foray of yours will tell the world exactly what to think of
your 'expertise' in feudal baronial law. I suggest that we leave this
thread here for all the world to see and judge you accordingly, both
your knowledge and your character. There's more punishment for you to
come if you really want. It's up to you. I couldn't give a damn; I'm
happy to dish it out.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

As I said earlier I don't mind being proved wrong provided I learn
something.  It is a bit rich of you praying in aid of an Opinion from
Sir Crispin when you have been more than critical of him on many other
occasions.  Not having seen the information you provided Senior
Counsel and the Professor with to enable them to give you Opinions I
cannot comment on that aspect.  As for being 'punished' for having the
temerity to disagree with you I think that says more about your
character than mine.
And finally to the gentleman who has awarded all of those five stars
to me and the one star awards to Graham they have not improved the
quality of this debate.
Regards,
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The lesson you should learn is to get your facts straight and make
sure you know what you are talking about before opening your mouth.
Oh, and the other lesson is don't take me on - I am always right (I
give the Pope lessons in infallibility).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The facts I have stated are a matter of public record; I stand by my
conclusions.
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

It's your interpretation of the facts that matters, you idiot. As I
said, the Lord Lyon, senior counsel and a leading professor of
property law contradict what you say. As I said, crawl back under your
stone.

[Graham Milne]

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne
That's pretty much it. Just identify the caput (chief building
usually) of the barony and trace descent of ownership. The fact that
the barony isn't mentioned is irrelevant; it will still descend with
ownership of the caput. Exactly this happened to me; there was no
mention of the barony for almost 400 years. Didn't make a jot of
difference because baronies are legally indestructible (I repeat -
indestructible). Can I have my £10,000 now? Just pay my Paypal
account. Gosh! That was a quick way to get a nice villa holiday in
Greece. I can see myself lounging about in the swimming pool....-

In 1636 Thomas Ramsay, Minister at Foulden was granted a Crown
Charter
"of the town and lands of Nether Mordington with the manor and
mill  ... lately built by the said Mr. Thomas which belonged
previously to the said Mr. Thomas as proprietor and was held
immediately of our beloved cousin and counsellor William Earl of
Morton, Lord Dalkeith and Aberdour with right of superiority (etc.
etc. etc.) along with the right and privilege of regality over the
said lands ..."  In the dispositive clause there is no mention of
mesuage, caput etc.  Further on in the charter one penny a year feu
duty is to be paid, if asked, "on the ground of the said land" note
that, not at a nominated caput but stated in the same terms as you
would expect to see for any ordinary non baronial crown charter.
Again the last Crown Charter 21st April 1856 has no mention of barony
or caput.   We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether a
grant of regality confers barony but I will pass on that.  It is quite
common to have a grant of barony without a caput and you can also find
baronies with their caputt in some other barony.  The Duke of Argyll
had something like 25 separate baronies all with their caput at one
place.  When Nether Mordington was part of the Lordship of Dalkeith
etc one would have expected the caput to be at Lord Dalkeiths place in
Fife not in Berwick.  The 1636 charter alienates Nether Mordington
from the Regality in Fife and it is at this point, if it was the
Crown's intention to create a new caput it would have been done; the
charter is silent.
If there is no nominated caput for a barony (if in fact the lands are
a barony) how does one own the barony by buying a house?
Sorry Graham but someone had to tell you.
BGH

Croft Dickinson, acknowledged by Learney (then Lord Lyon) as the
greatest authority on feudal baronies, contradicts you. Your problem
is that in your entire career you were involved simply in concocting
modern legal wrangles and you have no expertise in actual feudal
baronial law. You are out of your depth - the Lord Lyon agreed with
me. Sorry, Brian, someone had to tell you. PS A grant of regality does
create a barony (even Agnew says that) - but let's pass on that.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have no problem with being proved wrong as long as I learn something
from my mistake. Perhaps you would be so good as to supply me with a
reference from Croft Dickinson (book and page please) that gives you
authority to use a house which is not the nominated caput to enable
you to lay a claim to the baronial dignity.
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

No. Get your own copy. He says that every barony had to have a caput.
If you think about it you cannot have a barony without a caput. By the
way, if you are questioning the validity of the barony it is for you
to explain your reasons. Please go ahead.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have The Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath with the hundred page
introduction by William Croft Dickinson, a book often quoted by you.
I could not find the passage that says every barony has to have a
caput and I have told you that I know of baronies that do not have a
caput.  One of those baronies is Nether Mordington according to the
terms of the Nether Mordington Crown Charters.  I will explain my
reason that I feel able to question the validity of your claim to the
dignity of the Barony of Nether Mordington.  It appears that you have
personally nominated your former home as the caput of the barony; I
have already gone through the charters and explained that no caput was
nominated by the Crown.  On the basis of your personal nomination you
and your wife have then recorded an a non domino disposition to
yourself of inter alia the baronial dignity.
Regards,
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

1. I'll give you one more chance. Read Croft Dickinson again. If you
genuinely still can't find it I will tell you where to look.
2. You are wrong that the caput had to be nominated. What is your
authority for that statement?
3. There has never been a non domino disposition in relation to
Mordington. Really, you are just exposing your ignorance. 4. And
remember, the Lord Lyon recognised me as Baron of Mordington. He
examined every single charter. You haven't.

[JSF]

Post by Graham Milne
Croft Dickinson, acknowledged by Learney (then Lord Lyon) as the
greatest authority on feudal baronies, contradicts you. Your problem
is that in your entire career you were involved simply in concocting
modern legal wrangles and you have no expertise in actual feudal
baronial law. You are out of your depth - the Lord Lyon agreed with
me. Sorry, Brian, someone had to tell you. PS A grant of regality does
create a barony (even Agnew says that) - but let's pass on that.

Graham,

Your comments don't help me understand the basis on which the LL
recognized you. The petition would have included persuasive evidence
that the property interest you held included the barony. If you could
share some of this background it would help put Brian's comments into
context. I'm sincerely interested in learning more.

Regards, JSF

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by JSF

Post by Graham Milne
Croft Dickinson, acknowledged by Learney (then Lord Lyon) as the
greatest authority on feudal baronies, contradicts you. Your problem
is that in your entire career you were involved simply in concocting
modern legal wrangles and you have no expertise in actual feudal
baronial law. You are out of your depth - the Lord Lyon agreed with
me. Sorry, Brian, someone had to tell you. PS A grant of regality does
create a barony (even Agnew says that) - but let's pass on that.

Graham,
Your comments don't help me understand the basis on which the LL
recognized you.  The petition would have included persuasive evidence
that the property interest you held included the barony.  If you could
share some of this background it would help put Brian's comments into
context.  I'm sincerely interested in learning more.
Regards, JSF

I'll but in here, Lyon Blair decided Graham's petition; Lyon Sellars
has decided to rely on the decision of the Custodian of the Scottish
Barony Register as to the validity of a claim to a barony.

BGH

[JSF]

Post by B G. Hamilton.
I'll but in here, Lyon Blair decided Graham's petition; Lyon Sellars
has decided to rely on the decision of the Custodian of the Scottish
Barony Register as to the validity of a claim to a barony.
BGH

Brian,

If I read the Cartsburn note on the LL's website correctly,
registration in the private register was not taken "... as being, in
itself, sufficient proof of ownership of the barony in question"
notwithstanding that LL "... regard[ed] the present Custodian of the
private register, Mr. Alistair Rennie, as a man of skill, and [was]
prepared to take his approval ... in principle and for aught yet
seen". Apparently every validly existing barony has some owner yet
not every owner would be eligible to register in the private
register. Surely this private register is not a final answer to the
proof of ownership problem?

Regards, JSF

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by Graham Milne

Post by B G. Hamilton.
I'll but in here, Lyon Blair decided Graham's petition; Lyon Sellars
has decided to rely on the decision of the Custodian of the Scottish
Barony Register as to the validity of a claim to a barony.
BGH

Brian,
If I read the Cartsburn note on the LL's website correctly,
registration in the private register was not taken "... as being, in
itself, sufficient proof of ownership of the barony in question"
notwithstanding that LL "... regard[ed] the present Custodian of the
private register, Mr. Alistair Rennie, as a man of skill, and [was]
prepared to take his approval ... in principle and for aught yet
seen".  Apparently every validly existing barony has some owner yet
not every owner would be eligible to register in the private
register.  Surely this private register is not a final answer to the
proof of ownership problem?
Regards, JSF

The Cartsburn note is in two parts; he comments on the comments by
Lyon Blair on Margaret Hamilton of Rockhall's petition and says
because when he and I reached a compromise in my court action against
him the question of the Scottish Barony Register (SBR) was not part of
the jointly agreed interlocutor by the Court and that Lyon Blair
remarks stood. In the second part of the note he says that (if I
remember correctly) he cannot accept the recording in the SBR as proof
of a valid title but will accept the present Custodian of the SBR's
decision as to the validity of a barony title. In theory neither the
Custodian's or Lyon's decision is a final proof of ownership; if you
want that you would have to go to the Court of Session to get a
Declarator every time you acquired a barony or for that matter any
thing else. In practise when you appoint a Custodian who used to be
second in command of Scotland's Sasine and Land Register you have done
as much as possible to ensure a proper determination of ownership is
made.

I suspect in the not too distant future Lyon will give more support to
the SBR; I have recently resigned as a director and Prof. Paisley of
Aberdeen University has been appointed to take my place.

Regards,

BGH

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by Graham Milne
 Apparently every validly existing barony has some owner yet
not every owner would be eligible to register in the private
register.  Surely this private register is not a final answer to the
proof of ownership problem?
Regards, JSF

I see that I have not fully answered your post. Every owner who can
prove to the satisfaction of the Custodian that he has a valid claim
to a baronial dignity will have his claim recorded in the SBR.

Regards,

BGH

[JSF]

I see that I have not fully answered your post.  Every owner who can
prove to the satisfaction of the Custodian that he has a valid claim
to a baronial dignity will have his claim recorded in the SBR.
Regards,
BGH

Brian,

Appreciate your comments. It's been noted to me that Mr. Rennie
requires that a barony be assigned from the last owner of record in
the Sasine Register. Obviously that's a tough go in any situation
where the Sasine Register did not record the last lawful owner at the
time that baronies became incompetent to be registered. If I am
properly informed in this, then Mr. Rennie will inevitably decline to
register validly existing baronies with valid owners and his/your
private register cannot be a conclusive answer to the proof of
ownership problem. To put my point a different way, would you take
more comfort from Mr. Rennie's registration than from a supportive
legal opinion from an eminent solicitor or advocate?

Graham, would you like to weigh in? There's no fee in it for you but
you may get to keep (or eventually be able to sell) your barony.

Cheers, JSF

[B G. Hamilton.]

Post by Graham Milne

I see that I have not fully answered your post.  Every owner who can
prove to the satisfaction of the Custodian that he has a valid claim
to a baronial dignity will have his claim recorded in the SBR.
Regards,
BGH

Brian,
Appreciate your comments.  It's been noted to me that Mr. Rennie
requires that a barony be assigned from the last owner of record in
the Sasine Register.  Obviously that's a tough go in any situation
where the Sasine Register did not record the last lawful owner at the
time that baronies became incompetent to be registered.  If I am
properly informed in this, then Mr. Rennie will inevitably decline to
register validly existing baronies with valid owners and his/your
private register cannot be a conclusive answer to the proof of
ownership problem.  To put my point a different way, would you take
more comfort from Mr. Rennie's registration than from a supportive
legal opinion from an eminent solicitor or advocate?
Graham, would you like to weigh in?  There's no fee in it for you but
you may get to keep (or eventually be able to sell) your barony.
Cheers, JSF

The information you received about the last owner on record being
required to make an assignation is technically incorrect. However ,
in practice it has been that the last owner recorded in the Sasine
Register has granted all assignations in the SBR; the Abolition Act
has only been in force for about six years. The Custodian's
experience is second to none in conveyancing matters and I have total
confidence in him.

BGH

[Graham Milne]

Post by B G. Hamilton.

Post by Graham Milne

I see that I have not fully answered your post.  Every owner who can
prove to the satisfaction of the Custodian that he has a valid claim
to a baronial dignity will have his claim recorded in the SBR.
Regards,
BGH

Brian,
Appreciate your comments.  It's been noted to me that Mr. Rennie
requires that a barony be assigned from the last owner of record in
the Sasine Register.  Obviously that's a tough go in any situation
where the Sasine Register did not record the last lawful owner at the
time that baronies became incompetent to be registered.  If I am
properly informed in this, then Mr. Rennie will inevitably decline to
register validly existing baronies with valid owners and his/your
private register cannot be a conclusive answer to the proof of
ownership problem.  To put my point a different way, would you take
more comfort from Mr. Rennie's registration than from a supportive
legal opinion from an eminent solicitor or advocate?
Graham, would you like to weigh in?  There's no fee in it for you but
you may get to keep (or eventually be able to sell) your barony.
Cheers, JSF

The information you received about the last owner on record being
required to make an assignation is technically incorrect.  However ,
in practice it has been that the last owner recorded in the Sasine
Register has granted all assignations in the SBR; the Abolition Act
has only been in force for about six years.  The Custodian's
experience is second to none in conveyancing matters and I have total
confidence in him.
BGH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

But what is his experience of feudal baronial law? Is he an
acknowledged expert in this area? What are his credentials?

[p***@gmail.com]

Sorry to resurrect such an old thread but I have a similar Issue.

I can find no records other than minutes of the Barons Court for the early C18th and it's presence in some of the online lists. As the owner of the 'big house' we undoubtedly own the 'Caput'. But can we use the title?

[Andrew Chaplin]

Post by p***@gmail.com
Sorry to resurrect such an old thread but I have a similar Issue.
I can find no records other than minutes of the Barons Court for the
early C18th and it's presence in some of the online lists. As the
owner of the 'big house' we undoubtedly own the 'Caput'. But can we
use the title?

It depends...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc._(Scotland)
_Act_2000

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Andrew Chaplin

Post by p***@gmail.com
Sorry to resurrect such an old thread but I have a similar Issue.
I can find no records other than minutes of the Barons Court for the
early C18th and it's presence in some of the online lists. As the
owner of the 'big house' we undoubtedly own the 'Caput'. But can we
use the title?

It depends...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc._(Scotland)
_Act_2000
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

We've owned the property since well before the Act came into force and although a 'lost' title there were Barons Court records for here in the early 1700's. I'm not particularly interested in getting the full approval of Lord Lyon, although one of the previous Lord Lyons gave a very non committal answer amounting to why would I want to use it :D I just want to keep these little bits of Scottish History alive.

[Derek Howard]

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by Andrew Chaplin

Post by p***@gmail.com
Sorry to resurrect such an old thread but I have a similar Issue.
I can find no records other than minutes of the Barons Court for the
early C18th and it's presence in some of the online lists. As the
owner of the 'big house' we undoubtedly own the 'Caput'. But can we
use the title?

It depends...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc._(Scotland)
_Act_2000
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

We've owned the property since well before the Act came into force and although a 'lost' title there were Barons Court records for here in the early 1700's. I'm not particularly interested in getting the full approval of Lord Lyon, although one of the previous Lord Lyons gave a very non committal answer amounting to why would I want to use it :D I just want to keep these little bits of Scottish History alive.

The term "baron" in Scotland was never a granted title. It was the term for the holder of a barony. A barony was a special legal status granted to an estate, this status gave it certain rights. All these rights have now been separated from the land and abolished. Therefore there are no baronies. The AFT did not need to abolish the "dignity" of a baron as there was no such title bearing a dignity. Common usage for a couple of centuries however had assumed there was. Some who owned baronies before the AFT and considered this gave them status threatened the Scottish government with legal action at the time of consideration of the AFT and the government took the action of avoiding any contingent liability and excluded the supposed "dignity" in the AFT. Some former barons took the existence of this wording as evidence of the separate existence of a dignity. It does not. Some Lords Lyon have humoured them to the minimum degree as this provides a small source of revenue. A few claiming to be Scottish barons and a few who prey on them continue the playacting.

Derek Howard

[r***@gmail.com]

At the Lyon Court in the Petition of Maclean of Ardgour for a Birthbrieve by Interlocutor dated 26th February 1943 “Finds and Declares that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and have both in this Nobiliary Court, and in the Court of Session, been recognised as “titled” nobility, and that the estait of the Baronage (The Barones Minores) is of the ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland”.

[Derek Howard]

Post by r***@gmail.com
At the Lyon Court in the Petition of Maclean of Ardgour for a Birthbrieve by Interlocutor dated 26th February 1943 “Finds and Declares that the Minor Barons of Scotland are, and have both in this Nobiliary Court, and in the Court of Session, been recognised as “titled” nobility, and that the estait of the Baronage (The Barones Minores) is of the ancient Feudal Nobility of Scotland”.

Yes, the Lyon Court was then (1943) essentially run by Innes of Learney, who became Lyon soon after, as Grant was very elderly. Sadly IoL spun yarns around the law and history regarding the Scots baronage. I have examined some of his claims in detail and found them definitely wanting to the extent of what may be regarded as deliberately misleading his own court. It is a few years since I last checked on the details of the evidence produced in the Ardgour case. From a historian's viewpoint I far prefer in these matters to examine what the historical documents show rather than some theoretical legal position espoused by someone determined to create and exploit a market in baronies using what was effectively his own court. If I can be bothered I might look again at that case but I always look at the original texts referred to and what they actually prove. Many of ToI's references do not support his assertions. Not a fan of ToI at all, though he did a lot to encourage the interest in Scots heraldry.

Derek Howard

[r***@gmail.com]

I understand that you disagree with the man but do you refute the legal jurisdiction he occupied? Is not Lord Lyon's court a legal setting and he (whomever he be) a judge outright? Are findings of that court not law or precedent? You argued your point well but with no observance that this topic has already been adjudicated upon and given repeated (if not grudgingly so) acceptance by subsequent successor Lyons?

[r***@gmail.com]

I understand that you disagree with the man but do you refute the legal jurisdiction he occupied? Is not Lord Lyon's court a legal setting and he (whomever he be) a judge outright? Are findings of that court not law or precedent? You argued your point well but with no observance that this topic has already been adjudicated upon and given repeated (if not grudgingly so) acceptance by subsequent successor Lyons.

[r***@gmail.com]

I understand that you disagree with the man but do you refute the legal jurisdiction he occupied? Is not Lord Lyon's court a legal setting and he (whomever he be) a judge outright? Are findings of that court not law or precedent? You argued your point well but with no did so with disregard to the fact that this matter has already been adjudicated upon and given repeated (if not grudgingly so) acceptance by subsequent successor Lyons.

[r***@gmail.com]

I understand that you disagree with the man but do you refute the legal jurisdiction he occupied? Is not Lord Lyon's court a legal setting and he (whomever he be) a judge outright? Are findings of that court not law or precedent? You argued your point well but did so with disregard to the fact that this matter has already been adjudicated upon and given repeated (if not grudging) acceptance by subsequent successor Lyons.

Cheers.

[Derek Howard]

Post by r***@gmail.com
I understand that you disagree with the man but do you refute the legal jurisdiction he occupied? Is not Lord Lyon's court a legal setting and he (whomever he be) a judge outright? Are findings of that court not law or precedent? You argued your point well but did so with disregard to the fact that this matter has already been adjudicated upon and given repeated (if not grudging) acceptance by subsequent successor Lyons.
Cheers.

I feel that ToL let down his high office by abusing it. I have examined one case in particular that came before his court in some detail on this newsgroup. It involved his determination in his court that someone was a baron. When looking in detail at several of the pieces of evidence he used it became clear that the historical picture he tried to paint was simply untrue. Since then I have found that further two of the pieces of evidence claimed as proof were in fact different references to the same piece of hearsay rumour that did not support his conclusions and that another reference to an 18th century text could not be found in the source cited. In short, unless every detail is re-examined from a modern historian's perspective as well as from a legal perspective, I would be doubtful of any judgement by ToL concerning Scots baronies. He was more than imaginative. If Scots lawyers want to join their romantic minded expatriates in playing brigadoonery that is up to them. Sadly LLs, like other civil servants, have to consider contingent liabilities and research costs when conducting their business. They have not got the luxury of limitless funds for original research to possibly undermine or reverse earlier judgements. Others are not necessarily interested parties able to challenge in the Court of Sessions. Encouraging vainglory and citing ToL as a legal authority rather than accurately quoting original documents does not help to determine the truth.

Derek Howard

[r***@gmail.com]

Derek,

As always, you present a reasonable and well developed argument. Indeed, from a scholarly perspective you may be correct. I am not in a position to judge. However, I feel you are missing the gist of my own argument. Whether or not ToL was "imaginative" and possibly incorrect in his judgment is moot from a legal perspective. The decision was made by a sitting judge presiding over the highest court of it's kind. Until reversed by an equal or higher legal entity, this decision (even while possibly a bad one) is still the current precedent. Thus, feudal barons are (currently) titled nobility within Scotland. Our approval is not required.

As a side note, I feel it worthwhile to point out that the the bulk of feudal baronies continue to owned/enjoyed by families, armigers, lairds and chiefs/chieftains that inherited instead of purchased their title(s). As we speak cynically about those who DO purchase, best we not throw the whole lot away in the process. This is a long, proud tradition - living history. Tread lightly!

Cheers.

[Derek Howard]

Post by r***@gmail.com
Derek,
As always, you present a reasonable and well developed argument. Indeed, from a scholarly perspective you may be correct. I am not in a position to judge. However, I feel you are missing the gist of my own argument. Whether or not ToL was "imaginative" and possibly incorrect in his judgment is moot from a legal perspective. The decision was made by a sitting judge presiding over the highest court of it's kind. Until reversed by an equal or higher legal entity, this decision (even while possibly a bad one) is still the current precedent. Thus, feudal barons are (currently) titled nobility within Scotland. Our approval is not required.
As a side note, I feel it worthwhile to point out that the the bulk of feudal baronies continue to owned/enjoyed by families, armigers, lairds and chiefs/chieftains that inherited instead of purchased their title(s). As we speak cynically about those who DO purchase, best we not throw the whole lot away in the process. This is a long, proud tradition - living history. Tread lightly!
Cheers.

I appreciate the point about inheritance and tradition but either something is real or it is not. In this case, I have already made my point: Scottish baronies are now pure hot air. They have gone. It may be a pity but it is not down to us to resurrect them. Only the Crown can do that.

Derek Howard

[r***@gmail.com]

Derek,

Thanks for the reply. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here. I appreciate your perspective.

Cheers.

[Gene Wirchenko]

Post by r***@gmail.com
Derek,
As always, you present a reasonable and well developed argument.

Indeed, from a scholarly perspective you may be correct. I am not in
a position to judge. However, I feel you are missing the gist of my
own argument. Whether or not ToL was "imaginative" and possibly
incorrect in his judgment is moot from a legal perspective. The
decision was made by a sitting judge presiding over the highest court
of it's kind. Until reversed by an equal or higher legal entity, this
decision (even while possibly a bad one) is still the current
precedent. Thus, feudal barons are (currently) titled nobility within
Scotland. Our approval is not required.

Or cared about, likely, either.

Post by r***@gmail.com
As a side note, I feel it worthwhile to point out that the the bulk

of feudal baronies continue to owned/enjoyed by families, armigers,
lairds and chiefs/chieftains that inherited instead of purchased their
title(s). As we speak cynically about those who DO purchase, best we
not throw the whole lot away in the process. This is a long, proud
tradition - living history. Tread lightly!

So what about the inheriting! Feudal baronies have been getting
bought and sold for centuries. That is part of the tradition.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[r***@gmail.com]

Well put.

[3ARwun]

to the extent of what may be regarded as deliberately misleading his own court. ...
Derek Howard

isn't that called "leadership"?